I find it shameful that this thread is advocating one of the very things that WISPs and small/regional ISPs have been fighting against for years when it comes to MDUs.
On Aug 28, 2016 3:47 PM, "Justin Wilson" <li...@mtin.net> wrote: > https://backchannel.com/the-new-payola-deals-landlords- > cut-with-internet-providers-cf60200aa9e9#.l6a38myj8 > > "Sure, a landlord can’t enter into an exclusive agreement granting just > one ISP the right to provide Internet access service to an MDU, but a > landlord can refuse to sign agreements with anyone other than Big Company > X, in exchange for payments labeled in any one of a zillion ways. > Exclusivity by any other name still feels just as abusive.” > > Apartment owner across the river has a local WISP. ATT tried to strong > arm him into giving access. He said sure, but all payments have to be made > in cash, in person, on such and such day. ATT didn’t agree to the terms so > he effectively kept them out. His next tactic is to have them pay in > bitcoin should they ask again. > > > > Justin Wilson > j...@mtin.net > > --- > http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO > xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth > > http://www.midwest-ix.com COO/Chairman > Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric > > > On Aug 28, 2016, at 1:52 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: > > > > I don't believe exclusive contracts are permitted by the FCC. I believe > you're limited to exclusive marketing. > > > > > > > > ----- > > Mike Hammett > > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > > > The Brothers WISP > > > > > > > > > > From: "CBB - Jay Fuller" <par...@cyberbroadband.net> > > To: af@afmug.com > > Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 12:46:46 PM > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ownership of wire / fiber in a building > > > > > > > > IF anyone has any paperwork they can share for accomplishing exclusive > access in a building, i'd love to see it. > > thanks ;) > > > > ps - what prevents a tenant from ordering service from a telco > themselves not realizing such an agreement is in place? > > > > > > A telco can cry foul and play the fact that telephones are an essential > service. Even if they can’t legally do anything, they can pressure the > building owner enough where it becomes an issue. I have seen tenants want > to order landline phones in buildings where a WISP had exclusive rights. > The tenant is going to be favored by the building owner almost every time. > > > > My advice get exclusive access to any pathways for cable in regards to > your services with the ability to sublet. If you can get it, get an > exclusive franchise for providing data services. > > > > Justin Wilson > > j...@mtin.net > > > > --- > > http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO > > xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth > > > > http://www.midwest-ix.com COO/Chairman > > Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric > > > > On Aug 28, 2016, at 10:26 AM, Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net> wrote: > > > > I know that has been discussed several times in the past, but I recall a > few variables so I will re-ask the question. > > If our company goes into a building and wires (either pre-construction > of post construction), will a contract legally cover us so that nobody else > can come around and claim rights to use that to distribute a service also? > > Does that “ruling” change it we install conduit as well? > > We have a bunch buildings to get “wired” over the next 60 days and I > want to protect ourselves if at all possible. > > Paul > > Paul McCall, President > > PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc. > > 658 Old Dixie Highway > > Vero Beach, FL 32962 > > 772-564-6800 > > pa...@pdmnet.net > > www.pdmnet.com > > www.floridabroadband.com > >
