FCC To Ban Exclusive Broadband Deals

said by nutcr0cker:

Why do you feel so bitter? The notion of appartment owners being paid for screwing the renters is similar to the tax cut for the rich. 50 billion for an illegal war and veto for the health benefits of poor American children. Now thats what I call as true CONservative humanitarian values

said by LowRider:

free health care, you want free health care???? i have to laugh at that, the government will raise taxes

said by EngineerDave:

charged $9 for a Tylenol pill you will make a fuss!

said by EngineerDave:

They just pay the co-pay and go on their way.

said by amigo_boy:

The problem with the health care debate is that it's framed like "free markets" against "socialism." This is a faulty starting point. The health care system has nothing in common with pure, raw free markets. It is essentially a state-sponsored monopoly.

said by jslik:

Well, enjoy it while it lasts, because you know a Clinton-appointed FCC will reverse many of these recent decisions.

(that wouldn't be necessarily bad in some cases, IMHO)

said by Josimars:

Halleujah. If Kevin Martin and his colleagues can pull this off this would be the best thing for poor people and indeed the rest of the econommy since slice bread.

said by Josimars:

Halleujah. If Kevin Martin and his colleagues can pull this off this would be the best thing for poor people and indeed the rest of the econommy since slice bread.

said by Kearnstd:

now all the FCC needs to do is end Exclusive rights to towns for CATV. however the states would never allow their cash cow to be killed(aka Franchise Fees that go directly to the general fund).

It does not prevent a property owner from negotiating a bulk discount for its residents or bargaining for heightened customer service requirements. Nor does it give any video provider the right to enter an MDU over the objection of the property owner. It simply removes a large obstacle to providing residents of MDUs with the ability to choose among alternative providers serving the surrounding community

said by pokesph:

I do want to choose MY own provider.. not be forced to use XYZco who's service either sucks or doesn't have what I want or need.

said by fAcEtIOUs:

And what makes you think that companies will rush in to try and get customers in buildings that already have signed up 90% of the people to the existing provider in an apartment building?

Because of the cost involved and the need to cut deals with the landlords, the FCC rule(even if upheld on court challenges) will NOT mean a rush of new competitors. People seem to forget that the landlord CAN ignore an existing exclusive contract, but that doesn't mean he HAS TO cut NEW deals with other providers.

said by fiberguy:

I am a believer that Telephone has a right to enter ALL premises and cable is a privilege - and it should remain that way. (Fiberguy haters, pick up your heart at the door now) Yes, I said phone has more rights over cable.

said by fAcEtIOUs:

And what makes you think that companies will rush in to try and get customers in buildings that already have signed up 90% of the people to the existing provider in an apartment building?

said by caco:

Lawyers start your engines.

said by inteller:

I agree. This one needs to head straight to court. The government should NOT be able to tell a landlord what communications services he should/should not offer for his apartment.

I think next the FCC needs to force doctor's office waiting rooms to open up and allow choice between IPTV, cable and satellite.

said by not :

Big deal. This won't have such a big impact on anything. ...

said by fiberguy:

The key to remember is that the utilities won't step foot on the grounds of ANY development, be it apartment, condo, HOA, or even the typical housing development, with out payment from the contractor. Phone never cared - they looked at their payment as entitlement money. Cable has always been a luxury or a requirement in most cases based on [/BQUOTE/

By The way the phone companies were forced to provide service by the federal government by federal law until recently. They ate the cost of new deployment and maintaince of outside plant and hope to recoup the cost over time. The companies usally worked with the developer to place conduits under streets/diveways,ect. Down here the placement of cabinets are usually placed at the beginning of the development or by a lift station with landscaping around it. They don't get any money from the developments.

One more thing if any condo/HOA has streets that are maintained by taxpayers dollars and have ROW's and easements then any company should be allowed to put their lines in that ROW/easement as it is public property.
--
GO NOLES!!

said by fiberguy:

They are.. you're right.

But, cable did it MORE for a few reasons. Back when all this went on, there really was no competition where the bulk of the agreements happened. They WERE T.V. - Even unto this day, telephone wants money to put their lines in at any new development. Cable too charged for money to wire places up. It has never been free to wire a place. However, cable approached these places and said "fine, we'll wire your place, eat the cost, but we want exclusive rights to the wires. For that, I see no problems - it was fair.

Also, keep in mind, this was at a time many complexes were not budging to wire or bring in cable tv where people were wanting it and demanding it. They were, at the time, stuck with a SMATV system, basically, locals, TBS, MTV, and MAYBE HBO. It was the SMATV system or cable. So, apartments struck the deals to get cable to wire in for free.

NOW, today, phone wants free access to these places? Why all the sudden the turn? To say "but i guess cable does it so much more..." - you need to look at the entire picture.

The bulk of these deals are older ones - yet the apartment owners didn't sign them once, but sometimes resigned again and again when they expired.

Housing developments...? Never should have happened....

To be honest, it's phone, once again, that is crying foul after laying the playing field for so long - all the sudden some exec gets off their hump and their light bulb strikes over their head and here we are... forgetting about the past that they so well blazed into what we know of today.

Cable isn't the bad guy in this necessarily.. if it weren't for these deals they wrote, there would have been MANY apartment dwellers that would still be trying to get cable tv service of any sort as recent as the late 90s.

The key to remember is that the utilities won't step foot on the grounds of ANY development, be it apartment, condo, HOA, or even the typical housing development, with out payment from the contractor. Phone never cared - they looked at their payment as entitlement money. Cable has always been a luxury or a requirement in most cases based on franchise agreements to wire homes. Apartments were always another issue though.

said by majortom1029:

If you own the building don't you have the rights to let anybody you want service the building even if its 1 operator?

Its your own building right? So What would stop building owners from making a deal with say cablevision and just not letting verizon installing any equipment in the building.

That would be the same right and cant be stopped?

said by jaminus:

I live in an apartment and I recently learned it has an exclusive MDU agreement with Comcast. So I should get favorable bulk pricing, right?

As the FCC has found, cable companies are often lying when they claim exclusive arrangements are key to bargain lower prices for residents of apartments.

I also cannot get DSL. My building intentionally added fiber in the loop, as per Comcast's requests, so cable is my only internet choice.

The cable companies argue that exclusive contracts are essential for them to recoup their investment. Bullshit. How many apartments without exclusive arrangements don't have cable service?

The huge profits cable companies stand to earn from tenants over the life of an apartment complex easily justify the expense of wiring it.

Maybe cable companies will demand some money from the landlord initially, but a one-time expense to wire a building, divided among all the tenant's monthly rents, is trivial compared to the benefits of real choice.

Comcast dangles $100 American Express gift cards to landlords and buries exclusivity clauses deep in fine print. While building managers ought to exercise due diligence and carefully analyze any contract they sign, they simply lack the foresight or tech familiarity to understand what they're signing. So because shortsighted landlords sign unfavorable contracts, tenants lose. At best there is slight revenue sharing or a discount on service.

But having no choices is far worse than a slightly higher cable bill.

Neither my lease nor any documentation from my landlord mentions any sort of exclusive contract for cable TV. And my apartment's website even touts the complex as having "multiple phone lines for telephone or computers" but apparently that's a reference to dial-up, not DSL. Can I escape my lease because I was not adequately informed of this important fact? Nope.

I could take legal action, but who in their right mind would spend thousands of dollars in legal fees when a court judgment would likely be only a few hundred bucks?

In some cases, exclusive MDU contracts were signed by landlords who obtained the consent of residents and made an effort to inform prospective tenants of the arrangement.

When exclusive agreements are clearly benefiting residents are helping upstart local competitors like SureWest, I think contracts of that nature should stand.

But in most cases, unscrupulous managers facing asymmetrical information signed exclusivity deals to make a quick buck at the outset while ignoring the long-term cost on residents. These agreements should be ended quickly. /BQUOTE]

You are very confused .. as a renter, someone who is on either a month to month or short term lease (6 to 12 months on renew) has NO rights to any decision that the complex or property owner makes. They are not required one bit to ask you ANYTHING they don't want. However, they sometimes will poll their residents in some cases to ensure they keep residents. But, since your only obligation to the LL is the lease you have remaining, most don't care to these levels and make "business decisions" that best suit THEM - to which I support 100%. How they come to those decisions is their choice.. if they want to include the residents, that's their choice. if they don't and people move out for bad choices, then they suffer as well.

You have NO rights on the decisions an apartment owner makes when it comes to THEIR property.

I'm sorry to say that I can't find one factual stick of message in your post at all... it's pure emotion. People have a right to make comments and opinions, but you just spent an awful lot of time trying to pass off opinions as facts.
Anytime government interferes with voluntary contract we must be very skeptical. After all, in a free market the right of voluntary contract is tantamount. Many exclusive MDU agreements, however, are unconscionable. These contracts lack consideration and are blatantly one-sided. Plus, those who are suffering are not those who failed to exercise due diligence. Since judicial proceedings have failed to remedy the situation, it is time for the federal government to act.

In 1999, the FCC pried open television options for apartment tenants by mandating landlords let tenants install satellite dishes as long as they were not in common areas. This decision interfered in voluntary contract terms prohibiting satellites, but there were clear benefits to consumers and the outcome was clearly desirable from an economic standpoint. Likewise, in the case of exclusive MDU arrangements, the indisputable evidence of how harmful they are to apartment residents means we should let the FCC get rid of these contracts in this case.

said by jaminus:

»www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c···AGD1.DTL

Fiberguy, as always your passionate defense of markets and opposition to FCC action is a refreshing change of pace in a world where so many look to government to solve all their problems. I oppose the FCC’s decision out of principle, although I stand to benefit.

Does it really cost $30,000 to wire a building? My apartment complex was built in 1997. During construction, when the building was a shell and all the electrical wires, pipes, phone lines, etc. were being installed, I can’t imagine it having been that expensive to run coax wire throughout the complex.

Here’s what really grinds my gears: Comcast is going around taking advantage of landlords who are ignorant. Building managers like saving money on wiring but they do not have the technological foresight to predict the evolving landscape of telecommunications.

Comcast offers a $100 gift card and buries exclusivity details in fine print. They even write a service agreement summary that completely omits the fact that the contract requires an exclusive arrangement.

And Comcast swoops in just before AT&T has a chance to inform managers of its U-verse TV service that runs off existing phone lines, so it appears Comcast is doing this solely to choke competition because it knows about AT&T’s plans while many landlords apparently don’t.

Obviously people can move someplace else. But those who get stuck for 12 months in a building with a single broadband choice have good reason to be angry.

I think in this day and age, a reasonable person can assume that a landlord will not obstruct a tenant’s ability to obtain communications services over lines that are installed in the complex. When I see an active phone jack on my apartment wall, unless specified otherwise, it ought to go without saying that there aren'’t any obstructions willingly placed on the line to prevent DSL service on it.

Also, I don't live in a rent-control area but I see your point about them.

I believe in “caveat emptor”, but at the same time, I don’t expect prospective tenants should have to ask every possible question about an apartment.

My lease doesn’t mention hot water. So if I forgot to ask about it, and it turns out the max temperature is 80 degrees, should I be stuck with no recourse for 12 months unable to take a hot shower or get dishes cleaned?

Of course, the market will work such things out in the long run. But in the short run, people are harmed when landlords sign away their rights.

And I called Verizon twice to confirm DSL was available at my location. I checked the distance to my CO, which is estimated at 5000 feet. I regret not having researched the issue further and a site survey would have been smart.

I think it is bad business practice to advertise an apartment complex as having “multiple lines for computer and phone” if, in fact, DSL is prevented solely due to an exclusive contract with a cable company. I doubt there is grounds for a lawsuit unless I can prove that my building management company intentionally lied to me.

What do you think about the FCC forcing landlords to let tenants install dishes in private areas? I think that decision helped increase consumer choice and made television services more competitive.

That situation was different for many reasons from the MDU one, but other than causing an eyesore, why should dishes be banned by landlords?

Forgive the speculation, but maybe the market doesn’t send a clear enough signal to landlords on things like satellite bans or exclusive MDU agreements because people value TV choice less than they value the cost of moving or declining to live in an otherwise nice apartment.

Depending on the distance, it costs hundreds if not thousands to move out of an apartment unless you own a full-size SUV and have bulky friends willing to put in several hours (or days) of work.

So even if lots of tenants are irked by the lack of choice, they might only value it $50 or $100 apiece which isn’t adequate to induce them “voting with their wallets” so the landlord has no real incentive to adopt a more tenant-friendly policy.

Fiberguy, I've read countless posts from you and I agree with 95% of them. I was on the fence regarding the FCC proposal but you've convinced me it is a bad idea.