A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
🎁 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! →
← Return to Topics List

Amenities Restricted

Started by ErnestL1 • 7 replies • 1244 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

ErnestL1 (Florida)
Posts: 4
Posted:
Our maintenance included Comcast Cable service. This enabled residents to enjoy, basic cable and also; through the wiring, internet as well as over internet telephone service--(vonage),..... The Board forced a change of cable supplier for cable T.V., resulting in the loss of full use of the amenity originally promised.I feel I should get full use as I recieved before--- Should I petition the Board to supply full service? Please give me your opinion...
BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By ErnestL1 on 12/19/2008 3:22 PM
Our maintenance included Comcast Cable service. This enabled residents to enjoy, basic cable and also; through the wiring, internet as well as over internet telephone service--(vonage),..... The Board forced a change of cable supplier for cable T.V., resulting in the loss of full use of the amenity originally promised.I feel I should get full use as I recieved before--- Should I petition the Board to supply full service? Please give me your opinion...

This all may become moot in the future. The FCC is seriously looking into bulk cable contracts and may restrict them or prohibit them in the future. I don't know where it stands at present, but there was considerable discussion about it several months ago.
SusannaM (Florida)
Posts: 366
Posted:
Ernest, you probably live in a condo. I'm surprised Comcast allowed all owners to go with Vonage opposed to Comcast digital telephone. I have all 3 services as a combo but I'm in a SF home. Comcast is always increasing their rates and/or playing games with their promotions. What does your agreement with the condo assoc. exactly says?
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Ernest,

The rule that Bruce is referring to is FCC-07-189 which applies to contracts ". . .containing clauses granting one multichannel video programming distributor (an "MVPD") exclusive access for the provision of video services (exclusivity clauses) to multiple dwelling units ("MDUs'). . ." -- this includes condominiums. The final rule prohibits: a cable operator or other provider of MVPD sevice from enforcing or executing any provision in a contract that grants the provider the exclusive right to provide video programming service (alone or in combination with other services). All such exclusivity clauses are null and void.

I don't know that this applies in your situation. It sounds to me like your board has just decided to change providers. However, they should be aware of this new ruling. You may want to just ask the Pres. why they decided to change providers and also ask if he is aware of this new ruling.
ErnestL1 (Florida)
Posts: 4
Posted:
Thank you all for responding. Your information is valuable, however the company that was replaced was Time Warner Cable. They supplied through the wiring system, basic cable, with the option to upgrade to HBO etc. Vonage, voice of internet was added to replace Embarq landline... I just feel that I took full advantage of the capabilities of this amenity-- the replacemnent should give me the same oprions--- In our HOA we have two pools, if the board prevent the use of one-- my use has been cut by 50%-- my maintenance fee remains the same--- we were all assest for the new install.
ErnestL1 (Florida)
Posts: 4
Posted:
Thank you all for responding. Your information is valuable, however the company that was replaced was Time Warner Cable. They supplied through the wiring system, basic cable, with the option to upgrade to HBO etc. Vonage, voice of internet was added to replace Embarq landline... I just feel that I took full advantage of the capabilities of this amenity-- the replacemnent should give me the same oprions--- In our HOA we have two pools, if the board prevent the use of one-- my use has been cut by 50%-- my maintenance fee remains the same--- we were all assest for the new install.
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
Ernest, quite possibly this was done as a cost savings measure to prevent a major increase in assessments to fund the old service. The best thing to do, as someone else posted, is to make a polite inquiry to the BOD as to why this was done.
Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164
Posted:
Glen and others are right, you should ask for a explanation as to why what was done was done.

However, Ernestl makes valid point. I would have to believe this kind of a group contract would HAVE to be agreed upon by all owners, unless it transferred from the developer, in which case the owner agrees to accept it when he buys in. Even then it should be a yearly renewable contract subject to owners desires, review and agreement. But maybe they don't do it that way. If they don't then ErnestL question should raise the issue in the Boards mind if it is a good thing to continue the contract and to change the contract without notification and approval. In any event it is still a valid question deserving of consideration by the Board. Will it help or change? God knows.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • ✓ Ask follow-up questions
  • ✓ Share your experience
  • ✓ Get expert advice
  • ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here

Terms of Use and Privacy Statement