dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13
share rss forum feed
« geography
This is a sub-selection from Not entirely wrong

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to CXM_Splicer

Re: Not entirely wrong

There is nothing wrong with exclusivity agreements.

For the past decade, as we've read here the daily whines of those "un[der]served", MDU has been a way to get broadband when you otherwise are destined for dialup forever. Historically, its also meant a much broader pay-tv lineup for about half the rack rate. Its a feature of multifamily dwellings; you make the choice when you move in, or not.

NYC has over two million apartments. If you're unhappy where you live, because it has only copper, why not move to greener pastures?

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
There is nothing wrong with exclusivity agreements as long as they are with the affected parties. If a provider wants exclusivity, they should make an agreement with the SUBSCRIBER that they will get a discount if they agree to not sign with a competitor for a certain amount of time.

A contract with a third party to limit availability of service to a group of people should be illegal. Suppose for a second that your employer signs an exclusivity agreement with Bank XYZ that all the employees have to bank there and your employer gets a better rate. You now have to move all your accounts there, savings, checking, mortgage, retirement, etc. Don't want to do it?? Find another job. Does that seem legit to you?

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to elray
There are many things wrong with exclusivity agreements.

The biggest 3:
1.) It limits consumer choice
2.) It raises the cost to consumers
3.) Removes the incentive for the companies to compete for your business thus lowering quality of service and improvements.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer:

There is nothing wrong with exclusivity agreements as long as they are with the affected parties. If a provider wants exclusivity, they should make an agreement with the SUBSCRIBER that they will get a discount if they agree to not sign with a competitor for a certain amount of time.

Nope. Exclusivity agreements are bulk purchases - volume discounts. They only work if all tenants are subscribed. Once you sever the exclusivity, the price goes back to retail. Or worse - without the right to exclusivity, the un[der]served have no way to capitalize a group broadband installation.

If you don't like the rental agreement terms, move on to a friendlier address.
Why is that so hard?

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
I explained why in the banking analogy which you must have missed. So if you don't like your employer deciding where you bank, just find a friendlier boss? Sorry, wrong.

The exclusivity contracts being discussed have nothing to do with rental agreements. In this case landlords are being paid to perform the anti-competitive actions of a third party. There is no doubt that they are wrong, I would question why they are legal at all. The agreement you are talking about is when tenants agree to exclusivity which is fine... exactly like I said.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
said by CXM_Splicer:

I explained why in the banking analogy which you must have missed. So if you don't like your employer deciding where you bank, just find a friendlier boss? Sorry, wrong.

The exclusivity contracts being discussed have nothing to do with rental agreements. In this case landlords are being paid to perform the anti-competitive actions of a third party. There is no doubt that they are wrong, I would question why they are legal at all. The agreement you are talking about is when tenants agree to exclusivity which is fine... exactly like I said.

I refrained from commenting on your banking analogy because the kindest thing I could say is ... it doesn't apply.

When you rent in a common dwelling or own a condo, you are subject to certain common rules and elements. That pertains, as well, to wired facilities that traverse common areas of the building. The tenant doesn't own the conduits or control them. In a condominium complex, if you want to vote as a group for or against exclusive contracts, that's your right. But not in a rental.

The last HOA I worked with (no, I'm not a fan) with a headend system landed basic cable (or what we used to call basic cable, before it was downsized) for $11/door (not drop), where the retail rate was running nearly $50/month. Dish MDU contracts avail similar discounts - but only when you do the entire building.

The landlord's actions are not anti-competitive. In fact, they're very competitive - as you are free to choose to rent in another building that offers the services you seek.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

The last HOA I worked with (no, I'm not a fan) with a headend system landed basic cable (or what we used to call basic cable, before it was downsized) for $11/door (not drop), where the retail rate was running nearly $50/month. Dish MDU contracts avail similar discounts - but only when you do the entire building.

So you are saying the HOA never consulted the tenants before making this deal? Most of the HOA's that I know of (and I live in a condo now) are made up of tenants and would have an open meeting where a vote would be called.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
said by CXM_Splicer:

The last HOA I worked with (no, I'm not a fan) with a headend system landed basic cable (or what we used to call basic cable, before it was downsized) for $11/door (not drop), where the retail rate was running nearly $50/month. Dish MDU contracts avail similar discounts - but only when you do the entire building.

So you are saying the HOA never consulted the tenants before making this deal? Most of the HOA's that I know of (and I live in a condo now) are made up of tenants and would have an open meeting where a vote would be called.

No, I didn't say that. You did. Of course HOA members have the right to attend board meetings and voice their objections or approval - none did in this case, though I would expect them to do so over other matters (exorbitant landscaping, the joys of plumbing, club rooms, tennis rules, parking enforcement, and of course, color schemes. Ugh. Not for me.)

What I said was that the HOA achieved a massive discount on service, by committing all of its members to the contract in common.

A landlord can benefit his tenants the same way, if he sees fit. But it is his call, not theirs individually. They can petition and negotiate, and/or leave, but it is not their decision.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

No, I didn't say that. You did. Of course HOA members have the right to attend board meetings and voice their objections or approval

That is exactly why your post does not apply... the situation is closer to the banking analogy where they have no choice in the matter and receive no benefit from the deal.

The buildings where landlords have signed exclusivity contracts are still paying the same rate. The only one achieving any benefit is the landlord who will receive free service, kickbacks, or some other benefit. The tenants bills can go UP since they have no option to switch to... anti-competitive and wrong. Call it extortion if you don't like the term anti-competitive.


Eddy120876

join:2009-02-16
Bronx, NY
So true CXM. The only ones getting the benefits are the Landlords and the superintendents or porters that usually live in the Building and nobody else. Also most HOA tend to side with the Landlords when it comes to new utilities too which is sad . My friend in NJ has fios all 360 degrees around her place and her Hoa voted 10-2 to not sign a deal with Verizon until they agree to the demands of the Landlord(aka kickbacks)

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
reply to CXM_Splicer
The tenants have the option to move to another address.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
That is a false choice. There are laws set up to protect tenants from many false choices that landlords may try to impose. Baring landlords from receiving compensation to limit tenants' choices should be added.


Eddy120876

join:2009-02-16
Bronx, NY
I agree with you and here in the Bronx some landlord want to charge and extra fee for people having and AC(mind you the electricity you pay it yourself since most landlords don't include utilities with your rent....I only heard of this practice in my home state of Massachusetts). I remember my old buildings management corp sending letter to the tenants saying they have to pay 25 dollars more in their rent because of the increase in their electricity bill. Some of the tenants took then to court for that and won and what do you think the management corp did? Change the wording from "electricity increase" to "window frame protection cost" You got to love this leeches trying to dupe the tenant anyway they can.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
Yeah, it is definitely sad. It is also sad that people come out and try and defend this greed as 'good'.


Eddy120876

join:2009-02-16
Bronx, NY

1 recommendation

The only way people would defend those kind of actions are those that gain anything from it, but since we all know that 90% of the people in here aren't going to get any yet still defend this action is the saddest part.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer:

Yeah, it is definitely sad. It is also sad that people come out and try and defend this greed as 'good'.

Ok, I'll bite.
Greed is good.
It motivates production and competition, which results in surplus and lower prices.

In the case of the landlord, his exclusive contract can avail services that tenants might otherwise not get, at a lower cost/door than they could achieve on their own.

If the landlord isn't allowing the desired service, another "greedy" landlord will be motivated to acquire the tenant by offering it.


Eddy120876

join:2009-02-16
Bronx, NY
Ok then i will counter your point.

Greed is not good when just one person inherits the wealth. Look when the landlord allows some company is that say company needs to recoup the investment which mean you are paying for it regardless. which in turn is not good for the tenant only for the Owner or management company. I do agree we need competition but not when it comes out of the customers pocket when there was never a need to do so in the first place.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to elray
I guess it all depends on your definition of greed. I would say that need is the thing which motivates production and greed is the obsession with obtaining more than one needs. Now, this will obviously just shift the discussion to 'how much does a person need' and that is an extremely subjective question but it is more proper to look at it in those terms.

Neither the service provider nor the landlord needs to limit the services to the tenant. The landlord didn't have some need added by a new service being made available. This goes beyond need into greed and it is at the expense of competition (which is a need for capitalism to function properly).

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to Eddy120876
Greed does not mean "one person inherits the wealth".
The wealth is created by the greedy person, not inherited.

But it is not an obsession, except perhaps from envious eyes.
It is just the term we use to describe the motivation to produce, as you say, "more than one needs". Have you considered what things would cost, and what the world would be like, if the "greedy" people only produced enough for themselves?

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
Wealth is created by labor and siphoned off by the wealthy. The point of producing more than one needs is to trade for the things you need that you don't produce. If you want to produce everything you need you are going to have to live like a caveman.

Do you think there is even such a thing as an obsession with money? Something that would be considered 'bad'?

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
We agree that production in excess of need is a good thing.
Why, however, would anyone invest in overproducing, if they didn't believe they had the opportunity to do so at a profit? I'm as altruistic as anyone, but history has shown us that self-interest, by far, produces abundance, while feel-good / marxist philosophy yields hoarding, scarcity, black markets and bureaucracy.

Any obsession can be deleterious to one's well-being.
The trouble here is that you're implying an "obsession with money" where there is none.

Wealth is not created by labor. It is created by investment - taking risks, in the hopes of adding value and returning a profitable result. Labor is often a major factor in that process, but labor is renumerated through payroll, independent of the capital risks. Your personal wealth derives from your paycheck and how you choose to manage it.

If you believe you're entitled to a greater portion of the potential pie, then you need to assume some of the risk, you need to buy in.


Eddy120876

join:2009-02-16
Bronx, NY
reply to elray
I understand pretty well friend when I said inherit . Envious no sir what I said was that is wrong from one person to keep getting richer and passing the buck to the tenants because of this which should be illegal. Also the cost what cost are Landlord and management corps worry about since you know before they allow anybody into the building the cable/phone company must show then the plans for the new addition,money for labor,disturbing the tenants safety hours and also insurance so is not like they won't get a penny or be protected or increase the value of their property. Thats why I said they are just greedy SOB's

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to elray
Of course people will desire to profit from producing extra and there is nothing wrong with that per se. Breaking even though would not be altruistic and many non-profits operate in exactly this manner. Altruism would be to produce at a loss to yourself.

I disagree completely on creation of wealth but that is an entirely different discussion. I was not speaking of individual wealth. From your statement 'The wealth', I didn't think you were either.

If a producer is in stasis... they are producing in excess and generating a profit from that excess... why alter the parameters in zero-sum fashion to profit more? Simply because they have the power to do so? That crosses the boundary of need into greed, an obvious obsession not to the eyes of the envious but the eyes of those being taken away from. Do you think it would be better to remove any restrictions on monopolies?

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
Apartment rentals are not a monopoly. Far from it. There are approximately 10,000,000 sellers in this country.

There are natural monopolies, de facto monopolies, and de jure monopolies. Each requires a different set of rules. But in general, the more rules we apply, the worse the outcome is for the consumer. In the case of NYC apartments, forcing the owner to allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to wire the building would be a disaster both physically and financially for all players.

Producers are never in stasis; profit is something that must be pursued on an on-going basis, and can disappear overnight. Who are you to decide that a given person or entity has "too much"; should we be allowed to decide the same for you?

Producers aren't "taking" from you - most often, they're the ones taking the risk and providing you with the opportunity to earn a living, or the goods you desire.

Very, very few companies have any power to simply set prices for additional profit - there is always a reaction in the market.

Have you ever run a substantial, profitable business, with a payroll?

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
True apartment rentals are not a monopoly but you moved the discussion away from the particulars of rentals to include production. My question was regarding business in general... if greed is good shouldn't we remove any legal restrictions on monopolies and let them flourish to the best of their ability?

Producers (and landlords) can most certainly be in stasis. There is no given that it will last forever true, things change and they can be expected to adapt and plan ahead for such changes proactively. But at what cost? Anything and everything that doesn't cross the line of blatantly illegal? No, sorry.

It is funny that you (and most others with this position) resort to the 'who are you to decide' moral argument when the greed we are discussing and the business practices that effect it are most definitely amoral and sometimes immoral. But the real answer to that question is very simple... We are the ones being taken away from and we have every right to decide. While there may not be anything that can be done about it in many instances, there are laws which are intended to protect people from these situations. The question in relation to landlords would be: Should we remove all legal restrictions to what landlords can & must do and let the 'market' decide where people live?

No, I have never run a business with a payroll.