dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
196
share rss forum feed


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1

State law

Verizon could always go to court and get a court order allowing them into the building as the article mentioned state law prohibits this behavior by landlords. We have the same law in Massachusetts.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
The problem with that is Verizon already has a presence in the building. The building owners would not (and could not) stop Verizon from fixing the copper. They are well within their rights though to disallow VZ from wiring the building with a whole new service.


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast
In Massachusetts, they must allow Verizon access to the building under state law if one or more tenants requests cable. And since FiOS has a TV service and they have a franchising agreement with the city/town, they meet the definition of cable provider under state law. What they cannot do is force their way into apartments where the tenants have not requested service. And they cannot force a landlord to pay for the install so the tenants can be forced to pay for the install. This is Massachusetts law so New York law may be different but the general consensus is that landlords cannot refuse access but individual tenants can (unless the landlord wants the unit wired for future tenants). I do support Verizon forcing FiOS upgrades as technology comes and goes and the POTS/DSL system has reached the end of its useful life. Sunsets can be a good thing as it forces out old tech to allow for new tech. It's done all the time with wireless and broadband as old technology can hold new tech hostage (such as occupying spectrum or hogging system capacity). Look at cable switching off analog, an analog SD channel can use the same system resources as several HD digital channels or prevent faster Internet speeds. Time Warner of Maine just released DOCSIS 3.0, they've had switched digital video for a while now, and they are getting around to shutting off analog SD channels (I just put a DTA on the TV that grandma's husband uses since he has dementia and teaching him how to use a full featured set top box would be impossible). Getting rid of analog along with switched digital video will reclaim tons of bandwidth and that will allow for new services now and it will have the capacity for future services/devices in the future. When I first got broadband back in 2001, analog channels consumed most of a cable system's capacity and Mediacom (when I lived in Iowa) capped speeds at 1.5 Mbps down/128 Kbps up because they did not have the system resources (mostly consumed by analog and there were no HD channels at the time) or technology to support higher speeds. Comcast has shut off analog, deployed newer tech (D3) and now they have speeds up to 105/20 and plenty of HD. They launched tons of HD channels around the time they shut down analog.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
Here in NY I have heard of apartment owners that offer cable and Internet to their tenants for a fee and don't allow cable/FIOS/satellite in the building at all so I think the laws between the two states are significantly different.

Of course new technology will always come in and phase out the older stuff but there are ways to do it properly and most companies don't. Verizon prematurely killing copper is one example. Another example is the cable upgrade in our area. As the analog channels were moved to digital, people with analog only obviously lost channels. With that, there should have been a corresponding reduction of their bill, that didn't happen. If they wanted to continue receiving the channels they were already paying for, they were now forced to rent a cable box which increased their bill. Upgrading service is understandable and necessary; deliberately reducing quality of service to people (who you already agreed to provide service for) just to now force them off of that service is just wrong. It is very much like a customer 'cancelling' their service by just not paying the bill anymore but using the service until the company comes out and disconnects them.


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast
Like Karl said it the article that state law says that landlords cannot interfere with the installation of services and the landlords are trying to extort the telco. If I was in a complex that would not let me get FiOS, the landlord would find him/herself in housing court real fast. And it is well known here in Western Mass that the housing courts are rigged in favor of the tenants because evicting tenants here is like pulling teeth. The tenants have all of these resources like legal aid and other community resources. It is well known here to be careful who you rent to because you don't want to have to go through the eviction process. But when you are trying to rent out a rat infested unit full of mold along carpet that a cat used as its litter box, then you are going to get the low end of tenants.

Some apartments are so bad that the housing courts have sentenced the landlord to live in one of his units.