Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » FCC Bans Exclusive Cable Contracts » Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread
Search Topic:
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
does this apply to phone service »
« You've always had "a choice"  
AuthorAll Replies

DMS1

join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX

reply to fiberguy
Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread

said by fiberguy See Profile :

said by DMS1 See Profile :

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..."
Forums » FCC Bans Exclusive Cable Contractsdoes this apply to phone service »
« You've always had "a choice"  


Friday, 27-Nov 11:50:34 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [116] Time Warner Cable Fires Broadside At Broadcasters
· [109] New AT&T Ad Campaign Hits Back At Verizon
· [95] Apple Joins AT&T Verizon Snark Fest
· [87] New Bill Takes Aim At Higher Verizon ETFs
· [70] TiVo Sees Record Customer Losses
· [68] In-Flight Internet Headed For Bumpy Landing?
· [59] Thanksgiving Open Thread
· [38] EFF Wages War On Fine Print
· [38] ICANN Slams DNS Redirection
· [36] Senators Want ACTA Made Public
Most people now reading
· Newegg Black Friday Sale started [Users Find Hot Deals]
· SSD [Computer Hardware Discussion/Reviews]
· 3.x Feral Druid - Bear Tanking Guide [World of Warcraft]
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· So we need a legitimate reason to use a lot of bandwidth? [TekSavvy]
· Bell Response to PIPEDA Request [TekSavvy]
· Not strictly "Home" related - but WOW anyways... [Home Repair & Improvement]
· Only firefox accesses Internet? [Security]
· Whats the big deal about being "Old School"....? [World of Warcraft]
· [Newsgroups] Newzleech down? [Filesharing Software]