dslreports logo
 story category
FCC Decides On Drywall Issue
Cable competition increases
MultiChannel News reports that ‘the Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously Thursday to revive a court-rejected rule intended to aid new video providers that want to serve consumers located in apartment buildings’. The decision means that new cable providers don’t have to break through drywall to get to cable wiring but instead can use existing cable boxes to provide their services, promoting video choice and competition in the cable industry. How this will play out in terms of specific customers isn’t clear from the wording of the ruling; instances in which customers drop cable TV but not high-speed-data service may not fall under the new rules.
view:
topics flat nest 

John Galt6
Forward, March
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp

John Galt6

Premium Member

Easy Solution For The Cable Company...

Just cut it off flush at the wall. That will be considered "removing it".

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

tschmidt

MVM

NID concept

Why not treat Cablcos like the Telcos? Carrier provides services to a Network Interface Device located near the service entrance. Inside wiring is the responsibility of building owner.

Doing this would mesh well with the notion of retail sourcing of Set Top boxes with Cableco limited to providing the CableCard security card.

/Tom
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 recommendation

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: NID concept

While that might be all good in theory, some buildings were wired up at the expense of the cable company.

Again, "The FCC wants to revive a court rejected order.."

The FCC wants to foster competition by taking from one and giving to the other. How about the FCC just stop being Robinhood or over stepping the law and stop taking from one and giving to another, or simply quit tying to be authoritarian over anything that has signal.

Some buildings were wired at the expense of the cable company and some buildings were wired at the expense of th building owner.

If the building owner owns the wires, then it should be up to the building owner to set rules. If the cable company wired and owns the cables, then who is the FCC to, in a sense, seize private property and give it to someone else?

I think what's more in question is who is the FCC to tell building owners what they have to do with private property? Building owners who rent their property should have the right to say who can and can't come into the building in the first place. (which they currently do)

If the video operator is on the property, chances are that the building owner gave them permission and how they connected up to the video system was negotiated at that point. Seems pretty clear to me... simple.. FCC - STAY OUT OF THIS! It's a private matter...

.. and to thwart off the people here that will say "but the renter has the right to choose"... no, they don't. Not in a rental situation. If the building owner wants only Cablevision to come in and keep Fios out, that's the property owner's right.

The FCC, which is the government, loves to sit back in their $3,000 leather chairs with their chests puffed out telling everyone else how they have to spend their money.

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

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: NID concept

said by fiberguy2:

Some buildings were wired at the expense of the cable company and some buildings were wired at the expense of th building owner.

If the building owner owns the wires, then it should be up to the building owner to set rules. If the cable company wired and owns the cables, then who is the FCC to, in a sense, seize private property and give it to someone else?
It is pretty standard law that inside wiring is owned by the property owner once it is installed. Of course that doesn't apply to routers/switching equipment/etc.

So I guess the cable company can remove the hardware, but they almost for sure have no right to pull out cable and wires run thru the walls - even if they did pay to install it.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: NID concept

Um, not quite true... not with apartments and not in all areas. (hint: the two words "standard" and "law" don't mix well, in many cases )

I used to handle the contracts part of complex entry. It's all in how the right of entry was drafted. If a building owner wanted cable installed, sometimes they pay for the work and all expenses. They own the cable in that case..

In some cases, they go through more of a negotiation process (usually happens in larger complexes like 64 or 125+ unit complexes) and in that case, terms can be entered. The terms can include that they grant X company exclusive ROE to the complex, meaning no other provider can provide - which is legal, and that under the, say, 15 year contract, X company shall retain ownership of all installed gear, wire, etc.

So in short, it depends on how the terms are negotiated.

In some ares, mostly back east, when you hear "apartments", some people think 5 story buildings with 40 units in them. In other areas, when you hear apartments, often in the West, you think about 250+ unit complexes made up of 32 buildings of 8 units each. (Those are usually pre-wired anyway, but sometimes, the cable company will come in and install the wire for free on an exclusive agreement - sometimes not)

I still think the FCC will faces STIFF challenge if they think they are going to come in and invalidate negotiated financial contracts in the name of the Robin Hood mentality... I know, for sure, that if I spent a large load of money to provide something to apartment owners and some off balance guy at the FCC wants to cause me to loose a large chunk of money to make small companies feel good, he's going to face at least 2 dozen lawyers and embarrassment.
BigVe
join:2005-07-15
Gulliver, MI

BigVe

Member

Re: NID concept

this is the correct spelling: self-richeous

MrMoody
Free range slave
Premium Member
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
Netgear CM500
Asus RT-AC68

MrMoody

Premium Member

Re: NID concept

Oh, good grief.

»www.m-w.com/dictionary/s ··· ighteous

If you want to look stupid and uneducated, keep spelling it some other way.

And back on-topic, the FCC has already done something similar invalidating homeowners association contracts against installing satellite dishes.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 edit

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: NID concept

see what I mean?? This public banter goes on in my IMs all the time.

Can we not worry about what my signature line says and how things are spelled already??

MrMoody, thank you.

And to your point about satellite dishes. You are correct, however, it's a little different issue. A satellite dish is a personal choice between the end user and the provider and a wireless system. With cable providers, there is capital investment. A building owner has the right to keep a private industry, non-utility, from gaining what is in essence, an easement to the property, to tear up the ground, perform construction on the building, etc.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: NID concept

said by fiberguy2:

A building owner has the right to keep a private industry, non-utility, from gaining what is in essence, an easement to the property, to tear up the ground, perform construction on the building, etc.

No more right then TPC had to keep the CATV leeches off their poles.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to BigVe

Premium Member

to BigVe
You know.. I know that... I really do.

You need to read my post below... I get several message each week.. It's more of a game any more for me. Spelling police write me all the time giving me different spellings, so I change it regularly..every time I change it, someone else tells me it's the other way.. and so on, and so on. Now, it's in the public forum, where it doesn't belong.

Sorry to say, I've taken the fun away from people and honored SuperGirl for her post.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
Any building owner/homeowner owns the cable that was installed 100%. The ONLY thing they paid the cable company for was to purchase the cable and to install it. Even if they installed it free to bolster their presence there, they still don't own it and that is what the FCC is making more clear.

Just out of curiosity, how would the cable company remove said cable when the owner no longer wants it there? Or does the cable company now have a permanent claim to that building for the rest of it's life?

whizkid3
MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY

whizkid3 to FFH5

MVM

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

It is pretty standard law that inside wiring is owned by the property owner once it is installed. Of course that doesn't apply to routers/switching equipment/etc.
TCH is right here. It is generally the law that wiring, conduit, etc, added within the walls, or attached to the walls, of the inside of a building is considered a capital improvement, and becomes part and parcel of the building itself. Doesn't matter who paid for it.

Of course, as they have already, all of the employees of the cable companies will come out of the woodwork, and spew about how the FCC is screwing over the cable companies.

On the other hand, I don't see where the FCC has any jurisdiction here. I was my understanding that because the signals are carried within cables, the FCC had no control - just like they have no control over the programming. Am I wrong?

quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium Member
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI

quetwo

Premium Member

Re: NID concept

Actually, it all depends on how the contract is written between the cable-co and the building owner.

I write the technical side of contracts for our cable system (14,000 outlets), and believe me, the local cable company wants to own the cable. The have gone as far as saying that the point-of-demarcation of their service is the outlet in the bedroom. We usually cross that out and make the DMARC our head-end.

For a Comcast or TW to come in and wire up a new building, they will usually either ask for a new exclusive 10 year contract (with your ownership), or a 7 year contract with marketing abilities (they market their services directly to the end user). In the 15 year deal, they own the cable in the building.

If they own the cable, they do maintenance on it, if you own it, it's yours. That is very important to some apartment managers, and often sways who owns the cable. While maintenance on internal cable is typically pretty low, when they do technological upgrades (such as 550Mhz to 700Mhz upgrades), it does require quite a bit of capitol investment.

whizkid3
MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY

whizkid3

MVM

Re: NID concept

said by quetwo:

Actually, it all depends on how the contract is written between the cable-co and the building owner.
One might think so. However, provisions of contracts that violate laws, are unenforceable. The federal tax law is where you will find this.
BVT
join:2004-10-25
Mount Juliet, TN

BVT

Member

Re: NID concept

Yes TCH is right regardless of the terms of the contract. The only way that the contract would be enforceable is if the cableco put a lien on the property and/or trigger clauses in the contract that are enforceable upon certain conditions being met.

phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL

phattieg to whizkid3

Member

to whizkid3
Ok, so I guess if this were pertaining to speakers and stereos, I will come over to your house and switch out your expensive speaker system with a crappy one because I am the manufacturer of the crappy ones, and I feel it's time you switched. Oh, and I don't give a crap if you BOUGHT the speakers or wiring, I am just going to do it anyway, because more people need my brand, and I am too cheap and stupid to build MY OWN reputation, or make my own wires, so I will do it at YOUR expense. And there isn't a damn thing you can do about it... How do you like that? Considering this is hypothetical, you can understand how that would leave a bad taste in your mouth... I think if you're gonna offer it, you need to expect to pay the price for your OWN stuff... I would feel the same way whether it is Cable, Telephony, or Satellite...

whizkid3
MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY

whizkid3

MVM

Re: NID concept

said by phattieg:

Ok, so I guess if this were pertaining to speakers and stereos, I will come over to your house and switch out your expensive speaker system with a crappy one because I am the manufacturer of the crappy ones, and I feel it's time you switched. Oh, and I don't give a crap if you BOUGHT the speakers or wiring, I am just going to do it anyway, because more people need my brand, and I am too cheap and stupid to build MY OWN reputation, or make my own wires, so I will do it at YOUR expense. And there isn't a damn thing you can do about it... How do you like that? Considering this is hypothetical, you can understand how that would leave a bad taste in your mouth... I think if you're gonna offer it, you need to expect to pay the price for your OWN stuff... I would feel the same way whether it is Cable, Telephony, or Satellite...
But its not. Apples & oranges - two different aminals.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: NID concept

said by whizkid3:

Apples & oranges - two different aminals.

John Galt6
Forward, March
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp

John Galt6 to fiberguy2

Premium Member

to fiberguy2
You DO realize that your sig has a spelling error...?
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 edit

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: NID concept

said by John Galt6:

You DO realize that your sig has a spelling error...?
You DO realize that there is an IM feature...?

I tend to ignore that anyway.. At least once a week I get 4 or 5 people, by IM, conflicting with each other on the correct spelling, so I ignore it.. Maybe this public message will save people the time...

John Galt6
Forward, March
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp

John Galt6

Premium Member

Re: NID concept

said by fiberguy2:

At least once a week I get 4 or 5 people, by IM, conflicting with each other on the correct spelling, so I ignore it..
Here you go:

»dictionary.reference.com/


supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

supergirl to John Galt6

Member

to John Galt6
said by John Galt6:

You DO realize that your sig has a spelling error...?
Actually, I always thought "complaining was a woman's prerogative."
jagged
join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL

jagged to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:

While that might be all good in theory, some buildings were wired up at the expense of the cable company.
cable got their money back x 1000
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: NID concept

said by jagged:
said by fiberguy2:

While that might be all good in theory, some buildings were wired up at the expense of the cable company.
cable got their money back x 1000
That's not only inaccurate, but it's also irrelevant... Contracts are contracts... Who are you, me, or the government, of all people, to decide fair?

How much money do you think was made back on the price of an automobile? Since you feel the car is paid for, even though the terms of the contract say it's not, should you be able to have it taken away from the rightful owner.... the bank?

It sounds good to say things like what you just did, but you do not realize just how dangerous it is to act, I mean, TRY, to act upon that.

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

tschmidt to fiberguy2

MVM

to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:

While that might be all good in theory, some buildings were wired up at the expense of the cable company.
True but that was also the case 25 years ago with Telephone deregulation. The local phone company wired the building and rented CPE equipment. Customer owned nothing. Cablecos are fighting the same battle the Telcos lost a quarter century ago.

Changes in technology mean a specific service no longer needs a purpose built network. Cablecos are able to use their network to deliver phone service and Telcos are delivering TV. Given the changing face of technology seems like the time is ripe for this kind of change. The service provider's physical responsibility ends at the NID. Building owner/tenant is responsible for inside wiring.

The Telcos fought it and I have every expectation the MSO/Cablecos will too.
/Tom
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: NID concept

I doubt that is ever going to happen in this country.. not with the FCC requirements and certainly not with the fact that the cable company uses "shared frequency"....

A cable provider is ALWAYS going to be responsible for signals all the up to and at the end of the line, which is the customer's TV. If the responsibility ends at the "NID" as you use universally, then you will have cable signal leaks all over the place.

The qualifications to be able to contain and shore up leaks is certainly not going to be placed in the hands of the consumer or apartment building manager.

The FCC will certainly have a good 'Cybil' thing going on here.. there are many rules behind shared frequency than there is their attempts to get involved in private industry.

Again, it's far beyond the lines and competition.. building owners have a right to say who can and can't go into their premise.

I really think it's a moot point.. there's a reason it was struck down before, like other things the FCC has tried to impose against the law.

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

tschmidt

MVM

Re: NID concept

said by fiberguy2:

A cable provider is ALWAYS going to be responsible for signals all the up to and at the end of the line, which is the customer's TV. If the responsibility ends at the "NID" as you use universally, then you will have cable signal leaks all over the place.
That is an important technical consideration. I don't want to sound like I'm trivializing it. To a lesser extent DSL has to deal with the same issue as its signalling also overlaps broadcast allocation. I'll fall back on the experience with Telco deregulation. The Telcos argued only they were competent to design and install communication equipment.

We need to separate technical considerations from policy. Technical issues can be dealt with by standards and best practice engineering. The issue here is one of policy. Where does the service provider's responsibility end and where does the customer/building owner's begin? I don't see this as any different then how power/communication/water/sewer are handled today.

/tom
59126125 (banned)
join:2006-01-21

59126125 (banned) to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:

While that might be all good in theory, some buildings were wired up at the expense of the cable company.

Again, "The FCC wants to revive a court rejected order.."

The FCC wants to foster competition by taking from one and giving to the other. How about the FCC just stop being Robinhood or over stepping the law and stop taking from one and giving to another, or simply quit tying to be authoritarian over anything that has signal.

Some buildings were wired at the expense of the cable company and some buildings were wired at the expense of th building owner.

If the building owner owns the wires, then it should be up to the building owner to set rules. If the cable company wired and owns the cables, then who is the FCC to, in a sense, seize private property and give it to someone else?

I think what's more in question is who is the FCC to tell building owners what they have to do with private property? Building owners who rent their property should have the right to say who can and can't come into the building in the first place. (which they currently do)

If the video operator is on the property, chances are that the building owner gave them permission and how they connected up to the video system was negotiated at that point. Seems pretty clear to me... simple.. FCC - STAY OUT OF THIS! It's a private matter...

.. and to thwart off the people here that will say "but the renter has the right to choose"... no, they don't. Not in a rental situation. If the building owner wants only Cablevision to come in and keep Fios out, that's the property owner's right.

The FCC, which is the government, loves to sit back in their $3,000 leather chairs with their chests puffed out telling everyone else how they have to spend their money.
Sounds like the same arguments used by the former Bell System.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup to fiberguy2

Premium Member

to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:

While that might be all good in theory, some buildings were wired up at the expense of the cable company.

Again, "The FCC wants to revive a court rejected order.."

The FCC wants to foster competition by taking from one and giving to the other.
It has been done.

Before divestiture all inside telephone wiring was placed by TPC at no cost to the building owner. Inside wire was deregulated and TPC was forced to give it away to the building owner.

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

POB

Premium Member

Yeah And

This decision means essentially zip to renters because it's not the FCC who decides what can be drilled, wired or ran anywhere on the rental property or within the unit, it is the property mgt company and/or lessor. Period. And if the former doesn't give permission, then renters are shit outta luck.

Of course the more savvy property owners will have already figured out that if the unit is broadband friendly, then their chances of renting it out become increased. Who (under age 50) rents an apartment these days and doesn't ask about or determine before hand whether the unit is cable and/or broadband ready?

nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium Member
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA

nixen

Premium Member

Re: Yeah And

said by POB:

Who (under age 50) rents an apartment these days and doesn't ask about or determine before hand whether the unit is cable and/or broadband ready?
People with other, more basic priorities? I'm pretty sure the house-full of immigrant laborers hast connectivity as a fairly low priority.

•••

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup to POB

Premium Member

to POB
said by POB:

Who (under age 50) rents an apartment these days and doesn't ask about or determine before hand whether the unit is cable and/or broadband ready?
How about all those clowns that are bound by 75 year triple play exclusive contracts with builder/HOA hustlers?

CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium Member
join:2004-11-12

CableTool

Premium Member

Cha- Ching.

As Fiber pointed out, usually there is a large cost involved in wiring up a building. What this will most likely do is prohibit buildings from being wired by the cable company and most likely foster more DIY building wiring jobs that in the end is a large mess of unuseable daisy chained electricians magic cable.

I wouldnt invest 80k in wiring a building knowing that they can turn around and sign an exclusivity contract with another provider on our investment.

Most larger buildings that this article would pertain to already have an agreement signed before the wiring is done.. so Im not sure how this would gel with current agreements.

Its like saying a developer can build a house and another developer can sell it to someone and take all the profit. ( loosly)The investment was made. It was made based on a return.
No cable company is going to wire up a building and then just stand back while dish and other providers run their service through the provided lines.

Now obviously if the buildings had it wired up, so be it.

In any event, this is done everyday. Dish takes cable lines, cable takes them back, etc etc. In the places Ive worked with two providers there have been two lockboxes and two sets of wires. We didnt use each others wires ever.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: Cha- Ching.

said by CableTool:

As Fiber pointed out, usually there is a large cost involved in wiring up a building. What this will most likely do is prohibit buildings from being wired by the cable company and most likely foster more DIY building wiring jobs that in the end is a large mess of unuseable daisy chained electricians magic cable.

It's Deja vu all over again. Welcome to divestiture 2007. Now the leeches have leeches. BWHHHHAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAHHHHAHAHAHHAHAH ha.
josh2244
join:2007-06-06
Beverly Hills, CA

josh2244

Member

CLECs won this fight already

Soon enough all media will be treated the same.
Telephones generate "media" that is moved over wires.
In telecom and cable a new company has access to the hardwire because it was licensed by the public.
Technically, a community owns wires on public poles and running in public underground routing.
The Courts, on the other hand, rejected the issue at hand because of the differences in state and local laws granting where ownership begins and ends.
The beauty is we will all be wireless soon enough and
everybody will receive their own encryption key and Wi-Max will solve our last mile problems.