FCC Bans Exclusive Cable ContractsComcast has another excuse to raise rates... ( old news - 03:10PM Wednesday Oct 31 2007) tags: competition · fcc · business · cableTipped by MADx  As expected (see previous report), the FCC today ruled to ban cable operators from striking exclusive deals with MDU (multiple dwelling unit) landlords. According to the FCC press release (pdf), 30% of Americans live in MDUs, and cable providers are locking many of them into exclusive deals that prevent consumer choice. In a statement, FCC boss Kevin Martin takes aim at rising cable rates: As the Commission has found, from 1995 to 2005, cable rates have risen 93%. In
1995, cable service cost $22.37 per month. Prices for expanded basic cable service have now almost doubled. The trend in pricing of cable services is of particular importance to consumers. Since 1996 the prices of every other communications service (such as long distance and wireless calling) have declined while cable rates have risen year after year after year. However, the new rules aren't an automatic competitive miracle, as they don't force landlords to provide tenants with access to any ISP they choose. Landlords can still deny an ISP access, they just can't use exclusivity clauses as the excuse. The ruling may also not stand up to a legal assault from the cable industry. The cable industry has previously stated they believe the FCC lacks the legal authority to intervene in such agreements. Comcast, pretending consumers don't consistently face rising TV rates come hell or high water anyway, tells the Associated Press the decision will result in -- you guessed it -- rate hikes. "The net result is that many consumers are likely to wind up paying more for services if the FCC's interference in the competitive marketplace stands," Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice said in an e-mailed statement. . . . The cable industry, which had previously said it is unlawful for the government to invalidate existing contracts, said the deals provide apartment residents with better pricing and service. The FCC actually ruled four years ago that such exclusive contracts didn't stifle competition, but that was before AT&T and Verizon decided they wanted to get into the TV business. With some serious collective lobbying firepower, this is more about appeasing the telcos than pleasing consumers, though hopefully the latter will get something vaguely resembling choice out of the new deal.
Related:- Late Night Fun At The FCC
- FCC Moves To Block Comcast Growth
- Cable Takes Legal Aim At FCC
- FCC Votes To Cap Cable Growth
- NY Attorney General Investigating Comcast
- Comcast Sues FCC Over 30% Cap
- Comcast Tells FCC To Butt Out
- FCC Okays Verizon To Steal Back Defecting Customers
|
 |  | 
davoice
join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread Basically it allows the MDU to double dip. They can now go back to the original contract holder, legally threaten to bring someone else in and look for additional concessions. Or they can bring in a 2nd provider, stick their hands on both providers pockets and play both sides of the field. Whee.
}Davoice | |
| | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
edit:
October 31st, @03:23PM
| Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread said by davoice :Basically it allows the MDU to double dip. They can now go back to the original contract holder, legally threaten to bring someone else in and look for additional concessions. Or they can bring in a 2nd provider, stick their hands on both providers pockets and play both sides of the field. Whee. That is about it - for existing apartment buildings. And if they can squeeze out better terms by pitting one against the other, they MIGHT pass those savings on to their tenants. But they also might just pocket the savings for themselves.
With a new apartment building going up, the power is probably a little less. A TV provider probably won't want to pay the costs of pre-wiring the building knowing that the building owner could then bring another vendor in at any time to blackjack the original provider in to lowering rates even more. The building owner could still play one vendor off against the other, but the significant capital costs of wiring the building for a promise of an exclusive contract can no longer be used. So my guess is that building owners will have to pay their own upfront capital costs for wiring the new building. And it is this scenario that is the basis for Comcast and the cable industry claiming costs could rise for the consumer.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
| | | | NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread We'll I can think of certain apartments around here that will take this and finally let comcast or time warner in. Lots of places have some company you've never heard of who provide crappy service.
I wonder if comcast or timewarner has worked with complexes to wire cable only and forces them to use thier voip phone service. No phone line so you can not get dsl or anything. | |
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
edit:
November 1st, @09:41AM
| Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread said by NOCMan :I wonder if comcast or timewarner has worked with complexes to wire cable only and forces them to use thier voip phone service. No phone line so you can not get dsl or anything. Many times. I've heard you get just phone jacks. There is a cable version of a DSLAM serving the whole building or the flood in a closet. So you dont need to worry about a modem or a battery for it. (Although if your not looking after the battery, who is?  ) | |
| | | | 
Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| A TV provider probably won't want to pay the costs of pre-wiring the building knowing that the building owner could then bring another vendor in at any time to blackjack the original provider in to lowering rates even more.
this is a false assumption. the problem most old buildings have is one cable provider does not want to share it's cable tray with another, and the building does not want two sets of cable trays in their hallways. if they kick out the original cable provider, he can remove his wiring from the tray before the next provider comes in the building, but most buildings would not allow such disruption of service to their tenants.
in the case of a new building, the cable provider would either negotiate to retain ownership and maintenance of the distribution wiring, or only bring his service to the distribution box, and building maintenance is responsible for maintaining distribution wiring. either way, the wiring plant can't be used as leverage when enlisting another provider.
As far as this FCC ruling goes; it does not go far enough. while I would not want it to break existing deals, it should have more teeth to compel building management to allow competition to come in their building if dwellers want it. if 5% of building occupants want a new provider, and that provider is willing to light up that building, there should be a legal remedy to compel building management to allow it, assuming the new cable provider does not do damage to the building in order to distribute service there. or if 5% of a building want roof access for satellite dishes, there should be a better and more enforceable legal remedy to do so. So the power to break any building's monopoly is still in the hands of the building management, not in the hands of the individual consumer who is overpaying a monopolist cable provider. | |
| | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | They deserve it for doing those kind of anti-competitive deals in the first place. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread 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..." | |
| | DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX | You are right, but it is a big deal for Verizon in apartment complexes that have already got FiOS installed but previously couldn't have FiOS TV because of exclusive contracts. | |
| | |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
edit:
October 31st, @04:11PM
| Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread said by DMS1 :You are right, but it is a big deal for Verizon in apartment complexes that have already got FiOS installed but previously couldn't have FiOS TV because of exclusive contracts. You are right that this would wipe out existing exclusive contracts(if the company is a cable company). But the timing of getting the services offered might be delayed by court cases and injunctions. The cable industry beat the FCC in court before and won't go down without a fight this time either.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by DMS1 :You are right, but it is a big deal for Verizon in apartment complexes that have already got FiOS installed but previously couldn't have FiOS TV because of exclusive contracts. Not True At All!
FiOS still has to get permission from the complex, building, or property owner, to get the Right Of Entry. Verizon's FiOS is going to need to being in new lines on the property. It would be different if they were doing something like U-
Verse, which if I recall was never banned by an exclusive agreement since the service already existed.
No 'exclusive agreement' could stop a provider from sending more services down an existing wire. It stopped them from connecting to existing wires of another provider/type. IE, FiOS taking CableVision off the Coax for their own.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | JohnA
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread
In many cases the exclusive deal was made with the builder of the complexes, and imposed on the MDU or Condo Assn. Many have contracts as long as 25 years, and the Assn is powerless to break them. | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread Yea? and? Buyer, beware. Renter, beware. It's part of the free market. If the exclusive contract is a horrible thing, then potential buyers should use caution.
Lemme explain - structures are built with things in mind to increase value and sometimes things people do decrease value. In this market, if broadband, telephone, or television choices are a big deal, then it's probably a bad idea to invest into that property because it could be a negative to the potential business ability - ie: renters. If renters are going to be turned off by the limitations, then it hurts. Why buy the property? The issue is, the renter really doesn't have a say in the owner's business other than to do business with them or not. ie: rent from them. If you are a renter that wants specific service that you can't offer, the renter is likely to go elsewhere making your rentals harder to sell.
As for the "In many cases the exclusive deal was made with the builder of the complexes, and imposed on the MDU or Condo Assn." Not true. Many of the builders were hired by the owners and it was the owners that signed the agreement. The general contractor just does what they are asked of by the owners - usually a corporation that wanted to save money on the bottom line. HOAs are formed by two ways.. the builder or the owner formed association. Again, if it was formed by the builder and potential buyers, which are disclosed, want, say, Qwest for telephone and find out they can only get Cox, and it's a selling point, then the buyer may likely turn away from the seller. Other buyers may certainly buy into it, and later fight to change something they were aware of - or simply get remorse in which case I don't feel sorry for. This is a country of individuals that have a long history of not wanting to honor the contracts they sign.
Again, it's the free market at work. In the case of an apartment complex - still, as a renter, it's not your place to decide on the business dealings of the owners. This is why at all costs I am against this ruling and I hope it dies in a court battle which I am sure will be launched.
People here want competition in the market. Those that support this ban are actually against free market. Why? Before you hit reply - in the case of a renter of an apartment, YOU ARE NOT the part of the free market/competition equation as it's NOT your building or residence. A home? HOA? Another story.. but still.. buyer beware.
Due diligence works in the private sector as well.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| said by fiberguy :said by DMS1 :You are right, but it is a big deal for Verizon in apartment complexes that have already got FiOS installed but previously couldn't have FiOS TV because of exclusive contracts. Not True At All! FiOS still has to get permission from the complex, building, or property owner, to get the Right Of Entry. Verizon's FiOS is going to need to being in new lines on the property. It would be different if they were doing something like U- Verse, which if I recall was never banned by an exclusive agreement since the service already existed. No 'exclusive agreement' could stop a provider from sending more services down an existing wire. It stopped them from connecting to existing wires of another provider/type. IE, FiOS taking CableVision off the Coax for their own. Read what I wrote. I was specifically referring to the situation where FiOS is already installed, but FiOS TV isn't available because of an existing exclusive agreement. I live in an apartment complex that is in exactly that situation. | |
| | | | | grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread I thought uverse wasn't considered "cable" service. That is how they got away without having to deal with franchise agreements? | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| You are correct.. and why is that?? because FiOS wants to put their video signal over the existing coax wire which cable tv has exclusive access to since they put it in. Additionally, "for their work" and because of the agreement, the owner of the building may not allow others to wire during the period of the agreement.
If FiOS was more like U-Verse and they didn't have to put anything over the existing coax (example, they could drop a modem on the copper then a coax to the tv with out using the house wire) then I don't think that the agreement means squat.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| 
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD | The #1 reason I switched to satellite . . . was constantly rising Comcast cableTV rates. | |
| 
partysource
join:2000-11-25
Phoenix, AZ | Screw Cable I will stick to my Direct TV. With the leader in HD you can't go wrong. Use them for TV and Cox Cable for my Internet. Don't even go there people about it's HD lite because it's not! | |
| | | YellowDart
join:2003-07-09
world | So does this apply to housing developments So does this apply to housing developments where builders negotiate exclusive deals with one provider? | |
| 
Jon
Premium
join:2001-01-20
Lisle, IL | You've always had "a choice" Assuming you facing the right direction, you could always stick a dish on you balcony or patio. There's always rabbit ears too.  | |
| | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
 ·Time Warner VOIP
 ·1and1
| Re: You've always had "a choice" yah tell that to some places. I was looking at a place in Toledo Oh and the company said Nope! Not happening. So i sent them the link from the FCC and they stopped talking to me about moving in. But they also have some stupid rule where you cant BBQ on your patio either its a "fire hazard" Sounds like an HOA that rents to me. but most places still claim they can stop you from having Dish and DirecTV. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: You've always had "a choice" Honestly, with clear rules from the Gov on dishes, I'd still have followed up on this one with a complaint. To this day, I bet they'd still deny you the right. One phone call from an investigator will confirm that.
Second - BBQs on patios? First off, not a good idea even in a single family home. Second, YEA for ALL apartments that ban this. (Which most do usually at the order of the fire marshall) The last thing I was is someone irresponsible or someone who doesn't maintain their grill burning down the entire building.. Most 'complexes' will usually have a BBQ area on the grounds somewhere.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
·Time Warner VOIP
·1and1
| Re: You've always had "a choice" True. But when contacting the city regarding it they have no clue what is being asked; but the place even goes to the point of even the small table top grills. But anyway; most places do not allow dish or directv regardless of what you say. They say its their property they'll do as they please like it or not don't live there. | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: You've always had "a choice" Yea.. no grill is no grill. When did size count? Fire is fire. That's an issue these days with people. If there is a rule of "no gilling on the patio" that means none. People try to say "but it's a little one" or "it's a table top".. doesn't matter. a Grill is a grill.
As for "they is it's their property".. fine. File a complaint with the FCC - even now. Even if you don't live there.. file the complaint. The fact is they are granted a permit to operate at the pleasure of the laws that govern them. If they violate the laws, various agencies have the ability to take action. One complex here local to me snubbed the city - the city pulled their license finally and they can no longer rent OR renew any existing leases when they end. And yes, it's their property and they can do what they want. Doesn't mean the government will allow them to continue operating their business, or won't fine the hell out of them, including a court order to force them.
To be honest.. complexes that don't get it 1) are few and far between. 2) are forced to allow it when someone makes noise. It all depends on how one wants to approach it.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by fiberguy :Honestly, with clear rules from the Gov on dishes, I'd still have followed up on this one with a complaint. To this day, I bet they'd still deny you the right. One phone call from an investigator will confirm that. They can deny you all they want but from the looks of it, the FCC has a good track record of telling apartment complexes, condos and HOA communities to allow the dishes.
»www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html#links | |
| | | | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| Yeah, nearly all apartment complexes have a rule against grilling on the patios and balconies. Typically more honored in the breach than the observance. Certainly almost everyone had one in the apartment complex I lived in.
Then one of the buildings burned down.
Oh, wait, it had nothing to do with the grills, it was an electrical fire.
Make rules that people find stupid and unreasonable, and people are going to break them. At the end of the day the only power the complex owner has is that of eviction, and not only is it a pain in the ass, provided you pay the rent on time and don't get the cops called too often, he's probably not going to consider it worth it to enforce his rules. | |
| | | emptywig
Huh? What?
Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX
edit:
November 1st, @09:35AM
| Yah, some places are so stupid - they don't want you to burn down their building.
If you're an idiot and if you BBQ on your apartment patio I'd throw you out. Most states have laws like that, its not a "rule" that the apartment made up. Its a law, to keep over-inebriated dingbats from burning down the building.
As for table-top grills (not electric grills) just remember this: all big fires started from a small fire.
That IS a fire hazard. That's the kind of stupid s*&t that costs innocent people their homes and lives.
wig
--
Sometimes a paradox is just a paradox | |
| 
PaulHikeS2
join:2003-03-06
Merrimack, NH
| TV is a communications service? From the news article:
"As the Commission has found, from 1995 to 2005, cable rates have risen 93%. In
1995, cable service cost $22.37 per month. Prices for expanded basic cable service have now almost doubled. The trend in pricing of cable services is of particular importance to consumers. Since 1996 the prices of every other communications service (such as long distance and wireless calling) have declined while cable rates have risen year after year after year."
I question Martin's assertation that cable TV is a communications service. I have never used my tv to communicate with anyone, rather it's a source of information and entertainment.
Last time I checked, athlete's salaries, actors salaries, movies prices, tv syndication rights, and tv sports contracts have skyrocketed, and it's my understanding that these things play no small part in the rates for pay TV service. I don't think any of those things come into play when considering my long distance bill.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
| | bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | Re: TV is a communications service? Not long from now it will be-actually already is to a degree in some markets. The area b/w TV and 'communication equip' is getting smaller and grayer-soon there will be NO difference. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| The commission is a joke. in 10 years, rates have doubled.. And? Have they seen the price of gas more than triple in half the time?
Prices go up. In 10 years, cable has changed from being a 60 channel service with one of each premium, in many systems, to over 300 available channels, with 2-way services, OnDemand, etc.
As you said, other costs go up as well which influences the cost of the very product being sold here.
So Martin, in all his glory is comparing telephone and long distance to cable tv? Cellular and Long Distance was always over priced, and new technology. Cable TV has been offering more and more. Long distance was always over priced in my opinion too. 25 cents per minute? Really... Also, what Martin doesn't pay attention to is that he needs to compare cable TV to prepaid or no-contract cellular service. If he did, he'd see that cell phones aren't cheaper when you compare total cost of ownership. It's just packaged, and contracted to LOOK like a "good deal"..
Second, he's comparing two different industries... and if he wants to say he's not and that he can certainly compare the two, then I wish he and his other buddies would compare the rise in cost of the TV services to the cost of a price of gas.
Not all things are equal and should be compared. I will, however, compare him to a telephone shill - his policy is 100% geared to that industry.
The sooner this dork is out of office, the better.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| So... As is said, As expected (see previous report), the FCC today ruled to ban cable operators from striking exclusive deals with MDU (multiple dwelling unit) landlords. Does this mean the ruling only bans cable providers from doing this?
So it means that Satellite providers can continue to do this? I know several people that live in apartment buildings that are only served by DirecTV or Dish Network.
And are Verizon and AT&T allowed to go into buildings and get exclusivity, and the cable companies can't?
If this is not the case, then this DSLR article is worded wrong and should not say "Cable Contracts" or "ban cable operators." | |
| |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
edit:
October 31st, @04:14PM
| Re: So... said by smcallah :So it means that Satellite providers can continue to do this? I know several people that live in apartment buildings that are only served by DirecTV or Dish Network. And are Verizon and AT&T allowed to go into buildings and get exclusivity, and the cable companies can't? My reading of the news release on the order says that it does not apply to ALL video providers - only cable under section 628 of the Communications Act.
»fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···63A1.pdf
Says the news release:
The Commission also adopted a Further Notice of the Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) that seeks comment on whether we should take action to address exclusivity clauses entered into by DBS providers(that is satellite companies), private cable operators, and other MVPDs(that is the telcos) who are not subject to Section 628. Basically Martin is still on a tear trying his best to screw cable companies and help the telcos.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
| 
prodigy10
@rr.com | a is this effective now
im a little confused
would i be able to get direct tv at my apartment or would direct tv need to have some contract with the buildin so people can subscribe for it
i wanna try to get direct tv asap | |
| | 
brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07
Brooklyn, NY | Nothing Now they can ripp that mdu out and not offer anything to customers since they have no contracts. | |
| 
tater_gunz
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Congrats! Enjoy having to pay to have your new house wired with coax! Or, better yet, having nothing at all (for those who are building in new communities that are no longer attractive targets for plant expansion)!
Any MDU tenants that had discounted service due to exclusivity deals can probably kiss those reduced rates goodbye too.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Congrats! Plant and inside wiring is two different things. Cable, under the franchise authority, is usually required to PASS the property in the area. To EXTEND the plant on to the property of an apartment complex is usually part of the agreement to wire the apartment community.
Telephone, on the other hand, (copper - not fiber unless it's their primary delivery) IS required to pass all living units.
When it comes to apartments, if the complex is in the franchise area, cable MUST, at minimum, pass the property with the plant to make it serviceable. However, cable is not required to extend plant on to the property unless the owners want it in.
Cable has been also installing the coax in the new building or via outside molding to existing complexes at no cost for exclusive access in many cases.
What this new rule will likely do is not really give new builds any greater competition. I think what is going to happen is that an apartment owner may tell one or the other "stay out" which will cause the reverse of what's happening now.
Believe it or not, in the case of Verizon vs Comcast, there are people that don't want anything to do with Verizon. Not everyone hates cable... This would, if were the case, open up yet another problem.
The point I'm making is that with this new rule, there is much uncertainty to come but I think it will only affect new build, not existing. Even in existing cases, the competitor will still have to get permission to enter the property with their service.
Let the new set of problems begin.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | emptywig
Huh? What?
Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX |
I don't know what you're talking about. The cable company doesn't wire up people's houses with coax. Maybe MDU, but not houses. At least not here.
wig
--
Sometimes a paradox is just a paradox | |
| | |
tater_gunz
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: Congrats! said by emptywig :I don't know what you're talking about. The cable company doesn't wire up people's houses with coax. Maybe MDU, but not houses. At least not here. wig I obviously can't speak as any kind of authority on the subject but I know it's not uncommon for MSO's to make deals with builders to wire new buildings / houses in return for a crack at exclusivity. I believe this is much more likely to occur in a new development, where many houses are constructed at once. When I wrote my comment I was really thinking more about newly built apartment communities and housing developments that would require extension of the MSO's physical plant in order to pass the customer. Fiberguy mentioned regulatory obligations to provide services to these type of customers (see above -- he seems to know a lot more than I do about this particular subject). I'll concede that I'm not 100% familiar with all aspects of this issue, so take my comments with a grain of salt.
- Tate
| |
|
phoneguy
@comcast.net | does this apply to phone service What does this ruling specify regarding telephone services provided by Cable company?
My MDU has exclusive deal with comcast. After this ruling, do the tenants have a right to request service from telcos? | |
| | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: does this apply to phone service they might but doesnt mean you will get it. The MDU/property still gets a say so on who can come in they just cant set an exclusive deal. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: does this apply to phone service This one would be interesting.. If this ruling is actually able to survive, I would wonder very hard if they complex could keep them out.
Void of an exclusive agreement, phone has the obligation to wire every home.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
·Time Warner VOIP
·1and1
| Re: does this apply to phone service how do they have an obligation? before the telco wanted into video the FCC didnt give a damn about what the cable co's did really. but now they want into play cable companies but they're not "cable". but you are serviced for cable, phone and internet with a cable company, or one that has been agreed to offer you services. but the ruling says that you can request another provider but the complex still can turn down them building within. so basically its still an exclusive agreement with the "option" to get someone else. But as the cable companies; i don't see where the FCC can get off being a court system. The FCC is just a bunch of Telco Monkeys. | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: does this apply to phone service I am SO confused by your post.. sorry.
But, "how do they.." who are you referring to they? Telco?
Telco has to pass all homes, unlike cable. Cable must wire according to the negotiated franchise agreement. They key is "pass"..
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| 
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs: | Anybody want to guess? Anybody want to venture a guess as to which telco good old Kev is trying to impress most for his post FCC career? Surely there's a home for him at Verizon and AT&T. | |
| cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA | mmmmm nice biased, judgemental news piece, good work | |
| 
Koil
join:2002-09-10
West Columbia, SC
| Concerning MDU's and satellites My apartment complex, along with many others, suppress people from getting any type of satellite service. Not because of some exclusive deal they struck up with a cable company, but due to the fact that they don't want a bunch of half assed installed DirecTV dishes sitting on cinder blocks, with cables hanging all over the place on everyones back deck, or even worse, front porch.
It would look like a ghetto fab, mini-satellite farm or something.
I'm sure some places are locked into deals and such, but I have to agree that having all of those little dishes everywhere would look like a fat bag of asses.
--
I want to die in my sleep, like my grandfather. Not kicking and screaming like the people in his car. | |
| | | | smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| And if the apartment complex was smart, they'd get a professional to install a dish or two on each building, and run coax from multiswitches so that everyone in a single building can be fed from one or two dishes.
If the tenant decides to get DirecTV or Dish Network, the complex hooks their coax input to the sat multiswich. If the customer wants cable, the complex hooks their coax input to the cable company's tap.
I don't know why more apartment complexes don't get a dish installed per building and feed people off of multiswitches if they want the service. It is ridiculous to see apartment buildings that have a dish on every balcony, or a row of dishes lined up on the ground. Especially when multiswitches have been available for so long.
HOA's could do the same thing for townhomes or row houses. One dish per unit, instead of one for each house. | |
| jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
| Why do they keep saying we have "free market"? We have an oligopoly at best. It's normally a duopoly or even a monopoly. Free Market doesn't work when there is NO competition in an area. Two or Three companies acting as essentially one does not constitute "free market". It seemed better a couple of years ago when I lived in So. Cal. There were several different DSL companies to choose from, and the rates would go down. Go figure... | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Why do they keep saying we have "free market"? said by jjeffeory : It seemed better a couple of years ago when I lived in So. Cal. There were several different DSL companies to choose from, and the rates would go down. Go figure... ... and they all ran over the same set of ILEC copper. The NON-Telco ISPs were usually more expensive, have transfer caps, heavy restrictions, no servers, expensive static IP options, etc. Usually, the ILEC's ISP was always the cheapest option. The third party ISP is quickly becoming an after thought.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
edit:
November 1st, @12:48AM
| Re: Why do they keep saying we have "free market"? No no no... That wasn't my experience at all. I had fixed IP DSL at a faster rate than the telco, It was cheaper too. Of course they all ran over the same set of ILEC copper. That simply meant that the telco company was getting a bit of THAT action too. It was a win for all parties and pointed out the problems we have today, It also pointed out the "problems" the ISP had dealing with the telco over the physical part.
Oh and how can you "usually always" be cheaper? You either are "usually cheaper" or are "always cheaper". That doesn't make sense. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| |
|
|
|
Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread
·