Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Media Government Politics

FCC To End Exclusive Cable For Apartments 269

Posted by kdawson from the falling-prices-gardyloo dept.
spiffyman writes "The New York Times is reporting that on Wednesday the FCC will end exclusive contracts to provide cable service to apartment buildings. Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin is quoted as saying that cable prices have risen 'about 93 percent in the last 10 years' and that the FCC hopes to see more competition out of this move. This is a step in the right direction. In my apartment, for example, I have (dead) outlets for one cable company but am forced to go with the higher-priced firm. Moves like this will help those who live in areas where competition — even minimal competition — exists. The article also discusses the impact this may have on low- to middle-income families, who disproportionately live in apartment complexes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC To End Exclusive Cable For Apartments More

FCC To End Exclusive Cable For Apartments

Comments Filter:

  • Could be something good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Monday October 29, 2007 @07:50PM (#21164355) Homepage Journal

    Across the road is the company I've wanted. They have excellent packages at good prices, but the one for my block has poorer packages and a poor reputation for service. I'm hoping this means both can compete, along with AT&T, for my block of flats, which should give me better options and service. Though I still smell a fish. There's been competition between cable and satellite for years, but prices are still rather steep.

    Cable is such a swindle I haven't give it much thought. The FCC screws up often enough, it's about time they did something right.

    ISR TV watches you, &c. &c. &c.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JackieBrown ( 987087 )
      I may finally be able to leave TimeWarner.

      That alone makes this good.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DuckWizard ( 744428 )
        What do you dislike about Time Warner? Granted, it's not exactly cheap (no cable is!)... but I do like how all non-premium channels are sent in unencrypted QAM (meaning cablecards need not apply). At least, that's the way it is in my area - and it plays really well with my HTPC. It really bums me out that I'm moving soon, and will probably have to get Cox, and will then be limited to OTA HD.

        • Re:Could be something good (Score:5, Interesting)

          by HTH NE1 ( 675604 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @08:15PM (#21164705)
          I can't speak for JackieBrown, but for me, the Mystro software on their cable boxes is incompatible with TiVo Suggestions (cable box will tune the wrong channel or crash if channel changes are done in sync with the schedule) which they seem to have no interest in fixing (despite us being an unannounced and unwilling beta test city), and lately even the CableCARDs are giving me problems with my TiVo Series3 HD (losing signal and not reacquiring on card slot 1 without reboot or ejecting and re-inserting the card, resulting it missed recordings), though this may be a TiVo problem.

          Though my home is very close to their office, service appointments have been at the end of their window, the last one more than an hour after the window closed. Apparently I'm being scheduled to be at the end of the return to the office. The periods always seem to overlap my recording periods at the end as well, so disruption is maximized.

          I do like how all non-premium channels are sent in unencrypted QAM (meaning cablecards need not apply). At least, that's the way it is in my area
          Not true in all areas. Here only the broadcast channels are unencrypted, and it was like pulling teeth to get my first Firewire-enabled HD cable box.

          The only competition here is with satellite, with Dish being hawked by the landline phone company and DirecTV wanting to sign you up for 5 rooms or more.
          • Same here and the lines are dilapidated.

            I get a good connection, but a non-constant one. The cable guy even told us that they had no incentive to repair or upgrade the lines.

            He went on to mention that the competition Grande Cable was better and had newer lines but did poorer with the apartment contracts.

            The apartment complex requires a $500 deposit and apartment insurance to cover at least a hundred thousand due to an increase chance of being stuck by lightning if you want to switch to satelite.

            • The apartment complex requires a $500 deposit and apartment insurance to cover at least a hundred thousand due to an increase chance of being stuck by lightning if you want to switch to satelite.

              You should check the relevant FCC regs -- I think that the apartment may not be able to require you to do this, at least for a regular pizzabox-type dish. A few years back (apparently the satellite companies must have really paid their bribes that year!) the FCC coughed up some pretty stringent regulations about apartment-dwellers and satellite dishes. As long as you don't bolt or otherwise attach it to any property that's not yours (meaning you probably need to go with a free-standing dish; easy enough if

              • If the dish is on property under your exclusive control, ie your deck, then they can suck it. Otherwise you need permission to install.
              • I believe this was the result of a class action lawsuit more then being paid off.

                It was in the mid 90's, I remember filling the paperwork out to join the lawsuit. Then sometime around the windows 95 launch, (or was it 98)I received the letter saying that we won and basically had a court order demanding the leaser to let us have a dish installed. It instructed us to notify someone specifically if we still weren't allowed. I don't remember who was sued but it wasn't my landlord himself. This was a suit that w

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by TheDormouse ( 614641 )
          In my area, Cox sends all the broadcast network channels in unencrypted QAM (if it's available OTA, it's available unencrypted QAM). Does Time Warner send HD versions of "expanded basic" cable channels (e.g. Discovery HD) as unencrypted QAM too??
    • I have free cable and internet from Time Warner included in my rent. Issue is both are shit. I can't do a damn thing about it because my second option is getting an exclusive connection from Time Warner which would chalk me up to $90/month.
      Highway fucking robbery in my opinion. All I want is news, weather, and comedy central. Maybe Adult Swim.

    • Cool for those in apartments.

      Now, can the do the same thing to my city so we can have competition?

      InnerWeb

      • Exactly, we have only 1 cable provider in my neighborhood, comcast. They suck in pretty much every way imaginable. The only competition they have presently is from satellite providers.

        Directv in the time we've had them has been far better than cable even back when AT&T was responsible for our service. The picture of the 3 channels we watched most with comcast was barely visible, with Directv, the picture is as crisp as a cheap TV can do, and consistently so.

        Price wise the cost of cable has gone from 5 d

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by slapout ( 93640 )
      Kinda makes ya wonder when DirecTV & Dish can put things in orbit around the planet and still be cheaper than cable.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ucklak ( 755284 )
      In Georgia (Greater Atlanta) they de-regulated natural gas making it a mess for the consumer while raising the prices.
      You had to choose a gas company to do your billing through that used the same damn gas you were paying for through the same pipes.
      The problem here is that you were still paying for the same gas through a third party.

      In the same vein but different direction, this would be great for customers. Utilize the existing pipe, choose your provider, drive prices down.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @07:52PM (#21164409)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Sure they do.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 ) *

      ...don't riot.

      I'm surprised if they even vote in an election, rather than for American Idols.

      I am seriously impressed with the song performed by Jackson Browne, years and years ago: Lawyers In Love. At first I thought it was funny. Now I don't think it was intended to amuse.

    • Re:Low-to-middle-income families watching cable... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by colourmyeyes ( 1028804 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @08:34PM (#21164937)
      What are low-income families doing with cable anyway? I don't mean to sound like Scrooge, but it pisses me off when an elementary school kid shows up at school without a coat in the dead of winter because his parents "can't afford one," but they sure can afford to pay the cable bill every month. /rant

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by bladesjester ( 774793 )
        What are low-income families doing with cable anyway?

        Some apartments come with cable in much the same way that some include certain utilities.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by spiffyman ( 949476 )
        As has already been mentioned, a basic cable connection is often included in apartment prices. When these contracts are done away with, perhaps renters will be able to insist on not getting the connection and can go find a cheaper option themselves. Or, barring that, the apartment complex will be able to offer cheaper packages. Not that they will, but...

        Beside all that, there is the simple fact that cable connections are often the only forms of high-speed Internet access available to many families. And it's

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by BobPaul ( 710574 ) *
          Where I live there is one company that owns a majority of rental properties in town. That company doesn't include cable TV, but only allows it's tenants to purchase cable TV from a particular cable company, which also happens to charge something like $50-60/mo for basic service.

          Interestingly enough, unless you live in one of those apartment complexes, you can't get service from that company at all. The provider that offers cable television to everyone else in town charges something like $25 or $30 for the s

      • What are low-income families doing with cable anyway? I don't mean to sound like Scrooge, but it pisses me off when an elementary school kid shows up at school without a coat in the dead of winter because his parents "can't afford one," but they sure can afford to pay the cable bill every month. /rant

        Yeah, heaven forbid the poor have decent Internet access. REmember, Jesus hates the poor, hates them having Internet access and hopes they'll all catch some horrible disease which a proper, God-fearing society

        • I think you missed the point completely.

          Internet != basic need. Kids who are hungry, or cold in the winter without appropriate clothing, but who's parents pay for high speed internets rather than a coat are the issue. Not poor people having internet.
          • He didn't miss anything. He just knows that's what the government is for.

            It is just like the push for universal health care. We have quite a majority of people without coverage of some sort, that could easily afford it by making some basic changes in their life style. Cable is just the beginning too. Between Internet, pay channels, pay per view movies and the DVR package, some people spend $170-200 a month or more. Combine that other factors like cars and gas, credit card debt and everything and you could p

      • I don't mean to sound like Scrooge, but it pisses me off when an elementary school kid shows up at school without a coat in the dead of winter because his parents "can't afford one," but they sure can afford to pay the cable bill every month. /rant

        Show me the kid and show me the cable bill. Then and only then will I mod you up to +4. Ronald Reagan was the past master of the welfare anecdote. What became real to him didn't need any better proof.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nullspace ( 11532 )
        Growing up as one of those low-income kids with cable, I agree that many families had different priorities than more affluent families. I always thought that this was one contributing factor that continued the cycle of poverty. However, I would not be too harsh on those families and paint everyone with the same brush.

        Since many low-income families typically work more to support the family (especially in a single parent household), cable is seen as a necessity to babysit children while the parent(s) are at

  • Inflammatory phrasing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by purplelocust ( 944662 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @07:57PM (#21164463)
    Um, not like I want to defend cable companies and their pricing, but "93% in 10 years" is to my mind an inflammatory way of saying "an average of 6.7% per year over the last 10 years." Given that overall the consumer price index has averaged about a 3% increase per year over that period, cable prices are bad, but not as bad as the quote makes it sound. Then again, entire industries (credit cards, for example) owe their existence due to people's inability to compute compounded interest, so perhaps the wording should be no surprise.

    • Re:Inflammatory phrasing (Score:4, Interesting)

      by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @08:03PM (#21164553) Homepage Journal
      Hell, compare it to energy, education, healthcare, food, and in some cases housing and it seems like a downright bargain(or it could be the Fed is incredibly out of touch when it comes up with those low inflation numbers)

      • Re:Inflammatory phrasing (Score:4, Insightful)

        by aeoo ( 568706 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @08:18PM (#21164757) Journal

        Hell, compare it to energy, education, healthcare, food, and in some cases housing and it seems like a downright bargain(or it could be the Fed is incredibly out of touch when it comes up with those low inflation numbers)

        Just don't compare it to salaries, or the illusion of "bargain" will vanish very quickly.

      • or it could be the Fed is incredibly out of touch when it comes up with those low inflation numbers

        Ignore the CPI and RPI figures... They're political fantasies, designed to be manipulated to a particular view of the economy. Inflation is the measure of the devaluation of the currency, and the Fed produce money supply figures which will tell you what's really going on (M0, M1, M2 and M3)...

        However, they stopped producing the most important figure (M3) last year, just as the numbers were hitting around 10% per year.

        • Inflation is the measure of the devaluation of the currency,...

          Problem with this is that you are attempting to redefine the meaning of an otherwise well-defined and well-understood word.

          C//

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by node 3 ( 115640 )

      Um, not like I want to defend cable companies and their pricing

      Then why are you doing it? You have free will, if you really *don't* want to defend them, you don't have to.

      "93% in 10 years" is to my mind an inflammatory way of saying "an average of 6.7% per year over the last 10 years."

      If they both mean the same thing, then what's your beef? That it's 'inflammatory'? Isn't putting it your way overly polite? They're using their monopoly status to raise prices beyond what the market would allow if the already minimal amount of competition were allowed in a way that seems to overly burden the poor, and you want to choose the most soothing, acquiescent wording possible?

      I can never und

    • Re:Inflammatory phrasing (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ivan256 ( 17499 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @08:12PM (#21164661)

      "an average of 6.7% per year over the last 10 years." Given that overall the consumer price index has averaged about a 3% increase per year over that period, cable prices are bad, but not as bad as the quote makes it sound.


      That's another way of saying cable rate increases have been 100% higher than for other goods and services in the economy.

      They didn't make it sound bad enough. Especially since the cost of telecommunications services has actually gone down over that period.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tuoqui ( 1091447 )
      It's like compound interest... 100 * (1.067 ^ 10) = 191.26. So yes the price HAS apparently gone up something like 93% in the past 10 years.

      What else besides gas/oil related crap has gone up that fast in the past 10 years?
    • Umm, 6.7% per year isn't bad compared to inflaction? That means it's DOUBLE the rate of inflation... yes, that's bad enough. The worst part really is for the service you get. The "local node" in a cable setup is a shared node between the entire apartment complex usually. If it's spread out wide enough, you might get two. But that means everyone who has internet has Cable, and everyone's sharing the same 3mbps bandwidth. That equates to a crappy time for all, at 6.7% price increases per year. No deal.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ChangeOnInstall ( 589099 )

      Um, not like I want to defend cable companies and their pricing, but "93% in 10 years" is to my mind an inflammatory way of saying "an average of 6.7% per year over the last 10 years." Given that overall the consumer price index has averaged about a 3% increase per year over that period, cable prices are bad, but not as bad as the quote makes it sound. Then again, entire industries (credit cards, for example) owe their existence due to people's inability to compute compounded interest, so perhaps the wording should be no surprise.

      Of course, cable TV expenses are factored into that: http://www.bls.gov/cex/csx801p.pdf [bls.gov] and are helping it out. Most of my "technology" related expenses have gone DOWN or stayed the same in the past ten years. In my experience, Internet access and cell phones have stayed the same, while computers, televisions, electronics, and land lines, have all gone down (even though they have improved). Cable keeps going up. It's so bad that everyone seems to offer "for a year" or "for 3 months" deals, sometimes d

  • When cable companies are still monopolies in many areas? Sure you can say "satellite", but in many areas, there are obstacles to the south, not to mention landlords who don't like satellite dishes on their property. I once had a landlord that would refuse to allow such a dish, though I have heard the law has changed since then. Anyone have more info?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Rude Turnip ( 49495 )
      Since 1996, apartment dwellers have had the right to have a dish installed in an unobtrusive manner. The law trumps all lease agreements and landlord's rules. In my old apartment, it seemed like every other apartment had one installed, either on a pole in the back of a 1st floor unit or on the balcony of a 2nd floor unit.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nebaz ( 453974 )
        I wish I had known that in my last apartment. Moot now though, my current landlord is cool with it.
      • Actually, if you read the article, it says that some of these exclusive deals cable companies signed with apt. complexes actually forbade tenant from getting another provider by getting a sattelite dish.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by PPH ( 736903 )
          I can just see it now: apartment managers refusing to allow rabbit ear antennas.
      • Mod parent +1 Informative (I would, but I've already posted in this discussion). I didn't know about this rule. For confirmation, see this link [fcc.gov].

    • I don't live in an apartment. So now, my cable bill will go down (okay, the next rate hike will be delayed), cause I am no longer subsidizing someone else's home cost.

  • This is Great News (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @08:02PM (#21164535)
    But there are a few problems:

    1: Areas where these limitations are in effect typically have low competition anyway, due to the stranglehold the dominant company has in the area.

    2: Getting landlords and property managers to figure out how to work out the details between different cable/satellite/phone companies will be a comedy of errors at best.

    3: Landlords/property managers will come up with (or be told by the existing contracted company) bull such as "You're not allowed to do that because they have to run more wires through the wall" or "You can't do that because you'd have to mount an ugly satellite dish on the exterior of the building" (even if not true).

    It's a step in the right direction, though I think they should simply ban the bundling of these services to your rental agreement entirely. Having a choice is one thing, but getting the money back (because you're opting out of the bundled service) is another. How will you know that the $50 you get back on rent every month is accurate?

    • 2: Getting landlords and property managers to figure out how to work out the details between different cable/satellite/phone companies will be a comedy of errors at best.

      Sounds like SOP to me!

      3: Landlords/property managers will come up with (or be told by the existing contracted company) bull such as "You're not allowed to do that because they have to run more wires through the wall" or "You can't do that because you'd have to mount an ugly satellite dish on the exterior of the building" (even if not true).

      It's a step in the right direction, though I think they should simply ban the bundling of these services to your rental agreement entirely. Having a choice is one thing, but getting the money back (because you're opting out of the bundled service) is another. How will you know that the $50 you get back on rent every month is accurate?

      Wowa, now hang on, bundling can work in your favor sometimes. Though as a general rule I agree with you, but when I lived in a Coop housing area it was really great, we got comcast to agree to give us normal (not the simple/basic) cable for 20$ per apt. and we still got the discount for cable internet!

      The reason this worked is because it was Coop housing, so 'not knowing' was not possible because that was 'public' information to people that lived there. The nice thing about our Coo

    • Aye, I'd be worried about that too, but... 1) For people like me having to suffer with Comcast, ANY competition is welcome. I'm in an apartment with one of these "agreements", and I have to pay 60$ a month for service worse than what I can get for $20/month from AT&T or SureWest. Admittedly I'm in a lucky position here because both of those alternatives are available everywhere around this apartment complex, so it should be quick to absorb the complex itself as well. 2) They don't have a choice, the

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      3: Landlords/property managers will come up with (or be told by the existing contracted company) bull such as "You're not allowed to do that because they have to run more wires through the wall" or "You can't do that because you'd have to mount an ugly satellite dish on the exterior of the building" (even if not true).

      Yup, it's not true. The junction box on the outside of the building is the line of demarcation for the cable company's drop, and their property. The wires they run through the walls are not th

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by zerocool^ ( 112121 )

      1: Areas where these limitations are in effect typically have low competition anyway, due to the stranglehold the dominant company has in the area.

      I lived in an apartment in Virginia once that used some ass backwards cable company based in Georgia, who didn't provide any internet access, when I was literally 400 yards from Adelphia's main regional office. There's competition almost everywhere.

      Where I live now, my cable is serviced by NTC [ntc-com.com]. NTC treats every customer as if they were a college student, offeri

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by grumling ( 94709 )
      Actually what usually happens is that the landlord calls the cable company and complains about the cables laying on the ground or run on the front of the building/etc. The cable guy looks at it and sees it running to the dish and says "not my problem." The landlord then tells the cable guy that he can't reach anyone at dish network. The cable guys says he should talk to his tenant and have a nice day.

      With exclusive agreements, the cable company (or sat. company) agrees to rewire the building for free, but t
    • "You're not allowed to do that because they have to run more wires through the wall" or "You can't do that because you'd have to mount an ugly satellite dish on the exterior of the building" (even if not true).

      On the other hand it is proper for the landlord to require professional installation by a licensed, bonded, and insured installer. Many home installers fail to understand the importance of a drip loop and the need for caulk and proper grounding. The damage that results from improper installation can

  • yeah and (Score:2, Insightful)

    by d3l33t ( 1106803 )
    the next logical step would be the Internet providers...

  • To Little To Late (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PetriBORG ( 518266 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @08:07PM (#21164607) Homepage
    This is a joke. I live in MD near Washington DC and live in an apt complex (I can feel the weird stockers already!). This will do nothing to help the problem. In the handful of places that have more then one cable option fab for them, but almost everywhere in the US the county signs an exclusive deal with the cable people... Not the apt owners.

    Until the FCC does something to make it faster for cable peoples to get into an area and makes it so the county can't sign an exclusive deal... Well lets just say I won't be holding my breath.

    • I live in MD near Washington DC and live in an apt complex (I can feel the weird stockers already!).

      Wouldn't you have to live in New York, near Wall Street for that?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by SEE ( 7681 )
      Municipality-granted local cable monopolies in the U.S. have been illegal for over a decade.

      Now, you still have lots of ways corrupt officials in municipalities can effectively keep a monopoly in place, through the local franchising authority. But unless your county officials belong in a federal prison for corruption, the reason you don't have cable competition is that no competitors are interested in laying cable.

      • But unless your county officials belong in a federal prison for corruption, the reason you don't have cable competition is that no competitors are interested in laying cable.

        I live in the same area as the GP. I can tell you that Verizon is trying like NOBODY's business to try to displace Comcast and get as much FiOS cable laid as they possibly can. The problem is that in this area, most of the apartment complexes are owned by 2 or 3 very large real estate companies, and they have exclusive contracts wit

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by SEE ( 7681 )
          Sorry, yes, I was specifically talking about the municipality level. The landlord level can block you even if there was somebody laying cable in the municipality . . . although hopefully not after this FCC thing goes through.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bahwi ( 43111 )
      Not true, in Dallas many apartment complexes were signed exclusively to Joe Blow Cable Co or something similar, which existed primarily to let the deal rise and then sell to the big boys(Comcast). So, you paid $20-$40 more per month if you wanted cable, and got about 1/3 the channels, and that was it. Internet? Few offered it, and few had any bandwidth worth having. Hell, this is good because it lets you get to the actual cable co, monopoly though it may be, there are worse off things out there!

  • Oh great... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheGeneration ( 228855 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @08:14PM (#21164687) Journal
    Just what the world needs, cheaper access to TV ads.

  • To bad there's still only one choice (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jthon ( 595383 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @08:16PM (#21164707)
    Ending these exclusive contracts is a good idea and I'm glad the FTC is doing this. The only problem is I don't see this really having an impact on Cable prices. The problem is a vast majority of people still won't have a choice since cable companies already divide up local areas.

    For example the apartment I live in doesn't have an exclusive contract but the ONLY company I can get cable with is Comcast. Same thing is true at my Parent's house and they live 2000 miles away in another state. We won't see cable prices decrease until we start to see multiple cable companies competing for business in the same city. The large cable operators would rather just divide up the country into local monopolies than actually compete on price.

    My parents service is another good example of how these companies work. Their cable company Time Warner decided to trade their city for another city with Comcast. Out went their former internet service and in came Comcast with the exact same package only $20 more, with P2P throttling. Their city doesn't have an exclusive franchise agreement with any cable company, and any company would be welcome to come in and establish a second franchise. No one wants to bother since they can all make more being little local monopolies sucking their customers dry.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RobBebop ( 947356 )

      Comcast and Time Warner might be patting each other on the back so that they don't step on each other's toes, but Verizon will fuck up the cable companies friendly agreement and provide cheaper cable through their fiber pipes. I've got no idea if *this* specifically is what the story intends to make happen... but never underestimate the ability for competition to regulate and improve the state of the art of content delivery.

      Surely, if Verizon doesn't do it, then Google will. They are all competing for th

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JimBobJoe ( 2758 )
      The problem is a vast majority of people still won't have a choice since cable companies already divide up local areas.

      That's a shame. I live in an apartment complex with access to two companies (Time Warner and WideOpenWest.) To say that they are competitive with each other would be an understatement. (One downfall is that each company drops between one and two pamphlets weekly in my mailbox.)

      Funny, I don't actually pay for cable. For as long as I've lived here, either a Time Warner signal or a WideOpenWes

  • Mobile home parks? Same principle applies.

  • In using the number of channels for basing rates I think those where a cable company gets kickbacks for sales or carrying a signal (like shopping channels), and those channels where the cable company is selling and inserting local advertising, should counts as a minus one. In both cases they're serving their own interest, generally not that of subscribers. And the selling of advertising without having to maintain news departments or do much in the way of serious community service, seriously undermines the

  • Blink! (Score:4, Informative)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @08:27PM (#21164857) Homepage Journal

    I have (dead) outlets for one cable company but am forced to go with the higher-priced firm. Moves like this will help those who live in areas where competition -- even minimal competition -- exists. The article also discusses the impact this may have on low- to middle-income families, who disproportionately live in apartment complexes."
    So thanks to the FCC, you can stop paying cable bills that are totally obscene and start paying that are just extremely lewd. Progress!

    The problem with cable/satellite is not the lack of competition by service providers (though I'm not thrilled by that). The big problem is the lack of competition by content providers.

    Back in the 80s, anybody with an uplink could start a cable channel. They still can, but they have no hope of finding any local cable companies to carry them. All their bandwidth is used up by big media companies who have gamed the system so that cable companies have to carry all kinds of crap, and pay premium prices for it. Until that changes, you'll be shelling out.

    Or you could just do without. I mean, it's only TV.

  • Similar stuff happens with ISPs... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Al Dimond ( 792444 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @08:36PM (#21164949) Journal
    I sure got jerked around by the ISP that had an exclusive deal at my apartment in college. The first year the deal was with a company that couldn't keep the connection up reliably and had very little bandwidth. Then that company went out of business and they went with the local cable company that most people in town were reasonably happy with (Insight Broadband in Champaign). But since they had an exclusive deal on the building they put the screws to us: charged us $20/month per person (I had two roommates, so combined we paid twice as much as we would have normally) and, even worse, put us behind NAT. Yes, that's right, the whole fucking building behind one IP address. I wrote a letter to them (the gist of it being, "If you don't give me an IP address it's not Internet service, it's web'n'email service, which is not what I signed up for"). They didn't even respond.

    I blame myself for the first year... I really should have read more closely and figured out whether the company was any good. The second year I really got blindsided, though... the landlord thought the price was $20/mo. for the three of us and didn't find out otherwise until after we'd signed the lease and made our first payment towards Internet service... the NAT thing I didn't know until I booted my computer and saw the dhclient spew scroll by. Ten-dot... hey!
    • Sorry about the bad luck with Insight. I have service through them at my apartment in Lafayette, and have been pretty satisfied. Of course, they sold business here to comcast so I expect the service to go to shit in a few months.
  • Here in San Diego we have 2 major cable providers: Cox and Time Warner (better than only Comcast in CT). And the competition helps lower the costs. My friends with houses get cheap cable.

    In my building we have to $52/month to get basic cable from some generic provider "University Cable", (my apartment is not associated with any university mind you). After paying the basic we are allowed to pay Time Warner for digital cable, but you also have to get basic cable from Time Warner. So, to get the cheapest packa
  • This has probably been one of the worst things about living in an Apartment (the exclusivity agreements with craptacular Comcast).

    I've been trying to get away from their twice as expensive internet that's shared with the entire Apartment Complex for a long time now, but no other providers seem to be available mysteriously, even though houses right across the street in any direction can acquire services from at least three other providers.

    It was then that I did some investigating, and found out my complex ha

    • On top of that, the node only goes into the complex in general. So while you're promised 3mbps at 60$ a month (which other providers like AT&T will give for 20$/month), you actually get 3mbps divided by however many people in the complex happen to be using it at the time.

      The net result, at least here, ends up in a 60$/month dial-up connection quality internet.

      I also have Comcast and our node is set up the same way.

      On the average Sunday afternoon or early weeknight evening, I'm lucky if I can simply br

  • Living in apartments and dealing with cable... My heart goes out to all those that suffer in these sub-par conditions.
  • Less than two hours ago I called Comcast and canceled my cable packet. The cheapest HD package I was able to get has been costing me $65 a month for a year. I am in suburban PA. I am aware that Verizon FIOS Internet will be available shortly in my apartment complex, and now I have a slight hope that they will be allowed to provide cable TV as well.

    I'd rather purchase a business linkup than have Comcast. The twelve minutes they had me on hold wasn't too bad. The fifteen minutes after that they tried t
  • ...for contributing to the wrong campaign funds! Ha! Serves them right!

  • Right of life, liberty, and cable (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @09:23PM (#21165341)

    The article also discusses the impact this may have on low- to middle-income families, who disproportionately live in apartment complexes."

    Now I hate cable monopolies as much as the next guy (have Comcast because I practically live in a forest that prevents view of satellites). But come on - you don't *need* cable. If people are paying the cable bill over, say, rent, groceries, or health insurance, there's a clear imbalance of priorities here.

    • Re:Right of life, liberty, and cable (Score:4, Interesting)

      by RobBebop ( 947356 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @10:26PM (#21165895) Homepage Journal

      you don't *need* cable. If people are paying the cable bill over, say, rent, groceries, or health insurance, there's a clear imbalance of priorities here.

      What's the status of Over-the-Air Broadcast TV? Is that still available? I have cable but I am moving soon and I don't want to sign up for cable but would be happy to get the basic 5 or 6 channels that are supposed to be free. Do the rabbit ears still do the trick? Will I need to upgrade to a "digital broadcast" receiver when the government cuts off the broadcast of TV (which I think is scheduled for 2008)?

      • Re:Right of life, liberty, and cable (Score:5, Informative)

        by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @11:31PM (#21166341)

        What's the status of Over-the-Air Broadcast TV? Is that still available?

        Yes. Analog up to 2012 and digital thereafter.

        Do the rabbit ears still do the trick?

        Depends how close you live to the stations, but I'm sure it still works as well as it ever did. If it's a long-term situation a permanent antenna is always an option too.

        Will I need to upgrade to a "digital broadcast" receiver when the government cuts off the broadcast of TV (which I think is scheduled for 2008)?

        I think that was originally scheduled for 2009 but the broadcasters don't have their acts together, so that was recently pushed back to 2012 if I recall. By then high-def TVs with internal tuners will probably be nearly ubiquitous. Eventually they are supposed to switch, but they keep pushing it back, so I wouldn't bet on them switching by 2012.

  • Cable TV is... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Organic Brain Damage ( 863655 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @10:13PM (#21165779)
    ...a vast 500 channel waste-land. The best choice with Cable TV is to cancel it altogether.

  • Great News. (Score:3, Informative)

    by artifact-alone ( 1181537 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @10:54PM (#21166069) Homepage
    I work for an ISP (Webpass) that does this exclusively-- we bring a T3-speed (or higher) connection into an apartment or condo building and share it with the residents. We come across all kinds of nonsense with [insert national cable company conglomerate here]. They take up entire backboards in telecom closets. They take our equipment off the wall and leave it dangling. They lock up everyone's termination lines in a box to keep out competition. They pull in-use (and marked) pairs off of phone boards to bring in their crappy phone service. I could rant on and on.

    All in all, they suck. We've come across a lot of building managers who actually refuse to let them into a building, due to some dispute. Sometimes they charge up to $30,000 to come into a building, and then demand an exclusive contract. It would be good to see some more healthy competition to keep these bastards from monopolizing.
  • The Inland Northwest (Spokane Area) has Comcast and more Comcast. There isn't competition. it's a complete monopoly in the area of Cable. They justify that one can get DISH or DirecTV so there is competition. There is competition in Satellite but not in Cable.
  • more progress (as in: become available to the customer) of a-la-carte channel packages.
    This keeps being promised but I haven't seen anything become of it yet.
    I'm fed up with having to pay for 90 cable channels I never watch just for the 2 or 3 I want to.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close