Newsletter
Google Left Banner
FCC Bans Exclusive Telecom Deals with Apartment Buildings
20 Mar, 2008
The FCC has banned exclusive agreements with apartment building property owners and telecom carriers. These agreements have been common and basically allow a carrier to become the exclusive provider for telecom services in places like apartment buildings, providing a huge barrier to entry for competitors. The order also claims to rescind any existing exclusivity agreements. The FCC issued a similar order for cable television agreements back in 2007.
It’s too early to get a reaction from the industry, but consensus is they won’t be happy. This new order affects both telecom and cable companies, since they both now provide telecom services. In fact the cable industry will probably be more upset because they have been more active with apartment building exclusivity deals, especially with triple play bundles. The next few days and weeks will surely see less than favorable reaction.
MDU Exclusivity Days are Over
31 Oct, 2007
The FCC ended exclusive contracts between video operators and multi-dwelling unit (MDU) properties today. These exclusivity agreements allowed video operators to be the sole choice for multichannel video service within MDUs, effectively denying any competiton. The ruling is seen as a blow to the cable industry, whose operators maintained the overwhelming majority of these agreements. Telecom operators with video operations may benefit from the ruling because they conceivably gain access to these previously inaccessible properties to market their video offerings. But before telcos get too happy, odds are this ruling will be challenged in court. These exclusive agreements are just too lucrative to give up without a fight.
About Telecompetitor
Channel
Webinars/Events
Upcoming Webinars
Packet Optical Networks – Enabling Your Future
Dec 16, 2008
Upcoming Events
NTCA Wireless Symposium
Jan 7-9, 2009 - Austin, TX
Featured Article
Should Telephone Service be Free?
12 Oct, 2008
Comcast announced a new promotion last week that offers 12 months of free basic cable service for new customers who also sign up for an additional service. Customers who don’t want an additional service can get Comcast’s basic service of about 20 -30 channels for $10/month. The promotion is tied to the digital TV transition of February 2009 and entices potential customers to avoid the transition “hassle” by getting “free” cable service. “The simple fact is that basic cable is the easiest path through the digital transition and now consumers can get it for free,” said Derek Harrar, General Manager and Senior Vice President, Video Services for Comcast in a company statement. This move is similar to strategies pursued by other video service providers, who are hoping to leverage the digital TV transition for new subscriber additions.
But is this strategy a leading indicator for the future? Should basic core services like basic cable and basic telephone service be offered for free, used as a “carrot” to entice customers to buy “more important” services like broadband? Maybe a very basic phone service, with no LD, access to landline 911, and maybe outgoing service only (to avoid telemarketers) should be a free component of a bundled offering. Such a wireline service may appeal to a customer who previously cut the cord for wireless only, but also needs broadband. There is a growing portion of the population who find the value of traditional wireline phone service elsewhere – either through wireless or broadband/IP services. But, if they could get the security of landline 911, and an extra dial tone in their home as a free value add for subscribing to broadband (or video from a telco’s perspective), maybe a telco’s bundled offering may look more attractive than a comparable cable offering. I realize this idea is not appealing to the hundreds of ILECs who are a part of the current access/settlement system (in fact, it couldn’t work in the context of today’s regulatory structure), but I wonder whether it’s inevitable. In this possible future scenario, the current settlement system adapts to broadband as the underlying service, as opposed to voice.
This scenario cuts both ways. From a cable company’s perspective, a growing portion of the population is turning to the Internet as a source for their video content, and no longer see value in paying for a broad package of video as a part of a traditional subscription pay-TV service. But, if they could receive basic TV (which includes local broadcast affiliates) as a free value add for buying broadband, maybe the cable bundle is more attractive. In a true IP/broadband world, very basic phone and video service is relatively easy to deliver, and has little impact on bandwidth and network performance. Maybe the digital transition is opening the door to a future where free basic services are a regular component of a bundled offering. Thoughts?

digg this story
google
