decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
| hate it for em
Seriously.. Unlawful? Comeone, they friggin have an illegal monopoly with these places and theres not a damn thing the tenants can do about it and they say it'd be unlawful to overturn this?!?
What bothers me, is that theres gonna be some that aggressively defend comcast on this.... |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by decifal  :Seriously.. Unlawful? Comeone, they friggin have an illegal monopoly with these places and theres not a damn thing the tenants can do about it and they say it'd be unlawful to overturn this?!? What bothers me, is that theres gonna be some that aggressively defend comcast on this.... There's still not a damn thing a tenant can do about it.
Put yourself in that scenario.
Fine, the contract is over. Who do you get service from?
You can't get a dish, because the FCC rules do not cover apartment buildings.
You can't get IPTV because those providers will not service MDUs.
You can't get another cable company because areas with MDU contracts don't have overbuilders in the first place (hence why the apartment owners agree to MDU contracts).
Who do you get service from?
Oh, and your lease already specifies your monthly payment which does not change now that you no longer get free cable. So, your real savings is zero; and you have no provider.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | reply to decifal
How is it an illegal monopoly if a legal and binding contract was entered into by both parties? |
|
borked
Cheese With That Whine?
Premium
join:2003-08-10
Kalamazoo, MI
| reply to decifal
While I am all for choice, this is different that your owned property. You rented the place and agreed to the terms via a contract. You knew what you were getting and accepted it. Doesn’t matter if they have cable, satellite or no antenna system, you knew and accepted what they offered.
Renters have many restrictions placed on them and why should it be any different then “no pet” rules, parking space rules, trash pickup rules, snow removal rules or any of the other madrid of rules imposed on tenents?
You knew the terms of the lease when you signed it. If you don’t like the terms move to a place that has terms more to your liking.
--
It is much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.
Malcolm Forbes (1919-1990) |
|
BillTager
join:2000-09-20
Charlotte, NC | You do realize that not all MDUs are occupied by renters right. |
|
DownTheShore
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Edison, NJ
clubs:
| reply to marigolds
said by marigolds :Oh, and your lease already specifies your monthly payment which does not change now that you no longer get free cable. So, your real savings is zero; and you have no provider. No free cable in this MDU. I don't know of any large apartment complexes in this area that offer it. Unless it's, perhaps, in the senior residences or low-income housing units...
--
Life is simply one damned thing after another. |
|
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | reply to openbox9
Because they got the "exclusive" contract by abusing their market position...just like Microsoft. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to DownTheShore
said by DownTheShore :said by marigolds :Oh, and your lease already specifies your monthly payment which does not change now that you no longer get free cable. So, your real savings is zero; and you have no provider. No free cable in this MDU. I don't know of any large apartment complexes in this area that offer it. Unless it's, perhaps, in the senior residences or low-income housing units... Do you have an exclusive contract too though?
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to BillTager
said by BillTager :You do realize that not all MDUs are occupied by renters right. But do owner occupied MDUs have exclusive cable contracts agreed to without the owner's input? |
|
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to borked
said by borked :You knew the terms of the lease when you signed it. If you don’t like the terms move to a place that has terms more to your liking. I love it when this arguement comes up. If someone came in and said the terms of your mortgage were illegal and were going to be changed in your favor, would you say, "well I knew the terms, so no thanks"? Hell no!
And remember where the pressure came from here. Not tenants, but the competition, so don't blame them for whining. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| reply to marigolds
IPTV doesn't require anything other than an IP capable stream getting into the premise that supports the high bandwidth. If you're thinkig of FiOS... well that's not IPTV. Also the FCC has certain provisions for Dish customers living in apartments. Some can get it. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to Jodokast96
ask the tenants and i'm sure at least a few of them would complain about being locked into a contract. |
|
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ | I'm not saying the don't. But the big push to the FCC didn't come from them. Just saying that blaming the tenants for trying to change the terms of their lease is wrong. They'll just get the benefits from someone elses action. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :How is it an illegal monopoly if a legal and binding contract was entered into by both parties? What 2 parties? The builder and the cable company? |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | reply to decifal
The FCC should extend this ruling to exclusive city contracts too. Let the line sharing begin!
The triple play vans have started to invade the city, and no competition for it. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by gaforces :The FCC should extend this ruling to exclusive city contracts too. Erm, that happened 11 years ago. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | reply to moonpuppy
Yes. Three parties if you want to count the residents/owners that willingly moved in based on the lease/purchase agreement. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | reply to DotMac
How so? |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
 ·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Jodokast96
I agree. the FCC is a freaking joke with their blatant love of telco supported policies, and saying it is due to consumers is a convenient lie they are using as cover.
ultimately, if the FCC is to rule that these types of contracts are illegal, they should also rule that contracts with individual consumers (1 year contract! 2 years! etc.) are also illegal. |
|
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ | The difference there is they don't force you into the contracts. You can still get the service without one, you just pay more. |
|
