dslreports logo
Cable Industry Takes Aim At FCC Exclusivity Order
Says FCC can't scrap existing contracts with landlords...

Last October the FCC banned cable operators from striking exclusive contracts with apartment 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. The ruling contradicted a 2003 FCC decision that embraced exclusive deals between MSOs and MDU owners, but that was before phone companies entered the TV business.

The new FCC rules weren't an automatic competitive miracle, as they didn'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, who this week fired up their legal machine to seek a stay on the FCC order, stating the FCC doesn't have the right to nullify existing contracts:
quote:
"By this motion, NCTA seeks to stay only the latter aspect of the order, asking the Court to maintain the status quo with regard to existing contracts," the NCTA noted in the petition. It also argued that "cable operators have made substantial investments that they will not be able to recoup if the exclusivity provisions of existing contracts are abrogated."
view:
topics flat nest 
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus

Member

laws can grant statutory rights

The real question is if their legal authority to do this comes from a law, or is equivalent to a law. The FTC can come along and say that contracts with a minor are unenforceable, and then presto, existing contracts are no longer enforceable.

I think the government can grant statutory rights that cannot be signed away in a contract, like the right to permit access to communication providers. The main question is, does the Federal Communications Commission have the power to interpret Communication related rights from the law. I would argue they do, a good example is the satellite dish rights for tenants, that cannot be denied by a home owners association.
SilverSurfer1
join:2007-08-19

SilverSurfer1

Member

Re: laws can grant statutory rights

said by axus:

The FTC can come along and say that contracts with a minor are unenforceable, and then presto, existing contracts are no longer enforceable.
Contracts with a minor are unenforceable. You got it reversed.
said by axus:


I think the government can grant statutory rights that cannot be signed away in a contract, like the right to permit access to communication providers.
Which happens quite frequently and only gets caught when someone files suit. That's job security for the judicial branch.
said by axus:

The main question is, does the Federal Communications Commission have the power to interpret Communication related rights from the law. I would argue they do, a good example is the satellite dish rights for tenants, that cannot be denied by a home owners association.
FCC interpretation of "communication rights" in the context you are citing is dead on given the sat dish reference, but generally speaking, the FCC does not have the green light to interpret anything on its own. Just one specific instance of this was the FCC v. Pacifica case. Look it up just for giggles. It involved Carlin's "7 Dirty Words" schtick.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer

Member

Civil Rights

All the FCC has to do to win this one is to make it a Civil Rights issue!
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Civil Rights

said by Sammer:

All the FCC has to do to win this one is to make it a Civil Rights issue!
.. Explain.

And who's civil rights takes the front stage? The owners of the cable operator out the money? The owner of the apartment complex who either accepted the deal or asked for it in the first place? or that of the temporary renter of the apartment unit who doesn't own anything and only pays rent to the apartment owner?

I think you're mis-using civil rights issues here since you don't have a civil right to 'choice' in service providers.

TraumaJunkie
Premium Member
join:2004-03-05
Knoxville, TN

TraumaJunkie to Sammer

Premium Member

to Sammer
said by Sammer:

All the FCC has to do to win this one is to make it a Civil Rights issue!
I own the complex I decide who come on my property and runs wiring into my buildings. Simple.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Re: Civil Rights

said by TraumaJunkie:

I decide who come on my property and runs wiring into my buildings. Simple.
And I hope you also fully disclose the intentionally limited choices your tenants have prior to lease signing. Even simpler.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 edit

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Civil Rights

Why should he? You're seriously midguided there.. he, as a landowner, only has to provide the basic services as required by law, and guess what? Cable is not one of them!

Phone, Power, a form of heat, (be it gas or electric) sewer, water, and trash are the only "required services"... cable TV and internet are not one of them NOR do they need to be "fully disclosed" as you put it.

With your post, you've overstepped your boundaries. Would it be nice they were disclosed? sure.. required? no. There are a lot of things that could/should be 'fully disclosed' but to what point should a landlord have to go?

It's already assumed that as a renter there are going to be choices that can be limited. If it's important to the renter, they should ask,... daddy.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Re: Civil Rights

We're talking a "utility" access to which is regulated by the Federal government as well as state and local franchising laws. There are equal-access laws on the books and a landlord cannot lock someone into a lease without disclosing things like restrictions on cable TV vendors.

At some point I trust you will back up your opinion with something resembling facts. Lease law is probably a good place for you to start.

I happen to be a rental property owner and landlord. I have both commercial and residential property in two states. You?
Expand your moderator at work

PolarBear03
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium Member
join:2005-01-03

PolarBear03

Premium Member

Law trumps Contracts

Contract law in the US states that any contract that violates a law is void. Thus, if the FCC makes a law that makes exclusivity illegal, then IMHO the exclusivity contracts should be void.

Example: Walgreens has a contract with Pfizer to buy X bottles of Viagra a month for $xx.xx. FDA does some research, and rules Viagra is unsafe, and thus illegal to sell or distribute. Does this mean Pfizer gets to keep selling Viagra to Walgreens and Walgreens gets to keep selling it to horny ol' Mr. Jones, just because they have a contract? Hell no.

If a contract contains an illegal act, it is void. Remember that when you hire a contract killer.

The cable co's are just bitching because they'll actually have to COMPETE for their business, instead of having it handed to them. Somebody call a whaaaaambulance.

Scatcatpdx
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR

Scatcatpdx

Member

Re: Law trumps Contracts

You are comparing apples and oranges. There is a difference between a contact between to parties and selling an unsafe product. No one safety is jeopardized by exclusive cable agreements nobodies' rights are being violated. remember the customer is a tenant not the owner singed and covenant with the condo owners association. Since the right of the owner has not been violated, FFC has gone to far.

It this situation the powers of the market place should rule. I threated to move out when my contact was out at one apartment ended becease of their exclusive agreement. I mane it clear I was not pleased and will take my dollars elsewhere. eventually t the owners dropped the contract and the agreement was sold to Comcast.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Law trumps Contracts

said by Scatcatpdx:

It this situation the powers of the market place should rule. I threated to move out when my contact was out at one apartment ended becease of their exclusive agreement. I mane it clear I was not pleased and will take my dollars elsewhere. eventually t the owners dropped the contract and the agreement was sold to Comcast.
This is what I said all along since this debate came up.

An apartment complex is a business just like your grocery store is and your car dealership is. Things like on-site laundry, tennis courts, swimming pools, ACCESS TO CABLE or other luxury services are all amenities. Building owners looking to rent their units to their "customers" use these amenities in order to gain business, that would be the renter in this case. Having better access to different services IS a draw for some people as made clear by people on this site alone. If a building or complex owner doesn't want to provide access to each and every provider out there, it's only going to hurt their business.

This IS in fact a "free market" issue and the FCC needs to step back. Now, if the FCC wanted to step up because an apartment/building owner was outright blocking a utility like the telephone all together, then I'd have an issue. However, there STILL is NOTHING that says a building owner has to even allow cable TV into the property, period. The providers are there and able to sell service at the graces of the building owners in the first place.

In this case, Richard B, you did right by the free market. The place you lived didn't provide you what you needed and the building owner pays by losing a tenant and now they pay.. the cost to find another tenant ads up over time. I, on the other hand, when I rented, would always ask in advance if the place was able to allow the services I needed BEFORE I rented. If they didn't then I looked elsewhere.

The fundamental difference in this situation is that renters believe that they have the same rights as home owners, OR that their rights trump those of the apartment/building owners. The renter is nothing more than a consumer and a temporary one at that. When someone rents an apartment, they are buying a product. If I were an apartment owner, I'd be offended, AND, fight to the bitter end over anyone (government) telling me who I can and can't enter into an agreement with because a renter complains. I am harsh when it comes to this.. if you want rights on your home.. buy. Until then, there are usually FAR more people renting because they can't own (for various reasons) than anything. In time, they can buy and set their own destiny.

Now.. as for the case of exclusive agreements set on the street level where a contractor / home developer has made with, say, cable over phone to provider both services to a neighborhood - THOSE, in my opinion, SHOULD be invalidated IMMEDIATELY!

Private property in one thing... public streets are another (and even in MOST HOAs, the streets are still public.) As a HOME OWNER, I am not about anyone else restricting my access to a service.

/end
SilverSurfer1
join:2007-08-19

1 recommendation

SilverSurfer1

Member

Re: Law trumps Contracts

said by fiberguy2:

[...] renters believe that they have the same rights as home owners, OR that their rights trump those of the apartment/building owners.
Not being a property owner with any kind of experience with property management from an owner's perspective, by your own admission, I might add, exactly what are you basing this blanket claim on?
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 edit

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Law trumps Contracts

Your post - as is - makes no sense and can't be responded to.. and places words in my mouth that don't exist, as written.

edit:

but based on the section you quoted me on, I stand by my statement as fact & truth.
SilverSurfer1
join:2007-08-19

1 edit

1 recommendation

SilverSurfer1

Member

Re: Law trumps Contracts

said by fiberguy2:

Your post - as is - makes no sense and can't be responded to.. and places words in my mouth that don't exist, as written.

edit:

but based on the section you quoted me on, I stand by my statement as fact & truth.
Nice attempt at obfuscation and wiggling out of the hot seat, but the question still stands.

1. You admitted that you have no experience as either a property manager OR a property owner in the business of renting to tenants.

2. Based on the above-referenced, what exactly, are you basing your statement on?
"...renters believe that they have the same rights as home owners, OR that their rights trump those of the apartment/building owners.
These were your words verbatim. If you don't understand my question, then it makes me wonder if you even understand your own logic. Clearly, you do not.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Law trumps Contracts

Grow up!

My statement is pretty clear. Renters believe they have the same rights as home owners when it comes to property rights. If you don't get that, then you have a serious learning issue.

Renters believing that their rights trump those of the owners rights, when it comes to property rights (think the context of the topic, genius) is pretty clear at least around these parts.

Do you not understand that renters are a customer and not a land or building owner? Do you not understand that renters don't have the rights to make decisions to the place they only rent on a temporary basis?

Seriously.. what are you not getting?

Further - I won't respond to your message, in whole, mostly because you POINT BLANK put words in my mouth that I have not said.

Get it?
SilverSurfer1
join:2007-08-19

SilverSurfer1

Member

Re: Law trumps Contracts

said by fiberguy2:

Grow up!
Yet another attempt to wiggle out of the hot seat and not answer a direct question.
said by fiberguy2:

My statement is pretty clear. Renters believe they have the same rights as home owners when it comes to property rights.
No, actually, your statement that you denied you even made in the first place was most assuredly not clear. Hence the reason I asked.

You admitted that you have zero experience with either property management or renting property to tenants, but you still, somehow just know that Renters believe they have the same rights as home owners when it comes to property rights. Note: Taken verbatim from your statement. You still have yet to answer that simple question.

Where did you get the info from if you don't have the experience to back it up? Did you shake a magic 8-ball? Did you get it from Fox news? Did you pull it out of your back end?

Answer the question. All else spewing from your direction is nothing more than an attempt to avoid having been caught talking outta yer anus.
Expand your moderator at work

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

1 edit

RadioDoc to fiberguy2

to fiberguy2
Nice rant when it applies to renters, but this also applies to subdivisions, condo associations and co-ops where the end user is not a renter. In many cases the fees are built into the monthly maintenance charges ("condo fees") and opting out is not an option. In those cases the end user is being forcibly led to market whether they want to use the services or not.

Your bias against renters clouds your logic. I know people who have rented their abode for far longer than many owners stay in one house. One has outlasted three landlords.

You say that in most HOAs the streets are still public. That is a false assumption. Most gated communities (for example) have private streets. Otherwise they would not be able to gate themselves off...
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Law trumps Contracts

Doc,

My "rant" about renters stands. Renters do not have the same rights as home owners no matter how long they have rented. You pay rent for 30 years and walk away, you still have nothing.

I stated that for home owners on public land, I disagree with a contractor making decisions for me that last a long time for their own gain - which they are.

You also assume that all HOA's are gated, which they are not. I've lived and owned two houses in an HOA where there was no gate and the roads were public streets. Additionally, you can still have an HOA on public streets and apply for gated community status in some areas.

I also stated that most HOAs, single family, are on public streets and not necessarily gated.. is that a fact? Maybe not.. but in the areas I've lived, it has been. Bar that, it's not important. The point was defining the difference between a renter and a home owner.

With that still said, when you live on a common grounds situation, in a condo complex, you still don't own the land around outside your walls and I do agree that those agreements DO stand. The owner of that HOA benefited from those agreements of past so for any of them to cry foul would be guilty in cheating the provider who wired the place for free. If the contract is voided by the FCC, then the original amount should also be retro active and billed back to the owners (HOA included) ... let's then see how fast people are willing to see them invalidated.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Re: Law trumps Contracts

I made none of the assumptions you attribute to me. Therefore there is no reason to reply to your allegations. I stated examples in opposition to the blanket statements you made and I stand behind them as posted. The additional information you provide makes no sense.
Expand your moderator at work

PolarBear03
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium Member
join:2005-01-03

PolarBear03 to Scatcatpdx

Premium Member

to Scatcatpdx
said by Scatcatpdx:

You are comparing apples and oranges. There is a difference between a contact between to parties and selling an unsafe product. No one safety is jeopardized by exclusive cable agreements nobodies' rights are being violated.
My post wasn't about products or product safety at all. I was making the point that if a law comes into effect that would make a contract void, it should apply to existing contracts as well as new contracts. I was comparing existing contracts to new ones, or Braeburns to Fujis as you put it.

And please do a spell check before you post.

Morac
Cat god
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ

1 edit

Morac to PolarBear03

Member

to PolarBear03
The FCC can't make laws, only Congress can do that. The FCC was given the power to regulate the industry by Congress, but it cannot make laws itselves. The only real power it have is the ability to revoke licenses, which it uses to get the industry to obey it. But because the mandates aren't laws, many are shot down in court.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to PolarBear03

Member

to PolarBear03
Telcos also have these contracts; VZ Avenue (which is just Internet & Phone) and AT&T has them with their DishNetwork service in areas in Cali.

Why aren't those illegal and just cable? oh besides the services are provided different to the property? BULL SHIT!

What applies to the Cable Cos Telcos should have to follow the same; instead of trying to create new rules and laws to give them what they want.

PolarBear03
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium Member
join:2005-01-03

PolarBear03

Premium Member

Re: Law trumps Contracts

said by hottboiinnc4:

Why aren't those illegal and [not] just cable?

Oh, I think they should be. I agree with you. I only made reference to cable because the article is titled "Cable Industry Takes Aim At FCC Exclusivity Order."

supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

supergirl to PolarBear03

Member

to PolarBear03
said by PolarBear03:

Contract law in the US states that any contract that violates a law is void. Thus, if the FCC makes a law that makes exclusivity illegal, then IMHO the exclusivity contracts should be void.

Example: Walgreens has a contract with Pfizer to buy X bottles of Viagra a month for $xx.xx. FDA does some research, and rules Viagra is unsafe, and thus illegal to sell or distribute. Does this mean Pfizer gets to keep selling Viagra to Walgreens and Walgreens gets to keep selling it to horny ol' Mr. Jones, just because they have a contract? Hell no.

If a contract contains an illegal act, it is void. Remember that when you hire a contract killer.

The cable co's are just bitching because they'll actually have to COMPETE for their business, instead of having it handed to them. Somebody call a whaaaaambulance.
If the contract is deemed "unconscionable", it doesn't have to be executed either. (The U.S. Supreme Court’s “shock the conscience test” (Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183 (1952)).

Uhh, if you hire someone to kill someone, sure the prosecution isn't going to buy the "void" contract baloney and send you to jail forever anyway.

As far as the Walgreens situation, Pfizer has to pull all the Viagra. The contract would not be void but considered consummated.

james16
join:2001-02-26

james16

Member

Re: Law trumps Contracts

The point is that if you are hired to kill someone (or commit any illegal deed), you cannot be sued for not following through with your contract if you changed your mind. I'm sure this only applies to civil courts, since you'd likely still be charged with conspiracy unless you cut a plea bargain.

Cabal
Premium Member
join:2007-01-21

1 edit

Cabal

Premium Member

When a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...

Apparently these stories are starting to make it to the general public. As a member of the Board of Directors for my condo, I was informed at our last meeting that an owner had sent us a letter regarding the exclusive agreement we "have" with Comcast, claiming it was against the law, and threatening to SUE us. Ignoring for a moment the stupidity of threatening to sue your own condo's BoD (who are all residents volunteering their free time to meet and conduct business with the management company we hire), we

A.) Have no such agreement, nor provide any such services as an organization.
B.) Have plenty of residents with Verizon DSL and phone service (FiOS supposedly due by August, MDU-issues depending).
C.) Only have cable access through Comcast because they're the only cable company in town.

Unfortunate...

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Re: When a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...

said by Cabal:

C.) Only have cable access through Comcast because they're the only cable company in town.

Unfortunate...
Yes, but it is your fault there is only one cable company in town and since we (residents) pay (fill in pittance here) in good money to the Association it is your job to get us infinite channels for no money.

(Sadly, I am only slightly exaggerating. Eight years on a condo board, six as president, speaking from experience.)

The bigger issue is whether exclusive contracts are enforceable when the money paid for the exclusive service by the tenant/resident/owner is not optional. The FCC seems silent on that one (as they should be).

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Dogfather

Premium Member

Waaaahhhhh

The FCC can't kill our money tree waaaaahhhhhh...

The FCC can't stop our monopolies waaaaaahhhhhhh

My violin is playing for the poor oppressed cable companies. /sarcasm
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

majortom1029

Member

wow

I hope this means that verizon and satelllite providers cant do the same thing.

furlonium
join:2002-05-08
Allentown, PA

furlonium

Member

No SUBJECT!

My friend lives in a town-housing complex, and the entire place is locked into a contract with a company called Hotire - their cable tv quality is laughable, and their 1.5mbps internet service is, at best and only for brief periods, about 500kbps.

Sucks. Well, for him. I have Mach 20

NicholasG
@myvzw.com

NicholasG

Anon

Cable Companies Not the Only Ones Made at Martin

Have you all seen this Portfolio.com interview with Gerry Layborne - the former head of Oxygen? She lays into Martin pretty good. Here are a few gems:

"I've spent a good deal of time with Kevin Martin and the F.C.C. Kevin Martin just plain does not like cable. I don't know what it is exactly. He came in, and he had this idea to have a family tier. And we basically told him, "A family tier won't work. We've been offering families the ability to lock out objectionable programming. We make it available for free. We make it available easily. And we don't think a family tier will work." "That doesn't matter. We still want you to do the family tier." Okay, we did the family tier. And guess what? It didn't work. Then he was annoyed. In some ways, he would like to go back to the 1950s. He would like to have three networks that have Leave It to Beaver on it, but that's not where our country is. That's not what people want to watch. I don't know how much I want to say here."

Wow. Impressive.

•••••••••••
Randall_Lind
join:2004-01-24
Saint Petersburg, FL

Randall_Lind

Member

Cable is $20 cheaper since choice

I live is an apartment and people should have choice. I have BrightHouse which is TW basically and since another cable company came in my complex 3 yeears ago my rates are cheaper.

I pay $20 less for more tv/internet/phone then my friend which is down the road with no choice other then BrightHouse.

The other outfit sucks but, that not the point. No choice they don't care what you pay.

Buttset
join:2001-11-12
Ladson, SC

1 edit

Buttset

Member

...hmmm

"Let the buyer beware..."

Consumer's (potential tenants) must talk with landlords and ASK which services are available, before signing a lease/rental agreement. If the property does not meet your needs, PLEASE tell the landlord what made you choose to not move in or why the property was attractive to you.

You can believe this: Unoccupied properties are the only way to get landlords to take a "second look".

It's a good idea to physically count the number of phone & cable jacks BEFORE moving in (hard to do a decent wiring job after the walls are up).

Competition is good. Having only a single choice is not.