4 ms·

somewhat agree. In 2006, I the co-owner of a PCO (Private Cable Operator) [1]. We ran under the radar for many years using the same loop holes for "right of w

somewhat agree. In 2006, I the co-owner of a PCO (Private Cable Operator) [1]. We ran under the radar for many years using the same loop holes for "right of way" and "inside wiring" laws. There are a couple little known facts or not so well understood laws which is why I slightly disagree with you and seems relevant to the article too. 1. There is right of way in many subdivisions to which the likes of AT&T can't keep me out of. It's illegal and monopolistic. One of my business partners was a home builder which was one of the angles but not the only one. 2. When a cable company or telephone company runs cable from a pedastal to your residence, you legally own that cable run. If it's a single family home, it's your property. The same is nearly true if you live in a Condo or an apartment with the difference being the property own owns the cable from the pedestal to the building and you own what is called the "inside wiring" which is the point of entry of the apartment/condo to your rented space. And these two laws allowed us to compete for a long time against the bigger Cable companies, including going into locations where they were well established and kicking them out in the case of Apartment complexes and Condos. Our typical modus operandi was to go into MDUs (Multi Dwelling Units) and offer the property owner revenue share contract in exchange for exclusive rights to the property; something the incumbents don't do. This only works with MDUs not municipalities. There are a lot of PCOs (Private Cable Operators). Maybe not enough to make a dent just yet, but I firmly believe this can continue. Comcast has good lobby power with FCC. They lobby for strict/stupid laws that attempt to create barriers to entry to try and keep the smaller PCOs from doing what we did... [1] http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20081109/SUB01/811100333/cable-provider-clicks-on-vc-cash-nex3-finds-niche http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20081109/SUB01/81110033...

nostrademons 11y ago
If it's just replacing a telco monopoly with an exclusive contract, isn't that just as bad (from a consumer perspective)? The whole point was that telcos ought to compete based on speed, reliability, and customer service, not on obtaining the favor of property owners & municipalities.
- amazon_not 11y ago
  Yes, it's bad from a consumer perspective. Still, it's better to have a monopoly to be subjected to some kind of competitive pressure than none. In an ideal world we'd have open access to infrastructure.
  - walshemj 11y ago
    LLU Local loop unbundling is what you need
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
brownbat 11y ago
Entry-level Internet prices have basically doubled under the duopoly in my area over the last two years, and their prices have moved in lock-step. I'd love to know how to attract the attention of either a PCO or maybe the FTC.
- HarryHirsch 11y ago
  To attract the attention of a politician you wave with some money. Why would you even ask?
  - chrisgd 11y ago
    There wasn't a question of attracting a politician.
hueving 11y ago
>in exchange for exclusive rights to the property Ugh. As a prospective tenant this sends me running the other direction. I don't want to be forced into some backwater provider if it turns out they suck so I skip any apartments with these types of arrangements.
- _0ffh 11y ago
  But you'd be totally fine with not having a choice because a big telco has stamped out all the competition in a city?
  - cordite 11y ago
    They are related evils. Saying no to one doesn't mean yes to the other.
    - busterarm 11y ago
      Actually it does. Exclusive contracts are how these companies stay in business. The larger providers hyper-aggressively price compete. I've seen 50/50 internet in a Triple Play for $30/mo - for 2 years. Nobody can compete with that pricing.
  - alistairSH 11y ago
    In my experience, the little companies with the exclusive rights provide far worse service than the large telcos. At least with the large telcos, I generally have a choice between Verizon Fios and AT&T or Comcast cable. When I've lived in buildings/neighborhoods with exclusive contracts, I've been stuck with one tiny company and the service was universally terrible.
    - busterarm 11y ago
      It's an interesting problem. I used to work for a PCO. A lot of developers do a really shitty job on the wiring, which is often why in these exclusivity agreements the PCO also negotiates to do the in-home wiring themselves. But these properties were built 10, 20 and 30 years ago when utilization was a lot less and infrastructure simpler. Often these contracts are not renewed (aggressive price competition from the incumbent provider) so it's not cost effective to do any upgrades until contract renewal time. Then you have overutilized nodes and shitty service.
pyvpx 11y ago
>Our typical modus operandi was to go into MDUs (Multi Dwelling Units) and offer the property owner revenue share contract in exchange for exclusive rights to the property; something the incumbents don't do. This only works with MDUs not municipalities. they must have caught on, because they certainly do this in some markets. I know first hand of this in Downtown Los Angeles.
- 67726e 11y ago
  It's very common where I live (Charleston, SC). You cannot find an MDU that doesn't have an exclusive agreement, and many apartment management companies force you to have some basic Comcast TV plan as a part of your lease, even if you only need internet.
- executive 11y ago
  TWC does this in LA.

nostrademons 11y ago

If it's just replacing a telco monopoly with an exclusive contract, isn't that just as bad (from a consumer perspective)? The whole point was that telcos ought to compete based on speed, reliability, and customer service, not on obtaining the favor of property owners & municipalities.

amazon_not 11y ago
Yes, it's bad from a consumer perspective. Still, it's better to have a monopoly to be subjected to some kind of competitive pressure than none. In an ideal world we'd have open access to infrastructure.
- walshemj 11y ago
  LLU Local loop unbundling is what you need
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

brownbat 11y ago

Entry-level Internet prices have basically doubled under the duopoly in my area over the last two years, and their prices have moved in lock-step. I'd love to know how to attract the attention of either a PCO or maybe the FTC.

HarryHirsch 11y ago
To attract the attention of a politician you wave with some money. Why would you even ask?
- chrisgd 11y ago
  There wasn't a question of attracting a politician.

hueving 11y ago

>in exchange for exclusive rights to the property Ugh. As a prospective tenant this sends me running the other direction. I don't want to be forced into some backwater provider if it turns out they suck so I skip any apartments with these types of arrangements.

_0ffh 11y ago
But you'd be totally fine with not having a choice because a big telco has stamped out all the competition in a city?
- cordite 11y ago
  They are related evils. Saying no to one doesn't mean yes to the other.
  - busterarm 11y ago
    Actually it does. Exclusive contracts are how these companies stay in business. The larger providers hyper-aggressively price compete. I've seen 50/50 internet in a Triple Play for $30/mo - for 2 years. Nobody can compete with that pricing.
- alistairSH 11y ago
  In my experience, the little companies with the exclusive rights provide far worse service than the large telcos. At least with the large telcos, I generally have a choice between Verizon Fios and AT&T or Comcast cable. When I've lived in buildings/neighborhoods with exclusive contracts, I've been stuck with one tiny company and the service was universally terrible.
  - busterarm 11y ago
    It's an interesting problem. I used to work for a PCO. A lot of developers do a really shitty job on the wiring, which is often why in these exclusivity agreements the PCO also negotiates to do the in-home wiring themselves. But these properties were built 10, 20 and 30 years ago when utilization was a lot less and infrastructure simpler. Often these contracts are not renewed (aggressive price competition from the incumbent provider) so it's not cost effective to do any upgrades until contract renewal time. Then you have overutilized nodes and shitty service.

pyvpx 11y ago

>Our typical modus operandi was to go into MDUs (Multi Dwelling Units) and offer the property owner revenue share contract in exchange for exclusive rights to the property; something the incumbents don't do. This only works with MDUs not municipalities. they must have caught on, because they certainly do this in some markets. I know first hand of this in Downtown Los Angeles.

67726e 11y ago
It's very common where I live (Charleston, SC). You cannot find an MDU that doesn't have an exclusive agreement, and many apartment management companies force you to have some basic Comcast TV plan as a part of your lease, even if you only need internet.
executive 11y ago
TWC does this in LA.