 decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
| hate it for em Seriously.. Unlawful? Comeone, they friggin have an illegal monopoly with these places and theres not a damn thing the tenants can do about it and they say it'd be unlawful to overturn this?!?
What bothers me, is that theres gonna be some that aggressively defend comcast on this.... | |
|  | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: hate it for em said by decifal  :Seriously.. Unlawful? Comeone, they friggin have an illegal monopoly with these places and theres not a damn thing the tenants can do about it and they say it'd be unlawful to overturn this?!? What bothers me, is that theres gonna be some that aggressively defend comcast on this.... There's still not a damn thing a tenant can do about it.
Put yourself in that scenario.
Fine, the contract is over. Who do you get service from?
You can't get a dish, because the FCC rules do not cover apartment buildings.
You can't get IPTV because those providers will not service MDUs.
You can't get another cable company because areas with MDU contracts don't have overbuilders in the first place (hence why the apartment owners agree to MDU contracts).
Who do you get service from?
Oh, and your lease already specifies your monthly payment which does not change now that you no longer get free cable. So, your real savings is zero; and you have no provider.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | 
DownTheShore
R.I.P Bobby Murcer
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Edison, NJ
clubs:
| Re: hate it for em said by marigolds :Oh, and your lease already specifies your monthly payment which does not change now that you no longer get free cable. So, your real savings is zero; and you have no provider. No free cable in this MDU. I don't know of any large apartment complexes in this area that offer it. Unless it's, perhaps, in the senior residences or low-income housing units...
--
Life is simply one damned thing after another. | |
| | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: hate it for em said by DownTheShore :said by marigolds :Oh, and your lease already specifies your monthly payment which does not change now that you no longer get free cable. So, your real savings is zero; and you have no provider. No free cable in this MDU. I don't know of any large apartment complexes in this area that offer it. Unless it's, perhaps, in the senior residences or low-income housing units... Do you have an exclusive contract too though?
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | | |
DownTheShore
R.I.P Bobby Murcer
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Edison, NJ
clubs:
edit:
December 14th, @03:31PM
| Re: hate it for em Cablevision is the only land-based cable TV connection allowed, though in the past year or so they've allowed DirectTV installations, with satellite dishes placed on the balconies.
--
Life is simply one damned thing after another. | |
| | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| IPTV doesn't require anything other than an IP capable stream getting into the premise that supports the high bandwidth. If you're thinkig of FiOS... well that's not IPTV. Also the FCC has certain provisions for Dish customers living in apartments. Some can get it. | |
| | | dbonamo
join:2002-12-19
Greenville, SC
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by marigolds :said by decifal :Seriously.. Unlawful? Comeone, they friggin have an illegal monopoly with these places and theres not a damn thing the tenants can do about it and they say it'd be unlawful to overturn this?!? What bothers me, is that theres gonna be some that aggressively defend comcast on this.... There's still not a damn thing a tenant can do about it. Put yourself in that scenario. Fine, the contract is over. Who do you get service from? You can't get a dish, because the FCC rules do not cover apartment buildings. You can't get IPTV because those providers will not service MDUs. You can't get another cable company because areas with MDU contracts don't have overbuilders in the first place (hence why the apartment owners agree to MDU contracts). Who do you get service from? Oh, and your lease already specifies your monthly payment which does not change now that you no longer get free cable. So, your real savings is zero; and you have no provider. I think your wrong about using a dish, check this link out
»www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html | |
| | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: hate it for em You have to have an exclusive use area in order to be covered by otard rules. Some apartment buildings due provide exclusive balconies and patios to their tenants, but the vast majority considered all walls, roofs, shared balconies, and common patios to be common areas; which means that the fcc rules do not apply.
"Q: If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this rule apply to me?
A: The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling unit building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the antenna user has an exclusive use area in which to install the antenna. "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you, and persons you permit, may enter and use to the exclusion of other residents. For example, your condominium or apartment may include a balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only you can use, and the rule applies to these areas. The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof, the hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls of a condominium or apartment building. Restrictions on antennas installed in these common areas are not covered by the Commission's rule. For example, the rule would not apply to restrictions that prevent drilling through the exterior wall of a condominium or rental unit and thus restrictions may prohibit installation that requires such drilling."
(This rule also means that even if you do have an exclusive use balcony to place your antennae, you have to run the wire through an open door or window or an existing drilled hole.)
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | ltjordan
join:2001-12-02
Hyattsville, MD | Serious question here. What areas actually have competition between two cable operator providers? Every time I read something about a cable company, they usually have a monopoly in the area that they serve. | |
| | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: hate it for em said by ltjordan : Serious question here. What areas actually have competition between two cable operator providers? Every time I read something about a cable company, they usually have a monopoly in the area that they serve. Direct TV + Dish + Cable TV + Antenna TV (free) + Satellite
Toss in FIOS and Uverse for fun.
Add in internet based TV, since the incumbent telephone and cable companies like to reference the internet as competition.
For the heck of it, some areas actually have two wireline cable tv providers, but it certainly ain't the norm.
Did I miss anything? | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | How is it an illegal monopoly if a legal and binding contract was entered into by both parties? | |
| | | 
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: hate it for em Because they got the "exclusive" contract by abusing their market position...just like Microsoft. | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | Re: hate it for em How so? | |
| | | | |
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: hate it for em Because they bribe the building owner in order to eliminate competition.
There are some cable shills who see this as simple competition, but competition on who can pay the biggest bribe isn't competition. | |
| | | | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: hate it for em said by DotMac :Because they bribe the building owner in order to eliminate competition. There are some cable shills who see this as simple competition, but competition on who can pay the biggest bribe isn't competition. Technically the tenants bribe the owners in the form of higher rent.
As I mentioned before, direct kickbacks are illegal.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | | | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: hate it for em said by marigolds :Technically the tenants bribe the owners in the form of higher rent. As I mentioned before, direct kickbacks are illegal. It ain't about kickbacks...it is about exclusive contracts.
Eliminate exclusive contracts.
Allow discounted contracts with landlords.
Allow landlords to rent at market rates (offering choice)
Renters/Condo owners have choice (free cable from LL, other Cable, Sat, Better yet no cable for those LLs that don't buy in - i.e. make it look like buying a house)
Now you may have your assertion that tenants bribe the owners, technically. | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by openbox9 :How is it an illegal monopoly if a legal and binding contract was entered into by both parties? What 2 parties? The builder and the cable company? | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | Re: hate it for em Yes. Three parties if you want to count the residents/owners that willingly moved in based on the lease/purchase agreement. | |
| | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by openbox9 :How is it an illegal monopoly if a legal and binding contract was entered into by both parties? Because the contract was between the content provider and the building owner.
If an individual renter/owner wanted a different provider, they have no ability to exercise a market decision.
In case you didn't take Econ 101, Competition can not exist without choices (preferably 5 or more). | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | Re: hate it for em Renters/Owners have plenty of opportunity to exercise a market decision when signing a lease/purchase agreement. I did take Econ 101 and the last time I checked, there is an overabundance of places to live, with choices of a luxury called pay TV. | |
| | 
borked
Cheese With That Whine?
Premium
join:2003-08-10
Kalamazoo, MI
| While I am all for choice, this is different that your owned property. You rented the place and agreed to the terms via a contract. You knew what you were getting and accepted it. Doesn’t matter if they have cable, satellite or no antenna system, you knew and accepted what they offered.
Renters have many restrictions placed on them and why should it be any different then “no pet” rules, parking space rules, trash pickup rules, snow removal rules or any of the other madrid of rules imposed on tenents?
You knew the terms of the lease when you signed it. If you don’t like the terms move to a place that has terms more to your liking.
--
It is much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.
Malcolm Forbes (1919-1990) | |
| | | 
BillTager
join:2000-09-20
Charlotte, NC | Re: hate it for em You do realize that not all MDUs are occupied by renters right. | |
| | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: hate it for em said by BillTager :You do realize that not all MDUs are occupied by renters right. But do owner occupied MDUs have exclusive cable contracts agreed to without the owner's input? | |
| | | | | soccerguy
join:2004-06-28
Seattle, WA | Re: hate it for em Yes. My building does. | |
| | | 
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by borked :You knew the terms of the lease when you signed it. If you don’t like the terms move to a place that has terms more to your liking. I love it when this arguement comes up. If someone came in and said the terms of your mortgage were illegal and were going to be changed in your favor, would you say, "well I knew the terms, so no thanks"? Hell no!
And remember where the pressure came from here. Not tenants, but the competition, so don't blame them for whining. | |
| | | | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: hate it for em ask the tenants and i'm sure at least a few of them would complain about being locked into a contract. | |
| | | | |
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ | Re: hate it for em I'm not saying the don't. But the big push to the FCC didn't come from them. Just saying that blaming the tenants for trying to change the terms of their lease is wrong. They'll just get the benefits from someone elses action. | |
| | | | | |
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: hate it for em I agree. the FCC is a freaking joke with their blatant love of telco supported policies, and saying it is due to consumers is a convenient lie they are using as cover.
ultimately, if the FCC is to rule that these types of contracts are illegal, they should also rule that contracts with individual consumers (1 year contract! 2 years! etc.) are also illegal. | |
| | | | | | |
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ | Re: hate it for em The difference there is they don't force you into the contracts. You can still get the service without one, you just pay more. | |
| | | | | | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: hate it for em said by Jodokast96 :The difference there is they don't force you into the contracts. You can still get the service without one, you just pay more. Likewise for the MDU/cable contracts, I know that for a fact. I chose not to live where there was one. A little further from work, but that is MY choice.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: hate it for em said by RayW :said by Jodokast96 :The difference there is they don't force you into the contracts. You can still get the service without one, you just pay more. Likewise for the MDU/cable contracts, I know that for a fact. I chose not to live where there was one. A little further from work, but that is MY choice. The difference there is they don't force you into the contracts just because of where you live. You can still get the service without one, you just pay more.
Happy? | |
| | | | | | | | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: hate it for em said by Jodokast96 :said by RayW :said by Jodokast96 :The difference there is they don't force you into the contracts. You can still get the service without one, you just pay more. Likewise for the MDU/cable contracts, I know that for a fact. I chose not to live where there was one. A little further from work, but that is MY choice. The difference there is they don't force you into the contracts just because of where you live. You can still get the service without one, you just pay more. Happy? Can't force you to buy into a phone contract, can't force you to buy into a MDU contract. What is the difference? You have a choice to go get something else. Well, at least some of us do, you might be forced to live in one.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by morbo :I agree. the FCC is a freaking joke with their blatant love of telco supported policies, and saying it is due to consumers is a convenient lie they are using as cover. ultimately, if the FCC is to rule that these types of contracts are illegal, they should also rule that contracts with individual consumers (1 year contract! 2 years! etc.) are also illegal. To be fair, the FCC is attempting to eliminate locking you into an implicit contract with a video provider via your landlord vs an explicit contract with your cellular provider.
You have no reason to accept any contract with a wireless company, but it's your choice. | |
| | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | The FCC should extend this ruling to exclusive city contracts too. Let the line sharing begin!
The triple play vans have started to invade the city, and no competition for it. | |
| | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| 
i5050MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| said by decifal :What bothers me, is that theres gonna be some that aggressively defend comcast on this.... OK, I'll take a crack at it!
Try this. Go over to one of the telco forums and complain about lack of DSL availability and the resident shill's will suggest that if you don't like it you should move.
Same thing here. If someone doesn't like the exclusive contract their landlord signed then they should move.
What's good for the goose...
--
Meet Bill and Karolyn at www.theslowskys.com | |
| | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: hate it for em Those of us with more time and money can make sure to avoid this when seeking a place to live (I did), but lots of people are happy to afford anything. It's these people that are the victims of exclusive contracts. | |
| | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | The analogy fails in that no one is paying anyone to keep DSL away from them. | |
| | 
TraumaJunkie
Premium
join:2004-03-05
Knoxville, TN
| said by decifal :Seriously.. Unlawful? Comeone, they friggin have an illegal monopoly with these places and theres not a damn thing the tenants can do about it and they say it'd be unlawful to overturn this?!? What bothers me, is that theres gonna be some that aggressively defend comcast on this.... Move. | |
| | | decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
| Re: hate it for em said by TraumaJunkie :said by decifal : Move. Lol, original | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by decifal :Seriously.. Unlawful? Where in the law is it unlawful? Please send a link or state the law as written.
Comeone, they friggin have an illegal monopoly with these places and theres not a damn thing the tenants can do about it and they say it'd be unlawful to overturn this?!?
As a tenant, you don't own the property and have zero rights to initiate ANY service which approaches on the common grounds or the outside walls. So when did it become your place decide what the complex is willing to offer? And again, where is it unlawful?
What bothers me, is that theres gonna be some that aggressively defend comcast on this.... ... not as much as it bothers me that to some people, Comcast runs the world. Players on all sides of the spectrum enter in these deals... phone, cable, smatv systems, fiber, comcast, at&t, cox, verizon, TWC, charter, qwest.. shall I go on?
I defend the agreements for a few reasons - 1) It's not just comcast making these, 2) it is a legal binding agreement that was entered into between two consenting entities, 3) tenants of these complexes often forget that they rent or lease these units as a product and know or have the ability to know in advance what their choices are and are NOT part of the business making decisions.
If a building/complex owner wants to make a deal to save money on the bottom line of THEIR investments, that's their choice, and as a building/business owner, (while its in my best interest to be competitive) I am not going to allow my customers (some say tenants) to dictate my expenses.
These agreements were made under lawful terms. The FCC may have the ability to change rules moving forward, but I SERIOUSLY doubt they have the ability to invalidate contracts already in effect. | |
| | | decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN | Re: hate it for em Nice to meet you Fiberguy, i've been waiting for you  | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: hate it for em ......ok? and? | |
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| The government can invaldate contracts.... ....if they are found to be unlawful or made in bad faith.
All they have to do is make a law and it is done. Look at the FCC Over The Air rules that basically invalidated most of the anti-dish rules. That has held up under numerous lawsuits. | |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| And how does this save money? "FCC Chairman Kevin Martin had previously said the ban could help lower cable rates for the millions of apartment-dwelling subscribers, in particularly minorities who disproportionately live in multi-unit dwellings."
This is in idiotic comment.
Who cannot get a dish? Apartment dwellers.
Who are more likely to live in areas with only one cable company? Apartment dwellers in MDU contract units.
What do Verizon, AT&T, et al. refuse to serve? MDUs
If there are no additional providers to choose from, then how the heck does banning the MDU agreements allow a choice in providers? The only choice it allows is whether or not to have cable in the first place. For people who want television (since broadcast is also not an option in most MDUs), their bills just went up. The only people who will see their bills go down are those who choose to disconnect television completely and that is only if their landlord decides to drop their rent because of the end of the contract (why a landlord with a signed lease in hand would do that...).
So who does this decision really help? The people Martin has been wanting to help all along, the family cable advocates. Now they can cut off the MDU money supply to MTV et al.
Or maybe Martin's next plan is to create a rule forcing apartment owners to allow every tenant to get their own dish installed.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| |
See 19 replies to this post | |
bored_in_nh
join:2003-01-04
Stamping Ground, KY | Avove the law?  Kind of reminds me of a line in a popular comedy movie:
wife: It's illegal to have 2 spouses!
husband: Even if you're famous? | |
| RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Issues First of all, I do not have Comcast, I do not want Comcast, I do not work for Comcast, and as far as I know I do not have a financial interest in Comcast. And I chose not to move to certain areas because of the required use of a locked in provider (I understand that in certain parts of the country the housing market is so tight that you have no choice). And I also realize that a locked in provider has no reason to give you good service.
I wonder how they are going to account for the supposed fact that in many of the MDU's (multiple dwelling units) the cable company put the infrastructure in on their own dime? Will the owners of the MDU's have to pay back the full cost to be passed on to the tenant? Will that be a onetime charge? Will any new provider be required to pay Comcast rent on the plant? Or will we just be good little Communists and nationalize the plants for the good of the 'people'?
I know that if I installed something in a MDU with the expectation of a long term financial gain and someone else later came along and forced me to give up my investment in the name of equality and choice, I would be pissed.
There are other issues, but those would pop up even if Comcast/others had not put in a plant to begin with.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
| hmm The person that owns the building can allow whom ever he wants to install their equipment into his building. So what if he cant make contracts .
Say he wants cablevision but not verizon he could just allow cablevision to install their equipment and not allow verzion to install theirs.
This ruling will not do anything. | |
| 
clrankin
Premium
join:2002-03-05
Purcellville, VA
| It's Comcrapstic! Well, I guess that's one way for Comcast and the other sub-pars to keep themselves in business. Force tenants who have no control to buy service from them.
If cable companies can force people into buying cable and hold monopolies like they do today, then I think it's only reasonable for homeowners, tenants, cities, towns, and counties that are their customers and/or grant them the right to continue as monopolies to have more control.
- Service level agreements that require a minimum of 98% uptime should be established. Compensation should be given in the form of 1 month of free cable service for any month in which this clause is violated.
- Service level agreements should also spell out minimum acceptable picture quality. Pixelation problems and other things associated with poor cable signal should require a truck roll within three business days, and should be fixed within five business days. If it isn't, the customer should not be charged for the time that service was substandard and should also be given free service for two months as a result of the inconvenience.
- These agreements should establish the minimum standard for education and training for cable techs. (They shouldn't let just anyone poke around walls and utility closets of customers' homes.) They should also require that the cable techs can communicate at a basic level in English so they can be understood by the majority of cable customers, require satisfactory completion of local and state police background checks, and successful completion of drug screening at regular intervals (could be yearly).
- These agreements should directly tie any cable rate hikes with satisfaction surveys of customers. No rate hikes should be allowed if overall satisfaction is under a certain level. (That should silence all the "Comcast is great and provides wonderful customer service" nut jobs out there.)
--
Some terrorists don't wear rags on their head, go without showers for weeks, and smell like camel crap. Instead they live in America and support Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for president. | |
| | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: It's Comcrapstic! Why poll users for their opinion, unless they are locked into MDU contracts? One might reasonably conclude customers that pay each month are agreeing that the service comcast provides is worth it "overall", after all they aren't cancelling.
said by clrankin :Well, I guess that's one way for Comcast and the other sub-pars to keep themselves in business. Force tenants who have no control to buy service from them. If cable companies can force people into buying cable and hold monopolies like they do today, then I think it's only reasonable for homeowners, tenants, cities, towns, and counties that are their customers and/or grant them the right to continue as monopolies to have more control. - Service level agreements that require a minimum of 98% uptime should be established. Compensation should be given in the form of 1 month of free cable service for any month in which this clause is violated. - Service level agreements should also spell out minimum acceptable picture quality. Pixelation problems and other things associated with poor cable signal should require a truck roll within three business days, and should be fixed within five business days. If it isn't, the customer should not be charged for the time that service was substandard and should also be given free service for two months as a result of the inconvenience. - These agreements should establish the minimum standard for education and training for cable techs. (They shouldn't let just anyone poke around walls and utility closets of customers' homes.) They should also require that the cable techs can communicate at a basic level in English so they can be understood by the majority of cable customers, require satisfactory completion of local and state police background checks, and successful completion of drug screening at regular intervals (could be yearly). - These agreements should directly tie any cable rate hikes with satisfaction surveys of customers. No rate hikes should be allowed if overall satisfaction is under a certain level. (That should silence all the "Comcast is great and provides wonderful customer service" nut jobs out there.) | |
| IsdnWolf
Premium
join:2002-05-24
Cleveland, TN
| Contracts Having helped setup a couple of these contracts in the past there are other issues.
We had an apartment complex with very poor wiring. We went in and replaced all the wiring and got it up to spec. The reason we invested more then 30K to rewire this complex was because we got an exclusive contract.
Fact is, we did not want to invest 30K and then have the MDU turn around and get another provider. We wanted to make sure we made our ROI.
So, I am in complete agreement that existing contracts should be kept in place until the time runs out. This helps the company protect thier investment.
Now, after the contract? I think it is fair for consumers to choose. This will force the Cable Company to either come up to spec or loose the customer. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Contracts said by IsdnWolf :Now, after the contract? I think it is fair for consumers to choose. This will force the Cable Company to either come up to spec or loose the customer. I agree with you up to this point... I know this answer, but let's see if you do..
Who exactly is the "customer"... ?
In an MDU, the "customer" IS the MDU... the tenant is a customer of the MDU owner.
The consumer YOU speak of HAS the right to chose... their choice is to rent from a complex/building that is going to cater to their needs.
What EVERYONE here forgets is that renters are just that.. renters. When you take the time to actually buy a home, then you have these "rights" that people are demanding. Those of us that have invested and purchased homes HAVE the right to be upset.
As renters, you are buying a product. The product is the apartment. Building owners are competing for your business.. and to do so, they offer certain amenities... pools, tennis courts, hoops, easy access to bus-lines, freeways, and, oh, things like services or access to them.
What angers me so much is that there are people that believe they have rights that simply don't exist. And.. when they try to get the government to make rules and laws that ARE outside their powers.. what happens is that it cheapens what others have who actually HAVE invested, built, and worked to have the things that others who haven't want. This is a feeling that I have that I will never appologize for. | |
| 
xerxes3642
join:2006-02-24
Saint Charles, MO
 ·Charter Pipeline
| the MDU's don't usually have the incumbent cable operator in my experience when I worked at a franchise authority office. Most of the time they had some fly-by-night satellite company that would service the whole complex from one of those old-timey giant dishes. The companies usually were very expensive compared to cable and had little to offer in the way of channel options. Many customers just wanted their own DBS or the option to take the cable company's service but were always denied. | |
| |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: the MDU's don't usually said by xerxes3642 :have the incumbent cable operator in my experience when I worked at a franchise authority office. Most of the time they had some fly-by-night satellite company that would service the whole complex from one of those old-timey giant dishes. The companies usually were very expensive compared to cable and had little to offer in the way of channel options. Many cust |
|
|
|
Cable Takes Legal Aim At FCC