BROADBAND COMMUNITIES is the leading source of information on digital and broadband technologies for buildings and communities. Our editorial aims to accelerate the deployment of Fiber-To-The-Home and Fiber-To-The-Premises.
Issue link: https://bbcmag.epubxp.com/i/71834
MDU OPERATIONS Making MDU Broadband Competition Work Competition at multifamily properties can benefit all parties – as long as property owners are committed to making sure that it works. By Carl E. Kandutsch ■ Attorney and Richard Price ■ Broadband Consulting C ompetition among broadband service providers in multiple- dwelling unit (MDU) properties has become the norm since the 2007 FCC decision to prohibit enforcement of exclusive service agreements for video providers. MDU residents have always desired choice among broadband service provid- ers, but only since telephone companies entered the multichannel video distri- bution markets has competition flour- ished. Because competition spawns in- novation and keeps a lid on prices while creating wealth, it is generally good for the public. Competition also benefits MDU owners to the extent that an MDU property offering broadband choice is more attractive to prospective residents than a property monopolized by a single provider. In the November/December 2010 issue of this magazine, one of us (Kandutsch) argued that the increase in value of a rental unit offering choice may often outweigh the loss of service provider payments for monopoly rights. As providers become more aggressive and consumers become increasingly de- manding, we believe this will more of- ten be the case. Competition's value to service provid- ers is a function of its value to MDU own- ers. If most MDU owners require compe- tition, a service provider will have access to more MDU properties by adopting a business model based on coexistence. In short, where there is effective competition at an MDU property, ev- eryone – consumers, management and service providers – can win. In a competitive environment, a property owner or manager must make sure that the playing field is level and that each provider knows it is level. Otherwise, one provider will succeed at the expense of others, and competition will not last. Effective competition involves more than just allowing multiple service pro- viders to coexist at an MDU property. If an owner signs contracts with multiple providers, hoping to maximize short- term cash flow, and then passively with- draws, one provider may succeed at the expense of the others, and competition will not last for long. However, an owner that views service providers as partners can give each competitor a full and fair opportunity to thrive. MAKING COMPETITION WORK To ensure that each competitor survives, a property owner or manager must make sure that the playing field remains About the Authors Carl Kandutsch, a former FCC attorney, represents property owners and broadband service providers on cable television and broadband communications issues. Dr. Kandutsch may be contacted through his website, www.kandutsch.com, via email at carl@kandutsch.com or by telephone at 207-659-6247. Richard Price has provided video and broadband options and advice to high-density housing owners and managers for nearly 35 years and is the founder of Broadband Consulting LLC. He can be reached at 678-410-5969 or on the Web at www.broadbandplanning.com. MAY/JUNE 2012 | www.broadbandcommunities.com | BROADBAND COMMUNITIES | 97 level and that each provider knows it is level. Regardless of whether a property is existing construction or a new build, the level playing field has technical, op- erational and legal components. Te crucial technical issues relate to wiring. Each provider must have unre- stricted, secure access to the in-building wiring. In new construction, the ideal solution is to provide separate home-run wiring for each service provider. How- ever, in many cases, both new and exist- ing construction, only one run of coaxial and one run of twisted-pair home-run wiring go to each unit, and competing providers must share inside wiring. Be- cause each provider has the incentive