[chammer101]

Not sure where to post this, I just tried to order Bell TV for my residence, i had been using a receiver on someone else's account and the guilt finally got to me.

Well I was told by Bell that my area is not serviceable by Bell as another company must have an exclusive agreement with my subdivision or building.

I am in a brand new subdivision (house) and yes Rogers is there for TV/Internet and Phone.

How is it even legal that Rogers "owns" that subdivision and no other provider can service me?

I know Bell TV works as I have a dish (installed by Bell when I moved in) but cancel a few months later. A buddy had a spare receiver that was activated and we tried it, magic it worked. I pay him the rental charge per month. Like I said guilt got to me and I want more receivers.

Thoughts? Anyone ran into this before and knows what to say to Bell to get them to install anyway? Maybe a call or email to CRTC (if they care)

 

[hugh]

Never heard of satellite tv being shut out of a subdivision.

 

[57]

Perhaps the OP is confusing this with Bell Fibe, which may not have access to those homes since everything might be coming in via Rogers-owned coax or fibre. This does happen in some new subdivisions and people are usually made aware when they move in.

I also see no reason why the OP couldn't get BTV or Shaw Direct, but some areas frown on dishes so the dish may need to be "hidden".

 

[chammer101]

Nope no confusion on my behalf. I simply want Bell TV (Expressvu) that I previously had installed by Bell about a year and a half ago. Moved into house and got the dish installed free as we moved, contract was up so I just cancelled a week later. New house needed to save some cash.

Money is no longer an issue and just want the service back. An hour on hold and I am told they can't service my area due to some exclusivity of another vendor in my area.

I am going to call Bell again and speak to a manager. There has to be some issue. They can't even bring up my address in their system. The postal code they have doesn't show as valid yet canadapost.com has no issues pulling my address up.

I bet its a problem with the system and my address, originally Canada post assigned and invalid postal code to my subdivision and they fixed it but not until after all the vendors "pulled" the new address from Canadapost.

 

[travisc]

The odds are it's Bell that's screwing up. I too have never heard of a residential subdivision locking out Bell TV. I know Bell has chosen not to put phone lines in some areas where the local cableco cut a deal with the builder for free service in all homes, but never have I seen satellite cut out.

 

[MCIBUS]

I'm not a lawyer but wouldn't this violate your constitutional rights?

 

[JamesK]

I too have never heard of a residential subdivision locking out Bell TV.

IIRC, there's a subdivision in Richmond Hill or Thornhill, where Rogers was able to lock out Bell for wired phone service. I don't know if that would apply to satellite TV.

 

[57]

Bell may simply be inept since you're in a new area and the postal code doesn't come up for them yet. I see no way that you could be prevented from having someone install Bell or Shaw Direct Satellite at your home, unless there is some sort of "agreement" between the providers - for example, Bell or Shaw may have some exclusive areas where they would want other providers to stay away.

You could get an independent installer to handle the installation and use a friend/relative's address nearby, outside the area to activate your system. You'd need to give your phone number so that they can "verify" STBs, etc.

 

[thenewdc]

Some former Futureway areas now Rogers was originally owned by the land developer which was his property and he refused to give access to Bell when trenching took place. It's exclusive to Rogers now. Bell doesn't have any infrastructure there at all.

 

[57]

But we're talking sat, not phone. There is no infrastructure requirement for Bell sat - it goes at the person's domicile and he could be in the middle of nowhere, or even mobile. He could also have only a cell phone...

 

[pand75]

I live in an apartment building that is Rogers exclusive. I wanted to threaten to go to Bell or Tek-Savvy for internet and it's not available.

 

[urbanite]

I'm like pand75. My condo tower is Rogers exclusive; and basic cable (+ some addons) is included in my condo fees. We are not permitted to have a dish on our balconies or hanging out of a window. I think this is fairly common with tower buildings, but I haven't heard of it in a subdivision. Some condos are Bell exclusive.

So chammer101, are you in a condo where you're paying monthly fees? Or is it your own house and your own dirt under your house?

[And by the way, the condo setup is reasonable and democratically voted on through the condo corporation.]

 

[MCIBUS]

Is this "exclusive" deal really legal?

I mean can they real "force" you to pay if want a land line that its has to be Rogers(or someone else) and are forced to pay their price.
Yes I know you have a choice to get cell, but that eats up mins on your plan.

Anyway getting back to this "exclusive" contracts.

It seams to me that if Rogers or Bell or someone else states your only allowed to use them for TV/INTERNET/Phone, wouldn't that be a violation of your constitutional rights?

 

[17671]

just think about it this way,

you live in an area where there is no cablesystems. you want cable, they say you are not in their coverage, you gotta use antenna. its legal. they can only make you a customer if they service the area, they do not cover every square inch of land, there are areas where a customer is a few pole spans outside of their territory, and they are sol, it costs $$ to build an infastructure, and lots of land owners have the say in who can put utilities on their land, cable is not a necessity, its a want, so they can get away with it.

 

[MCIBUS]

^

True enough

But in this case

Bell is in Toronto and they could easily be right next door in the neighborhood next to this place, that where I see the issue.


I'm not a lawyer but I wonder if you could fight
this in court?

 

[chammer101]

Wish I knew ?

Appreciate all the follow up chatter. More details

I finally got the Satellite installed without issues. I spoke with a manager and advised that no one person/company can tell me what to put on my house. Have Bell TV installed. (Actually cancelling it next Monday for Rogers wholehome PVR)

As I said am in a new housing subdivision (not condos). I guess 3 years come this May. Rogers wired the entire area with their cable. Bell was not allowed to run any new cable, not for lack of wanting to but was not allowed per the building developer.

What I don't understand is how is it up to the builder who gets to roll out this area. If Rogers knew (thank god they don't) that I only have them for internet/home phone every time I called and threaten to leave for Bell they can just say "yea sure buddy you have no choice, we are raising your prices by 20% as well by the way'

it's not some tiny little subdivision, house range in price from $400,000 up to I think $700,000 and there must be 250-350 houses. Any vendor would love to get in there you would think.

i wonder if an email/call/letter to the CRTC would do anything?

i am really going to push this, i am tired of getting screwed over because you can't fight them anyway. Cost me $60 to take them to court. Cost them $1000's

 

[yyzlhr]

There are a lot of places in the city of Toronto where the area is exclusive to one telecommunications provider. I don't think the CRTC has the authority to order bell to spend money to put in their own infrastructure, which would be more costly to do now since the area is already developed, therefore they may not even want to compete with rogers in that area. In addition the city would likely have to provide permits for bell to dig up the area and put in their infrastructure. The city may not allow this for noise abatement or economic reasons.

 

[meommm53]

Rogers and Bell both do business cases to decide if they are going to install plant within a new subdivision. For a period of time Bell was deciding not to install plant when the builder(s) had offered an exclusive deal to purchasers. In a number of instances Rogers had offered one year free for all services and Bell made the decision not to invest in the subdivision. Excluding the "Futureway" instances the cases I am aware of the developers did not prevent Bell from constructing their plant it was their choice.t

Even in the "Futureway" developments, once the subdivision is assumed by the municipality any provider could submit to over-dig and install their plant, but normally this is cost prohibitive.

 

[mr shady]

I personally wouldnt order the whole home @ this time !!!! If yoiu do u will wish you listened to me!