fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| They sure do! And I wish they had never done these deals in the first place. I would rather have loved to see apartments that were never able to get cable, just the POS satellite services they used to get, and hear the residents bitch about not being able to get cable because of cheap managers. It would have been move entertaining rather than people misguided in their beliefs that a cable company should be their friend, their brother, and their parents too.
The fact remains. Cable came in and wired up apartments at no cost while managers sat back on their cheap hands and wallets and refused to pay to upgrade their buildings - as many managers will refuse to do. Cable came in and said, "Fine, we'll wire you up for free, but if we're going to do something for you, for free, we want something in return" which was the exclusive ROE.
I fail to see the problem. It's called a contract between two businesses and a very rogue part of the government is coming in and invalidating what is in a sense contract law. I predict court battles.
Secondly.. you now see satellite putting their signals on lines that cable TV installed for customers already. Current cable + HSI customers will drop TV and get satellite while keeping HSI. Satellite comes in, doesn't care, and cuts into all lines killing the HSI at the same time. Subscriber calls who? Cable. Their gripe? "My HSI stopped working" Cable gets to the house, tells the customer "Satellite cut our lines and your choice is to get satellite back out to rewire you up, or it will cost you (circa) $50.00 for us to fix this problem" Customer rants, raves, threatens to cancel. Cable says "fine" and leaves.
What has happened here? It's called a mess and this is part on the FCC. When they makes these blind rules, they don't take into account real world situations. Who gets blamed? Cable - EVERY TIME. Who should be blames? Satellite? Phone? No.. the FCC.
The lines installed are now that of the customer because of FCC rules which is fine. However, when a service is already on it, another provider is not supposed to cut them off for theirs - yet they do and expects the other to absorb the cost. The bottom line is rules like this also will hurt the consumer because neither side is going to jump to wire homes any more - or apartments either. In some cases, this now means a customer can only get one or the other but not both.
Another downside to these kinds of rules.. where providers used to wire up homes for free, this practice will now stop all together making installation fees even higher to the consumer. (which people already don't like, or feel they should be paying) The truth is, if cable, for example which requires no contracts to the end user.. why should they come in and wire a unit for free any more when a subscriber can simply cancel and put someone else on the lines?
To be honest, there is plenty of BS to go around to all parties involved in this battle INCLUDING THE CONSUMER who allowed this to happen. I really could care less. I just am pointing out the reality behind what these rules will cause. While it SOUNDS good on the surface (quite honestly to those who are cheap in the wallet and those that really don't matter - renters) this rule is intrusive to the free market place (which renting is) and is yet another government agency taking away another freedom.
Remember the telcom act in the 90s which was supposed to help lower the consumer cable bill? That brilliant piece of consumer saving rule caused rates to increase up to 14% over night on average.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
