FCC treats apartment dwellers to cable competition

We realize what day it is, but we're pretty certain the FCC isn't messing around on this one. Right on cue, regulators have "approved a rule that would ban exclusive agreements that cable television operators have with apartment buildings, opening up competition for other video providers that could eventually lead to lower prices." The move was apparently "unanimously approved," and Chairman Kevin Martin went on to say that there was simply "no reason that consumers living in apartment buildings should be locked into one service provider." Not surprisingly, a spokeswoman for Comcast proclaimed that "many consumers were likely to wind up paying more for services if the FCC's interference in the competitive marketplace stands," but it's fairly safe to assume Verizon and AT&T see things very differently.

[JTM @ Oct 31st 2007 2:01PM]

Some people would WANT to pay more for better service.

[rock99rock @ Oct 31st 2007 2:07PM]

Correct, and now you have the right to pay more, if you WANT to. TVMAX has most of the Houston area apartments locked in a lifetime agreement. I do not know if this ban directly affects those contracts, but I do know that any choice is better than what TVMAX has to offer.

[Wesburl @ Oct 31st 2007 2:19PM]

Comcraptic would say something like that...

Too bad they are used to bullying customers around who don't know any better, and I bet the FCC/AT&T/Verison just laughed when she said that.

By the way, I'm at work (Network Administrator) wearing a Pirate costume. Can anyone guess why I choose it?? Yaaarrrrrggg!!!

[frank @ Oct 31st 2007 2:47PM]

Now, let's do the same to verizon and at&t and we can eliminate rumors of hypocrisy. As I have it, I can ONLY use Verizon because that's what was allocated at my apartment and for this part of town.

Now let those wires be used for ANYONE also. Something tells me this won't happen.

[foneguy2 @ Oct 31st 2007 3:43PM]

@Frank: Your wish has already been granted. You have a 'demarcation' box on the back of your house for phone were the phone company equipment stops and your cabling starts. If another phone company wants to provide service to you they can at that point and/or purchase the existing cabling from your phone company (below wholesale) and resell it to you (for a profit). Same goes for people in apartments.

[bondsbw @ Oct 31st 2007 4:08PM]

Everytime a Comcast representative speaks, a granny gets out her hammer.

Comcast, think of the grannies, they shouldn't have to do all this hard labor.

[Paul @ Nov 1st 2007 12:58PM]

Eat Me Comcast!

[sepirioth @ Oct 31st 2007 2:06PM]

Finaly te FCC does something productive. I'm surprised they all voted for this instead of by a slim margin.

[blevay @ Oct 31st 2007 2:12PM]

Good luck actually trying to get any competitors though...unless you're in a region lucky enough to get FiOS.

[Reginald @ Oct 31st 2007 6:39PM]

...and if you're lucky enough to be in an area that has FiOS and the local city govt. allows competition.

I mentioned this before on Engadget. We have FiOS in Philadelphia but due to "Franchise Zoning laws" only Comcast is allow to sell cable service in Philly. Even though we have FiOS, Verizon is unable to sell us the additional FiOS TV service.

Does this new mandate apply to city govt. as well or can individual cities work around it and put their own rules in place?

[Adam @ Oct 31st 2007 2:19PM]

"many consumers were likely to wind up paying more for services if the FCC's interference in the competitive marketplace stands"

It's not very competitive when you don't allow for competition.

[Diceburna @ Oct 31st 2007 2:26PM]

Since this ruling passed today I hope sometime this week if not today I get an email from Verizon saying FIOS is available in your apt. :-D

[Arno @ Oct 31st 2007 2:29PM]

Yet Time Warner has an exclusive on most of Brooklyn?

[Cory @ Oct 31st 2007 3:05PM]

No, they're the exclusive CABLE supplier for the area, but there are still other (although few) options on content delivery. It's a cable vs. FiOS, etc. thing, rather than Time Warner vs. Comcast or Cox or some other cable company.

[blade417 @ Oct 31st 2007 2:34PM]

the hammer lady would be proud ;)

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jnzjbdKkATilSOXUsVJPUG8_kifwD8SCE3AG0

[Matt B @ Oct 31st 2007 2:35PM]

I'm surprised it took this long. A localized monopoly is still a monopoly.

[getz76 @ Oct 31st 2007 2:37PM]

Eat me, Cablevision, you bunch of hosers.

I live in a 500 unit apartment building, and they have enough pipe for 200 digital cable signals. One person calls up Cablevision to complain they have no picture, and one of those nerds show up, get into the phone closet, and put some else on a 4-way splitter. The next day, that person calls and the same, cyclical process happens.

We have a Cablevision technician in the building from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. most days. Insanity.

Now, WHEN will DirecTV finally finish their new Windows product so I can put a dish on my patio and have my HTPC burninate across the livingroom?

[Keith Berard @ Oct 31st 2007 3:00PM]

Does anyone know if this also applies to POTS, or if there is already something on the books?

I ask because I use Vonage, but live in an apartment complex. Verizon currently supplies service, but refuses to disconnect the hookup so I can use my existing wiring. Not being the owner, I can't simply go down to the network interface and disconnect it myself. Verizon keeps a dial tone on that line for 911 and, as the representative I spoke with said, "to make it easier for the next person who moves in."

Do I have any recourse?

[Billster @ Oct 31st 2007 3:44PM]

The wire inside your apartment belongs to you. If you live in an apartment building, your phone wire enters your apartment somehow - also known as the "Point of Entry", where they usually install the Network Interface. The purpose of the Network Interface is to divide the outside wiring from the inside wiring. All you have to do is disconnect your internal wiring (the ones that goes to your jacks) from the outside wire (the ones that bring the dialtone from the phone company). You don't actually have to get into the phone company box in the bowels of the building; in fact, you're not allowed to.

In an apartment building, the Point of Entry is usually in a closet. Ask your super where it is.

[Keith Berard @ Oct 31st 2007 4:19PM]

Thanks, I'll give it a try.

[ControlledBurn @ Oct 31st 2007 5:22PM]

My question would be, will this affect any exclusive television agreement within apartment complexes? My apartment has some agreement with a company that resells Dish network essentially. I'm stuck with standard definition TV for a ridiculous price if I want anything beyond OTA channels. I'd take Comcast over their crap anyday, but I'm secretly hoping for FIOS or U-Verse.

[Paul @ Oct 31st 2007 6:10PM]

Sounds like my cable company Hotwire. They pipe a DirectTV signal down, no HD and their service is horrible I would rather have comcast too but I would really like FIOS

[MasterCKO @ Oct 31st 2007 3:12PM]

"many consumers were likely to wind up paying more for services if the FCC's interference in the competitive marketplace stands"

Hrm, seems to be that she's saying "Monopoly is Competitive." Yes, and along those same lines, "Freedom is Slavery; War is Peace; Ignorance is Strength."

Seriously, Comcast's weak-ass attempt at spin is pretty pathetic. Way to be, FCC.

[Alexander Pink @ Oct 31st 2007 3:16PM]

So when does this become effective? At what point can we, as consumers, call another provider and ask for service, or argue with our apartments under this change. Is congressional or other action necessary?

[Don @ Oct 31st 2007 3:24PM]

I don't believe any additional action is required, so the rule will become effective once published (unless otherwise stated). However, there's two probable issues: 1) cable companies will probably sue, and it's even-money they'll get a restraining order to prevent enforcement of the rule, and 2) even if that didn't happen and the complexes were opened up immediately, most of the providers wishing to serve them will have at least some capital cost in connecting the properties to their systems. Since exclusive contracts probably barred competitors from installing any equipment on the property, they have to spend some money getting caught up before they can actually offer service.

Or so I figure. I could be wrong.

[Z @ Oct 31st 2007 4:54PM]

Well, this is GOOD news. VERY good news!

But that spokeswoman from Comcast needs to be slapped. What a dumb thing to say. Customers aren't going to be paying more. Comcast is going to be paying more - paying more in figuring out how to deal with all the new competition - and they're going to have to eat those costs, because customers aren't going to pay more than they already do. If the cable companies try to do that, at least with TV programming, the satellite companies will just take advantage of the opportunity to drum up more business - and they'll get it.

Too bad we can't get internet and phone with the Sat providers, though - that's another issue altogether - but I don't think rates will increase there either - not with the vultures pecking at each other.

[dcny @ Oct 31st 2007 5:57PM]

When does this take effect, cant wait to get rid of comcrap

[Mike @ Oct 31st 2007 8:50PM]

One thing that no one has mentioned is that infrastructure at the apartment complex is not set up for multiple cable providers. One of my previous jobs has made me quite familiar with how apartment complexes are wired. Cable (coax) is usually not "home runs" like the phone, its on a riser system. Each apartment is fed from the one below it. With phones, everyone needs their own copper pair to the apartment. With cable, everyone can be provided the same signal and the decoding (what channels you get) was done at the TV/cable box.

Now with this new rule, how exactly do you get two cable providers multiplexed onto one coax? The whole apartment complex would need to be rewired. Who's going to pay for that?

I'm sure they will find a way, but it's just a thought.

[allenvanhellen @ Oct 31st 2007 9:04PM]

In my opinion, none of the cable companies are gonna be too sad about this unless the FCC also plans to force apartments to give dwellers access to a communal antenna for OTA TV. That would be a real victory for the little guy.

I used to live in an apartment that had a nice big antenna... but the line had been disconnected by Time Warner. I put an antenna on the patio (FCC-allowed) but the landlord asked for a large deposit (sorta FCC-allowed). I then hid the antenna behind a short bamboo fence, but eventually the landlord forced me to take that down. I moved the antenna inside, but (ironically) I could no longer get PBS.

[Patrick @ Oct 31st 2007 10:41PM]

How did Comcast get this monopoly? What did it do to get the apartment owners to agree to go with them exclusively? How do the apartment owners benefit from these agreements? Were these deals forced at gunpoint? Are the inhabitants of the apartment forced to live there? Does their ISP, or lack of one, tread on their rights?
I don't really know the story here, but it smells fishy. I've been screwed by government regulations (designed to "protect the workers") too many times to see this as a path of daisies. Well, good luck getting better speeds. :)

[ttringle @ Nov 1st 2007 10:52AM]

The Cable company's get exclusive deals the same way that other companies do. They paid someone off with favors, money, candy, sex, etc. Take your pick.

The fact is this makes any existing agreements or contracts that provide exclusivity in Cable TV NULL and VOID. So if you live in a city that says Comcast is the only provider they allow, they can't enforce that, as the FCC is a Federal body and therefore unless the state creates a Law that overrides this specific Law then they will have to play by this rule.

[Commenter2 @ Nov 13th 2007 6:59PM]

Yes--most of the apartments I looked at in the Galleria area require TVMax. TVMAX doesn't offer HD, video on demand, etc. I though this didn't sound legal...it's good to know now it isn't. I'm switching tomorrow (if I can!)