Cable companies losing stranglehold on apartments
It's no secret that loads of folks loathe their cable company, but for some apartment dwellers, there's exactly one choice of service providers for TV, internet, and/or phone service. See, cable companies in some areas (read - anywhere they can) have negotiated exclusive distribution rights in buildings that they wired up, keeping other services at bay. Well, those castle walls are crumbling as a the Court of Appeals in Washington has upheld the 2007 FCC ruling that banned such practices as anticompetitive. Don't expect this decision to revamp the entire landscape -- cable companies are well-versed in how to keep competition down -- but this decision should make it easier for offerings like FiOS and U-verse to make inroads to dense metro areas. If all that's standing between you and FiOS is a shady cable company arrangement, now's your time to grab some fiber![Image courtesy Videogum]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3dpenguin @ May 29th 2009 1:28PM
Don't expect any ruling to effect cable's hold on apartments, seeing that less than half can ever receive any form of satellite because of receiver dish restrictions, and complexes don't have to allow you to run a cabled connection from a building face that are not directly connected to your apartment, most apartments aren't stuck with cable because of contracts with the complex holders, they are stuck with cable because they don't have a wall which a receiver can be hung facing South West which is required by the satellite providers.
Slappy Wag @ May 29th 2009 1:39PM
This is about CABLE providers being anti-competitive, not anything to do with changes to where you can place satellite dishes. Most leases do not allow you to place a satellite dish outside of your leased space (AKA your deck). Nobody said this would be changing.
So what was your point again?
aaronaaron @ May 29th 2009 1:51PM
I live in an apt that is TimeWarner only but in all the sourounding area people have PhiOs available. How would I even begin the process to get Verizon PhiOs in my Apt. Who would i have to talk to first or what document should i have printed up to validate my argument?
aaronaaron @ May 29th 2009 1:53PM
lol...
I forgot to fix my misspelling before I submitted my comment.
"surrounding"
chestnu1 @ May 29th 2009 2:48PM
I think you mean fios.
Frosty22 @ May 29th 2009 2:52PM
I think he is a Philadelphite trying to be clever.
catbertz @ May 29th 2009 3:25PM
I thought it was spelled Killadelphite?
THizzle7XU @ May 31st 2009 12:18PM
My complex was TW only up until earlier this year when enough people complained that Cincinnati Bell put in an installation of their fiber service Fioptics. I think about half the place switched since they offered 30Mb down/up Internet cheaper than TW, and better TV service. TW didn't seem to care at first (they didn't even attempt to keep me when I canceled), but apparently enough people switched for them to wake up (kinda) as I'm now getting a flier once a week and even twice in a day about them wanting me back as a customer, even though the deal on the flier is still worse than what I already have.
koehler83 @ May 29th 2009 2:04PM
In my building in Toronto, Rogers Communications has a service contract with the management to provide around the clock service to all tenants (meaning technicians have access to the building at all hours) and reduced rates on all services for tenants but has no exclusive service contract among individual tenants. Anyone is free to any service provider they wish.
I find that to be a fair and convenient arrangement between the management and provider.
Nick @ May 29th 2009 11:19PM
I doubt that FCC and appeals court rulings in the US have ANYTHING to do with canada, guy.
koehler83 @ May 30th 2009 12:48AM
I guess I'll just stop reading Engadget because the FCC has no jurisdiction over me or my service providers.
plonk420 @ May 29th 2009 2:10PM
now they just need to sue channel bundling out of existence. (amusingly, i work for a cable company)
Rob @ May 29th 2009 2:54PM
This picture is wrong. They should show people throwing away their cable converter boxes rather than their tv set.
Chad @ May 29th 2009 3:18PM
You're right. That picture is for the 2005....um...er...Feb 2009.....no....June 2009 digital conversion.
mister @ May 29th 2009 3:19PM
In my opinion the government should break up cable companies such as comcast and time warner on the basis that they are anti-competitive and offer shady service to their customers.
They should break up their divisions ( such as the phone division, internet division, etc) into separate companies so a customer wouldn't feel bound to one operator. Also, they should ban/subsidize surcharges so customers wouldn't feel they have to pay to use another company for another service. For example, if i wanted to use time warner for tv and earthlink for internet, i would have to pay separate surcharges for this "privilege". But without surcharges, i would only be paying for the service, which the companies already make a profit off of due to price gouging and inability to serve their customers.
Also like Japan, the government should mandate all companies use fiber as the de-facto medium for delivery TO the house, no bullshit fiber nodes or backbone fiber network. Either that or raise a tax on companies that fail to upgrade their infrastructure to accommodate.
As you can see, the government does not have to take control of the home entertainment industry, but from a buisness standpoint, these companies are clearly taking advantage over their customers and the government should at least put pressure on them to buck up or they will go bankrupt with taxes. Companies should be able to die and new ones to start up.
Nick @ May 29th 2009 11:23PM
I have to agree that internet and TV should have nothing to do with one another. Internet is becoming less and less a luxury and more a necessity in the modern world. TV will always be a luxury, let them compete with satellite for that, charge whatever they want, etc.
I personally believe that the cable companies should all be nationalized, or be HIGHLY regulated. That's what they do in Europe, and their data rates are 20 times ours in some places.
minimalist @ May 29th 2009 3:38PM
Its time for the FCC to treat cable companies like utilities. The cable giant's monopolies on high speed lines to our homes must come to an end just as AT&T and the Bell's monopolies came to an end 20 years ago. Data is no longer a luxury. Its a utility.
Satellite is a technology with no future in an IP-based entertainment and communications world. Fast, two-way communication is where the action is and the cable companies know this (hence broadband caps that apply to their competitors but which conveniently don't apply to their own content), And they are not about to give up their cushy anti-competitive contracts with local municipalities without a fight.
The inroads that Fios and U-verse are making are simply not enough. We need numerous cable ISPs that all have access to the same lines.
Pingles @ May 29th 2009 3:34PM
This is important because there ARE Cable companies that don't bother to compete because they don't have to.
Our local Charter provider has EIGHT HD channels. No, not EIGHTY...EIGHT. And the price for HD is the same premium I pay for DirecTV's selection.
I live in an area that commutes to San Jose, CA. Even though Silicon Valley is less than an hour away we're pretty much living in the Cable Dark Ages.
Indiscretion @ May 29th 2009 11:46PM
well as far as i know in atlanta even though UVerse is available in my zip code comcast pretty much has my apt complex on lock because its either Comcast or no internet/cable at all and IT SUCKS...
Naman @ May 30th 2009 12:11AM
Sorry guys, but UVerse just came to my apartment complex as competition to Time Warner. Goodbye Time Warner!
McG2k1 @ May 30th 2009 1:02AM
I'm in LA and we have this exact problem. If the companies are forced to allow competition we still have the landlords who just refuse to let us put up dishes. Won't even discuss it.
Next step IMO is to force building owners to give tenants roof space for solar, or satellite, or a damn garden for that matter.
ch @ May 30th 2009 1:05AM
Comcast with out any doubt is the shadiest and one of the most corrupt companies in this country.
First off they pushed for the DTV conversion so everyone would just go to cable and did not do the converter box shuffle. They had ads are you ready get basic cable!
Second, I got HD service with them for about 6 months and then I was sick of dishing out money for TV I didn't watch. I called up and supposedly cancelled it. December mind you.
March rolls around and low and behold Comcast thinks that I need to pay them 63 for HD service for Jan, Feb, March. NO, I called and cancelled. Thats what you think, Comcast tells me point blank there is no proof I did that!
Um how was I even watching anything in HD. If I did not have the box.
I told them I will not pay a dime and they turned it over to a collection agency. Yeah seriously. I got sick of yelling at these idiots and caved.
F it.
Comcast can screw themselves and I hope the FCC ruling does something to them.
Eddy120876 @ May 30th 2009 1:18AM
Yes, Yes,Yes
Now i can finally take my stinky ass landlord to court if he tries to stop me from getting the Dish or Fios :-D. Two years ago I manage to get 99 of the families on my building to sing a petition to get a single Dish for the entire building Dish network and Direct Tv did the contract. Insurance for the building which was to cover any damage to the structure and any thing else(2 million dollars total). So i send the contract,tenats signature and other info. The first thing they said was 1-we never got it. So i resend it this time certified and they tried that trick and i told then your secretary got it. So they told me next time they will check it out but they never did now they have no choice..hehehe
deric @ Jun 1st 2009 2:39PM
Whenever you get tired of signing a petition, you should SING it!
I thought there was a ruling or other lawful type thing that said apartment dwellers must be permitted the use of a satellite dish as long as it is not affixed in a permanent way to the building.
My lease specifically states I am permitted with certain reasonable restrictions.
I've seen other apartment buildings where tenants have satellite dishes affixed right outside their window or on their deck - the latter is usually some sort of clamp that can be easily removed when the tenant chooses to discontinue service.
I'm in SoCal (San Diego)
3dpenguin @ May 30th 2009 12:33PM
This doesn't force landlords to let you modify or apply devices or structures to their properties, which includes the land and anything permanently affixed on the land, they don't have to let you put satellite dishes in if they don't want you to. What this does is make it illegal for landlords to force a specific provider on their tenants through contractual obligations with that provider, don't expect your landlord to buckle and say okay you can now put in a dish, because they can tell you no because it is still their property to maintain, it just won't happen, no matter how much complaining you do, landlords only care about your monthly bill and things they are contractually obligated to provide.
3dpenguin @ May 30th 2009 12:40PM
My point is this article is extremely misleading, it makes it sound like the only reason why people get cable in apartments is because the complex has made a contractual obligation with a cable provider, which is just not true, most apartment complexes don't care what service you use, its the way you receive those services that they care about, if it requires major modification or external receiving devices to be applied to the building or set up on THEIR land they generally will say no, and even for those who's landlords really don't care about this very much they are restricted by the fact that if its not cable its satellite and thus you have to be able to point your dish in a specific direction or you get no signal, quite often they won't even install if the dish can't be placed right outside or near your window, partially because the signal degrades after about 50' across coax but more likely because most apartment complexes don't do enough to secure tenant property and those dishes would be stolen or destroyed if they weren't close enough for the tenant to maintain some form of personal property security.
Eddy120876 @ May 30th 2009 1:04PM
@3Dpenguin
the only answer my landlord came up with was that they didn't agree with the dish company being the only service provider they didn't like it because they knew they won't get pay under the table like cablevision is doing for then. We had a tenant that had the dish attached to his firescape and they were giving him hell because of that. He even spoke to his son(a firefigther to see if it was unlawful) his son told him no as long as it dosent blocks the window or staircase. Also we tried to work around the issue of multiple satelites and just get one. They rejected solely on the "only one provider" issue. Is all about money here in NYC but most landlords are afriad to be taken to court if they do something illegal so they might cave in. Besides most building around my area have alot of Sat service and its growing I hope they don't tried that tactic with Fios.
3dpenguin @ May 30th 2009 4:19PM
Well you actually have no leg to stand on here, even if the Feds step in and say that a landlord can't sign into exclisively binding contracts with cable providers they can still force you to take cable if they have placed restrictions on what they call "improvements" to the property, you are renting it, you do not own it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=mvlXStpeSVEC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=tenant+laws%2Bcable&source=bl&ots=cQxqe6OcUL&sig=93FRdMuGcmcw7NuPbsfTn8eAUS8&hl=en&ei=LpAhSpafJZGMNaaViKsJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA40,M1
Read pg 38 col. 2 and page 39 this gives a pretty good breakdown on what is going on with your landlord, he may be a jackhole but it is his property, but you always have the rights not to renew your lease when its up, but on the same note if you are to vocal about these restrictions he's placing on you he may also has the rights to terminate the lease when its up for renewal. Again, it doesn't matter if the device is within State or city code or not, this is not your property.
MJM @ Jun 1st 2009 5:51AM
I live in a 30+ year old apartment complex. Since day one they were serviced by the local county cable company. Sometime around 2001 Comcast bought them. To this day, I've only seen a couple satellite dishes in my entire complex. However, just recently, the entire complex was wired for Verizon FiOS. I mean wired to each individual apartment - they ran a conduit to each apartment's HVAC closet, and installed a board on the closet's wall, I assume for the ONT. I've received two mailings already telling me we should be able to order in the next couple of months. If I weren't moving this Summer, I would be thrilled. What timing! I can only hope FiOS will be available in my new home.
gjas18 @ Aug 15th 2009 10:07AM
I love how uninformed people are posting about the sat dish restrictions saying a land lord is in his/her rights to say no. They are only in very specific circumstances and that is only attaching them to the structure. They CAN NOT restrict a dish install if done on a tripod. They can only restrict attaching something to the building if it is provably historical or it is not in your exclusive use area (meaning anywhere not in your exclusive vertical and horizontal space). An example would be I have my dish 1000 attached to my deck railing. The area below the dish is city property so the apartment cannot say its non exclusive use. My landlord sent a letter around saying everyone with dishes attached to the building even in a temporary way will be taken down by maintenance. So i talked to them and came to the normal its in my lease crap. So I called and complained to the FCC, they sent a letter to my landlord stating in what ways the complex can restrict dish installs. I haven't heard about it since. Here is the FCC webpage detailing what is allowed and also has the complaint phone number http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html