Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread
A TV provider probably won't want to pay the costs of pre-wiring the building knowing that the building owner could then bring another vendor in at any time to blackjack the original provider in to lowering rates even more.
this is a false assumption. the problem most old buildings have is one cable provider does not want to share it's cable tray with another, and the building does not want two sets of cable trays in their hallways. if they kick out the original cable provider, he can remove his wiring from the tray before the next provider comes in the building, but most buildings would not allow such disruption of service to their tenants.
in the case of a new building, the cable provider would either negotiate to retain ownership and maintenance of the distribution wiring, or only bring his service to the distribution box, and building maintenance is responsible for maintaining distribution wiring. either way, the wiring plant can't be used as leverage when enlisting another provider.
As far as this FCC ruling goes; it does not go far enough. while I would not want it to break existing deals, it should have more teeth to compel building management to allow competition to come in their building if dwellers want it. if 5% of building occupants want a new provider, and that provider is willing to light up that building, there should be a legal remedy to compel building management to allow it, assuming the new cable provider does not do damage to the building in order to distribute service there. or if 5% of a building want roof access for satellite dishes, there should be a better and more enforceable legal remedy to do so. So the power to break any building's monopoly is still in the hands of the building management, not in the hands of the individual consumer who is overpaying a monopolist cable provider. |
