Good news for Satellite companies
Ron
Cable companies can no longer monopolize apartment buildings.
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090526/ap_on_hi_te/us_apartment_cable
Taweret
Ron wrote:
> Cable companies can no longer monopolize apartment buildings.
>
> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090526/ap_on_hi_te/us_apartment_cable
Great, but how is going to help those who have apartments on the north sides
?
joeturn
slingbox and wifi can work wonders
Raymond Feist
<b75b6e8b-f4c8-4d3f...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
joeturn <joetu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Glib, but doesn't address the question.
To Taweret, I can only suggest you work your management/ HOA to accept
the need to give you a Sat position on the roof or south/east facing
facade that gives you access. Good luck.
Best, R.E.F.
--
Never attribute to malice what can
satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity.
Mark A
news:raymond-6664FC...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> To Taweret, I can only suggest you work your management/ HOA to accept
> the need to give you a Sat position on the roof or south/east facing
> facade that gives you access. Good luck.
>
> Best, R.E.F.
An apartment complex (rental) is under no obligation to provide access to a
clear southern exposure that allows satellite reception. There is nothing in
the original FTC regulations (which have now been upheld by the courts) that
allows that.
A Condo HOA is not any such obligation either, although if there are enough
homeowners who want satellite reception they could band together and get
control of the HOA.
AMUN
You still have to have a dish that can see the birds.
If you only have a window or patio that faces north, and your building won't
let you mount it on "common areas", you're still out of luck.
Of course,..you can move.
But that option existed without ANY legislation.
And while the slingbox might work, you still have to have a dish somewhere.
You might as well just subscribe to one of the NET-TV options if you have to
get it over the net anyway.
Dr. Personality
> "Raymond Feist" <ray...@nospam.bittersea.com> wrote in message
> news:raymond-6664FC...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> > To Taweret, I can only suggest you work your management/ HOA to accept
> > the need to give you a Sat position on the roof or south/east facing
> > facade that gives you access. Good luck.
> >
> > Best, R.E.F.
>
> An apartment complex (rental) is under no obligation to provide access to a
> clear southern exposure that allows satellite reception. There is nothing in
> the original FTC regulations (which have now been upheld by the courts) that
> allows that.
That, I think, is why he said Taweret should "work" the HOA.
> A Condo HOA is not any such obligation either, although if there are enough
> homeowners who want satellite reception they could band together and get
> control of the HOA.
True, but that hardly ever happens. The mindset of those who complain is not
the same as those who seek to control.
Mark A
news:270520090057588958%aff...@no.com.invalid...
>> That, I think, is why he said Taweret should "work" the HOA.
There is no HOA in an apartment complex. There are the apartment complex
owners (who are trying to make an extra buck reselling cable TV to tenants)
and tenants (renters). If you live in an apartment and don't have a clear
view of a satellite from a private area like a patio, then you are SOL. But
I considering the price of real estate these days, anyone renting should be
considering buying a place.
Timothy Daniels
You haven't paid attention. This has nothing to do with the freedon
to erect a satellite dish in the common area of a condo complex or on the
exterior of an apartment building. The FCC has ruled that exclusive use
agreements with building owners in return for cabling the building free
of charge cannot be enforced. By cabling multi-dwelling unit buildings
for free in years past, the cable companies were able to keep competing
companies and technologies out of the buildings. This meant that the
building's over-the-air antennas signals and/or satellite signals couldn't
be carried over the cabling that was installed by the cable company if
there was an exclusive use agreement. In other words, you couldn't
use the cable that ran to your unit to carry signals to your unit that
weren't supplied by the cable company.
In our condo complex's case, we cabled the buildings using 3rd-party
contractors because the cable company was going to do some pretty
stupid AND ugly routing of their cables. The result was that the cable
company had no exclusive agreement with us. About 1 year before
satellite programming became available, the cable company offered to
give us an almost free bulk account in return for an exclusive agreement,
but we declined. Three years later, we installed a dish and an amp and
splitter "tree" in a utility box right next to the cable company's amp and
splitter box, and we now use the cabling to distribut either service, and
in some cases, both cable and satellite services over the same cable
running to individual units. Until today's FCC ruling, we could not have
done that if we had had an exclusive agreement with the cable company.
IOW, until today, the cable company was able to, in effect, buy a
monopoly of a building's signal distribution system.
*TimDaniels*
Ron
Put a dish on the roof.
Dr. Personality
> "Dr. Personality" <aff...@no.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:270520090057588958%aff...@no.com.invalid...
> >> That, I think, is why he said Taweret should "work" the HOA.
>
> There is no HOA in an apartment complex.
There are exact equivalents to HOA in condos. Renters don't have them.
REF did say "management/HOA," though, and I'm not here to micro-pick
this.
> There are the apartment complex
> owners (who are trying to make an extra buck reselling cable TV to tenants)
> and tenants (renters). If you live in an apartment and don't have a clear
> view of a satellite from a private area like a patio, then you are SOL. But
> I considering the price of real estate these days, anyone renting should be
> considering buying a place.
That's another issue. Renters aren't helpless, though. I was going to
say something about residents of a building taking matters into their
own hands and establishing something like a community antenna setup,
but Timothy Daniels has done a good job of that elsewhere in this
thread.
Raymond Feist
"Mark A" <som...@someone.com> wrote:
Of course they're not under any obligation. I merely suggested you
attempt to persuade them to allow it. I've been on two HOA BOD's over
the years and we listened to reason when our members came to us with
something they thought they needed.
With the new ruling, the HOA is no longer under any obligation to say,
"We'd love to help, but our deal with WhateverCable requires we not
utilize our wiring for anything but their service."
Now they can put a dish somewhere, use a spilter and piggyback the sat
signal on the same cable already installed giving the complex cable. A
total TVidiot could subscribe to both with another splitter in the house
and both boxes hooked to the TV.
joeturn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They will connect the dots pretty quick! I have over estimated their
reasoning.These are mear installers, uncle ruport will connect the
dots for them and offer his AT&T services.
Consumer Electronics will set up a slingbox from a master dish and
Uncle Ruport will wifi sat tv to new Thompson Electronics STBs.
I'm usually two years ahead of technology,lets hope it wont take them
that long to figure out how to supply sat without all them ugly dishes
and line of site dependancy
jack ak
> "Raymond Feist"<ray...@nospam.bittersea.com> wrote in message
> news:raymond-6664FC...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>> To Taweret, I can only suggest you work your management/ HOA to accept
>> the need to give you a Sat position on the roof or south/east facing
>> facade that gives you access. Good luck.
>>
>> Best, R.E.F.
>
> An apartment complex (rental) is under no obligation to provide access to a
> clear southern exposure that allows satellite reception. There is nothing in
> the original FTC regulations (which have now been upheld by the courts) that
> allows that.
Do you have a citation for the FTC regulations?
I would guess the FCC is the controlling government agency.
joeturn
wrote:
> In article <uZ1Tl.2706$Xl4.1...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> "Mark A" <some...@someone.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Raymond Feist" <raym...@nospam.bittersea.com> wrote in message
> >news:raymond-6664FC...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> > > To Taweret, I can only suggest you work your management/ HOA to accept
> > > the need to give you a Sat position on the roof or south/east facing
> > > facade that gives you access. Good luck.
>
> > > Best, R.E.F.
>
> > An apartment complex (rental) is under no obligation to provide access to a
> > clear southern exposure that allows satellite reception. There is nothing in
> > the original FTC regulations (which have now been upheld by the courts) that
> > allows that.
>
> > A Condo HOA is not any such obligation either, although if there are enough
> > homeowners who want satellite reception they could band together and get
> > control of the HOA.
>
> Of course they're not under any obligation. I merely suggested you
> attempt to persuade them to allow it. I've been on two HOA BOD's over
> the years and we listened to reason when our members came to us with
> something they thought they needed.
>
> With the new ruling, the HOA is no longer under any obligation to say,
> "We'd love to help, but our deal with WhateverCable requires we not
> utilize our wiring for anything but their service."
>
> Now they can put a dish somewhere, use a spilter and piggyback the sat
> signal on the same cable already installed giving the complex cable. A
> total TVidiot could subscribe to both with another splitter in the house
> and both boxes hooked to the TV.
This salution will have too much red tape involved! RG6 is patented
for use with "cable" providers!
Uncle Ruport will never agree to giving cable companys a portion of
his pie.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Raymond Feist
<6f1c99af-8585-4d4b...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
joeturn <joetu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Old buildings with RG-5, yes. That would be a problem. RG-6 is the
recommended minimum for sat.
And Murdoch would have nothing to say about it. The dish is common, but
each renter/owner would decide if they wished to subscribe.
The point being, with the new ruling, it's now a question of how much
hassle people are willing to go through, not "you can't do it because we
have an exclusive with BigLocalCable Company."
Raymond Feist
jack ak <akj...@excite.com> wrote:
It's the FCC. I ran into this a lot when DirecTV first started up when
my HOA had an exclusive with a cable firm locally. The only prohibition
an HOA can put up is for an historically registered building, common
areas, or if it poses a safety hazard for dishes and over-the-air
antenna under 1 meter.
I could dig around and pull up the relevant statute, or you can probably
find it on-line at FCC.Gov.
Mark A
>> There is no HOA in an apartment complex.
>
> There are exact equivalents to HOA in condos. Renters don't have them.
> REF did say "management/HOA," though, and I'm not here to micro-pick
> this.
What? Condos have HOA's. Rental apartment complexes do not have HOA's. This
is in reference to where one company owns the entire apartment complex, not
where an owner of a condo unit is renting a unit out to someone else.
> That's another issue. Renters aren't helpless, though. I was going to
> say something about residents of a building taking matters into their
> own hands and establishing something like a community antenna setup,
> but Timothy Daniels has done a good job of that elsewhere in this
> thread.
You are confusing apartment complexes with people who rent individually
owned units of a condo. The problem of where an apartment negotiates with a
cable provider to be the sole provider of TV service is usually with an
apartment complex owned or managed by a single company and everyone is a
renter and there are no HOA's or equivalent.
joeturn
wrote:
> In article
> <6f1c99af-8585-4d4b-a3f7-4b98160f3...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
You missed my point Raymond if your piggy back were to be used, cable
companys could demand a portion of the proceeds!
AT&T now pays them for the use of cable enabled phone service!
Doing away with the awful looking appendage of a dish is Uncle Ruports
number one objective!
Connecting Sat TV via microwave towers will give him another
monopoly!
If he has to he will again incorporate the use of lobist to change the
NEW rules!
He bought the Christian Faith organization to help get him his
citizenship and DTV once before!
Uncle Ruport is in control and he is slowly putting cable providers
out of biz.
Raymond Feist
<4f9b4e3d-da93-42d8...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
joeturn <joetu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I didn't make my point clear. I'm not talking about the cable
companies. Unless someone signs a really atypical deal, the way it's
worked since the cable companies were deregulated and allowed to
compete, is that the local cable company would to the pre-wire of the
condos/apartments in exchange for an exclusive. The cable company owns
the line from to the building, but not in the building.
Now that those agreements have been ruled invalid, nothing prevents a
condo association or an apartment owner from stick a dish up on the roof
and funning a downline to a switcher and connecting that to the existing
junction.
>
> AT&T now pays them for the use of cable enabled phone service!
>
> Doing away with the awful looking appendage of a dish is Uncle Ruports
> number one objective!
>
> Connecting Sat TV via microwave towers will give him another
> monopoly!
>
> If he has to he will again incorporate the use of lobist to change the
> NEW rules!
>
> He bought the Christian Faith organization to help get him his
> citizenship and DTV once before!
>
> Uncle Ruport is in control and he is slowly putting cable providers
> out of biz.
Hardly.
Trying to do away with dishes and going microwave would be a
technological step backwards.
Dr. Personality
> "Dr. Personality" <aff...@no.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:270520090925220020%aff...@no.com.invalid...
> >> There is no HOA in an apartment complex.
> >
> > There are exact equivalents to HOA in condos. Renters don't have them.
> > REF did say "management/HOA," though, and I'm not here to micro-pick
> > this.
>
> What? Condos have HOA's. Rental apartment complexes do not have HOA's. This
> is in reference to where one company owns the entire apartment complex, not
> where an owner of a condo unit is renting a unit out to someone else.
There are apartment buildings that consist of nothing but condos.
Everyone owns their apartment. These buildings have HOAs that can
negotiate with cablers. I am not talking about renters.
Renters have landlords. Landlords can negotiate likewise.
> > That's another issue. Renters aren't helpless, though. I was going to
> > say something about residents of a building taking matters into their
> > own hands and establishing something like a community antenna setup,
> > but Timothy Daniels has done a good job of that elsewhere in this
> > thread.
>
> You are confusing apartment complexes with people who rent individually
> owned units of a condo. The problem of where an apartment negotiates with a
> cable provider to be the sole provider of TV service is usually with an
> apartment complex owned or managed by a single company and everyone is a
> renter and there are no HOA's or equivalent.
As stated, HOAs that represent apartment owners have the same power to
negotiate. I have not been confusing anything.
Mark A
> There are apartment buildings that consist of nothing but condos.
> Everyone owns their apartment. These buildings have HOAs that can
> negotiate with cablers. I am not talking about renters.
>
> Renters have landlords. Landlords can negotiate likewise.
Yes, I realize you are in a big city (probably NYC) and that's what you
referring to. In the rest of the world, "apartments" are not condos that are
rented by individual condo owners, they are apartment "complexes" that are
owned by one company.
Outside of NYC (and maybe a few other cities), there is no such thing as an
"apartment owner." That is an oxymoron. The apartment complex owns all the
apartments units and they are all rental units. If the units have individual
owners, it is by definition a condo (outside of NYC).
jack ak
Apartment v. Condominium ownership is not as simple as you describe...
joeturn
I left an openning over at ecoustics<I;-(
Reviews
User Reviews
News
Videos
Articles
Forums
Compare $$$
Home AudioHome VideoHome TheaterPhotographyCar
AudioComputersPortablesAccessoriesVideo GamesMore...FORUMS »A/V
ReceiversAmpsCD PlayersMini SystemsMP3
PlayersPhonoPreampsSpeakersSubwoofersMore »
FORUMS »DVD PlayersDVD±RWDVRsHDTV ReceptionFlat Panel TVsProjectorsTV
BasicsSatellite TVVCRsVideo ScalersMore »
FORUMS »DVD PlayersHTiBLoudspeakersMedia
CentersReceiversPlanningSpeaker SystemsSubwoofersSurround SoundMore »
FORUMS »35mm CamerasCamcordersDigital CamerasDisposablesLarge
FormatLensesMedium FormatSLR CamerasWebcamsMore »
FORUMS »CamcordersDigital CamerasGPSHeadphonesLaptopsMP3 PlayersPDAs &
SmartphonesPortable DVDMore »
FORUMS »AccessoriesAmpsChangersEQsHead UnitsMultimediaNavigationRadar
DetectorsSecuritySpeakersSubsMore »
FORUMS »DesktopsNotebooksMedia
CentersMonitorsNetworkingPrintersScannersSound CardsVideo CardsMore »
FORUMS »Acoustic TreatmentsAntennasAV FurnitureCablesCar
Acc.HeadphonesPC Acc.Power ConditionersRemote ControlsMore »
FORUMS »DreamcastGameboy AdvanceGameboy ColorGame CubeNintendo
DSNintendo WiiPlaystation 3PSPXbox 360More »
FORUMS »AnnouncementsArticlesBragging AreaCouponsFor
SaleMoviesMusicOff TopicPress ReleasesReviewsTV ShowsFeedback?
FORUMS »mouse-over any of the tabs above to view the sub-topics for
each categoryHome > Message Board > Suspended Account
Username: Password: Register?
Main Topics Your Account Search Help
Today's Posts | Last 3 Days
Your account has been suspended by board moderators. For information,
please contact a moderator. You are not permitted to log in until this
matter is resolved.
Topics | Last Day | Search | Formatting Tips | Terms | Rules | Help |
Log out |
Home | About Us | Advertise Here | Contact Us | Join us on Facebook |
FAQ | Newsletter | What's New?
eCoustics, LLC - All Rights Reserved, Copyright 1999-2009
0 Transponders Founded
Mark A
"jack ak" <akj...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:MUkTl.16947$hc1....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Apartment v. Condominium ownership is not as simple as you describe...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condominium
I read that article, but I don't know what you are talking about:
"The difference between a condominium and an apartment is purely legal:
there is no way to know a condo from an apartment simply by looking at or
visiting the building. What defines a condominium is the form of ownership.
The same building developed as a condominium (and sold as individual units
to different owners) could actually be built someplace else as an apartment
building (the developers would retain ownership and rent individual units to
different tenants)."
This is the same as what I said. An Apartment is owned totally by a
developer who rents the individual units. There is no HOA in an apartment
because they don't "own" anything.
A condo is owned by individuals who buy units, and sometimes rent them out,
but they do not own the entire building or complex like an apartment.
Sometimes things can get a little complicated when a condo development is
not selling well, and the developer has to start renting some units out, but
that is usually temporary until they can unload them later.
But I do know that New Yorkers often refer to condo units as apartments even
when they own them. This is the source of the confusion I believe.
Timothy Daniels
> "Taweret" wrote:
>
>>Great, but how is going to help those who have apartments
>> on the north sides?
>>
>
> Put a dish on the roof.
Both apartment building owners and condo HOAs have
the right to prohibit individuals from putting satellite dishes
(even 18" diameter dishes) anywhere in the non-exclusive
use common area. Roofs are non-exclusive use common
areas (unless the "units" are separate structures). This is
true despite what the satellite company phone reps have
been instructed to say. This what the FCC has ruled and
what the FCC has said in its later "clarification", and it is
what our HOA's $325/hour attorney has told us. In our
case, we put up a DirecTV satellite reception system that
can be accessed through the single cable that runs to each unit,
and anyone wanting DirecTV reception can subscribe. They
can even get DirecTV TV and TimeWarner Broadband over
the same cable. The HOA paid for the system to prevent
dissention even though it had the right to simply prohibit dishes
in the common areas. In the cases of the few owners wanting
Russian and Hindi programming, they were able to receive
DishNetwork signals on their patios.
*TimDaniels*
Dr. Personality
> "Dr. Personality" <aff...@no.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:270520091623058440%aff...@no.com.invalid...
> > There are apartment buildings that consist of nothing but condos.
> > Everyone owns their apartment. These buildings have HOAs that can
> > negotiate with cablers. I am not talking about renters.
> >
> > Renters have landlords. Landlords can negotiate likewise.
>
> Yes, I realize you are in a big city (probably NYC) and that's what you
> referring to. In the rest of the world, "apartments" are not condos that are
> rented by individual condo owners, they are apartment "complexes" that are
> owned by one company.
No, I am not in a big city. I live in farm country near the
Appalachians in the mid-Atlantic. The population of the nearest town
is 7500. There is a development of low-rise apartment buildings, 100%
condo units, not two miles down the road from me. The development
opened in 1995.
The confusion here is not mine.
> Outside of NYC (and maybe a few other cities), there is no such thing as an
> "apartment owner." That is an oxymoron. The apartment complex owns all the
> apartments units and they are all rental units. If the units have individual
> owners, it is by definition a condo (outside of NYC).
This is wrong. An apartment is an apartment. An apartment is not
defined by who owns it. It is defined by what it is -- a set-apart
space in a multifamily structure where the number of families > 2.
From the other post:
> But I do know that New Yorkers often refer to condo units as apartments even
> when they own them. This is the source of the confusion I believe.
They are referred to as apartments because they're apartments. This is
not limited to New York City.
AMUN
I'm still wondering why they would bother with a "master" dish at all.
Individual stations could just pump the signals out the the net, you pick
them up at your end.
2 years down the road, satellite TV will pretty much only be in the trailer
parks.
AMUN
I'll admit your building may be an exception to the rule.
But most places (in the real world) will still have managers or supers who
will get a "gift of cash" to make it tough on anyone who chooses another
service.
Oh ya. Now I remember why I chose to live in a house.
Dr. Personality
> 2 years down the road, satellite TV will pretty much only be in the trailer
> parks.
That's nonsense.
AMUN
Speculation perhaps, but not total nonsense.
As internet TV improves (and in two years it will)
More and more of the public will switch.
Sure, the BUD people will still have Dishes, or those without fast DSL, but
those in large cities, and especially apartments will just plug their TV
into the nearest phone jack, sit back, and watch Spongebob until their eyes
bleed.
Look at the Big TV networks, already you can watch shows from their
websites.
And of course,....many will watch shows on their cell, while they text and
twitter.
Raymond Feist
wrote:
Delivery devices are evolving, not entire systems. Pin-hole satellite
beaming offers broadcasters and narrowcasters too much control to rely
on any wire technology at the receiver end larger than what's in the
house.
I have fiber to the curb, but prefer DirecTV to any offering either AT&T
or Time-Warner can give me.
There may be a paradigm shift, but it won't happen in two years. Maybe
ten. DirecTV and Dish are still growing markets, and the retention rate
for both is far higher than cable.
Timothy Daniels
> [....] An apartment is an apartment. An apartment is not
> defined by who owns it. It is defined by what it is -- a set-apart
> space in a multifamily structure where the number of families > 2.
>
> From the other post:
>
>> But I do know that New Yorkers often refer to condo units as
>> apartments even when they own them. This is the source of the
>> confusion I believe.
>
> They are referred to as apartments because they're apartments.
> This is not limited to New York City.
Here in Los Angeles, the common usage of "condo" is to mean
an individually owned unit in an multi-unit building or complex, and
"apartment" is to mean a rental unit in a residential MDU building
owned by a single owner or partnership or corporation. Condo-
minium CC&Rs here refer to "Unit" to mean an individually owned
unit in a condominium "project" (a "condominium" being a form of
joint ownership), where the "Unit" can be residential or commercial.
But in technical usage, Wikipedia seems to confirm that
"apartment" can refer to units in both forms of ownership:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartment . Nevertheless, here in L.A.,
and all of California, if you say "condo", *everyone* - including
realtors - will assume that you mean "condominium unit".
*TimDaniels*
Dr. Personality
And a condominum unit, around here, can be an apartment, a townhouse, or two
floors of a townhouse, or a detached townhouse, etc.
The notion that an apartment is defined as such by whether it's a
rental or not is what's troublesome here.
AMUN
Raymond Feist wrote:
> In article <gvma9l$eas$1...@aioe.org>, "AMUN" <anti...@sparmmstop.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Personality wrote:
>>> In article <gvl7m9$53b$1...@aioe.org>, AMUN <anti...@sparmmstop.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2 years down the road, satellite TV will pretty much only be in the
>>>> trailer parks.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's nonsense.
>>
>>
>> Speculation perhaps, but not total nonsense.
>> As internet TV improves (and in two years it will)
>> More and more of the public will switch.
>>
>> Sure, the BUD people will still have Dishes, or those without fast
>> DSL, but those in large cities, and especially apartments will just
>> plug their TV into the nearest phone jack, sit back, and watch
>> Spongebob until their eyes bleed.
>>
>> Look at the Big TV networks, already you can watch shows from their
>> websites.
>> And of course,....many will watch shows on their cell, while they text
>> and twitter.
>
> Delivery devices are evolving, not entire systems. Pin-hole satellite
> beaming offers broadcasters and narrowcasters too much control to rely
> on any wire technology at the receiver end larger than what's in the
> house.
Irregardless, once the "dish" is no longer required. It's not really
satellite tv anymore.
And even "wireless" has it's drawbacks, as anyone who has a shiny new
wireless laptop with an ethernet adapter plugged in, will tell you that
WIRED is still the best.
And lets not forget that even satellite still needs wires strung through
your house.
Have you ever used PPV or Video on Demand with your satellite account ?
Guess what,......you most likely get it over the internet, not from a bird
in the sky.
So the satellite companies already know something.
>
> I have fiber to the curb, but prefer DirecTV to any offering either AT&T
> or Time-Warner can give me.
That's great, as long as it fits your needs or personal preferrence, you
should keep what you have now.
I personally still own 8-track tapes, and have no intention of throwing them
out, but I won't say their quality is better than a CD.
>
> There may be a paradigm shift, but it won't happen in two years. Maybe
> ten. DirecTV and Dish are still growing markets, and the retention rate
> for both is far higher than cable.
Retention rates will only remain relatively high, until customers contracts
expire.
But better/"higher than cable", really doesn't mean much as customers
abandon both for newer better options.
Or simply realize one morning that nothing on TV is even worth watching
anymore.
And use their TV only for movie rentals, video games, and to see what their
cameras contain.
Mark A
news:KfydneZ1bcToJ4PX...@earthlink.com...
> Here in Los Angeles, the common usage of "condo" is to mean
> an individually owned unit in an multi-unit building or complex, and
> "apartment" is to mean a rental unit in a residential MDU building
> owned by a single owner or partnership or corporation. Condo-
> minium CC&Rs here refer to "Unit" to mean an individually owned
> unit in a condominium "project" (a "condominium" being a form of
> joint ownership), where the "Unit" can be residential or commercial.
>
> But in technical usage, Wikipedia seems to confirm that
> "apartment" can refer to units in both forms of ownership:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartment . Nevertheless, here in L.A.,
> and all of California, if you say "condo", *everyone* - including
> realtors - will assume that you mean "condominium unit".
>
>
> *TimDaniels*
That is the way it is everywhere but in the northeast. An apartment is a
rental property where all units are owned by the same company.
Mark A
> And a condominum unit, around here, can be an apartment, a townhouse, or
> two
> floors of a townhouse, or a detached townhouse, etc.
>
> The notion that an apartment is defined as such by whether it's a
> rental or not is what's troublesome here.
That may be the way those in the northeast view it (or those who grew up in
the northeast) but the rest of country (and the Wikipedia article you
quoted) see it differently.
Mark A
> This is wrong. An apartment is an apartment. An apartment is not
> defined by who owns it. It is defined by what it is -- a set-apart
> space in a multifamily structure where the number of families > 2.
Not according to the Wikipedia article that you quoted:
Dr. Personality
First it's New York City, and now it's the "northeast."
I don't try to speak for the rest of the country. I do know that if I
asked Joe Anywhere what kind of condo he owns, he'd tell me "an
apartment" or "a townhouse." He wouldn't tell me "a condo."
This is old ground, though. I can't see plowing it again.
Raymond Feist
"Dr. Personality" <aff...@no.com.invalid> wrote:
Not to get too pedantic, but "condo" is a legal description, "townhouse"
or "apartment" is a physical description. "Apartment complex" implies
signal ownership and rentals.
Mark A
> First it's New York City, and now it's the "northeast."
>
> I don't try to speak for the rest of the country. I do know that if I
> asked Joe Anywhere what kind of condo he owns, he'd tell me "an
> apartment" or "a townhouse." He wouldn't tell me "a condo."
>
> This is old ground, though. I can't see plowing it again.
Joe Anywhere? Not anywhere I have ever lived. As others on this forum have
explained to you (and as explained by the Wikipedia article "you" quoted),
an apartment is a building or complex of buildings where all units have a
single ownership and are rented out to tenants. There is a permanent leasing
apartment leasing office and there is no HOA because no one owns their own
units.
A condo (or townhome) is owned by individuals, who may lease those units to
others if they don't occupy the units themselves (but most condo.townhome
deeds, covenants, and HOA rules limit the percentage that can initially be
sold to investors for rental purposes).
BTW, a townhome is different than a condo only in that it implies that
there is no one above or below you, but both imply that there is individual
ownership as different from a apartment, which is always a rental unit.
Dr. Personality
> "Dr. Personality" <aff...@no.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:280520091934434000%aff...@no.com.invalid...
> > First it's New York City, and now it's the "northeast."
> >
> > I don't try to speak for the rest of the country. I do know that if I
> > asked Joe Anywhere what kind of condo he owns, he'd tell me "an
> > apartment" or "a townhouse." He wouldn't tell me "a condo."
> >
> > This is old ground, though. I can't see plowing it again.
>
> Joe Anywhere? Not anywhere I have ever lived.
You know people who would answer the question "What kind of condo do
you live in?" with "A condo"? Seriously?
> As others on this forum have
> explained to you (and as explained by the Wikipedia article "you" quoted),
> an apartment is a building or complex of buildings where all units have a
> single ownership and are rented out to tenants.
An apartment is not a building or a complex of buildings. If you're
trying to make some sort of point, I'm afraid it's gotten lost.
Also, I really don't care about that Wikipedia article -- which, BTW, I
did not quote; this is another assumption you've made about me that's
turned out to be incorrect. The definition of an apartment building is
not arcane, and it is not original to Wikipedia. To be sure of my
ground, I confirmed the definition (in two different places) at
answers.com. In passing, I'll also point out that there are many older
apartment buildings in various cities where, because of laws intended
to protect longtime lessees, some residents own their apartments while
others continue to rent. Whatever you were attempting to define, your
use of "all units" is incorrect on its face.
And, as others have tried to explain to *you*, "apartment" is a
physical description; "condo" is a legal one.
> There is a permanent leasing
> apartment leasing office and there is no HOA because no one owns their own
> units.
>
> A condo (or townhome)
"Townhome" is a word conjured up by real estate agents. You mean
"townhouse." A condo is not a townhouse any more than a condo is an
apartment. A condo is a legal thing, a way to own residential real
estate of various kinds.
> is owned by individuals, who may lease those units to
> others if they don't occupy the units themselves (but most condo.townhome
> deeds, covenants, and HOA rules limit the percentage that can initially be
> sold to investors for rental purposes).
Fine, but so what?
> BTW, a townhome is different than a condo only in that it implies that
> there is no one above or below you, but both imply that there is individual
> ownership as different from a apartment, which is always a rental unit.
I'm not sure what you're trying to establish here, primarily because
you're confusing your inferences with actual facts. Why does a
so-called "townhome" imply ownership by its residents? Can't people
rent townhouses from their builders? They sure as hell do around here.
A townhouse can be, and frequently is, divided among two or more
families. In fact, it's divided into apartments with separate
entrances and everything. These apartments can be owned or rented.
This is common.
Further, a townhouse is a type of structure. You keep insisting that a
"condo" has to mean some specific type of living area, and that's just
wrong. If I buy my apartment when it goes condo, it is still
physically an apartment. The notion that an apartment cannot be owned
by whoever lives in it because apartments can only be rented is just
flatly wrong. If you can't or won't understand that, fine, but I'm done
here.
Bill
> Raymond Feist wrote:
>> In article <gvma9l$eas$1...@aioe.org>, "AMUN" <anti...@sparmmstop.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dr. Personality wrote:
>>>> In article <gvl7m9$53b$1...@aioe.org>, AMUN <anti...@sparmmstop.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2 years down the road, satellite TV will pretty much only be in the
>>>>> trailer parks.
>>>>
>>>> That's nonsense.
>>>
>>> Speculation perhaps, but not total nonsense.
>>> As internet TV improves (and in two years it will)
>>> More and more of the public will switch.
>>>
I see a 5 to 10 year time frame for satellite to phase out, although I
doubt that it will disappear altogether. Satellite TV will still be
needed in the sparser regions of the country.
I've got FiOS phone and internet service in my urban area but I'm
sticking with DirecTV for now for the TV signals.
Bill
Raymond Feist
I've got fiber as well, and am also staying with DirecTV. I just like
their product better than what AT&T Uverse offers in this area.
Bill
I'm on, I believe an apartment is a single unit in an apartment building
or apartment complex (group of buildings). Out here, many apartments
have been converted into condominiums, which are usually owned singly,
but can be rented out, too. At one time I was a part-owner of an
apartment building here with eight tenant families, each in their own
apartment.
We went to Hawaii a couple years ago and rented a condo, which turned
out to be a town house, i.e. no one above or below us.
I find it amusing to see Wikipedia cited as an authoritative source, but
that's the subject of another off-topic thread...
Bill
joeturn
is very important in this thread!
Getting sat tv to the people not in the line of sight or damaging
roofs with ugly appendages is of little interest here?
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/FOX_News_fares_poorly_in_investigation_of_media_edits_to_Wikipedia
Raymond Feist
<5c9fef52-3da0-4402...@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
joeturn <joetu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wiki pedia can be edited to say anything! However I see the definition
> is very important in this thread!
>
> Getting sat tv to the people not in the line of sight or damaging
> roofs with ugly appendages is of little interest here?
Ugly appendages? OK, if aesthetics is the issue, there is no debate in
taste.
For me, my dish is on my roof bolted to the chimney, and you can't see
it from the ground.
It's more about service choices, IMHO, and what is perceived as "bang
for the buck." I've got friends here in San Diego who would not leave
cable, as the Padre games are important to them, and that includes my 92
year old mother.
I have friends who love Uverse and FIOS.
Me, I'm avery happy with what I get from DTV.
As for condos and apartments, it's clear that with the voiding of
exclusive contracts with cable providers, members can ask their HOA's
and renters can ask the managers/owners of the building to provide an
alternative signal. It doesn't mean they're going to get it, but they
now can ask.
Mark A
> I moved from the east coast to California in 1959. Despite which coast I'm
> on, I believe an apartment is a single unit in an apartment building or
> apartment complex (group of buildings). Out here, many apartments have
> been converted into condominiums, which are usually owned singly, but can
> be rented out, too. At one time I was a part-owner of an apartment
> building here with eight tenant families, each in their own apartment.
>
> We went to Hawaii a couple years ago and rented a condo, which turned out
> to be a town house, i.e. no one above or below us.
>
> I find it amusing to see Wikipedia cited as an authoritative source, but
> that's the subject of another off-topic thread...
>
> Bill
I would suggest that you look at the classified section of a newspaper
(online or print). In most places you will see the following for sale:
-Single Family Homes (or houses)
-Townhomes and Condominiums
You will generally not see apartments for sale. You will see apartments for
rent.
joeturn
professional services exotic sexion .Most of them have the blackberry
with sat tv on them!