dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13991
share rss forum feed


jhammons10

@insightbb.com

[Internet] Can Apartment Complex say "Time Warner Cable is not allowed here"?

Researching apartment complexes to move to this summer in KY and after talking on the phone with one of them they said they offer a deal on cable/internet (but I know it is bad) through a company that bundles direct TV somehow and Time Warner Cable is not allowed in the apartments. Windstream is but TWC is not. I thought this was illegal (but I could be wrong). Does anyone care to elaborate ? TIA.


TAZ

join:2014-01-03
Tucson, AZ
kudos:3
Look at »Landlords Find Ways Around Exclusive Broadband Deal Ban.

It's a a few years old but I can't find anything indicating it's no longer accurate.


jhammons10

@insightbb.com
Thanks for the article. I have read similar. What that doesnt touch on and what I have a problem with is that the complex told me we are not allowed to use TWC, not that we will be billed extra if we don't go with so and so cable company. This seems to be different.


TAZ

join:2014-01-03
Tucson, AZ
kudos:3

1 recommendation

If you were living in this complex, I'd say call or write the FCC and see what they think about it.

You're not though, so my advice is to stay the hell away from this place. If you move there and go after them, you're going to get trouble the entire time you live there.


jhammons10

@insightbb.com
Good point. I haven't toured the place yet but hopefully its not somewhere I want to live. TWC has some pretty solid deals on internet up here right now. Its unfortunate as I don't even need cable atm.


chamberc
Premium
join:2008-08-05
Irving, TX
reply to jhammons10
said by jhammons10 :

Researching apartment complexes to move to this summer in KY and after talking on the phone with one of them they said they offer a deal on cable/internet (but I know it is bad) through a company that bundles direct TV somehow and Time Warner Cable is not allowed in the apartments. Windstream is but TWC is not. I thought this was illegal (but I could be wrong). Does anyone care to elaborate ? TIA.

Not sure about your local laws, but yes, in most locales they can say that.


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:16

1 recommendation

Being that the apartment complex is private property it's well with in their rights to not allow a company to come in and build a cable distribution system on their grounds. Now if they actually wanted and allowed it, any contract thy have with DirecTV can't explicitly prevent it.

That law that prevents exclusivity doesn't mean any cable company can just do whatever they want on private property to serve possible customers.
--
I'll make it work.... hand me that BFR.


kingdome74
Let's Go Orange
Premium
join:2002-03-27
Syracuse, NY
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to jhammons10
I can't speak for KY but in NY apartment complexes are private property and hence can do whatever they wish. I wasn't allowed to use DirectTV because the landlords didn't want dishes all over. When I contacted the NY Attorney General's office they said there was nothing I could do. Granted that was a few years ago but I doubt anything has changed.
--
Laid our 2-3 on the Tarheels and drown them with it. Grant had a great game. 16 O-rebounds. Next Boston College on 13th.


jhammons10

@insightbb.com
Thanks for the input guys. I appreciate it.


mixdup

join:2003-06-28
Birmingham, AL
Reviews:
·Charter

1 recommendation

reply to jhammons10
There are pretty ironclad FCC rules on this stuff.

If you have an exclusive use area that a dish can be safely installed, you can get DirecTV. Otherwise it's a violation of federal rules.

They can't exclude other providers. They can prevent you from installing cables and whatnot, but if they wired the place up with coax, which I am assuming they did if they have DirecTV, then I'm pretty sure they have to offer you cable as well.

I'd just go ahead and take them off the list (and make sure you let them know why you aren't considering them) because even if you make a case out of it, they're going to make your life hell, and even if you didn't make a case out of it, sounds like the management is the type that will nit pick every little thing and be miserable living there.


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO

They can prevent you from installing cables and whatnot, but if they wired the place up with coax, which I am assuming they did if they have DirecTV, then I'm pretty sure they have to offer you cable as well

They don't have to grant TWC access to their central wiring closet. DirecTV / Dish on a an exclusive use balcony is a unique case, because it can be installed entirely without affecting the infrastructure of the building.

Agree with others, let the management know why you're not going to rent there, and find somewhere else. At least you learned about it before you moved in.

ke4pym
Premium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Northland Cable ..
·Time Warner Cable
·ooma
·VOIPO
·Verizon Broadban..
reply to kingdome74
said by kingdome74:

I can't speak for KY but in NY apartment complexes are private property and hence can do whatever they wish. I wasn't allowed to use DirectTV because the landlords didn't want dishes all over. When I contacted the NY Attorney General's office they said there was nothing I could do. Granted that was a few years ago but I doubt anything has changed.

The NY Attourney General's office is ignorant.

You can use DirecTV if you can put the antenna somewhere in your exclusive use area (say, a balcony) without attaching it directly to the building (think 5 gallon bucket with concrete in it).

Landlords and HOA's can't stop you from erecting a dish so long as you meet those requirements.


kingdome74
Let's Go Orange
Premium
join:2002-03-27
Syracuse, NY
kudos:5
Ah, yes they can. Most of them now have it written into the rental agreement. Do you have federal regulation that superseded NY law? If so I'd love to see it.


mixdup

join:2003-06-28
Birmingham, AL

1 recommendation

FCC rules trump rental agreements, and when it comes to granting TWC access to their wiring closets, there are exclusivity rules that say they cannot deny that access.


kingdome74
Let's Go Orange
Premium
join:2002-03-27
Syracuse, NY
kudos:5
Do you have federal regulation that superseded NY law? If so I'd love to see it.

ke4pym
Premium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Northland Cable ..
·Time Warner Cable
·ooma
·VOIPO
·Verizon Broadban..

1 recommendation

said by kingdome74:

Do you have federal regulation that superseded NY law? If so I'd love to see it.

»www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-rece···ces-rule

To get you started.


Stacy
FotoDogue
Premium
join:2001-11-02
New York, NY
reply to jhammons10
I agree with ke4pym. The landlord can't stop you from getting DirectTV but in reality that doesn't mean you can get whatever provider you choose. If there's no TimeWarner Cable infrastructure in the building they're not likely to install it for a single customer.

Another point to consider is how much different building charge for internet compared to individual rates. Some apartment complexes mark up the prices. Others may include basic serivces in the rent whether you use it or not.


kingdome74
Let's Go Orange
Premium
join:2002-03-27
Syracuse, NY
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to ke4pym
Huh, good to know if I ever live in an apartment again. Too bad the feds aren't so enthusiastic about enforcing all of their laws but that's a different subject.
--
Laid our 2-3 on the Tarheels and drown them with it. Grant had a great game. 16 O-rebounds. Next Boston College on 13th.

harald

join:2010-10-22
Columbus, OH
kudos:2
reply to kingdome74
Article I, section 8, clause 3, of the US constitution.


kingdome74
Let's Go Orange
Premium
join:2002-03-27
Syracuse, NY
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
After almost 240 years what was written and intended in the original constitutions bears little semblance to the one that is supposed the law of the land today. Marbury v. Madison made sure of that.
--
Laid our 2-3 on the Tarheels and drown them with it. Grant had a great game. 16 O-rebounds. Next Boston College on 13th.


Rick4769

join:2012-11-21
Buffalo, NY
reply to jhammons10
Why don't you look for an apartment that has Time Warner cable?

Matt7

join:2001-01-02
Columbus, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Insight Communic..

1 recommendation

reply to jhammons10
Yes apartment complexes can have "exclusive" deals with providers for service and prevent others from coming in.

It can also backfire -- I know of an apartment complex tried to ink a exclusive deal with a company bundling Dish Network with complex WiFi service and was going to disconnect Time Warner from the complex -- Enough people complained that they 'postponed' the TWC disconnect.

My recommendation if they don't have TWC or whatever provider you want then don't move there.. No different in folks who look for houses and if a house is not serviced by a provider of choice then just don't buy the house.

The Apartment complex owns the internal wiring -- They can say who can provide service over the wiring.


mixdup

join:2003-06-28
Birmingham, AL
Reviews:
·Charter
said by Matt7:

Yes apartment complexes can have "exclusive" deals with providers for service and prevent others from coming in.

Again, no, they cannot: »arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009···e-deals/

cableguy101

join:2014-01-13
Wow, I did not know about that FCC ruling. I have had customers call me about setting them up with cable or DSL service in an apartment building, but when we checked with their ISP of choice, they told me that the apartment building already had an exclusive deal with another ISP. I wonder how one would go about reporting this sort of deal, if it really is illegal?


ArgMeMatey

join:2001-08-09
Milwaukee, WI
kudos:2
Reviews:
·voip.ms
·AT&T Midwest
·Time Warner Cable
reply to mixdup
said by mixdup:

said by Matt7:

Yes apartment complexes can have "exclusive" deals with providers for service and prevent others from coming in.

Again, no, they cannot: ...

In the abstract, you are correct that landlords cannot have exclusive deals with providers.

However, he does go on to say that "They can say who can provide service over the wiring" which is more relevant.

To use the cliche, possession is 9/10ths of the law. Or maybe first come, first served. Unless the second provider can provision service in a way where the cable can be shared with the first provider, the second provider can't use that cable.

If there's a raceway available, yes, the second provider could run their cable through that raceway as long as they don't affect other services in that raceway.

If there is no raceway, the provider has to run the cable in a way that the building is not "damaged" which means restoring it to the landlord's standards, or if those standards are unreasonable, litigating to determine appropriate standards. This is what's often referred to as a barrier to entry, a factor that reduces competition. In real-world terms, providers require you to get landlord permission, but if you can't get it, they aren't interested in spending anything to change that.

Regarding satellite services, remember that, "The rule does not apply to common areas that are owned by a landlord, a community association, or jointly by condominium or cooperative owners where the antenna user does not have an exclusive use area. Such common areas may include the roof or exterior wall of a multiple dwelling unit. Therefore, restrictions on antennas installed in or on such common areas are enforceable. "

In other words, if you have a balcony or patio facing the right direction, you can put a satellite dish there as long as there's not some other historic - architectural - engineering problem.

If however the tenant does not have (control) any outside space, they may use that space only with the landlord's permission. So for example if your apartment faces north, you're out of luck. If you only have windows (and not a balcony or patio) facing a direction where a satellite dish could be located, you can't just attach that satellite dish to the landlord's outside wall and run the cable in though the window.
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your USNG coordinates:
USNGWeb


mixdup

join:2003-06-28
Birmingham, AL
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to cableguy101
I'm not sure if it applies to internet service, the FCC rules are specifically for TV services. However, if one can be serviced by a cable system for TV, they can get internet service. They may need to subscribe to some basic tier TV service (or at least place an order for it) in order to actually be able to throw the FCC order in the face of their apartment complex.


mixdup

join:2003-06-28
Birmingham, AL
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to ArgMeMatey
said by ArgMeMatey:

However, he does go on to say that "They can say who can provide service over the wiring" which is more relevant.

Except that most buildings are wired in a way that each apartment is home run to some central location. The FCC can mandate that the cable company have access to this closet to service its customers. If the building is wired for coax, the cable company--if they wanted to--could raise an FCC complaint and get access to the building.


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:13
said by mixdup:

If the building is wired for coax, the cable company--if they wanted to--could raise an FCC complaint and get access to the building.

I find it hard to believe the FCC can force the owner of private property to allow a cable company to come in and ditch witch and tear up the grounds where ever they want with no ROW just because the buildings have some coax installed.

Even if the building is wired it doesn't to a cable company any good if they do not have a POP on the property.

/M


mixdup

join:2003-06-28
Birmingham, AL
You can find it hard to believe but that doesn't make it not true


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:13

2 recommendations

Sorry, but you wishing something was true does not make it true. Or do you have a link to an FCC rule or ruling that says they can bury wires or add poles with wires across private property - again, with no right of way - wherever they feel like it and without the owners consent?

/M