fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to DMS1
Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread
said by DMS1  :You are right, but it is a big deal for Verizon in apartment complexes that have already got FiOS installed but previously couldn't have FiOS TV because of exclusive contracts. Not True At All!
FiOS still has to get permission from the complex, building, or property owner, to get the Right Of Entry. Verizon's FiOS is going to need to being in new lines on the property. It would be different if they were doing something like U-
Verse, which if I recall was never banned by an exclusive agreement since the service already existed.
No 'exclusive agreement' could stop a provider from sending more services down an existing wire. It stopped them from connecting to existing wires of another provider/type. IE, FiOS taking CableVision off the Coax for their own.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
|
JohnA
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA |
In many cases the exclusive deal was made with the builder of the complexes, and imposed on the MDU or Condo Assn. Many have contracts as long as 25 years, and the Assn is powerless to break them. |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :said by DMS1 :You are right, but it is a big deal for Verizon in apartment complexes that have already got FiOS installed but previously couldn't have FiOS TV because of exclusive contracts. Not True At All! FiOS still has to get permission from the complex, building, or property owner, to get the Right Of Entry. Verizon's FiOS is going to need to being in new lines on the property. It would be different if they were doing something like U- Verse, which if I recall was never banned by an exclusive agreement since the service already existed. No 'exclusive agreement' could stop a provider from sending more services down an existing wire. It stopped them from connecting to existing wires of another provider/type. IE, FiOS taking CableVision off the Coax for their own. Read what I wrote. I was specifically referring to the situation where FiOS is already installed, but FiOS TV isn't available because of an existing exclusive agreement. I live in an apartment complex that is in exactly that situation. |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | I thought uverse wasn't considered "cable" service. That is how they got away without having to deal with franchise agreements? |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to DMS1
You are correct.. and why is that?? because FiOS wants to put their video signal over the existing coax wire which cable tv has exclusive access to since they put it in. Additionally, "for their work" and because of the agreement, the owner of the building may not allow others to wire during the period of the agreement.
If FiOS was more like U-Verse and they didn't have to put anything over the existing coax (example, they could drop a modem on the copper then a coax to the tv with out using the house wire) then I don't think that the agreement means squat.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to JohnA
Yea? and? Buyer, beware. Renter, beware. It's part of the free market. If the exclusive contract is a horrible thing, then potential buyers should use caution.
Lemme explain - structures are built with things in mind to increase value and sometimes things people do decrease value. In this market, if broadband, telephone, or television choices are a big deal, then it's probably a bad idea to invest into that property because it could be a negative to the potential business ability - ie: renters. If renters are going to be turned off by the limitations, then it hurts. Why buy the property? The issue is, the renter really doesn't have a say in the owner's business other than to do business with them or not. ie: rent from them. If you are a renter that wants specific service that you can't offer, the renter is likely to go elsewhere making your rentals harder to sell.
As for the "In many cases the exclusive deal was made with the builder of the complexes, and imposed on the MDU or Condo Assn." Not true. Many of the builders were hired by the owners and it was the owners that signed the agreement. The general contractor just does what they are asked of by the owners - usually a corporation that wanted to save money on the bottom line. HOAs are formed by two ways.. the builder or the owner formed association. Again, if it was formed by the builder and potential buyers, which are disclosed, want, say, Qwest for telephone and find out they can only get Cox, and it's a selling point, then the buyer may likely turn away from the seller. Other buyers may certainly buy into it, and later fight to change something they were aware of - or simply get remorse in which case I don't feel sorry for. This is a country of individuals that have a long history of not wanting to honor the contracts they sign.
Again, it's the free market at work. In the case of an apartment complex - still, as a renter, it's not your place to decide on the business dealings of the owners. This is why at all costs I am against this ruling and I hope it dies in a court battle which I am sure will be launched.
People here want competition in the market. Those that support this ban are actually against free market. Why? Before you hit reply - in the case of a renter of an apartment, YOU ARE NOT the part of the free market/competition equation as it's NOT your building or residence. A home? HOA? Another story.. but still.. buyer beware.
Due diligence works in the private sector as well.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
|
