Re: hate it for em in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19623569 en Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:29:42 EDT Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:29:42 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19627936 fiberguy : ......ok? and?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19627936 Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:46:22 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19627621 openbox9 : Renters/Owners have plenty of opportunity to exercise a market decision when signing a lease/purchase agreement. I did take Econ 101 and the last time I checked, there is an overabundance of places to live, with choices of a luxury called pay TV.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19627621 Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:24:18 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19627569 decifal : Nice to meet you Fiberguy, i've been waiting for you :-)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19627569 Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:11:14 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19626890 fiberguy :
said by decifal See Profile :

Seriously.. Unlawful?

Where in the law is it unlawful? Please send a link or state the law as written.

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?!?
As a tenant, you don't own the property and have zero rights to initiate ANY service which approaches on the common grounds or the outside walls. So when did it become your place decide what the complex is willing to offer? And again, where is it unlawful?

What bothers me, is that theres gonna be some that aggressively defend comcast on this....
... not as much as it bothers me that to some people, Comcast runs the world. Players on all sides of the spectrum enter in these deals... phone, cable, smatv systems, fiber, comcast, at&t, cox, verizon, TWC, charter, qwest.. shall I go on?

I defend the agreements for a few reasons - 1) It's not just comcast making these, 2) it is a legal binding agreement that was entered into between two consenting entities, 3) tenants of these complexes often forget that they rent or lease these units as a product and know or have the ability to know in advance what their choices are and are NOT part of the business making decisions.

If a building/complex owner wants to make a deal to save money on the bottom line of THEIR investments, that's their choice, and as a building/business owner, (while its in my best interest to be competitive) I am not going to allow my customers (some say tenants) to dictate my expenses.

These agreements were made under lawful terms. The FCC may have the ability to change rules moving forward, but I SERIOUSLY doubt they have the ability to invalidate contracts already in effect. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19626890 Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:30:22 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19626364 xsiddalx :
said by ltjordan See Profile :

Serious question here. What areas actually have competition between two cable operator providers? Every time I read something about a cable company, they usually have a monopoly in the area that they serve.
Direct TV + Dish + Cable TV + Antenna TV (free) + Satellite

Toss in FIOS and Uverse for fun.

Add in internet based TV, since the incumbent telephone and cable companies like to reference the internet as competition.

For the heck of it, some areas actually have two wireline cable tv providers, but it certainly ain't the norm.

Did I miss anything?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19626364 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:48:57 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19626340 xsiddalx :
said by morbo See Profile :

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.
To be fair, the FCC is attempting to eliminate locking you into an implicit contract with a video provider via your landlord vs an explicit contract with your cellular provider.

You have no reason to accept any contract with a wireless company, but it's your choice. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19626340 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:43:15 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19626298 ltjordan : Serious question here. What areas actually have competition between two cable operator providers? Every time I read something about a cable company, they usually have a monopoly in the area that they serve. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19626298 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:34:46 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19626192 decifal :
said by TraumaJunkie See Profile :

said by decifal See Profile :

Move.
Lol, original]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19626192 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:11:54 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19626147 xsiddalx :
said by marigolds See Profile :

Technically the tenants bribe the owners in the form of higher rent.
As I mentioned before, direct kickbacks are illegal.
It ain't about kickbacks...it is about exclusive contracts.

Eliminate exclusive contracts.
Allow discounted contracts with landlords.
Allow landlords to rent at market rates (offering choice)
Renters/Condo owners have choice (free cable from LL, other Cable, Sat, Better yet no cable for those LLs that don't buy in - i.e. make it look like buying a house)

Now you may have your assertion that tenants bribe the owners, technically.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19626147 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:01:07 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19626133 TraumaJunkie :
said by decifal See Profile :

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....
Move.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19626133 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:57:13 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19626096 xsiddalx :
said by openbox9 See Profile :

How is it an illegal monopoly if a legal and binding contract was entered into by both parties?
Because the contract was between the content provider and the building owner.

If an individual renter/owner wanted a different provider, they have no ability to exercise a market decision.

In case you didn't take Econ 101, Competition can not exist without choices (preferably 5 or more).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19626096 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:46:48 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19625063 gaforces :
said by marigolds See Profile :

said by gaforces See Profile :

said by marigolds See Profile :

The lack of line sharing has nothing to do with city contracts though. Telcos have line sharing because they did not fund their own plant and do not pay for right of way access. Cable does not have line sharing because they did fund their own plant and pay for right of way access.
The cable is piggyback onto the ATT right of way access which goes back to the telco funding :)

Please tell me why people shouldnt have access to the service of thier choice?
They should. This new rule does absolutely nothing to provide that though. All this rule does is pander to the wishes of the family cable lobby.
The family cable lobby wants ala carte, this doesnt get that. I suppose I see how this helps them. Open it up to censor approved service? They should be able to do that if they wish too, thier choice, as long as they dont violate copyright.
If its pandering to the family cable lobby, it also happens to pander to ATT, Verizon, other providers, and consumers.

This >> »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and···_of_2007 is what the family cable lobby wants.

And heres the opposition,
"Religious televangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have also opposed the concept of cable choice from the very beginning because they felt that viewership for their cable programs would decline"

"Frederick S. Lane expressed support for cable choice in his 2006 book The Decency Wars: The Campaign to Cleanse American Culture, although expressing doubt that it would make a negative impact on channels that the PTC has deemed offensive, such as MTV and Comedy Central, claiming that those networks would continue to have plentiful viewership while religious channels would decline"
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19625063 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:10:59 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19623869 marigolds :
said by dbonamo See Profile :

I think your wrong about using a dish, check this link out
»www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
You have to have an exclusive use area in order to be covered by otard rules. Some apartment buildings due provide exclusive balconies and patios to their tenants, but the vast majority considered all walls, roofs, shared balconies, and common patios to be common areas; which means that the fcc rules do not apply.

"Q: If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this rule apply to me?

A: The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling unit building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the antenna user has an exclusive use area in which to install the antenna. "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you, and persons you permit, may enter and use to the exclusion of other residents. For example, your condominium or apartment may include a balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only you can use, and the rule applies to these areas. The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof, the hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls of a condominium or apartment building. Restrictions on antennas installed in these common areas are not covered by the Commission's rule. For example, the rule would not apply to restrictions that prevent drilling through the exterior wall of a condominium or rental unit and thus restrictions may prohibit installation that requires such drilling."
(This rule also means that even if you do have an exclusive use balcony to place your antennae, you have to run the wire through an open door or window or an existing drilled hole.)
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19623869 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:03:08 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19623658 DownTheShore : Cablevision is the only land-based cable TV connection allowed, though in the past year or so they've allowed DirectTV installations, with satellite dishes placed on the balconies.
--
Life is simply one damned thing after another.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19623658 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:29:34 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19623569 dbonamo :
said by marigolds See Profile :

said by decifal See Profile :

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.
I think your wrong about using a dish, check this link out
»www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19623569 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:11:26 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19623355 marigolds :
said by gaforces See Profile :

said by marigolds See Profile :

The lack of line sharing has nothing to do with city contracts though. Telcos have line sharing because they did not fund their own plant and do not pay for right of way access. Cable does not have line sharing because they did fund their own plant and pay for right of way access.
The cable is piggyback onto the ATT right of way access which goes back to the telco funding :)

Please tell me why people shouldnt have access to the service of thier choice?
They should. This new rule does absolutely nothing to provide that though. All this rule does is pander to the wishes of the family cable lobby.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19623355 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:26:40 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19623268 RayW :
said by Jodokast96 See Profile :

said by RayW See Profile :

said by Jodokast96 See Profile :

The difference there is they don't force you into the contracts. You can still get the service without one, you just pay more.
Likewise for the MDU/cable contracts, I know that for a fact. I chose not to live where there was one. A little further from work, but that is MY choice.
The difference there is they don't force you into the contracts just because of where you live. You can still get the service without one, you just pay more.

Happy?
Can't force you to buy into a phone contract, can't force you to buy into a MDU contract. What is the difference? You have a choice to go get something else. Well, at least some of us do, you might be forced to live in one.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19623268 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:10:58 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19623145 Jodokast96 :
said by RayW See Profile :

said by Jodokast96 See Profile :

The difference there is they don't force you into the contracts. You can still get the service without one, you just pay more.
Likewise for the MDU/cable contracts, I know that for a fact. I chose not to live where there was one. A little further from work, but that is MY choice.
The difference there is they don't force you into the contracts just because of where you live. You can still get the service without one, you just pay more.

Happy?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19623145 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:50:58 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19623118 RayW :
said by Jodokast96 See Profile :

The difference there is they don't force you into the contracts. You can still get the service without one, you just pay more.
Likewise for the MDU/cable contracts, I know that for a fact. I chose not to live where there was one. A little further from work, but that is MY choice.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19623118 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:47:14 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622875 soccerguy : Yes. My building does.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622875 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:04:58 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622720 gaforces :
said by marigolds See Profile :

The lack of line sharing has nothing to do with city contracts though. Telcos have line sharing because they did not fund their own plant and do not pay for right of way access. Cable does not have line sharing because they did fund their own plant and pay for right of way access.
The cable is piggyback onto the ATT right of way access which goes back to the telco funding :)

Please tell me why people shouldnt have access to the service of thier choice?
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622720 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:40:38 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622382 marigolds :
said by DotMac See Profile :

Because they bribe the building owner in order to eliminate competition.

There are some cable shills who see this as simple competition, but competition on who can pay the biggest bribe isn't competition.
Technically the tenants bribe the owners in the form of higher rent.
As I mentioned before, direct kickbacks are illegal.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622382 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:44:54 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622370 marigolds :
said by gaforces See Profile :

said by marigolds See Profile :

said by gaforces See Profile :

The FCC should extend this ruling to exclusive city contracts too.
Erm, that happened 11 years ago.
Without line sharing its utility is limited.
I and many others dont want or need multiple cables and boxes for the same service.
Now that they have voip/data/tv they should be treated like any other incumbent operator.
The lack of line sharing has nothing to do with city contracts though. Telcos have line sharing because they did not fund their own plant and do not pay for right of way access. Cable does not have line sharing because they did fund their own plant and pay for right of way access.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622370 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:43:10 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622241 gaforces :
said by marigolds See Profile :

said by gaforces See Profile :

The FCC should extend this ruling to exclusive city contracts too.
Erm, that happened 11 years ago.
Without line sharing its utility is limited.
I and many others dont want or need multiple cables and boxes for the same service.
Now that they have voip/data/tv they should be treated like any other incumbent operator.
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622241 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:22:47 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622223 bogey780 : The analogy fails in that no one is paying anyone to keep DSL away from them.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622223 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:21:09 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622140 axus : Those of us with more time and money can make sure to avoid this when seeking a place to live (I did), but lots of people are happy to afford anything. It's these people that are the victims of exclusive contracts.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622140 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:09:07 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622112 DotMac : Because they bribe the building owner in order to eliminate competition.

There are some cable shills who see this as simple competition, but competition on who can pay the biggest bribe isn't competition. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622112 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:05:12 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622060 ib50MbSoon :
said by decifal See Profile :

What bothers me, is that theres gonna be some that aggressively defend comcast on this....
OK, I'll take a crack at it!

Try this. Go over to one of the telco forums and complain about lack of DSL availability and the resident shill's will suggest that if you don't like it you should move.

Same thing here. If someone doesn't like the exclusive contract their landlord signed then they should move.

What's good for the goose...
--
Meet Bill and Karolyn at www.theslowskys.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19622060 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:57:35 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621948 Jodokast96 : The difference there is they don't force you into the contracts. You can still get the service without one, you just pay more.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621948 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:39:26 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621924 morbo : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621924 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:36:18 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621917 openbox9 : How so?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621917 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:34:56 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621911 openbox9 : Yes. Three parties if you want to count the residents/owners that willingly moved in based on the lease/purchase agreement.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621911 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:33:34 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621880 marigolds :
said by gaforces See Profile :

The FCC should extend this ruling to exclusive city contracts too.
Erm, that happened 11 years ago.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621880 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:28:17 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621827 gaforces : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621827 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:20:22 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621801 moonpuppy :
said by openbox9 See Profile :

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? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621801 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:16:18 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621799 Jodokast96 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621799 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:15:42 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621782 morbo : ask the tenants and i'm sure at least a few of them would complain about being locked into a contract. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621782 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:12:29 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621762 bogey780 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621762 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:08:33 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621716 Jodokast96 :
said by borked See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621716 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:00:55 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621667 marigolds :
said by BillTager See Profile :

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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621667 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:50:08 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621664 marigolds :
said by DownTheShore See Profile :

said by marigolds See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621664 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:49:08 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621603 DotMac : Because they got the "exclusive" contract by abusing their market position...just like Microsoft.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621603 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:36:25 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621601 DownTheShore :
said by marigolds See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621601 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:36:18 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621589 BillTager : You do realize that not all MDUs are occupied by renters right. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621589 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:33:14 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621518 borked : 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)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621518 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:16:43 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621496 openbox9 : How is it an illegal monopoly if a legal and binding contract was entered into by both parties?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621496 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:12:58 EDT Re: hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621493 marigolds :
said by decifal See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621493 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:12:51 EDT hate it for em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621361 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....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19621361 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:43:12 EDT