Comments on: FCC bans exclusive TV deals for cable

Commission adopts new rules that ban cable operators from locking apartment buildings into exclusive contracts in exchange for service.

[Gringras]

Wait a minute!

"The new rules should provide more choice for such dwellers as
telephone companies like AT&T and Verizon Communications
start offering TV services targeting this market."

How can AT&T lobby for and get a non-exclusive contract ruling,
when they have just such a deal with Apple?

[aka_tripleB]

This doesn't have a lot to do with AT&T

Sure, they'll be able to have an easier time selling its TV service, but it's more of the FCC's idea to do this than the telecos. Beside, this is totally different than the AT&T/iPhone exclusive contract. Sure, if you want the iPhone you're "stuck" with AT&T, but you can go with a different phone if you don't want AT&T. But with the exclusive contracts with appartment dwellings and cable providers, you can't get any other television service unless you move.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Competition?

I still am curious what this 'competition' thing is for cable TV. In my area there is only one provider- Comcast. There is nobody else so there's no concept of competition. They raise their rates and you have no choice except pay or go without.

In an apartment complex, you have even less choice- you use whatever is given to you. You can't go to the apartment manager and tell them you want XYZ cable instead of ABC. They aren't going to let you run new cabling from the street to the individual units. It's simply not going to happen.

Unless you can get that 'last mile' of cabling open and free to the market competition, then all of this is a moot point. In my area it was attempted and Comcast simply bought out all the companies.

Competition? Nope.

[GGGlen]

What about internet access?

The article talks at length about competition and cable "TV"
providers (and I agree with Vegaman_Dan's statement, there isn't
competition), but what about the cable co's and cable "INTERNET"?
Apartment dwellers are also locked in with whatever high-speed
INTERNET provider the complex has signed on with.
Maybe it's covered under the same umbrella, but the lack of the
word "INTERNET" was quite conspicuous to me.

[i_made_this]

I don't think so

Apartment dwellers are not locked in with [the] provider the complex has signed on with. At least, not the majority of apartment dwellers in Manhattan where Columbia Univ did a research paper on this statistic last year. The vast majority of building complexes here have opted out of signing on with any cable provider and do not offer cable to their tenants. Tenants must work directly with Time Warner Cable here. I've been a customer of theirs for 37 years. Nowadays because of advances in video technology at low cost, I no longer have much interest in TV and Cable channels. I subscribe to the rock bottom package of eight channels I hardly ever watch in order to get my cable internet connection at a discounted bundle rate.

Yes, I agree cable internet pricing is an outrage. Because so many complained, the cable companies devised a new stunt to screw the customer - offer slower broadband at a cheaper monthly rate; the marketing idiots are working hard to destroy consumer respect for the product. It doesn't cost the cable internet cos one cent more to offer the standard highest speed. The price for standard high speed cable and DSL (not the degraded speed product) should be more or less $15 to $20 monthly. And if you want HBO SHO ESPN etc thrown in, add ten dollars.

[rdlink]

OH MY GOSH!!

The problem that more and more apartment dwellers are facing is not exclusivity contracts with cable companies, but exclusivity contracts with satellite companies. A friend of mine is living with this right now. She left an apartment complex where Qwest and DirecTV had signed an exclusivity contract, and her only choice for TV was DirecTV, at $42 a month, plus equipment rental, along with the outrageous price DirecTV charges up front for the "rental" DVRs. Then she moved to another building with the same contract with DirecTV!!

She WISHES she could get Comcast! Hey FCC, how about making the rule cover cable's biggest competitor?

[QuietStormX]

Yea!

About time the strangle hold of slow to upgrade cable had. Now they will have to stay on top of upgrades and tech, or washed out like the cathode ray tube for Television. Teleco's have the upper hand now with the light.

[clsmithj]

Hallelujah!

its about time this happened. It made no since to me that only Comcast got to provide television service, and that if you wanted any other provided it either cost a rediculous extra monthly fee, or you couldn't get them.

[sumwatt]

Property rights?

While consumers may feel this is a boon to them, and rightfully so, it does leave a question of property rights to consider.

Apartments are owned by private companies. I don't see why the property owner should be limited from doing with their property as they see fit. If their property is only wired for one provider, there are other apartments that may offer other options. This is, or was, just simple limitation based on the property owner's preference. If you want added choice, buy a house or buy a condo where you have more options as a property owner. If you can't afford to purchase a house or condo where you do have property rights, maybe it's time to consider whether having cable is really a priority you should be worried about.

[chuck_whealton]

Re: Property rights?

What about property rights?

There's no reason a tenant in an apartment should be treated any differently than anybody who owns a private house when it comes to a choice in utilities.

Something else to keep in mind is that this doesn't JUST happen in apartments. It also happens in regular single home developments.

How about their "property rights"? Why shouldn't they be able to make the choice for themselves?

"Telcos, cable and other video providers also increasingly are making exclusive marketing deals, especially with upscale single-family home developments."

From: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_5736864,00.html

I can imagine WHY a builder or a company who owns large complexes would make an "exclusive" deal, but I'd be willing to bet it's for their own benefit, not that of the people buying their houses or living in their apartments.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[jemsick]

About time and exaclty what I have been saying...

This is whave I have been saying on other forums

"Your right it is a "choice" of where you live, what you pick out to wear, your electronics and so forth. The thing is if you have 3 companies out to get you. Let?s just say Comcast, Cox, and Qwest. Now let?s throw in the DirecTV and Dish Network. Now I know they are satellite providers but they need to be in this discussion. Now Cox and Comcast are big cable providers, both of which are in my area. The thing is Qwest is in my service area as well. Now I could get Dish and DirecTV but unfortunately I do not have a direct line of sight to the big satellite in the sky. Now that was my "choice" where to live in my apartment complex. The thing is MDU's, Condominiums, and Apartment Complex?s are controlled by either by one or more people. If I had a direct line of sight in the sky I would get it for more channels for a real inexpensive deal. Thing is I am unable to signal to my area because another building is in my way. So what is my other choice? Only Cox, like I said Comcast and Qwest are in my area as well. Unfortunately my complex has signed an exclusive deal with Cox, so I can not get Comcast, nor do I want that either, or Qwest of which I would like to have. I am able to get a signal from Comcast and Qwest I asked them personally. So, in order to get service a middle man was put in motion. The only person benefiting from this is the owner(s). We as the people are being stripped of competitive sales/marketing that is the point. It's a freedom of "choice". True, there are laws and contracts but when a contract such as cable is being stripped of competing fairly with the masses are stepping on Federal laws. I would like to have the same deal as satellite providers. If you are able to get a signal from DirecTV or Dish you have a right to that service within requirements. The same should be put in motion for all cable providers, if you live within the coverage area and meet the requirements you should have access to those services."

nuff said.

[Leeland Webster]

FCC Bans Exclusive TV Deals for Cable .. .

That's nice for apartment dwellers, what about those of us who have no alternative in an entire county. We live in a rural county and have only 1
cable provider, and only get Broadband (Cable Modem) from One provider and their prices are ridiculous. We have no choice other than a satellite. Ours is a take it our way or don't get it at all situation, that should not be. We also have a choice of 2 cell phone providers. If apartment dwellers think they are being singled out, let them try living here a while. Talk about Culture Shock, I experience it every time I leave the house.