F.C.C. Set to End Sole Cable Deals for Apartments
- Thread starter HokieEngineer
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 12
- Views 2K
While I'm not a fan of unnecessary governmental intrusion--I loathe it--here I am in favor of it for one big reason: these exclusive deals serve only the interest of the cable or DBS local dealer, who makes an arrangement with the MDU's management company. In our apt. complex, for example, I have DirecTV; however, two years ago some DISH dealer came in and got our management company to sign an exclusive deal that prohibits incoming tenants from having DirecTV; they have to hook up with DISH if they want DBS at all. It's either DISH or nothing.
This is an obvious stifling of competition and consumers' freedom of choice in the marketplace. While I'm grandfathered in as a DirecTV customer, our landlord won't allow anyone to (a) even put up a dish--a violation of the OTARD rules; or (b) have DirecTV via the MDU hookup.
So, in this case, I say good for the FCC!
This is an obvious stifling of competition and consumers' freedom of choice in the marketplace. While I'm grandfathered in as a DirecTV customer, our landlord won't allow anyone to (a) even put up a dish--a violation of the OTARD rules; or (b) have DirecTV via the MDU hookup.
So, in this case, I say good for the FCC!
FCC To Ban Exclusive Broadband Deals
FCC To Ban Exclusive Broadband Deals - New rules to be handed down on Wednesday... - dslreports.com
For months, AT&T and Verizon have been asking the FCC to ban cable operators from maintaining exclusive service contracts with the owners of apartment buildings, developments and MDUs (multiple dwelling units). When the phone company asks for something, the FCC delivers:
The Federal Communications Commission, hoping to reduce the rising costs of cable television, is preparing to strike down thousands of contracts this week that gave individual cable companies exclusive rights to provide service to an apartment building, the agency’s chairman says.
With their usual flair for leaks, the FCC's plans, to be clarified Wednesday, were known by the public weeks ago. Cable providers and landlords, meanwhile, argue that the FCC lacks the legal authority to intervene and that nothing is wrong with the current system. Cable operators have insisted that the deals bring consumers lower prices.
Consumers stuck in such cable arrangements usually don't agree. The smaller exclusive operators in particular have absolutely no competition and therefore no incentive to improve, so they frequently offer pricey services, few features and limited customer support.
Verizon, of course, is making a big push this year into the MDU market with FiOS, and last we checked, they had some exclusive deals of their own. Such deals are sometimes extreme; one development in Virginia is locked into an exclusive, decades-long service contract with an FTTH company residents say is unreliable and overpriced.
FCC To Ban Exclusive Broadband Deals - New rules to be handed down on Wednesday... - dslreports.com
For months, AT&T and Verizon have been asking the FCC to ban cable operators from maintaining exclusive service contracts with the owners of apartment buildings, developments and MDUs (multiple dwelling units). When the phone company asks for something, the FCC delivers:
The Federal Communications Commission, hoping to reduce the rising costs of cable television, is preparing to strike down thousands of contracts this week that gave individual cable companies exclusive rights to provide service to an apartment building, the agency’s chairman says.
With their usual flair for leaks, the FCC's plans, to be clarified Wednesday, were known by the public weeks ago. Cable providers and landlords, meanwhile, argue that the FCC lacks the legal authority to intervene and that nothing is wrong with the current system. Cable operators have insisted that the deals bring consumers lower prices.
Consumers stuck in such cable arrangements usually don't agree. The smaller exclusive operators in particular have absolutely no competition and therefore no incentive to improve, so they frequently offer pricey services, few features and limited customer support.
Verizon, of course, is making a big push this year into the MDU market with FiOS, and last we checked, they had some exclusive deals of their own. Such deals are sometimes extreme; one development in Virginia is locked into an exclusive, decades-long service contract with an FTTH company residents say is unreliable and overpriced.
This was already report this morning.
http://www.satelliteguys.us/general...-c-c-set-end-sole-cable-deals-apartments.html
http://www.satelliteguys.us/general...-c-c-set-end-sole-cable-deals-apartments.html
Has anyone heard any details as to whether or not this will affect non-franchise PCOs? I work for a small cable company that can't afford to directly compete with the big boys, especially in terms of available bandwidth. There have been rumors that there will be an exemption for small PCOs.
FCC Bans Exclusive Cable Contracts
DSL · Cable · VOIP · Security · Satellite · Fiber · News · Tips · Reviews · Community · Tools - dslreports.com
Comcast has another excuse to raise rates...
02:42PM Wednesday Oct 31 2007 by Karl
As expected (see previous report), the FCC today ruled to ban cable operators from striking exclusive deals with MDU (multiple dwelling unit) 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. In a statement, FCC boss Kevin Martin takes aim at rising cable rates:
As the Commission has found, from 1995 to 2005, cable rates have risen 93%. In
1995, cable service cost $22.37 per month. Prices for expanded basic cable service have now almost doubled. The trend in pricing of cable services is of particular importance to consumers. Since 1996 the prices of every other communications service (such as long distance and wireless calling) have declined while cable rates have risen year after year after year.
The cable industry has previously stated they believe the FCC lacks the legal authority to intervene in such agreements. Comcast, pretending consumers don't consistently face rising TV rates come hell or high water, tells the Associated Press the decision will result in -- you guessed it -- rate hikes.
"The net result is that many consumers are likely to wind up paying more for services if the FCC's interference in the competitive marketplace stands," Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice said in an e-mailed statement. . . The cable industry, which had previously said it is unlawful for the government to invalidate existing contracts, said the deals provide apartment residents with better pricing and service.
The FCC actually ruled four years ago that such exclusive contracts didn't stifle competition, but that was before AT&T and Verizon decided they wanted to get into the TV business.
DSL · Cable · VOIP · Security · Satellite · Fiber · News · Tips · Reviews · Community · Tools - dslreports.com
Comcast has another excuse to raise rates...
02:42PM Wednesday Oct 31 2007 by Karl
As expected (see previous report), the FCC today ruled to ban cable operators from striking exclusive deals with MDU (multiple dwelling unit) 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. In a statement, FCC boss Kevin Martin takes aim at rising cable rates:
As the Commission has found, from 1995 to 2005, cable rates have risen 93%. In
1995, cable service cost $22.37 per month. Prices for expanded basic cable service have now almost doubled. The trend in pricing of cable services is of particular importance to consumers. Since 1996 the prices of every other communications service (such as long distance and wireless calling) have declined while cable rates have risen year after year after year.
The cable industry has previously stated they believe the FCC lacks the legal authority to intervene in such agreements. Comcast, pretending consumers don't consistently face rising TV rates come hell or high water, tells the Associated Press the decision will result in -- you guessed it -- rate hikes.
"The net result is that many consumers are likely to wind up paying more for services if the FCC's interference in the competitive marketplace stands," Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice said in an e-mailed statement. . . The cable industry, which had previously said it is unlawful for the government to invalidate existing contracts, said the deals provide apartment residents with better pricing and service.
The FCC actually ruled four years ago that such exclusive contracts didn't stifle competition, but that was before AT&T and Verizon decided they wanted to get into the TV business.
You work for BHN. If this was in their favor you'd be saying it was fine. But this favors Verizon and you are speaking out against it.
What about all the towns and cities where a cable provider has exclusivity? That has to be higher than %30 or atleast as high so why not just put an end to these dealings across the board instead of focusing on a group that has buildings that are not traditionaly apartments that are lumped into the MDU classification such as duplexes and apartment homes just to name a few.
No becuase it is government abuse of power to lobbiest. Lets take BHN for example. They spend MILLIONS of dollars on wiring these apartments, as part of these contracts BHN wires them for free to the property owner. So Will Verizon or Att or whomever is being given premission now to put there services in the APT complex have to pay BHN back for that? Its total Bullsh!t. 2 Companies BHN and the Apt company manamgement make a contract why should the government have premission to override it?
Secondly just a few years ago the FCC ruled this did nothing to hurt the consumer. Now all of a sudden (maybe because of the millions and millions in lobbying money now being thrown around) its a problem?
Third, Cable rates have risen 93% according to the article a user posted here.. Guess what. The number of channels and services offerd has risen from 12 to over 300 channels. Not to mention going from analog to digital and from one way to two way. Yea the cost has gone up, but so has the quality of service.
If the FCC agrees to let BHN charge a fee for using their lines, that they put in and paid for, (like the power companies or phone companies charge for access to there poles) Then Ok I will not have a big a complaint but it doesnt seem to me they are doing that. Every legislation thats been passed lately has been completely one sided.
