Management company agreements & digital tv providers - Broadcasting Bill amendment

The Cush

The Broadcasting Bill resumed in the Dail this week.
An amendment proposed by Liz McManus (amendment No. 112) related to management company agreements and the availability of other tv providers.

Deputy Liz McManus: I move amendment No. 112:

In page 130, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

130.—(1) This section applies where provision contained in any agreement relating to the use of private property (“property agreement”) has the effect of imposing on the occupier a prohibition or restriction under which his choice of—

(a) the person from whom he obtains digital television services, or particular digital television services, or

(b) the person through whom he arranges to be provided with digital television services, or particular digital television services,

is confined to a person with an interest in the building subject to the property agreement, to a person selected by a person with such an interest or to persons who are one or the other.

(2) This section also applies where provision contained in a property agreement has the effect of imposing any other prohibition or restriction on the occupier of the building with respect to a digital television matter.

(3) A provision falling within subsection (1) shall have effect—

(a) as if the prohibition or restriction applied only where the person from whom consent is required has not given its consent to a departure from the requirements imposed by the prohibition or restriction; and

(b) as if the person from whom consent is required or other party were required not to withhold that consent unreasonably.

(4) A provision falling within subsection (2) shall have effect—

(a) in relation to things done inside a building subject to the property agreement, or

(b) for purposes connected with the provision to the occupier of a digital television service,

as if the prohibition or restriction applied only where the person from whom consent is required has not given its consent in relation to the matter in question and as if they were required not to withhold that consent unreasonably.

(5) Where a provision falling within subsection (1) or (2) imposes a requirement on any person not unreasonably to withhold its consent—

(a) in relation to a digital television matter, or

(b) to the obtaining by the occupier of a building subject to a property agreement of a digital television service from or through a particular person,

the question whether the consent is unreasonably withheld has to be determined having regard to all the circumstances and to the principle that no person should unreasonably be denied access to a digital television service.

(6) Any contravention of this section shall be enforceable by the Competition Authority and in civil proceedings by any person affected by this section.

(7) The Competition Authority may by order provide for this section not to apply in the case of such provisions as may be described in the order.

(8) References in this section to digital television matters are references to—

(a) the provision of a digital television service;

(b) the connection of digital television reception apparatus to a relevant electronic communications network or of any such network to another;

and

(c) the installation, maintenance, adjustment, repair, alteration or use for purposes connected with the provision of such a service of digital television reception apparatus.

(9) This section applies to provisions contained in any agreement entered into before the commencement of this section to the extent only that provision to that effect is contained in an order made by the Competition Authority.”.

This amendment relates to an issue that I raised previously. It was sent to me as a possible solution to the problem that I had raised and I would be grateful, were the Minister to take on board its points. Essentially, it relates to an issue that has been quite widespread in this metropolitan area in particular, whereby people in apartments cannot use the provider of their choice because of management company agreements. While this might appear to be a basic and simple issue regarding people’s rights, it turns out that people do not have any rights and often end up with providers they do not want. Even when people have many complaints in this regard and go to the Competition Authority, etc., it does not appear to make any difference.

I would be grateful were the Minister to accept the principle that people have a right to choose, regardless of whether they live in an apartment or anywhere else. If the Minister does not intend to accept this amendment, he should advise me as to how he proposes to resolve this issue that has been raised by my colleague, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, in particular. He has received many submissions in this regard from both apartment owners and tenants, who cannot ensure that they can have their desired provider. Members are aware that standards of service vary considerably between companies and this issue must be addressed in the Bill.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: In respect of amendment No. 112, which relates to the provision of digital services in multi-occupancy developments, the issue in question concerns access to shared infrastructure and, therefore, is relevant to television services and, for example, to energy, telephone and broadband connections or any other shared infrastructure over which competing providers seek to provide services. I understand that while the issue of the exclusive provision of television services currently is the subject of a Competition Authority review, the principal solution is for a legislative intervention that will regularise the position of management companies with respect to apartment residents, with specific emphasis on the vesting of management companies in the owners of such appointments in a timely manner. This appears to be the crux of the issue as it is clear that management companies and their control play a central role in the right of residents as a group to select common service providers.

In June 2008, the Law Reform Commission published a report into the reform of property and planning law. In response to the commission’s report, a high level interdepartmental committee on multi-unit developments was established to identify the necessary legislative and administrative actions that should be taken in response to the commission’s recommendations. The work of the committee has, in turn, fed into the development of the multi-unit developments Bill 2009, which was published by my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform last month. The multi-unit developments Bill specifically addresses the role in control of management companies in respect of multi-unit developments and, as such, I do not propose to accept the Deputy’s amendment.

Deputy Liz McManus: For clarity, does the Bill published by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform deal with this issue? If not, Members must deal with it here.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: As I noted in my response, my understanding is that it does. I noted that the regulation of the management companies is the key to this issue and that matter will be controlled in that Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle: How stands the amendment?

Deputy Liz McManus: I trust the Minister and I will withdraw it.

An Ceann Comhairle: It is nice to hear that.

Deputy Liz McManus: For the moment.

An Ceann Comhairle: A caveat.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The amendment was not successful but the Minister has said it will be part of the Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009. A quick glance at the Bill I could find no specific reference to tv providers. Section 26 (Restriction on entering into certain contracts) seems to be the nearest relating to this, restricting contracts to a max of 3 years following the enactment of this Bill. (This section will not apply to developments with less than 5 units)

Where does this leave existing agreements/contracts?

For anyone in this situation it might be a good idea to follow the progress of this Bill and get to know are who local TD's.

BrianD

A lot of developers have copped on that these "exclusive agreements" can be a nice little earner for the various parties involved to the detriment of the consumer.

I have noticed that on this board that there are a lot of postings and queries about various "exclusive" services provided. might I suggest some sort of "wiki" that might help owners or renters when dealing with their respective management companies. Information such as who the provider is, wether they are licenced or have contracts with the TV services that the carry and so on so forth.

At the moment, an apartment owner can change electricity suppliers if they like but often can't change all or some of their telecommunications services. The electric cables that carry the current is maintained in their service fee but somehow or other the TV/broadband cables aren't.

seataltea

Cheers OP! Keep up the good work. I'll follow this one with interest

bk

BrianD wrote: »

A lot of developers have copped on that these "exclusive agreements" can be a nice little earner for the various parties involved to the detriment of the consumer.

Actually I think the developers have gone through this phase and have now realised it is a bad idea and are scrambling to get alternatives into their developments.

With lots of empty apartments and it being a buyers market, people are demanding to have multiple options. I know of a good few developments who are inviting Sky into their previously cable/iptv developments.

IMO all apartments should be required to be wired with at least an aerial to receive analogue and digital FTA TV.

Also preferably FTA sat by default.

If the developers want to offer Sky/UPC/Smart/Magnet on top of that then great.

From the phone/bb side of things, I believe all apartments should be wired with a standard Eircom phone line, again the developers can offer UPC/Smart/Magnet in addition if they like.

who is this

bk wrote: »

From the phone/bb side of things, I believe all apartments should be wired with a standard Eircom phone line, again the developers can offer UPC/Smart/Magnet in addition if they like.

Can't say I agree with that part. That's requiring them to offer the service of one company (Eircom, since even if you change to BT etc., Eircom get the line rental) giving an already abusive monopoly an unfair advantage.

bk

who is this wrote: »

Can't say I agree with that part. That's requiring them to offer the service of one company (Eircom, since even if you change to BT etc., Eircom get the line rental) giving an already abusive monopoly an unfair advantage.

Not necessarily, remember Local Loop Unbundling can also run over an Eircom phone line and with LLU Eircom only get a much smaller amount of money and the ISP can deliver truly unique services like 24mb/s BB.

With a phone line in place, a person can go with Eircom, an Eircom reseller like BT, Vodafone, UTV, etc. or if available in the area a LLU provider like Smart, Magnet and BT.

It is all about giving people choice and opening it up to competition.

Perhaps we could also require that all apartments be wired with Coax cable, giving UPC the chance to compete to.

watty

eircom are the only people that make a profit from LLU.

bk

watty wrote: »

eircom are the only people that make a profit from LLU.

Perhaps, but I'm looking at it from the point of view of the consumer and giving them the maximum options and flexibility.

Mike 1972

IMO all apartments should be required to be wired with at least an aerial to receive analogue and digital FTA TV.

And FM radio

I believe all apartments should be wired with a standard Eircom phone line

Wiring and telephone sockets could be provided to a connection point which would be available to Eircom, another provider or left unused as the individual owner/tennant chooses

Perhaps we could also require that all apartments be wired with Coax cable

A very good idea but a minimum standard for quality of same would have to be specified.

The Cush

The Seanad Second Stage of the Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009 was debated last Tue 23rd Jun. The transcript of the debate is here.
The Bill now moves to Seanad Select Committee Stage where it is discussed section by section and amended if necessary.