Cable TV companies getting it wrong

misty floyd

Hi There,

My girlfriend and I recently moved into a new development. It consisits of houses and apartments. We pay a management fee as do everyone in the development. Before Xmas I rang one of the large cableling companies (company A) and arranged to get cable tv installed in the house. That was done, grand.

Two days later a technician (who was in the area) from a small, new company (company called to the door and gave out to say we shouldn't have a company A box/connection. Its an analogue connection and not digital or a dish. We didn't know but the whole developement is wired up by company B. Our road had only been opened and they hadn't put leaflets inthe door to tell us about themselves. Also,the solicitor didn't tell us about this and I don't think it was in the contracts anyway. The tech said they own the manholes, cables etc and that the company we rang to install would have known this and shouldn't have installed.

After we got over the shock of having no competion for this type of service I rang the first crowd (A) to disconnect and tell them the story. They put me on hold for ages and I ran out of credit :rolleyes: . I rang several times in work to disconnect and every time I told them the story they put me on hold for ages or took my number to ring back. A joke! Then they wanted to charge €100 for disconnection even though they didn't connect with their own equipment (apart from the box on the wall with the fm and tv connection but this isn't what you pay for!). We never paid money to A or gave direct debit details or even cc details. Aparently the smaller company (B) are suing the larger company for doing this in other areas.

So, we connected with the company that have the monopoly in the estate (B). They were actually cheaper and we wanted tv for xmas. I sent off the direct debit forms to them that I recieved from the tech, who apologised for his giving out and turned out to be helpful.

We got a letter today from the clowns that installed when they shouldn't have telling us a tech will be out on Thurs to disconnect. Why should I have to take time off work to let them in? They probably won't even turn up. They also want me to ring a number to tell them how to find the house! We are connected by B, pay them a fee and the other clowns can come along and disconnect us!

Has this ever happened to anyone and what happened? Any advice would be great but it was also good to vent. Sorry for the long message and for the company A/B thing (which is horrible to read) but I don't want to break any rules (if this is one)

Cheers,

Floyd

Sponge Bob

A bit messy but you owe A nothing if A accepts they illegally used someones ducts to provide their service . A could not have guaranteed service to you as they do not own the infrastructure do they ??

Whether you should be stuck with B for ever is a different issue, I think not. B have also got a rule in your contract to say no satellite dishes I'll wager .

Red Alert

Presumably this is another case of sharp practice (by both A and that should be legally outlawed.

The government and the public at large are going headfirst into a 'competition is good' mentality. Some old staple monopolies like Microsoft seem to be untouched by this. However other new ones are being created by these management companies.

A relation of mine lives in a ~20 year old apartment development, and the apartment is massive compared to the shoeboxes currently for sale. Management company has little responsiblity for doing anything else other than mowing the lawn and changing the lights inside. Some people have cable, some have NTL, some don't have anything. Some people have got natural gas put in etc to replace the electric heating system they were built with. Compare this to the new developments where the management company is deciding what people can/can't eat for breakfast. Shouldn't the competition authority be taking a look at the activities of company B and the management company?

Tazz T

Totally agree, Red Alert. I've just moved into a new development where one company has been given the monopoly for broadband, phone and TV. As a result, they can charge whatever they want and not bother providing a good service as people have nowhere else to go.

These companies tender for the monopoly to the developer at the planning permission stage. It's like legaiised bribery. And then the developer says you can't put up a dish or paint your own house. It's like renting your own house.

Government should step in and take these management companies and their anti-competitive practices in hand.

Green_Martian

Tazz T wrote:

These companies tender for the monopoly to the developer at the planning permission stage. It's like legaiised bribery. And then the developer says you can't put up a dish or paint your own house. It's like renting your own house.

Government should step in and take these management companies and their anti-competitive practices in hand.

Totally agree..............if you buy YOUR house YOU should be allowed decide what service you want, and also it should be your right to paint your OWN house etc...... afterall you are paying the mortgage

Guy:Incognito

Green_Martian wrote:

Totally agree..............if you buy YOUR house YOU should be allowed decide what service you want, and also it should be your right to paint your OWN house etc...... afterall you are paying the mortgage

Should it not be the bank making the decisions so? Seeing as they own the house for the first 20-35 years?:)

gerryo

Sponge Bob wrote:

A bit messy but you owe A nothing if A accepts they illegally used someones ducts to provide their service . A could not have guaranteed service to you as they do not own the infrastructure do they ??

Whether you should be stuck with B for ever is a different issue, I think not. B have also got a rule in your contract to say no satellite dishes I'll wager .

IMO, eventually all infrastructure like this will have to be opened to all suppliers. As the ESB's grid is being opened, & consumers will be able to buy electricity from other companies, it is unacceptable to have closed intractructure being installed where users are forced to stay with one company.

I realise TV is not the same as electricity, but the principle applies, nobody should be locked to a supplier just because they cabled the area.

The network is being decoupled from the ESB.
The network is being (unsuccessfully & slowly) detached from Eircom.
Now lets detach NTL/Chorus/ANother from the cable TV networks.

Green_Martian

Stekelly wrote:

Should it not be the bank making the decisions so? Seeing as they own the house for the first 20-35 years?:)

LOL......you know what i mean.............:p

misty floyd

Your dead right spongebob, I owe the first company nothing. They are looking for money but I told them (again) that they never supplied a service and they wouldn't be getting a cent.

As for the other crowd that we are stuck with, it really bugs me to not be in a position to go with someone else. If it happens that this kind of infrastructure is opened to other suppliers, either we or the competition will have to pay out imo.

Totally agree with all of the comments. As it happens, the tech who was to call out today to 'disconnect' rang me and I told him it would be best not to touch anything. It was simply put down as disconnected and hopefully thats the end of company A.....Knowing that crowd I doubt it. All that company A/B thing was probably a waste of time because everyone knows who I'm talking about anyway. :rolleyes:

bullrunner

[misty floyd....i'm with the cheaper company ....but to be honest with ya,...the service is poor..half the channels they are saying they provide are either not being broadcast or another channel is being broadcast in its place or they are broadcasting the sky screen instead!

Also their bills are a complete joke....got one recently which just said " service/goods" ...didnt give a breakdown of what the services goods were (i also get broadband from these guys) or what vat is being charged ....

they also took forever to install my tv...they cancelled on me twice and then the day they were installing the tech rang me in the morning saying he'd be an hour late...2 hrs later he hadnt turn up so i rang their 24hr helpline and complained....eventually the owner of the company rang me back to apologise .In fairness they offered me 3 mths free sky sports for messing me about...but it still left a sour taste.

The only reason i'm still with them is coz they are (for 2 connection points) about half the price of company A.

The part I find unbelievable is that if company A are using company Bs infrastructure then they are either doing it illegally or with the agreement of company B..either way company B shouldnt have been contacting you...

bullrunner

Sponge Bob wrote:

Whether you should be stuck with B for ever is a different issue, I think not. B have also got a rule in your contract to say no satellite dishes I'll wager .

No tv company can dictate whether you are allowed to have a satellite dish or not....not their property..not their concern...you have no contract with them to forbid it.

Possibly the mgmt company could state this in their articles..but i'd like to see how legal that would be...seeing as you own your own house/land and they have no right to restrict what you do on your property....(Note this is not the case for apartments as you usually do not own the outer parts of the apartment..which is usually owned by the mgmt company)

Sponge Bob

bullrunner wrote:

Possibly the mgmt company could state this in their articles..but i'd like to see how legal that would be...seeing as you own your own house/land and they have no right to restrict what you do on your property....(Note this is not the case for apartments as you usually do not own the outer parts of the apartment..which is usually owned by the mgmt company)

sorry bullrunner , to clarify I meant that B , in their negotiations with the developer to get a local monopoly , would have ensured their monopoly by getting sat dishes banned in the Management Company Rules. Standard practice. Mind you this company got the Sky Dishes banned but it backfired on them as you can see

An A, assuming A is Chorus/NTL/UPC in my current example does not ask developers to stipulate a no Sat Dish rule in Management Company rules , that I know of . They do not act in an anti-competitive manner that I know of.

Finally there are quite a few 'B's' around nowadays ...of varying merit.

bullrunner

spongebob wrote:

sorry bullrunner , to clarify I meant that B , in their negotiations with the developer to get a local monopoly , would have ensured their monopoly by getting sat dishes banned in the Management Company Rules.

true...but any residents with a bit of sense will have this clause removed from the mgmt company rules as soon as possible...or instruct the mgmt company to not enforce the rule.

Sponge Bob

Ah! but they may not collectively get their hands on the management company for a few years, meanwhile they are stuck with the rule.

Even if they do get control of the management company the issue remains of who owns the ducts through which the 'B' provides the service.

gerryo

Was'nt there something in the news recently about management companies & the unfair policies/charges they impose on tenants. Why not make it an election issue, when they call looking for the vote, give 'em an earful.

Anyway, AIUI tenants can form their own management company after 1 year & take control of the place. Or does that only apply to housing estates?

It should be like the USA, where apartment owners become part of a tenants organisation & get a say on everything that is connected with the building. OK, you still got to pay for maintenance & service charges, but at least you get to control how the € is spent.

Hotblack Desiato

gerryo wrote:

Why not make it an election issue, when they call looking for the vote, give 'em an earful.

I used to live in an apartment, was registered to vote at that address, and nobody came looking for my vote. Didn't even get any election junk mail through the door apart from the odd SF/Green/wacky independent.

The mainstream parties just aren't interested in apartment dwellers. They're
-more likely to be young
-less likely to vote
-more likely to be tenants who tend not to stay long and often don't bother to register when they move
-more likely to be non-nationals and not entitled to vote

Having moved into a house in the same constituency I'm already getting lots of political crap through the door and I'm expecting tons of the stuff come election time... funny isn't it.

Anyway, AIUI tenants can form their own management company after 1 year & take control of the place. Or does that only apply to housing estates?

In practice they can make this difficult, e.g. by scheduling AGMs during working hours.

gerryo

ninja900 wrote:

The mainstream parties just aren't interested in apartment dwellers. They're
-more likely to be young
-less likely to vote
-more likely to be tenants who tend not to stay long and often don't bother to register when they move
-more likely to be non-nationals and not entitled to vote

Having moved into a house in the same constituency I'm already getting lots of political crap through the door and I'm expecting tons of the stuff come election time... funny isn't it.

Interesting!, has no one told them you don't need to be a houseowner anymore to have the vote:) (Well, it used to be you had to be a ratepayer, but domestic rates were abolished).

More likely their arthritic knees are'nt up to the stairs.

Just give 'em hell when they do call.