Mdu Service Agreement

65. We also ask for an opinion on these issues relating to “mass settlement agreements.” Some have argued that mass orders are anti-competitive. [192] In your view, mass settlement agreements can be exclusive because MDU owners accept these agreements with a single MVPD, which excludes others from a similar agreement. Such agreements are authorized by MDU residents to choose a competitive video provider. However, due to the “mass settlement character” of the contract, residents should continue to pay a fee to the supplier with the mass settlement contract and pay a subscription fee to the new service provider. We ask for comment on whether these “mass settlement agreements” are generally formalized as agreements between cable operators and MDUs or between MDUs and residents (or both)? Do these rules have the same practical effect as exclusive access rules, as most customers are discouraged from switching video providers? 1. Service. Subject to the conditions set out in the statement, rates registered in each state and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and current usage policies published on www.midcocomm.com, Midco undertakes to make available to the owner the services or services (together the “Service “) contained in the accepted service orders. Unless legally required, the service is only intended for end-use and cannot be resold by the owner. The owner is responsible for the safety and total use of the service.

In 2010, the FCC passed a regulation examining whether to adopt rules prohibiting exclusive marketing and mass settlement agreements between video service providers and MDUs owners. In the end, the FCC refused to adopt rules prohibiting these practices. Although the FCC asked in 2017 to rule on whether it should reconsider its 2010 decision (and whether it was considering extending a possible ban to agreements between MDU owners and Internet service providers), no further action was taken with respect to these agreements. Under the current state of the regulatory landscape, exclusive marketing and mass settlement agreements with cable and Internet service providers comply with federal law. In situations of deception, the owner can plan this eventuality by guaranteeing the written agreement of the FTTP supplier at the beginning of the operation, namely the presence of existing copper or HFC infrastructure.