Where is NBA League Pass?

NB_1 · ‎02-06-2009

I was told when I got UVerse that NBA League Pass would be "coming soon."

That was summer of 2007. Still waiting..................

Wow do I wish I could switch back to Comcast.

anewman35 · ‎03-10-2008

NB wrote:
I was told when I got UVerse that NBA League Pass would be "coming soon."

That was summer of 2007. Still waiting..................

Wow do I wish I could switch back to Comcast.

What's stopping you?

NB_1 · ‎02-06-2009

AT&T has a monopoly on my building. Lucky me.

sportsman_1 · ‎03-30-2008

how?

NB_1 · ‎02-06-2009

sportsman wrote:
how?

I live in a relatively new development and AT&T is the only cable provider. I'm not sure exactly how it happened, but let me assure you: I don't have any other option, and it sucks.

sportsman_1 · ‎03-30-2008

Well that is not AT&T and you apartments fault if they are the only cable provider. If your apartment signed an agreement than yeah thats a different story. I hope that is not the case because I know in my state it is illegal to do that.

I thought it was like that in every state. That means you can't get Comcast or another cable service in there, so that means its the cable comapny faults and AT&T is doing a good job getting into new areas before the cable companys.

paul416 · ‎10-10-2008

How about DirecTv??

NB_1 · ‎02-06-2009

It is AT&T's fault as they signed an agreement for exclusive service. Yeah, my developer sold me out, but AT&T agreed to it. Can't get Direct TV because of dish issues outside.

Look, all of this is beside the point. Does anyone know anything about NBA League Pass?

NB_1 · ‎02-06-2009

Bueller?

anewman35 · ‎03-10-2008

NB wrote:
It is AT&T's fault as they signed an agreement for exclusive service. Yeah, my developer sold me out, but AT&T agreed to it. Can't get Direct TV because of dish issues outside.

Look, all of this is beside the point. Does anyone know anything about NBA League Pass?

As is the case with almost every question here: No, nobody knows. No, nobody knows when somebody might no.

In your situation, though, I'd consider calling a lawyer if it's such an issue - the FCC banned exclusive cable contracts, which I would have to assume also means that AT&T couldn't get an exclusive contract. You might be able to fight it.

Message Edited by anewman35 on 02-11-2009 06:08 AM

Pip_2 · ‎09-30-2007

NB wrote:
It is AT&T's fault as they signed an agreement for exclusive service. Yeah, my developer sold me out, but AT&T agreed to it. Can't get Direct TV because of dish issues outside.

Look, all of this is beside the point. Does anyone know anything about NBA League Pass?

Article is from Oct 2007, but that is when the FCC made the ruling. Feel free to search out the FCC website on this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103101594.html

By the way, I find it interesting that you say AT&T has an exclusive contract. This is the first time I have heard that AT&T's Uverse went in and alledgedly had an exclusive contract.

In the past, it has always been Comcast, TWC or some other cable company that Uverse has bumped up against in trying to offer an apartment community the UV service.

Just curious NB. How long have you had the UV service and just how long has AT&T Uverse had this so called exclusive contract at your apartment?

Message Edited by Pip on 02-11-2009 10:07 AM

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

anewman35 wrote:

In your situation, though, I'd consider calling a lawyer if it's such an issue - the FCC banned exclusive cable contracts, which I would have to assume also means that AT&T couldn't get an exclusive contract. You might be able to fight it.

Unfortunately, the FCC ruling specifically applies to cable TV providers only. The ruling doesn't apply to satellite or IPTV-based services, which are not cable TV. If AT&T managed to get an exclusive contract with the apartment complex, there's probably nothing that can be done about that.

anewman35 · ‎03-10-2008

SomeJoe7777 wrote:
anewman35 wrote:

In your situation, though, I'd consider calling a lawyer if it's such an issue - the FCC banned exclusive cable contracts, which I would have to assume also means that AT&T couldn't get an exclusive contract. You might be able to fight it.

Unfortunately, the FCC ruling specifically applies to cable TV providers only. The ruling doesn't apply to satellite or IPTV-based services, which are not cable TV. If AT&T managed to get an exclusive contract with the apartment complex, there's probably nothing that can be done about that.

Is it legal to ban cable service entirely (which is what only allowing AT&T would do)? I know my condo complex wanted to ban dishes, but found out that legally they couldn't.

Message Edited by anewman35 on 02-11-2009 07:44 AM

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

anewman35 wrote:

It it legal to ban cable service entirely (which is what only allowing AT&T would do)? I know my condo complex wanted to ban dishes, but found out that legally they couldn't.

Correct, there is a specific provision that requires apartment complexes to allow a satellite dish so long as it is less than 1 meter in size and the rented property has access to the signal (i.e. balcony or other area that faces the proper direction).

But the complex is private property, and cable service requires that the cable company come and run wires and install equipment on the property. The property owners have the right to refuse that.

anewman35 · ‎03-10-2008

Do you know for a fact that the FCC rule doesn't include AT&T, or are you just assuming? Read this at the FCC site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277763A4.txt. It specifically refers not to "cable" but to "multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs)", which certianly seems to describe U-Verse. Also, it mentions how Verizon is bringing television via Fiber Optics (not cable) - if the ruling ONLY applied to cable, it wouldn't affect the fiber optic thing at all.

anewman35 · ‎03-10-2008

Another good link: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-87A1.doc

"Specifically, we conclude today that in residential settings, carriers may not enter into contracts for the provision of telecommunications services with premises owners that restrict consumers’ access to other telecommunications providers, and that such carriers may not enforce telecommunications service exclusivity contracts in predominantly residential MTEs"

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

anewman35 wrote:
Do you know for a fact that the FCC rule doesn't include AT&T, or are you just assuming? Read this at the FCC site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277763A4.txt. It specifically refers not to "cable" but to "multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs)", which certianly seems to describe U-Verse. Also, it mentions how Verizon is bringing television via Fiber Optics (not cable) - if the ruling ONLY applied to cable, it wouldn't affect the fiber optic thing at all.

That link is a statement from someone affiliated with the FCC. It is not the actual order.

anewman35 wrote:
Another good link: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-87A1.doc

"Specifically, we conclude today that in residential settings, carriers may not enter into contracts for the provision of telecommunications services with premises owners that restrict consumers’ access to other telecommunications providers, and that such carriers may not enforce telecommunications service exclusivity contracts in predominantly residential MTEs"

That link is a different order, published in March 2008. It extends the previous order from October 2007 to different types of property, including commercial property.

This is the actual FCC order from October 2007 that we are talking about.

This order specifically states that the exclusivity portion of any contract is voided between any landlord of a multiple dwelling unit (MDU) and any TV entertainment provider that is subject to Section 628 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. That section of the Communications act specifically deals with cable TV providers only.

Also, both the October 2007 order and the March 2008 order state that the only thing they prevent is that the contract cannot bind the apartment complex into exclusivity. It says nothing about the apartment complexes wishes.

Read part III A. paragraph 37:

FCC Order FCC-07-189A1 wrote:

Moreover, incumbent cable operators will still be able to use their equipment in MDUs to
provide service to residents who wish to continue to subscribe to their services. Finally, we note that the
rule we adopt today does not require that any new entrant be given access to any MDU. A MDU owner
still retains the rights it has under relevant state law to deny a particular provider the right to provide
service to its property. We merely prohibit the enforcement of existing exclusivity clauses and the
execution of new ones by cable operators. While this Order prohibits the enforcement of existing
exclusivity clauses, it does not, on its own terms, purport to affect other provisions in contracts
containing exclusivity clauses.

That states that even though a contract cannot specify any exclusivity, if the apartment complex owner wants to only allow one provider on their property to provide service, they can. If the apartment complex in question wants AT&T U-Verse to be the sole provider, then so be it. The order only makes it so that AT&T cannot force the apartment complex to adhere to that. At any time, the apartment complex can bring in cable, satellite, or anything else, but only if they want to.

Message Edited by SomeJoe7777 on 02-11-2009 10:21 AM

Pip_2 · ‎09-30-2007

SomeJoe7777 wrote:

Unfortunately, the FCC ruling specifically applies to cable TV providers only. The ruling doesn't apply to satellite or IPTV-based services, which are not cable TV. If AT&T managed to get an exclusive contract with the apartment complex, there's probably nothing that can be done about that.

Joe once again, thank you for posting that. I know you told me before and I completely forgot. Brain farts and I expect it will happen again too!

It's interesting to see that AT&T now has a contract (apparently) with NB's apartment.

I think some minor, swept under the rug, mention was made where I live about them having a contract with Comcast, then TWC, but, it was all kept so hush hush, I couldn't find out anything else. Perhaps, when AT&T first came around and enquired about offering Uverse here, management consulted with their lawyers about it before doing anything either way.

Either way, any provider does have to toe the line here at out complex and while the door to door sales people for both TWC and Uverse have managed to step over that line, the install people have had no issues with management that I know of.

I think the sales people from both companies were warned and when they ignored that warning, there were banned from the property...thank goodness!!!

Johnbsr · ‎11-18-2008

Pip wrote:
SomeJoe7777 wrote:

Unfortunately, the FCC ruling specifically applies to cable TV providers only. The ruling doesn't apply to satellite or IPTV-based services, which are not cable TV. If AT&T managed to get an exclusive contract with the apartment complex, there's probably nothing that can be done about that.

Joe once again, thank you for posting that. I know you told me before and I completely forgot. Brain farts and I expect it will happen again too!

It's interesting to see that AT&T now has a contract (apparently) with NB's apartment.

I think some minor, swept under the rug, mention was made where I live about them having a contract with Comcast, then TWC, but, it was all kept so hush hush, I couldn't find out anything else. Perhaps, when AT&T first came around and enquired about offering Uverse here, management consulted with their lawyers about it before doing anything either way.

Either way, any provider does have to toe the line here at out complex and while the door to door sales people for both TWC and Uverse have managed to step over that line, the install people have had no issues with management that I know of.

I think the sales people from both companies were warned and when they ignored that warning, there were banned from the property...thank goodness!!!

I think when he's saying they have an exclusive contract it could be that the owner of the apartment building opted to have Uverse come and run wiring to all of the units in the building. The owner of the buidling is then not allowing the tenants to have another service come in and run additional wiring. Might not want to have wires for Uverse, Comcast, Directv, Dish, etc going all over the place.

In a condo I would imagine they could not do this as the individual tenants are the owners and would have the option of ordering whatever service they wanted as long as it fell within the Association rules.