dslreports logo
 story category
The 75-Year Broadband Contract
Homeowners lament exclusive development deals...

The Washington Post has more (we mentioned this earlier this month) on exclusive broadband development deals that lock homeowners into one broadband provider. Users in Loudoun County, Virginia, have been complaining that they're forced to pay $150 monthly in homeowner association fees for a capped FTTH triple play service from OpenBand they say is unreliable and overpriced. The development lured many residents to the suburbs with the promise of faster speed, and now they're locked into a 75-year contract for a service with frequent disconnects, according to the Post.

view:
topics flat nest 

nklb
Premium Member
join:2000-11-17
Ann Arbor, MI

nklb

Premium Member

75 years is a LONG time

I would be upset. As someone who doesn't use cable tv (or satellite or any tv for that matter) I would NOT be happy having to pay for it.

The internet, on the other hand, is nice. But as with anything, competition is best, and 75 years is an AWFULLY long time.

NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA

NPGMBR

Member

Re: 75 years is a LONG time

Seventy five years is damd long.
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA

BosstonesOwn to nklb

Member

to nklb
Ha and people here complain about a 1 year long DSL contract.

Take that Verizon ! You can't lock us in for more then a year

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102 to nklb

Member

to nklb
I think Stevenson's Ranch, CA had a similar arrangement when it started up (TimeCast?) - a local only telco and cable provider (city is Mello roos to begin with ). Time Warner took over a few years ago... and finally took over Comcast in Valencia as well.

kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Annapolis, MD

kyler13 to nklb

Member

to nklb
said by nklb:

I would be upset. As someone who doesn't use cable tv (or satellite or any tv for that matter) I would NOT be happy having to pay for it.
I'm guessing if it was that upsetting to you, it would have heavily factored in your decision to not buy into the neighborhood.

N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs

1 recommendation

N3OGH

Premium Member

Re: 75 years is a LONG time

Exactly.

Read the contract before you sign it, folks. Last time I bought a new truck, I took all the paperwork home and read it before I signed it.

The salesmen was B-E-N-T, but I told him I wasn't signing it until I read it.

There was nothing shady in it, but I'm not taking chances when tens of thousands of dollars are on the line...
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY

1 recommendation

satellite68

Member

If they can't uphold their end...

through good, reliable service, then the contracts should be null and void.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: If they can't uphold their end...

said by satellite68:

through good, reliable service, then the contracts should be null and void.
There are only two ways around these types of restrictions. A state law prohibiting exclusive contracts like this in the law regarding home owners associations or PUDs(Planned Unit Developments). Or a Congressional law like the one that made most deed restrictions invalid where sat dishes were concerned. Getting a state law changed would be more likely to be passed. But in either case, it is unlikely action is a priority for the legislatures. Especially because these people signed the deed knowing of the rule.

Poster99
@rr.com

-1 recommendation

Poster99

Anon

Re: If they can't uphold their end...

I would disagree with the false phrase "you knew it when you moved there". Too many things are being tied to the purchase of property. Perpetual, economically unregulated monopolies tied to these homes suggests antitrust problems to say the very least.

Remember, these are not municipalities and constitutional protections are not afforded the members. These are private corporations - nonprofit certainly to the members whose membership is mandatory. Highly profitable to the vendors of the corporation.

The satellite dish situation you mentioned was really an antitrust case. These developers were getting kickbacks in perpetuity from the cable companies. To protect the developer's kickback, restrictions under the pretext of "aesthetics" were imposed to prohibit satellite dishes. It wasn't about "aesthetics" at all. It was about eliminating any possible competition.

Many individuals purchasing homes may never receive a copy of the CCRs nor would the terms of these deals be contained within them. In fact, there is a battle going on in many states to require these homeowner associations to divulge financial records and contracts to the members that are obligated to pay for these things. If these HOAs were for the benefit of the homeowners, why would they refuse to turn over documents pertaining to the detail of these "deals"? The idea that the HOAs are for the homeowners is a complete myth.

To follow the last poster's logic, one would never have Deceptive Trade Practices Act laws, antitrust laws, etc. FYI contracts are not inherently enforceable. Provisions that are against public policy or unlawful may be voided. The entire contract may be voided on such grounds.

The notion that you are safe because you chose to live elsewhere is naive at best. Do you not realize the effect on competition that occurs when these people are forced against their will to use the resources dictated by the association? Do you realize how many of these associations there are? When competitors cannot compete based on price or quality of service because the customer base HAS NO CHOICE then there will not be any competition.

You think you are safe. Unless you start taking notice and objecting to these things you will find that you too will be compelled to utilize the companies that these associations force upon their residents. There will not be any alternatives for you since you cannot support an entire market by yourself. You will have to rely on the available vendors which will be dictated by the market forces of the associations whose members are often compelled to the association's selections under threats of fine and foreclosure. You should be very concerned that these groups are now doing the same thing with electricity as is happening with telecommunications. Don't be smug about thinking you are safe.

Homer J
Mmmm, Free Goo
join:2000-10-05
Knoxville, TN

1 recommendation

Homer J

Member

Re: If they can't uphold their end...

Well I am on the Board of my HOA, and we are all volunteers, who do our best to do what is best for the community. We don't have and exclusive deals with cable/phone companies. Our main purpose it to see that the common grounds are taken care of, and work requested by resident is performed.
We have been having recent battles with people about their satellite dishes. The association is responsible for the repair and up keep of the roofs and outside of the buildings. It is for this reason alone that we banned any new dishes attached to the outside or roof of any units. There are other alternatives, which some owners do not like, but if we are going to be responsible we should be able to say what is done to the roof or outside of a building.

Just my .02

D'oh

Homer J
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: If they can't uphold their end...

Sorry but you as a HOA have no authority to ban any dish that meets the conditions of the FCC and your "conditions" can't be to restrictive.

If you are refering to a condo complex then you have a little more control. But if you are speaking of homes, then they can mount anything they want anywhere they want on their property and there isn't anything your HOA can do about it except whine and petition the FCC to have it removed.
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY

satellite68

Member

Re: If they can't uphold their end...

said by Skippy25:

Sorry but you as a HOA have no authority to ban any dish that meets the conditions of the FCC and your "conditions" can't be to restrictive.

If you are refering to a condo complex then you have a little more control. But if you are speaking of homes, then they can mount anything they want anywhere they want on their property and there isn't anything your HOA can do about it except whine and petition the FCC to have it removed.
Hilarious! You've never seen some of these communities deed restrictions, eh? Or how about the local code enforcement? You'd be quite surprised at what they can and can't do.

N10Cities
Premium Member
join:2002-05-07
0000000
Asus RT-AC87

N10Cities

Premium Member

Re: If they can't uphold their end...

said by satellite68:

said by Skippy25:

Sorry but you as a HOA have no authority to ban any dish that meets the conditions of the FCC and your "conditions" can't be to restrictive.

If you are refering to a condo complex then you have a little more control. But if you are speaking of homes, then they can mount anything they want anywhere they want on their property and there isn't anything your HOA can do about it except whine and petition the FCC to have it removed.
Hilarious! You've never seen some of these communities deed restrictions, eh? Or how about the local code enforcement? You'd be quite surprised at what they can and can't do.
FCC regulations on this matter trump local and state regulations, do they not?
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: If they can't uphold their end...

said by N10Cities:

FCC regulations on this matter trump local and state regulations, do they not?
Only if the FCC opens your letter, and then forms a committee to evaluate the feasibility of forming a council to determine the tortness of your claim so that the delegation can assigning a prosecutor to your letter.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: If they can't uphold their end...

You are wrong as the FCC rules trump all local and state regulations. If I put up something that you disagree with it is YOU that has to petition the FCC and receive approval to have me remove the dish. Until that time I don't have to do anything until you show me I am in violation and the FCC agrees with you.

Go to the website and read the law.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: If they can't uphold their end...

said by Skippy25:

You are wrong as the FCC rules trump all local and state regulations. If I put up something that you disagree with it is YOU that has to petition the FCC and receive approval to have me remove the dish. Until that time I don't have to do anything until you show me I am in violation and the FCC agrees with you.

Go to the website and read the law.
The HOA can fine you then, and if that doesnt work, goto a municipal judge and get a court order for the tenant for not following CCRs. Many state/local laws conflict with federal laws, and the state/local judges WILL rule against you and convict you, its upto you then to file a complaint to get a Fed DA to sue the state in federal court, which doesnt always work, since the Feds usually wont care about enforcing the laws they pass against states.
systems2000
What? You Say It's Fixed. Hah
join:2001-11-29
Cyberspace

systems2000

Member

Re: If they can't uphold their end...

How are they going to make you pay the fine? Have you tried to prove the HOA wrong?

As Skippy25 has said, the FCC is the "Final Authority" when it comes to the dish issue. Get a copy of the information off the FCC websiate and present it to the "Homeowners authority" and let them know that your lawyer has a copy. See how fast they let you install a dish.

This is just one more reason I don't believe in HOA's (or CCR's0 and will never live in a HOA (CCR) community.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to patcat88

Member

to patcat88
Federal Laws always trump state/local laws, it is the reason they are federal laws. State laws can strenghten federal laws, but they can't weaken them. Just as local laws can strengthen state laws, but they can't weaken them.

A judge is not going to rule against anyone when the judge will see and know the FEDERAL rules and will know that the HOA is in violation, not the individual. So before you make up any more stories go read the rules. Especially if you are in a HOA or are one of the arrongant SOB's that serves on one.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: If they can't uphold their end...

said by Skippy25:

Federal Laws always trump state/local laws, it is the reason they are federal laws. State laws can strenghten federal laws, but they can't weaken them. Just as local laws can strengthen state laws, but they can't weaken them.
South Dakota abortion anyone?

spg6
Grrrr
join:2001-10-31
NOT Texas!

spg6 to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25
Wrong. An HOA can not prevent you from having your own dish, but they can ban it from the common area or insist or aesthetic requirements as long as they do not interfere with reception. We fight this battle all the time. (And win.) An HOA is a closed society with it's own rules. If you do not wish to abide by those rules, don't move into a development that is governed by one.

AnonymousPerson
@verizon.net

AnonymousPerson to FFH5

Anon

to FFH5
A congressional law would be unconstitutional. A state law or a state court ruling would be the only ways to go.
adelphiasuck
join:2002-05-18
Sterling, VA

adelphiasuck

Member

Re: If they can't uphold their end...

"A congressional law would be unconstitutional. A state law or a state court ruling would be the only ways to go."
Um, no. The Congress already passed the Communications Act of 1996 which forbade HOAs from preventing outside broadcast TV antenna, TVRO dishes under one meter in diameter, and "receive" or actually client wireless Internet antennas.

El Kabong
@verizon.net

El Kabong to satellite68

Anon

to satellite68
Just what I was thinking... failure to provide service would be breach of contract.
jp10558
Premium Member
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY

jp10558

Premium Member

Homeowner's Associations lower the value of a house IMO

Personally, the more I hear about Homeowners associations, the more I plan on staying away from any such thing. I would think this will start to hurt property valuse as people like me start deciding not to live where there is such crap.
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA

chemaupr

Member

Re: Homeowner's Associations lower the value of a house IMO

I agree, but It's harder to find a house or TH in an area with out a HOA. At least in the NOVA area. If you like the area and the place you basically do not have much of a choice.

Kickroot
Java Heathen
Premium Member
join:2002-11-24
Honesdale, PA

Kickroot

Premium Member

Re: Homeowner's Associations lower the value of a house IMO

Agreed. I got lucky with the town house I purchased last week. No HOA of any kind...

calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

calvoiper

Member

Re: Homeowner's Associations lower the value of a house IMO

HOA's are caused, in part, because local municipalities are running away from their responsibilities. All too often, a municipality gives development approval conditioned on a HOA that will maintain streets, sidewalks, street lighting, drainage, common areas (parks), or cover other traditionally "municipal" expenses.

Cities and towns do this for one simple reason--it's like an extra tax increase for them. This way, they can spend the money they should spend maintaining the streets, etc. for these new homes buying votes with "social programs", while the new homes have to pay a separate HOA assessment to cover these costs.

It's nothing more than a variation of "shaft the new guy", and has all the ethics and honesty on the part of municipal government that greeted new Union prisoners in the Andersonville prison of the Civil War.

calvoiper

wwu123
@nextweb.net

wwu123

Anon

Re: Homeowner's Associations lower the value of a house IMO

HOA's and cities/towns are just different units of measure for these responsibilities.

When I lived in northern Virginia, I noticed nearly every development had an HOA. What I didn't know at the time is that there are very few incorporated cities/towns due to Virginia law, and those few that do exist are generally OUTSIDE the county rather than being within the county. So in Fairfax and Loudon counties, there are generally no incorporated entities at the city/town level to negotiate those "municipal expenses". I was on the HOA of my new development of all of 44 townhouses, we had to negotiate all those services - street cleaning, garbage, etc., ourselves.

Now I live in suburban northern California, where most of the counties WANT most of the homes to be managed within incorporated cities, and the cities negotiate the services including cable franchise agreements. Oddly I live in one of the few pockets of unincorporated county.

The main differences are that a) the cities aren't forcing everyone to pay for services, only those who sign up for them, and b) the cities don't necessarily prohibit new entrants from laying new wires for new services. As a different example, in my Virginia HOA everyone had to pay the negotiated rate for garbage pickup, whether you wanted garbage service or not. In northern CA, you don't have to sign up for the county garbage service if you don't want to - I'm not sure who'd bother finding a different garbage service, but then again, one house on the street refuses to connect to the sewer service.

However, the cities could've voted to do both. It isn't in homeowners' interest to necessarily do these things either, but as pointed out (and my own Virginia HOA experience confirms) the developer controls the HOA until the development is nearly complete. So the homeowners have no say over any long-term deals the developer signs, until those contracts expire.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB

Premium Member

El Grande Stupido

I want to know who the dumbass at the HOA was who thought that locking residents into an unproven, untested technology like FTTH for 75 years was a good idea.

Trimline
Premium Member
join:2004-10-24
Windermere, FL

Trimline

Premium Member

Re: El Grande Stupido

It's typically the builders who bring these things on. They sign a contract with a provider, and the provider invests in putting in the infrastructure at no cost the builder.

The builder creates the first deed restrictions that include these types of deals.
adelphiasuck
join:2002-05-18
Sterling, VA

adelphiasuck

Member

Re: El Grande Stupido

Why an unproven company?

Because Adelphia had the Loudoun County cable franchise at the time. Their legal problems had yet to begin, so there was little hope of any change. FIOS wasn't even a dream.

Everyone was pretty upset about that, and people were looking at any way possible to avoid them.

While the county had grown by five times in population, the number of Adelphia subscribers remained constant. There was constant churn. People would move in, get cable, get fed up and get satellite TV. The county looks like the official county flower is the satellite dish!

In the common area outside my house there is a distribution pedestal. It had a 12 output splitter with TWO cables hooked to it. It turns out only ONE was actually active!

Adelphia was VERY late with the replacement of one-way Internet.

Developers were looking for any way to prevent each and every house from having a satellite dish on it once the 1996 Communications Act passed voiding all HOA prohibitions against dishes and outdoor TV antennas.

So, at the time Openband looked like a good idea.

Comcast just recently took over, and many of the bad employees remain in place. About the only thing that has changed is that they have taken off some good channels to replace them with sports channels. We need more sports channels like we need more shopping channels.
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned) to POB

Member

to POB
The same one who got a sweet kickback and free service for life.

As for service, someone better look at the contract and see if they can cancel it because of service not being provided.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB

Premium Member

Re: El Grande Stupido

said by moonpuppy:

[...] someone better look at the contract and see if they can cancel it because of service not being provided.
Assuming the homeowners in question did not agree to a clause in the HOA CC&Rs that pre-empts litigation in favor of binding arbitration (as most of them do) I'm sure this will result in a breach of contract suit eventually.

markyman
join:2003-10-06
Ashburn, VA

markyman to POB

Member

to POB
Note that the builder get a big chunk of the service plan. according to the article:
"Under the contract, Van Metre receives between 8 and 12 percent of the revenue OpenBand receives from residents."

So, it is in their interest that the contract streches forever.

Homer J
Mmmm, Free Goo
join:2000-10-05
Knoxville, TN

Homer J to POB

Member

to POB
I don't think it was anyone on the HOA, it was the deveoper. From what I read, the developer still controls the board at the HOA in question. So the home owners have little say.
The developer did it for one simple reason, money.

D'oh

Homer J

guhuna
5149.5
Premium Member
join:2001-03-31
Benicia, CA

guhuna

Premium Member

Yuck.

Click for full size
And to top it off they have bandwidth caps! Bleh!

••••••••
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
united state

1 edit

1 recommendation

b10010011

Member

Didn't these people read the contract?

I know buying a house is a long process involving a lot of paper work. But sheese, didn't anyone bother to ask what broadband or cable providers service the area?

I know that was one of the things I looked into before we bought our home.

As for HOA's forget it. These things always turn into a busy-body ran spy club. Because the only people that volunteer to be on the HOA board and go to the meetings are people with WAY too much time on their hands...

•••••••

ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium Member
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

ColorBASIC

Premium Member

Same thing in Orange County with Cox

I mentioned this previously but Ladera Ranch in Orange County has a similar deal with Cox. Anyone wanting to live there has to pay high association dues to cover the cost of Cox HSI. If you want DSL or another provider, you still end up paying for Cox HSI.

The only argument in defense is the buyers about it before they bought in.
expert007
join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY

1 recommendation

expert007

Member

75 Years?????

Click for full size
You gotta be kidding me. Dumbass...dumbass...dumbass decision. 75 years ago this was high tech air transportation.
phaqu
join:2005-05-26
Marietta, GA

1 recommendation

phaqu

Member

Well....

why did they move to a subdivision with a fanatical homeowners asc.? All it is is a bunch of board,nosey housewives.Why anyone would want to live in a neighborhood with a lawn Nazi association is beyond me.

Toadman
Hypnotoad
join:2001-11-28
Mystery

Toadman

Member

Re: Well....

The purpose is to not have to live next to a trailer trash person who leaves more sh** outside than in his garage or have to live actually next to a trailer. They had good intentions during the 70s and 80s, they have become corrupt like any other organization to pay a "friend" to plow the public areas.

The really sad thing is these organizations can place a lean on your home for not paying. As someone said above, dumb, dumb, dumb to ever agree to something like this. If I had to live in that development, I would of made sure my lawyer had time to read over the contract to see if I could sign out of it prior to buying.

timcuth
Braves Fan
Premium Member
join:2000-09-18
Pelham, AL
Technicolor ET2251

1 recommendation

timcuth

Premium Member

Two questions

I have two questions:

1) Did not the buyers know about this before they bought their houses? Any HOA covenants or requirements should be explicitly disclosed before a sale or mortgage is closed.

2) Who controls the homeowners' association? It should be the homeowners. If they, as a group, don't like it, why don't they, as a group, do something about it?

Tim

••••••••

ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium Member
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

1 edit

ColorBASIC

Premium Member

What about pre-existing condition?

If the seller or builder fails to disclose that there are known problems with the FTTH service, wouldn't they be liable just as if there was a problem with the sewer system?

xerxes3642
join:2006-02-24
Saint Charles, MO

xerxes3642

Member

I would hear

this a lot when I worked in a local franchise authority office. Mostly from apartment complexes or mobil home parks. Nothing anybody can do about it except don't buy where you are locked in to an exclusive deal. Apartments usually used some fly by night cable or satellite providor I have never heard of. But, no matter how much the service sucked, was overpriced or downright unethical behavior...there was nothing i could do, they weren't covered in the franchise agreement.
MadMusky
join:2007-05-21

MadMusky

Member

Developers are driving this

These things are actually being driven by the developers. Developers are scamming cable companies and telcos by forcing them to pay royalties/commissions/kickbacks to the realtors in order to be called "preferred providers." Service providers are then saying fine but you have to at least give us something in return. The developer really doesn't care so he uses the HSA to lock in the customer so he gets his money, the provider gets their money, and the homeowners get screwed.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

Re: Developers are driving this

said by MadMusky:

These things are actually being driven by the developers. Developers are scamming cable companies and telcos by forcing them to pay royalties/commissions/kickbacks to the realtors in order to be called "preferred providers." Service providers are then saying fine but you have to at least give us something in return. The developer really doesn't care so he uses the HSA to lock in the customer so he gets his money, the provider gets their money, and the homeowners get screwed.
Now if the home is bought with a SUBPRIME UNFIXED interest rate loan that $KYROCKET$ the consumer as well as the developer will have egg all overthemselves.. nice stinky sulfur rotten egg smell..

Then the value of the homes will sell for tens of thousands of dollars LESS than fair market value to make up for the screwed up HSA deals upfront, that is unless it's bought by a MORON who overpays!!! Soon Katrina slabs will be worth more, HA HA HA !!
Methadras
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA

Methadras

Member

this has...

class action written all over it...
gb2254
join:2007-05-02
Old Bridge, NJ

gb2254

Member

Legal

How is this legal, is this legal to do that.
I guess so if they have it for 75 years but how ?
adelphiasuck
join:2002-05-18
Sterling, VA

adelphiasuck

Member

Re: Legal

Legal

How is this legal, is this legal to do that.
I guess so if they have it for 75 years but how ?

In Virginia, there is no such thing as "in perpetuity." It is an accepted matter of law that contracts may only run 99 years in the Commonwealth.

The reason the contract is so long is so that the Openband can recover their construction costs. However, I am pretty sure that would happen at a decent rate in 10 or 12, as in most new cable franchise agreements.

While that may be fine for Cable TV, it is pretty stupid to sign even a 10 year agreement for Internet services. There is absolutely NO WAY things will be the same that far out.
ecotti
join:2006-06-13
Ashburn, VA

1 edit

ecotti

Member

Thought I would share

Click for full size
SWHOA_Agreem···.jpg.pdf
1,833,022 bytes
HOA 75 Year Contract
Click for full size
VM_OB_Kickback1.pdf
842,965 bytes
8% & 12 % Builder kickback
Ok- for the folks who have posted doubts of the Van Metre controlled HOA and Van Metre's exclusive agreement with Openband and the 75 year term ...well here is the proof.
upto 75 Year Term Page 11 - Section 6.1
Van Metre (builder) profiting from the exclusive Openband contract

Also - the terms and length of contract WAS NEVER and I mean NEVER disclosed when we purchased our home from the 1st owner.

Now if you really want to dirt - here is a link to the Broadlands (Openband)Forum...
»www.broadlandshoa.org/ho ··· php?f=18

Happy reading

PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD

PGHammer

Member

Why the HOA Deal Blew Up

said by ecotti:

Ok- for the folks who have posted doubts of the Van Metre controlled HOA and Van Metre's exclusive agreement with Openband and the 75 year term ...well here is the proof.
upto 75 Year Term Page 11 - Section 6.1
Van Metre (builder) profiting from the exclusive Openband contract

Also - the terms and length of contract WAS NEVER and I mean NEVER disclosed when we purchased our home from the 1st owner.

Now if you really want to dirt - here is a link to the Broadlands (Openband)Forum...
»www.broadlandshoa.org/ho ··· php?f=18

Happy reading
However, this would not have been news except for VZ's FIOS deployment actually not only happening, but being done in such an obvious and inexpensive fashion. It is highly likely that *at the time the deal was created*, while FIOS may have been in the planning stages, did anyone actually expect it to happen? (To put FIOS in perspective, it is not only the single largest FTTP deployment in North America (and that's at the current size), but the single largest B-PON deployment on the planet (the fact that there is a designed-in upgrade path to G-PON makes it all the more remarkable).)
It's one thing to have FTTH in a small development/subdivision when everyone else is still stuck with copper; it's quite another when you have expensive FTTH and cheaper FTTH is available from your ILEC. (It's why VZ's initial FIOS deployment in Keller, TX was news (heart of what was then SBC Country, where Copper Is Still King), while the county-by-county rollout of FIOS in Maryland is mostly a yawner (VZ is the largest ILEC in Maryland).)

viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium Member
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL

viperpa33s

Premium Member

Lock you in and throw away the key

I love how the company says only a small number of complaints compared to the overall subscribers. Any number of complaints is bad for business. The company don't care about service to there customers, they receive money regardless. It's not like you can drop the company for a competing service.

The only discrepancy I see is if the 75 years was not told up front but buried in the contract.