Southern Walk Resident Rebuts OpenBand

I am writing in response to your article titled ‘.’ As a Southern Walk resident bound by this agreement I have been watching this situation progress with keen interest, an interest not only in having the freedom to decide who I decide to do business with, but also in how this situation represents a great deal more than a simple choice in cable television providers.

The decision that squarely rests on the shoulders of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors – to either grant or deny OpenBand the right to provide video services in Loudoun County – strikes at the heart of our nation and its current values. At a time when all of us are still reeling from the financial crisis propped up by the merciless exploitation of regulations initially intended to protect and serve, it’s all too clear that there is a need for increased accountability across the spectrum. I see the OpenBand issue as being a prime-time litmus test of this and will either: 1) Show that we have learned from those mistakes and have made a commitment to move forward in a more responsible manner; or 2) Demonstrate that none of it has truly registered yet and, at least for the moment, the residents of Loudoun county will continue this downward spiral.

Supervisor Stevens Miller eloquently penned a recent blog titled “Those Who Won’t Compete: OpenBand” relating this issue to the following quote from John Boehner: “You know, we live in a competitive society. We live in a capitalist society. For those who can compete and do well, fine. Some Americans can’t compete. I think we have a responsibility as a people to help those who can’t compete. But do we have a responsibility to help those who won’t compete?”

In my opinion, this distilled the whole argument down to its purest form. During the Oct. 11 public hearing Mr. Miller inquired as to why OpenBand has not opened itself to competition in a free market, if the level of satisfaction with its service offerings was as high as the company portrayed. OpenBand spokesperson Ben Young replied that, because they are an Open Video Service, they are protected by special rules that prevent larger companies from putting them out of business. That statement stopped me in my tracks: Special rules?

My family and I moved into our home in Southern Walk approximately 3 years ago. I understood that the telecommunications contract was an HOA agreement, and it was sold as state of the art and I was actually looking forward to the service. Did I read every single line in the telecommunications agreement, on top of the hundreds of pages of standard HOA regulations, dozens of pages regarding title services, mortgage terms, home warranties, insurance, etc., while keeping up with my career and family of five? Shamefully, I have to admit that I only glossed over it, prioritizing my focus on the documents that I felt, at the time, carried more risk associated with properly closing on the purchase of my family’s home.

Never in my wildest dreams would I have ever projected that I would find my new home literally being held hostage by an HOA-enforced cable/phone/broadband contract that I am indentured to for the rest of my natural life.

When I first started hearing the complaints, I thought that there were only a few minor grievances here and there, and that it couldn’t possibly be that bad. I posted my experience and solicited feedback from the community at large to hear what had to be said. Mrs. Cotti filled me in on some of the technical details behind the widespread quality issues affecting my neighbors, and shortly afterwards I pulled my copy of the OpenBand agreement and sat down and read it. To my disbelief, I held in my hand a contract that is renewable at the sole discretion of OpenBand for multiple terms totaling 65 years, and the service quality standards are so loosely defined that the only practical hope of finding them in breach of contract rests on the homeowners’ ability to shoulder extensive legal fees for lawyers to argue on exactly what those standards ‘should’ represent in front of a judge.

When Mr. Young indicated that his company needed ‘special rules’ to survive, I got angry. Not at him exactly, but at the whole situation. Everything that has gone wrong recently is right here, in my back yard, staring me in the face.

OpenBand and its associated partners have clearly built a long-term monopoly across 4,200 Loudoun County homes by establishing protective easements and creating highly slanted terms of the agreement long before any homeowner had any say-so in the matter at all. Each of us that simply wanted a home for our families in these neighborhoods incorrectly assumed that there was some practical measure of built-in protection against substandard quality or performance, for better or worse. I'd speculate that we thought we had 'special rules' too, as consumers.

Special rules are designed to help the ‘little guy’ get a foothold. With that privilege, comes the responsibility to work very hard to gain a competitive edge amongst peers. Instead of taking advantage of that status and becoming a superstar provider for a relatively minute subscriber base, OpenBand chose to hide behind these ‘special rules’ and evasive tactics while pocketing revenue and watching competitive service offerings jump ahead in leaps and bounds. Clearly they have forgotten what the free-market is truly about.

I think the time has come to help push OpenBand out of the nest and let them demonstrate the quality of service they so proudly celebrate, and have them do so out in the open where it counts.

I challenge the Board of Supervisors to look at this again, study it closely and understand what this situation truly represents in the larger scheme of the community, and act appropriately. If OpenBand wants to be in the business of being a video service provider after 10 years of shelter under ‘special rules’, then make them do so in the free market, far removed from the privileges they have been abusing for years, for a term that the county, and not OpenBand, deems appropriate. To do otherwise is a grave injustice to the residents of the communities to which you serve.

I’ll close with a rebuttal to Mr. Young’s assertion that, in reality, a majority of OpenBand customers are happy. It is my opinion that 75% of their customers are clearly unhappy as evidenced by the ongoing lawsuits initiated by 3 of 4 HOA associations. It is the HOA, and not the individual homeowner, that is contractually bound to OpenBand. The homeowners and their homes are bound to the HOA. I find further support of this view in the fact that Mr. Young did not utter a single mention of any type of commitment OpenBand has to its subscribers. That omission rang loud and clear.

"Always stand on principle, even if you stand alone" – John Adams

Sincerely,
Curtis Noel
Resident Member, SouthernWalk Homeowners Association

[Send your Letters to the Editor to dusty@patch.com.]