 RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | About time That 2003 "decision" was bought and paid for by the NCTA. Now the ball is back in the customer's court and there should be fewer 30-channels-for-$50 sweetheart deals forced on tenants. | |
|
 | 
Wosllldo
@rr.com | Re: About time It wasn't a pro CABLE-ONLY rule to begin with. A lot of apartments and condominiums have a DISH or DIRECT-TV run mini-cable system. See "ygnition" for one example. | |
|
dcurrey
Premium
join:2004-06-29
 ·ViaTalk
1 edit | Yea so Does this really change anything. Years ago we rented a house. Didn't have cable. The cable company would not touch it until the landlord signed some kind of agreement allowing them access to install lines on the house.
Couldn't they just deny installation. Of course if everything is done via wires in place this point is moot. | |
|
| RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: Yea so The property owner or their agent has to give permission for the initial installation of the cable line (or satellite dish for that matter) for liability reasons. That has nothing to do with this ruling. | |
|
| |
dcurrey
Premium
join:2004-06-29 | Re: Yea so Yes but they can maintain the exclusivity agreements just by denying anyone else access to install any additional equipment. | |
|
| | | 
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| Re: Yea so said by dcurrey  :Yes but they can maintain the exclusivity agreements just by denying anyone else access to install any additional equipment. Then take that up with your landlord. Again, as RadioDoc noted, this has nothing to do with the ruling. | |
|
| | Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL
| said by RadioDoc :The property owner or their agent has to give permission for the initial installation of the cable line (or satellite dish for that matter) for liability reasons. That has nothing to do with this ruling. no you have the right to your own dish and the owner can't say no by fcc law. | |
|
| | | 
meister_sd
Premium
join:2006-01-29
La Mesa, CA
| Re: Yea so said by Joe12345678 :said by RadioDoc :The property owner or their agent has to give permission for the initial installation of the cable line (or satellite dish for that matter) for liability reasons. That has nothing to do with this ruling. no you have the right to your own dish and the owner can't say no by fcc law. You are correct, but the manager can put limits on it - such as the dish cannot go on the roof, or the top of the dish cannot extend past the roof, etc... | |
|
| | | |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: Yea so said by meister_sd :said by Joe12345678 :said by RadioDoc :The property owner or their agent has to give permission for the initial installation of the cable line (or satellite dish for that matter) for liability reasons. That has nothing to do with this ruling. no you have the right to your own dish and the owner can't say no by fcc law. You are correct, but the manager can put limits on it - such as the dish cannot go on the roof, or the top of the dish cannot extend past the roof, etc... Or cannot be attached to specific parts of the property, especially "common areas." | |
|
| | | | unoriginal
join:2000-07-12
San Diego, CA | I mounted my dish to a fence post that I then planted in a 5 gallon bucket full of quikrete. It was never attached to the building and entirely within my small balcony at the time so the management never had any reason to give me grief. | |
|
| | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | The limits they can put on them is defined in the law. The landlord cannot modify these limits regardless of what they want. | |
|
| | | | | markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
 ·Charter Pipeline
1 edit | Re: Yea so said by Skippy25 :The limits they can put on them is defined in the law. The landlord cannot modify these limits regardless of what they want. Actually we can. The law does not apply to a lease signed by the tenant, it which case you can include such language that makes it so you can't have dishes at all.
We do in some apartments/condos we have simply because having a dish at all would require more effort than its worth (roof mounted, long cable runs under ground, etc).
This ruling does nothing for most of rural areas anyways, since no such contracts existed in the first place with providers. Even then, only one provider is around.  | |
|
| | | | | | 
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON
| Re: Yea so said by markopoleo :Actually we can. The law does not apply to a lease signed by the tenant, it which case you can include such language that makes it so you can't have dishes at all. I find it very surprising - and almost unbelievable - that a lease or a contract could trump law, even in the US. Around here, the law overrides any illegal language in a lease. As an example, if a landlord put a "No Pets" clause in a lease up here, it's void, as the law specifically protects a tenant's right to have a pet. If they include fees for things that are more than what are defined under law, they're also illegal and unenforceable, etc.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen. | |
|
| |
| |
CT3
@comcast.net
| Re: Yea so said by en102 :This would still give you the ability to 'choose' Cable Telco Satellite Antenna/OTA None vs. 'prearranged' forced deal (you want rent - you end up with the deal that the cable/telco has structured with owner). Cable/Telco gets monthly service deal 'for life', Owner gets a few extra $$/month, renter has service - whether they like it or not. I think his point was it gives the property owner the right to choose and NOT the tenant. Most apartments say NO sat's they look ugly to begin with. Depending on what all is needed for the other providers to operate they may have another property owner does not want uglification issue I suppose. But at that point it seems like the company just needs to figure out how to do a PROFESSIONAL clean installation so... | |
|
| | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | Re: Yea so said by CT3 :
Most apartments say NO sat's they look ugly to begin with. That's the spin cable companies have been putting on satellite TV since it first appeared. They also dealt the same dirt on OTA antennas decades ago, lobbying homeowners associations, etc., to ban outdoor antennas.
However, it is now illegal for apartment building owners and homeowners associations to outright ban satellite antennas unless there is an equivalent option available. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Yea so If you can see the satellites you have much better eyes than I do.
It's not that hard to plan a dish installation that doesn't look like it belongs on the roof of a rusted trailer. Mine is on my roof at the back of the house and you can't even see it from the street. It is near the lowest part of the roof so it doesn't stand out from the back yard either. I'd rather look at that than the tangle of overhead service drops Comcast uses in our neighborhood. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | 
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | I think a majority of all tenants would be happier with a choice of services, while the property owners are happier with a kickback from the exclusivity deal. | |
|
| | | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by CT3 :
I think his point was it gives the property owner the right to choose and NOT the tenant. Most apartments say NO sat's they look ugly to begin with.
And that's agaisnt the law. The FCC says they HAVE to allow satellite. | |
|
| | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | Re: Yea so said by BF69 :The FCC says they HAVE to allow satellite. For reference: The FCC's OTARD Fact Sheet.
Building owners do not "have to" allow satellite in cases where there is no place to put the dish inside an area exclusively within the control of the tenant or condo owner. | |
|
| | | | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| said by BF69 :And that's agaisnt the law. The FCC says they HAVE to allow satellite. No they don't HAVE to. They can't charge an unreasonable fee (read: any fee) to gain permission to place a dish on exclusively controlled property that is properly installed to local codes.
They don't have to allow you to drill holes in their walls, let you place your dish in non-exclusively controlled areas, or violate codes. Many installs are technically against code as they aren't grounded properly in apartment settings. If the building is also of historical significance, you may also be prohibited from installing one. | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | the dish rule from the FCC mainly targeted HOAs who think they can say no to a dish or Antenna.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
mobbo
join:2005-04-13
Denton, TX | Effective when? When does this go into effect? I'm about to sign the lease on an apartment in the next month or so... does this mean my landlord will have to comply immediately or is there a deadline? | |
|
| 
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Effective when? said by mobbo :When does this go into effect? I'm about to sign the lease on an apartment in the next month or so... does this mean my landlord will have to comply immediately or is there a deadline? It means that the landlord cannot sign exclusive contracts. It doesn't mean they must allow you to get service from any provider in the area.
It changes nothing for you, really.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us | |
|
| 
60529262
join:2007-01-11
Chicago, IL
| It means the landlord cannot force you to take whatever he's cooked up with the local cable outfit even if you don't want cable, but it does not force the landlord into allowing whatever you want to have installed. Two different things. The latter is covered by other rules such as the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act. | |
|
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Effective when? And be ready to pay more rent too.. Congrats everyone on a well celebrated victory.
When you all find out what it costs to wire those units and to know that the cost will be passed on to you regardless of what service you take in the form of rent.. it's a time for joyous celebration.
This also means that those agreements where the provider flips the bill to install service won't happen any more and now the building owner, who should have the exclusive right to chose what's brought into THEIR PROPERTY, has been dictated by the government and will be paying the cost to have services installed.. and yes, that cost goes right on to you.
Rules can be made, but it doesn't mean there isn't consequences. Just ask IL who fought ATT and how ATT said "no broadband for you"...
There is nothing to celebrate here. | |
|
| | | compton
join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY
| Re: Effective when? said by fiberguy :And be ready to pay more rent too.. Congrats everyone on a well celebrated victory. When you all find out what it costs to wire those units and to know that the cost will be passed on to you regardless of what service you take in the form of rent.. it's a time for joyous celebration. This also means that those agreements where the provider flips the bill to install service won't happen any more and now the building owner, who should have the exclusive right to chose what's brought into THEIR PROPERTY, has been dictated by the government and will be paying the cost to have services installed.. and yes, that cost goes right on to you. Rules can be made, but it doesn't mean there isn't consequences. Just ask IL who fought ATT and how ATT said "no broadband for you"... There is nothing to celebrate here.
What you are stating makes little sense when you consider Verizon is deploying FIOS to MDU without needing an exclusive agreement; Dish Network and Direct TV are providing services to MDU with out the need for an exclusive agreement.
30% of MDUs are under exclusive agreements; what about the other 70%? By your argument all MDU should be under an exclusive agreement because that is the only way to provide services to the MDUs at reasonable cost, but less than half of MDUs are under such agreements. What gives? I will tell you what gives. Exclusive agreements are very profitable for the providers, and they will try and sign as much exclusive contracts as possible. | |
|
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Effective when? I'm not sure where you are getting your figures from.. however.. not important.
You're also forgetting that Fios, for example, is already coming into an established environment and simply cutting over existing infrustructure. This is no different that Satellite today. (For this very reason, by the way, is why you get charged installation fees when you have outlets wired up in the home.. becuase when cable puts them in, you, the home owner, have a right to have a competitor come in and place THEIR service on the wires that another company installed - ie: they're simply installing lines at your request for you to keep)
I'm VERY familiar with the history of how buildings got wired and the contracts and costs/financials associated with them.
None of the companies you are talking about providing services to have done so with any major out of pocket expense. YOU seem to forget that in trade for these exclusive agreements, the providers spent thousands of dollars wiring up these buildings that now, thanks to an over reaching court and un official regulatory body, have decided to invalidate standing agreements. I strongly disagree with that.
Dish/DirecTv and Fios have a VERY small amount of market share where they provide an actual SMATV type of service .. not compared to all the legwork that cable did over the years.
I don't like when people put words in my mouth, twisting along the way, when I never said anything.. that's not cute either. I never say that ALL MDU's should be under exclusive agreements.. did I? Did I even hint it? no. What I said all along is that these building owners GOT something for the agreement. You think that charity is 1 sided? There are two competing BUSINESSES (you all forget that these apartments and such are businessess first) making a financial arrangement. These dwelling owners could very simply have said "no" to exclusive agreements and wire the buildings themselves.. did they? no.. they took a deal.. it was good for them at the time. Personally, I think if the contracts are invalidated, the government should also require any remaining portion of the agreement paid back by the land owners.
I'm not about government intrusion in private business.. not in this manner.. not to change a rule. It may be ok with you becuase you THINK you benefit at this time.. but just remember, the next time uncle sam wants to make a change for the better, you may not be standing on the fun side, rather, you'll be crying foul!
I've said all I'm going to say on this. I'm not for charity! | |
|
| pgeorger
join:2007-04-23
Buffalo, NY
| said by mobbo :When does this go into effect? I'm about to sign the lease on an apartment in the next month or so... does this mean my landlord will have to comply immediately or is there a deadline? To further the point, ask before you sign anything! We had a similar concern years back when I wanted to bring my satellite service with me. We purposely scouted out apartments with balconies to mount the dish and then were sure to ask if there were any restrictions on mounting a dish. We wound up turning away from a couple of places for consideration because they would not allow it. Make sure you're very specific about what you want and don't make any assumptions and you and your new landlord will coexist just nicely  | |
|
| | mobbo
join:2005-04-13
Denton, TX
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Effective when? I could care less about TV service. I used to watch tons of TV but now I'm pretty much exclusively Hulu, BitTorrent, or Netflix, so internet competition is more relevent to me these days. That factor is a huge one in my search. The house I'm currently in has Verizon FiOS, and if it didn't, I wouldn't have signed the lease. | |
|
truckjrt
@wamltd.com
| Nothing New This ruling only upholds what has been in place for the past couple of years. Yes the resident now has choice if the owner will allow another provider on the property. However, the next major issue is who owns and controls the wiring.
Comcast or TWC may and can still legally have exclusive control and use of the coax, which can make it difficult for other providers to deliver their service to the resident.
Also if a PCO (Directv or Dish) is the only option at the property this ruling does nothing to eliminate their exclusive service.
What owners need is a cost effective way to deliver cable or video over IP without running new wiring. | |
|
jonlemnh
join:2009-05-27
Manchester, NH | Court Upholds FCC Apt. Exclusivity Ban Court Upholds FCC Apt. Exclusivity Ban
Sorry, cable industry...
Sorry, cable industry...?????? FIOS and DISH have contracts w/buildings and land lords to so dont be biased | |
|
| 
nycdave
Premium,MVM
join:1999-11-16
Melville, NY | Re: Court Upholds FCC Apt. Exclusivity Ban They can have contracts, but they can't be exclusive.... | |
|
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Court Upholds FCC Apt. Exclusivity Ban Other providers have "exclusive" contracts too.. however, cable does have more.. why? becuase cable had a niche to get into units by offering something FOR those contracts.. ie: thousands upon thousands of free services to the building owners.
I guarantee everyone that this isn't over. | |
|
| | 
wesm
tmb.org
Premium
join:1999-07-29
Lewisville, TX
| Nope, only cable providers are covered by this (and the previous) ruling. Satellite companies are exempted and can have exclusive agreements as long as they want, unless and until this is changed. I currently live in an apartment complex that has an exclusive with DirecPath (DirecTV's partially-owned reseller) and even though the property is wired for FiOS, we can't have it. Why? Verizon can't sell video here, so they won't sell Internet, either.
Right after we moved (I pulled a dumb and simply assumed that because there were ONTs on the building we either had or would shortly get FiOS) I researched this and found, from the FCC, that the ban on exclusivity only applies to cable operators.
--
Opinions expressed here are mine and not my employer's. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. | |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | FiOS? Wouldn't Verizon really be installing something like VDSL with a fiber-to-the-node setup for most MDU's? Is there an ONT installed for each customer or is some other equipment being deployed? | |
|
| Mannus
Premium
join:2005-10-25
Fort Wayne, IN
 ·Dish Network
·Vonage
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: FiOS? said by jmn1207 :Wouldn't Verizon really be installing something like VDSL with a fiber-to-the-node setup for most MDU's? Is there an ONT installed for each customer or is some other equipment being deployed? Look here. »Fios MDU ONT... Any pictures? | |
|
| |
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: FiOS? Yes, but as was mentioned in that thread:
"That is a 611i, not a true MDU ONT"
I suppose it just depends on the situation, but I was under the impression that a huge ONT was installed at one location and the existing twisted-pair phone line was used to provide internet service for a majority of the MDU customers. Haven't really looked into it much, just curious. | |
|
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs: | what's in it what's in it for the landlord? | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Cable back to the Courts And Cable will go on to the courts again and see what they get the 2nd time.
They don't give up the first time, we all know that. Cable will be back and they'll move higher up until they get something done. | |
|
bjbrock
join:2002-10-28
Mcalester, OK | What about the other way around. My son lives in a complex in OKC and the landlord struck a deal with AT&T. DSL is the only option and you must use AT&T's satellite TV service. He would much rather have Cox as their TV and Internet service puts AT&T to shame. | |
|
| Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL
| Re: What about the other way around. said by bjbrock :My son lives in a complex in OKC and the landlord struck a deal with AT&T. DSL is the only option and you must use AT&T's satellite TV service. He would much rather have Cox as their TV and Internet service puts AT&T to shame. direct tv has much better tv then cable and way more HD.
COX may have fast internet but there download caps suck. | |
|
| | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| Re: What about the other way around. said by Joe12345678 :COX may have fast internet but there download caps suck. What caps? You mean the completely unenforced caps they bury on their website?
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
|
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY | does nothing. This still does nothing. The landlord still has the right to say what you can and cant do on the property. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
Sat Tech
@cableone.net
| Access to cable lines As a sat tech, I understand the ruling meaning that now the property managment or cable company would have to leave the cable boxes unlocked or allow us access to them as needed so we can hook up to the existing lines. At least once a week I have to use a non-penatrating roof mount, a pole mount in a bucket of concrete or a tripod to get a appartment installed. Most property owners wont allow us to drill holes in a building so we have to use flat cable through windows and fish cable under carpet. Most landlords tell me they have a exclusive contract with the cable company and they (cableone) owns the box and has it locked. | |
|
mrschultz02
join:2007-09-10
Media, PA
| With competition must come free wiring... In my building Verizon must have made a deal to do all the pre-installation for free. There's no way the landlord would have paid for them to run tubing into every apartment.
There's a conduit from a box in the ground near the sidewalk to a small box on the side of each building, from that box there are 1/2" tubes that go to each apartment.
Comcast ran fiber to a box on each building several years ago, so only the line from the box to each apartment is coax.
So now there's the choice of DSL or Comcast or FIOS. To bad it doesn't do squat for reducing the prices. I never see any activity on the FIOS boxes, but lots of activity on the Comcast ones. | |
|
OblivionSA
join:2006-11-18
Hackensack, NJ
| My Building My apartment complex had an exclusive deal with Cablevision and were pretty picky about satellite dishes (can't attach in any way "permanently," etc.). However, once Verizon offered to install FiOS to the building, ONTs were installed into every apartment, regardless of if the tenants wanted to use it.
I assume the only reason they pulled this off is because I'm in one of two 280-unit luxury apartments and Verizon and Cablevision both saw enough dollar signs to make it worthwhile.
Either that or the landlord gives a crap about making sure their tenants can get the service they want to... | |
|
|
|
|
Court Upholds FCC Apt. Exclusivity Ban
·