http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22452845 en Wed, 23 Mar 2022 15:09:00 EDT Wed, 23 Mar 2022 15:09:00 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22472945
And, to be honest, very very very few contracts out there last for 35 years. They are usually 10 year contracts.

The argument you put forth on HOA/s etc. I can't agree with simply becuase this goes down the SAME path of others.. example:

Delta purchased North Worst Airlines recently. NWA had an agreement to the state of MN, becuase of loans and other considerations, to keep a certain amount of jobs here in the state and maintenance facilities, etc. as well as a hub. When Delta wanted the airline, they had to take the existing deals that NWA already had.. that's "business".. (for the record, buying a home is a "business" deal as well. Just becuase the buyer is not a "business" per say, it's STILL a business deal) So, now Delta comes in KNOWING and having a chance to do their due diligence is aware of the terms of existing agreements. NOW they want to get out of those agreements to a large extent becuase they do not fit into their needs..

Based on everyone's logic here about HOAs, apartments, etc. and existing agreements that were there to discover, I'm guessing you guys are also okay with Delta, at the help of the government, getting out of those deals as well?

No matter how one tries to argue this, it's the SAME THING. A contract is a contract and you have a right to AVOID something if you don't like what you're about to get involved in. The SAME goes with any home purchase that has an HOA attached to it.

You think that people like to move into HOA's only to find out they can't even pick their own shrubs? .. house color? Font DOOR COLOR? SOME people don't know these things, and if you think 35 years is bad? How about the life of the house?

People don't always like what they get.. but I"m sorry to say, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. However, the law is listening to ignorance in this case and doing away with them.. I'm sorry, I just can't be convinced that the big arm of the government coming in and violating existing contracts over someone's desire to want TV or Internet is worth violating existing contracts and laws retrospectively. It's a BAD BAD BAD road to travel when we allow government to believe they are bigger than the people.

What I don't think a lot of you guys understand is that this doesn't affect JUST broadband. Seriously, I equate this to be the same as government taking river-bank land away from people so that big business can develop condos for the wealthy under the umbrella of ID. It was just another power grasp of the government same as this.

In this situation, I'm sorry to say, I don't feel for the home owners of the HOA.. at-all.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22472945 Sun, 31 May 2009 14:53:51 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22470161 said by fiberguy2:

HOA's are governed by the people. Any contract in place, those people can chose to NOT renew the exclusive agreement. And, you're not going to like what I'm about to say, mostly becuase it's the truth and the way life works.
The problem is that often the types of exclusive agreement that the FCC is going after are sweetheart deals that the developer made with the cable company that run for 35 years. There is nothing that the HOA (once formed) can do since the contract is already in place and will not be renewable for those 35 years. In many cases the cost is built into your monthly Condo/CoOp/Maintenance charges and is not billed direct to you.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22470161 Sat, 30 May 2009 19:13:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22469162
So, I'm sorry to tell you, my argument won't change.

Simply put, all the above living situations you mention are one of the same.. HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATIONS..

HOA's are governed by the people. Any contract in place, those people can chose to NOT renew the exclusive agreement. And, you're not going to like what I'm about to say, mostly becuase it's the truth and the way life works.

When the condo is new, yes, there are contracts put in place SOMETIMES already. Lets say YOU chose to move in and buy one.. BEFORE you purchase, you should find out if this place fits your needs.. that includes not only the size, the look, the style, the area, but also do you get the services you want. Yes, cable/internet is one of those.. its PERFECTLY clear that people here believe it's important so maybe you should ask BEFORE YOU MOVE IN.

If there is an agreement in place, you buy into that same agreement as established and you own up with it like everyone else. YOU ALL as HOA owners are the ones that hold that agreement. When it expires, and you don't want to renew an exclusive agreement, then the HOA can CHOOSE to let it lapse and work on bringing other people in. I know of one right now in Providence.. they have Cox.. they want FiOS! Verizon wants to charge the HOA to bring the service into the grounds.. the HOA doesn't want to pay for it.. guess what.. no FiOS for them. Maybe an exclusive agreement would have worked in the HOA's favor there.

You can say you moved in and purchased after there was one in place. Oh well.. due diligence was in order on your part. I just purchased a new home. BEFORE signing any paperwork, I did ALL my research PRIOR. I wanted to know about dog requirements, fencing allowances, setbacks, zoning laws, etc. EVERYTHING before I moved in.. and yes, broadband was researched. I turned down a few other homes becuase they didn't have what I needed or didn't meet my needs. However, there are some people that move to a home knowing it doesn't fir their needs OR they didn't do their homework as required FIRST, then think they can bitch and get things changed.. fat chance.

When the contract runs out, the HOA needs to work together to either renew it, or let it go and the members as a group can work together. Guess what? If the HOA decided to RENEW that agreement by a majority and you're choice was the losing choice.. sorry to say, you guys govern as a body together and even though you didn't vote to let it lapse personally, YOU did, as part of the group, agree to renew if that was the case.

In an HOA, you're not an individual.. that's the fact! When you buy into that HOA governed unit, and there was already a contract, you also bought into the contract at the same time. You can't move in with one in force and then cry foul. If you buy a business and there is an existing agreement in place that you don't like, that's tough too! You need to do your own homework and research FIRST before buying into something.. this is a fact of life, it's law, deal with it.

What you're basically asking for is big nanny government to go in and invalidate contracts.. and I'm sorry, .. that doesn't fly with me. When the government can unilaterally decide that someone's existing contract is no longer valid, it's a VERY scary day in this country.. This is yet just another example of intrusion into private interest.

I would have NO problem, however, if they wanted to pass a law that MOVING FORWARD that no NEW exclusive agreements can be made, BUT, all prior agreements MUST be allowed to run their course.. that I don't care because it only affects new business forward. But, to retroactively, which this does, invalidate contracts, is a bad bad bad move.

You guys, in the name of the drug called "broadband" are so eager to give up so many rights that you don't realize.. and that makes me sick. How would you like it if they changed the marriage law in your state that somehow retroactively invalidated your marriage? At least even in CA on Prop 8, they were smart enough to leave existing same sex marriages as valid with out invalidating them. They did that for a reason.

You really don't understand what's at stake here.. you only want to think about and care about whats in this for you, for right now.

I'm sorry to say, either you are just plain greedy and don't care, or the educational system has failed to teach you about civics. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22469162 Sat, 30 May 2009 14:26:49 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22467048 said by fiberguy2:

Um... you don't have a constitutional right to cable tv.. your argument is flawed.

As for renters.. you're technically 3rd class, yes. You don't own the property.. you are a temporary tenant there. You don't have ANY obligation or stake in the success of the "business".. remember, you are a customer of a business, not a land or property owner.

And, as for government aid.. um.. you REALLY want to open up the welfare argument? .. cuz I am not willing to go into a long winded debate over how wrong welfare programs are.. and how they've gotten WAY out of control.



I have noticed that you have conveniently ignored my reply to your post. So I will ask again. What about owners of Condos, co-op apartments, town houses and private homes in gated communities who are subject to exclusive agreements? They are all property owners. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22467048 Fri, 29 May 2009 22:53:45 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22461837
As for renters.. you're technically 3rd class, yes. You don't own the property.. you are a temporary tenant there. You don't have ANY obligation or stake in the success of the "business".. remember, you are a customer of a business, not a land or property owner.

And, as for government aid.. um.. you REALLY want to open up the welfare argument? .. cuz I am not willing to go into a long winded debate over how wrong welfare programs are.. and how they've gotten WAY out of control.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22461837 Fri, 29 May 2009 00:53:25 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22457572
In your world I guess a Renter = 3rd class citizen right?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22457572 Thu, 28 May 2009 11:40:07 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22454870 said by fiberguy2:

I'm sorry to say, but if you are not capable of buying a home and making your own choices, you should not have the same luxuries of home owners or property owners. Anyone as a renter has NO, I repeat **NO** obligation into the gains or losses of the apartment complex and should have NO rights what so ever to more than absolute necessities. Cable and internet is not one of them.

You want a choice of providers, buy your own property and make your own choice, but I'll be damned if some RENTER should have the same "rights" of home ownership. If a certain provider is important to you, as the OWNER of the builder in which you want to rent from.. you don't like the offering.. move on.



The major flaw with your argument is thinking that only renters in MDU are affected by this law. There are condos, town houses, coop apartments and houses in gated communities that are affected by these exclusive agreements.


By your argument since owners of condos, town houses, coop apartments and private houses in gated communities are all property owners then they should have the right to choose. I agree with you, and I will go one further and state so do renters. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22454870 Wed, 27 May 2009 21:13:20 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22453753
There is NO such thing as the provider getting paid for empty units and there was NO such thing as apartments having to take a package specially for the complex.

People in the units could buy what ever they wanted. SOME units CHOSE to have what was called a BULK account, but the complex paid for that as an amenity to the renter.

Unless you can prove some hard core documentation, your story holds water like a bucket full of holes.

The ONLY reason this ruling is being made is becuase the telephone companies are crying foul.. while they sat back and did nothing to compete in video, cable was building a service as required. This BS ruling, which violates private property laws, is noting more than a power grab on the private sector.

I'm sorry to say, but if you are not capable of buying a home and making your own choices, you should not have the same luxuries of home owners or property owners. Anyone as a renter has NO, I repeat **NO** obligation into the gains or losses of the apartment complex and should have NO rights what so ever to more than absolute necessities. Cable and internet is not one of them.

You want a choice of providers, buy your own property and make your own choice, but I'll be damned if some RENTER should have the same "rights" of home ownership. If a certain provider is important to you, as the OWNER of the builder in which you want to rent from.. you don't like the offering.. move on.

This is part of competition. Apartment owners are competing for business too.. just like pools, laundry on site, parking options, etc... cable/satellite/telco video choices are an amenity to the potential customer. As a renter, you are a customer who's business the complex wants.

ANYONE here arguing against these contracts can NOT sit here and say they want competition from broadband providers too because it's a dual standards argument.

This ruling, like your post, is 100% wrong.

And for the record, I SUPPORT providers like ATT and Verizon to make the SAME exclusive agreements with apartment owners as cable has. For me, this is not a cable/telco argument as it is personal property rights.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22453753 Wed, 27 May 2009 18:04:11 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22453281 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22453281 Wed, 27 May 2009 16:48:18 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22453064 said by jester121:

What's in it for the landlord USED to be having the cable company cover the cost of all the wiring (in from the curb as well as to each unit) for the entire apartment complex. In exchange, the cable company got a 10 year (or whatever) exclusive contract to provide service on the property.
The cable company also gots paid for all the units even if they did not use the service as well as the contracts being "one size fits all" which means you get the package/tier that the company wants to provide not the one you want to pick. This means that while the company has the exclusive right to supply service (as is usual) the customer does not have the right/ability to choose the level of service they get.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22453064 Wed, 27 May 2009 16:11:53 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22452882 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-whats-in-it-22452882 Wed, 27 May 2009 15:45:19 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/whats-in-it-22452845 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/whats-in-it-22452845 Wed, 27 May 2009 15:40:06 EDT