New Payola: Cut down on homeowners’ deals with Internet providers

Swipe from presentation to landlord, detailing the spoils they can get from pushing Comcast to tenants. Internet access service. This “window management” is a big deal for New York’s big city; that’s why commercial tenants in NYC have to pay for terrible Internet access services in most fanciful commercial buildings.)

Now, the FCC has tried to encourage competition in MDU buildings, eight years ago, The FCC said clearly The host cannot have exclusive agreements with Internet access service providers. The FCC recognized the problem:

‘Incumbent vendors are often engaged in a series of activities to lock the MDU and other property developments in exclusive deals as soon as it becomes clear that a new entrant is coming to the city. ” These terms are sometimes inserted in fine print, in “legalese,” and without full notice to MDU owners.

But the Commission was completely unassigned by incumbents. Certainly, the host cannot participate in one contract only grant one ISP the right to provide Internet access to the MDU, but the host can refuse to sign an agreement with anyone else besides Big Company X, in exchange for payments labeled in any way out of the trillions of dong. The monopoly of any other name still has a feeling of abuse.

Here’s Barr: “The FCC rules are meaningless. They are saying that you cannot have exclusive agreements, but at the same time, the landlord can say yes or no to anyone entering the building and you must get the landlord’s permission. So the landlord can definitely sign a deal with one company and say ‘No’ to everyone else, thus creating an exclusive deal. So that’s what they do. They are not obligated to let people in, so they will deduct rent from a supplier. “

Here’s another colorful workaround explored by incumbents. Although the exclusive agreements are not, marketing monopoly is clearly allowed. Thus, AT&T and Comcast and others will contract with buildings requiring only their flyers to be displayed in the rental office. No one else is allowed to distribute any competition material – and no event (e.g., tenant wine and cheese feasts) can be hosted by any competing supplier in the mold. tablets. This is a recent letter from Comcast to real estate owners “reminding” them of their “exclusive marketing deals with Comcast / Xfinity following Google Fiber’s attempt to deliver donuts and eggplants.” coffee for tenants.

Put down those Google donuts! Comcast’s “exclusive marketing arrangements” with building management prohibit competitors from contacting tenants or leaving documents on the building. with the MDU. And then they’ll add little terms saying “if any part of this deal becomes illegal, you can cut that part of the deal off and the rest of the deal goes into effect.” ” (Lawyers call these “severable” terms.) If you are the property’s manager, you will read that contract, find that it was signed by someone higher in the food chain over you and then enforces the exclusivity it claims. “The estate manager doesn’t know,” Barr pointed out. “They are not experts in Internet law. They are experts on how to run real estate, and they will do what these agreements say. Which asset manager wants to be a host on Comcast? Not too much.”

How about this: The FCC has long created “internal wiring” rules that empower MDU owners to, in certain cases, take ownership of the conductors owned by companies. cables run inside their building. The Commission recognizes that the wiring infrastructure within the MDU gives incumbents an unbeatable advantage and wants to open that infrastructure to compete. But those rules are based on the (obviously naive) assumption that, in the beginning, the cable / telecom company own wire. The lawyers of Clever Time Warner Cable and many others have worked around this issue by way certificate of ownership Come wire inside of them to the building owner, then get exclusive license come back from owner to use these wires.

Leave a Comment