Times Digs Into Verizon Complaints About NYC Landlords > Not entirely wrong

reply to CXM_Splicer

Re: Not entirely wrong

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?

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.

reply to 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.

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)

reply to CXM_Splicer
The tenants have the option to move to another address.

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.

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.

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

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.

reply to CXM_Splicer

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.

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).

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?

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'?