I'm not the type of guy to lower myself to "they would do it to you, you should do similar". That's shady.
Part two of this is the way things are leaning with the FCC, they've already touched on "cable services" and "telco services. Either by adding "BIAS" services or going full monty and reclassifying us all to Title II, the writing is on the wall that this is what the FCC and consumers want. On Aug 28, 2016 8:40 PM, "Justin Wilson" <li...@mtin.net> wrote: > Do you think the telco or Cableco or local fiber company wouldn’t hesitate > to do it to you? It just makes good business sense to give yourself as much > of an edge as possible. Ive been on the receiving end of ATT coming into a > property and demanding access to the wiring. When they can sell $14.95 DSL > and all your customer has to do is plug into the jack next to you it kinda > sucks. Ive also tried to get into buildings and towns that were monopolized > by someone. Ask Chuck Hogg about his latest dealings with a town near > him. The mayor, using a franchise agreement, was no friend to Chuck > bringing in fiber. > > 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 5:19 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: > > 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 >> >> >
