MANDATORY
ACCESS. EXCLUSIVE AND PERPETUAL AGREEMENTS.
A CALL
TO ACTION FOR MULTIHOUSING PROPERTY OWNERS.
On May 13, 1999 the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, conducted a hearing on mandatory access, exclusive agreements and perpetual agreements. Testimony during the hearing was heavily weighted in favor of the "big" cable and phone companies. Currently, these companies are working diligently (and most likely making generous campaign contributions) to persuade Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
impose mandatory access upon property owners on a national level. Such laws force property owners to permit these providers to enter properties for the purpose of installing towers, cable, phone and high
speed Internet equipment and networks.
In addition, these companies are seeking to remove the right of property owners to enter into exclusive agreements with the service provider’s of their choice. And finally, they are seeking to permit
local, franchise cable operators the right to continue operating with perpetual easements and agreements on multi-housing properties. These types of agreements extend for the life of the cable operator’s franchise, as well as any extensions or renewals.
The view to be taken by multi-housing property owners on these three issues (mandatory access, exclusive and perpetual) can be unified into the simple subjects of choice and competition.
MANDATORY ACCESS
Mandatory access is bad. It forces property owners to grant access to properties by cable and phone providers. Many consider this to be the ultimate violation of the property owner’s rights [Fifth Amendment — Private Property], and a violation of the spirit of the ‘96 Telecommunications Act, which was to inspire competition. Mandatory access limits choice and leads to higher prices. It also prevents an
owner from entering into exclusive agreements with the providers of his choice.
EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENTS
Exclusive agreements are good. They permit the competitors of "big" cable and phone to operate profitable businesses, allowing them to provide competitive alternatives for property owners. Without an
exclusive agreement, a competitive cable provider will potentially be splitting the customer base on a property with the local cable or phone company. This prevents them from recouping the costs associated with wiring a property and installing special equipment. Without the ability to recoup these costs, these competitive providers are typically not able to offer property owners an alternative to the local service
providers.
PERPETUAL AGREEMENTS
Perpetual agreements are bad. They force the continued presence of the local franchise cable operator onto a property, despite the owner’s desire to seek alternatives. Perpetual agreements prevent both choice and competition, as they result in the same restrictions as mandatory access.
None of these three issues will be resolved any time soon. However, the wheels of the federal government’s law-making machine are turning. Now is the time to begin learning about these issues and becoming involved with the process by submitting comments and questions for use by the various individuals and organizations representing the multi-housing industry before Congress and the FCC. Property owners, developers and managers now have the ability to "Seize the Day" and effect the law making processes that may eventually impact their residents and properties.
The website multihousing.com is providing an open forum for owners, developers and managers to have their comments, questions and concerns addressed by the people who can effect the changes owners need. To participate submit your comments, questions and concerns about these issues to info@multihousing.com.