said by BiggA:
Well, the counterargument to that is someone may have moved in five or ten years ago, and now they are stuck without good broadband, even though it had what was good braodband then when they moved in. Same argument for rural places that can't get anything other than Wildblue (although most can get AT&T or Verizon 3G now).
They shouldn't be doing exclusive agreements, since that limits the consumer's choice. In this case, there isn't an exclusive agreement, it just sounds like Verizon won't come in since the HOA is already bundling cable with the HOA fees, which would make it nearly impossible for Verizon to get many subs.
The problem with your counterargument is you likely would strand those customers with no broadband
during those previous five or ten years, and they'd lose their group discount. You can't have it both ways.
You can't expect a broadband firm to undertake the capital expense to deploy to your building where no service exists, without some form of commitment to mitigate their risk.
The person who moved in 5-10 years ago still has the choice to move, or WAIT for the agreement to expire. (We moved our residence, and our offices, at
phenomenal expense, years ago, because certain other "deciding factors" mattered most. In fact, we still suffer under a pay-tv monopoly as a result, and our DSL choices would not impress.)