PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
 ·CableOne
| Law trumps Contracts
Contract law in the US states that any contract that violates a law is void. Thus, if the FCC makes a law that makes exclusivity illegal, then IMHO the exclusivity contracts should be void.
Example: Walgreens has a contract with Pfizer to buy X bottles of Viagra a month for $xx.xx. FDA does some research, and rules Viagra is unsafe, and thus illegal to sell or distribute. Does this mean Pfizer gets to keep selling Viagra to Walgreens and Walgreens gets to keep selling it to horny ol' Mr. Jones, just because they have a contract? Hell no.
If a contract contains an illegal act, it is void. Remember that when you hire a contract killer.
The cable co's are just bitching because they'll actually have to COMPETE for their business, instead of having it handed to them. Somebody call a whaaaaambulance.
--
There comes a point in your life when you get tired of fixing everything and wiping everyone's ass. But it’s not giving up. It’s realizing that you don’t need certain people and the bullshit and drama they bring to your life. |
|
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| You are comparing apples and oranges. There is a difference between a contact between to parties and selling an unsafe product. No one safety is jeopardized by exclusive cable agreements nobodies' rights are being violated. remember the customer is a tenant not the owner singed and covenant with the condo owners association. Since the right of the owner has not been violated, FFC has gone to far.
It this situation the powers of the market place should rule. I threated to move out when my contact was out at one apartment ended becease of their exclusive agreement. I mane it clear I was not pleased and will take my dollars elsewhere. eventually t the owners dropped the contract and the agreement was sold to Comcast. |
|
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to PolarBear
The FCC can't make laws, only Congress can do that. The FCC was given the power to regulate the industry by Congress, but it cannot make laws itselves. The only real power it have is the ability to revoke licenses, which it uses to get the industry to obey it. But because the mandates aren't laws, many are shot down in court.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Richard B
said by Richard B  :It this situation the powers of the market place should rule. I threated to move out when my contact was out at one apartment ended becease of their exclusive agreement. I mane it clear I was not pleased and will take my dollars elsewhere. eventually t the owners dropped the contract and the agreement was sold to Comcast. This is what I said all along since this debate came up.
An apartment complex is a business just like your grocery store is and your car dealership is. Things like on-site laundry, tennis courts, swimming pools, ACCESS TO CABLE or other luxury services are all amenities. Building owners looking to rent their units to their "customers" use these amenities in order to gain business, that would be the renter in this case. Having better access to different services IS a draw for some people as made clear by people on this site alone. If a building or complex owner doesn't want to provide access to each and every provider out there, it's only going to hurt their business.
This IS in fact a "free market" issue and the FCC needs to step back. Now, if the FCC wanted to step up because an apartment/building owner was outright blocking a utility like the telephone all together, then I'd have an issue. However, there STILL is NOTHING that says a building owner has to even allow cable TV into the property, period. The providers are there and able to sell service at the graces of the building owners in the first place.
In this case, Richard B, you did right by the free market. The place you lived didn't provide you what you needed and the building owner pays by losing a tenant and now they pay.. the cost to find another tenant ads up over time. I, on the other hand, when I rented, would always ask in advance if the place was able to allow the services I needed BEFORE I rented. If they didn't then I looked elsewhere.
The fundamental difference in this situation is that renters believe that they have the same rights as home owners, OR that their rights trump those of the apartment/building owners. The renter is nothing more than a consumer and a temporary one at that. When someone rents an apartment, they are buying a product. If I were an apartment owner, I'd be offended, AND, fight to the bitter end over anyone (government) telling me who I can and can't enter into an agreement with because a renter complains. I am harsh when it comes to this.. if you want rights on your home.. buy. Until then, there are usually FAR more people renting because they can't own (for various reasons) than anything. In time, they can buy and set their own destiny.
Now.. as for the case of exclusive agreements set on the street level where a contractor / home developer has made with, say, cable over phone to provider both services to a neighborhood - THOSE, in my opinion, SHOULD be invalidated IMMEDIATELY!
Private property in one thing... public streets are another (and even in MOST HOAs, the streets are still public.) As a HOME OWNER, I am not about anyone else restricting my access to a service.
/end |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by fiberguy :[...] renters believe that they have the same rights as home owners, OR that their rights trump those of the apartment/building owners. Not being a property owner with any kind of experience with property management from an owner's perspective, by your own admission, I might add, exactly what are you basing this blanket claim on? |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| reply to Richard B
said by Richard B :You are comparing apples and oranges. There is a difference between a contact between to parties and selling an unsafe product. No one safety is jeopardized by exclusive cable agreements nobodies' rights are being violated. My post wasn't about products or product safety at all. I was making the point that if a law comes into effect that would make a contract void, it should apply to existing contracts as well as new contracts. I was comparing existing contracts to new ones, or Braeburns to Fujis as you put it.
And please do a spell check before you post. 
--
There comes a point in your life when you get tired of fixing everything and wiping everyone's ass. But it’s not giving up. It’s realizing that you don’t need certain people and the bullshit and drama they bring to your life. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to fiberguy
Nice rant when it applies to renters, but this also applies to subdivisions, condo associations and co-ops where the end user is not a renter. In many cases the fees are built into the monthly maintenance charges ("condo fees") and opting out is not an option. In those cases the end user is being forcibly led to market whether they want to use the services or not.
Your bias against renters clouds your logic. I know people who have rented their abode for far longer than many owners stay in one house. One has outlasted three landlords.
You say that in most HOAs the streets are still public. That is a false assumption. Most gated communities (for example) have private streets. Otherwise they would not be able to gate themselves off...
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Doc,
My "rant" about renters stands. Renters do not have the same rights as home owners no matter how long they have rented. You pay rent for 30 years and walk away, you still have nothing.
I stated that for home owners on public land, I disagree with a contractor making decisions for me that last a long time for their own gain - which they are.
You also assume that all HOA's are gated, which they are not. I've lived and owned two houses in an HOA where there was no gate and the roads were public streets. Additionally, you can still have an HOA on public streets and apply for gated community status in some areas.
I also stated that most HOAs, single family, are on public streets and not necessarily gated.. is that a fact? Maybe not.. but in the areas I've lived, it has been. Bar that, it's not important. The point was defining the difference between a renter and a home owner.
With that still said, when you live on a common grounds situation, in a condo complex, you still don't own the land around outside your walls and I do agree that those agreements DO stand. The owner of that HOA benefited from those agreements of past so for any of them to cry foul would be guilty in cheating the provider who wired the place for free. If the contract is voided by the FCC, then the original amount should also be retro active and billed back to the owners (HOA included) ... let's then see how fast people are willing to see them invalidated. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | reply to SilverSurfer
Your post - as is - makes no sense and can't be responded to.. and places words in my mouth that don't exist, as written.
edit:
but based on the section you quoted me on, I stand by my statement as fact & truth. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to PolarBear
Telcos also have these contracts; VZ Avenue (which is just Internet & Phone) and AT&T has them with their DishNetwork service in areas in Cali.
Why aren't those illegal and just cable? oh besides the services are provided different to the property? BULL SHIT!
What applies to the Cable Cos Telcos should have to follow the same; instead of trying to create new rules and laws to give them what they want. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to fiberguy
I made none of the assumptions you attribute to me. Therefore there is no reason to reply to your allegations. I stated examples in opposition to the blanket statements you made and I stand behind them as posted. The additional information you provide makes no sense.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc :Why aren't those illegal and [not] just cable? Oh, I think they should be. I agree with you. I only made reference to cable because the article is titled "Cable Industry Takes Aim At FCC Exclusivity Order."
--
There comes a point in your life when you get tired of fixing everything and wiping everyone's ass. But it’s not giving up. It’s realizing that you don’t need certain people and the bullshit and drama they bring to your life. |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to PolarBear
Re: Law trumps Contracts
said by PolarBear :Contract law in the US states that any contract that violates a law is void. Thus, if the FCC makes a law that makes exclusivity illegal, then IMHO the exclusivity contracts should be void. Example: Walgreens has a contract with Pfizer to buy X bottles of Viagra a month for $xx.xx. FDA does some research, and rules Viagra is unsafe, and thus illegal to sell or distribute. Does this mean Pfizer gets to keep selling Viagra to Walgreens and Walgreens gets to keep selling it to horny ol' Mr. Jones, just because they have a contract? Hell no. If a contract contains an illegal act, it is void. Remember that when you hire a contract killer. The cable co's are just bitching because they'll actually have to COMPETE for their business, instead of having it handed to them. Somebody call a whaaaaambulance. If the contract is deemed "unconscionable", it doesn't have to be executed either. (The U.S. Supreme Court’s “shock the conscience test” (Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183 (1952)).
Uhh, if you hire someone to kill someone, sure the prosecution isn't going to buy the "void" contract baloney and send you to jail forever anyway.
As far as the Walgreens situation, Pfizer has to pull all the Viagra. The contract would not be void but considered consummated.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| The point is that if you are hired to kill someone (or commit any illegal deed), you cannot be sued for not following through with your contract if you changed your mind. I'm sure this only applies to civil courts, since you'd likely still be charged with conspiracy unless you cut a plea bargain. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
1 edit | reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :Your post - as is - makes no sense and can't be responded to.. and places words in my mouth that don't exist, as written. edit: but based on the section you quoted me on, I stand by my statement as fact & truth. Nice attempt at obfuscation and wiggling out of the hot seat, but the question still stands.
1. You admitted that you have no experience as either a property manager OR a property owner in the business of renting to tenants.
2. Based on the above-referenced, what exactly, are you basing your statement on?
"...renters believe that they have the same rights as home owners, OR that their rights trump those of the apartment/building owners. These were your words verbatim. If you don't understand my question, then it makes me wonder if you even understand your own logic. Clearly, you do not. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Grow up!
My statement is pretty clear. Renters believe they have the same rights as home owners when it comes to property rights. If you don't get that, then you have a serious learning issue.
Renters believing that their rights trump those of the owners rights, when it comes to property rights (think the context of the topic, genius) is pretty clear at least around these parts.
Do you not understand that renters are a customer and not a land or building owner? Do you not understand that renters don't have the rights to make decisions to the place they only rent on a temporary basis?
Seriously.. what are you not getting?
Further - I won't respond to your message, in whole, mostly because you POINT BLANK put words in my mouth that I have not said.
Get it?  |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by fiberguy :Grow up! Yet another attempt to wiggle out of the hot seat and not answer a direct question.
said by fiberguy :My statement is pretty clear. Renters believe they have the same rights as home owners when it comes to property rights. No, actually, your statement that you denied you even made in the first place was most assuredly not clear. Hence the reason I asked.
You admitted that you have zero experience with either property management or renting property to tenants, but you still, somehow just know that Renters believe they have the same rights as home owners when it comes to property rights. Note: Taken verbatim from your statement. You still have yet to answer that simple question.
Where did you get the info from if you don't have the experience to back it up? Did you shake a magic 8-ball? Did you get it from Fox news? Did you pull it out of your back end?
Answer the question. All else spewing from your direction is nothing more than an attempt to avoid having been caught talking outta yer anus. |
|
