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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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/SUB01/81110033...