Cox, LV apartment complex in cable installation dispute

A Las Vegas apartment complex owner wants a judge to block Cox Communications from using bullying tactics to enforce its right to install cable television wires and equipment at the complex.

At issue is whether Cox is entitled under its franchise agreement with Clark County to bypass Spencer Associates LLC and install cable television equipment throughout Spencer's 272-unit Augusta Apartments complex at 10175 Spencer Street based on what Spencer says is just one tenant's request for cable TV service.

Cox, in response to a request from a tenant for its services, requested in January to either buy all of Spencer's existing cable facilities at Augusta or immediately install a secondary set of cable facilities in the entire complex.

Spencer, which already has an agreement with a provider to provide satellite television programs to its tenants, said it filed a lawsuit on June 16 in Clark County District Court as a preemptive strike against Cox, which had threatened to resume installation work despite its objections.

Spencer said Cox began installation work on the entire complex on March 9 and abandoned it after Spencer issued a formal notice of trespass and a cease and desist order.

Spencer said, "Cox is attempting to twist and extend the statute's meaning and purpose to provide Cox rights not accorded by the Legislature."

"In essence, Cox's approach to Spencer is that if Spencer ... will not agree to the settlement agreement and the Telecommunications Services Access Agreement, or to permit Cox to purchase the existing facilities at Cox's price, notwithstanding the true installation costs, then Cox is going to perform its most unsightful installation job at Augusta. This is not negotiation. These are the actions of monopolistic utility that is not accountable to anyone."

"It is a matter of black letter law that a property owner has the right to the use and control of that property ... interference with those rights through government power constitutes a taking," the lawsuit said.

But Cox's attorney, John T. Moran Jr. of Moran & Associates, disagreed.

"The federal laws in the franchise agreement authorize Cox to place cable wiring on public right-of-ways to service customers regardless of where they live and we are by law not allowed to pay monies to apartment owners for the customers that we service."

"Those laws don't apply to satellite TV providers. They are willing to pay X amount to Spencer if Spencer allows them to cherry-pick their tenants for customers," Moran said. "So if Spencer gets like a finders' fee for turning over tenants to the satellite provider, they'd probably be inclined to stall us from providing cable services to potential customers."

Spencer, which receives a share of monthly fees collected from Augusta subscribers of satellite television programs, said it will lose at least $3 per unit a month if Cox gains access to Augusta. Some 60 percent of Augusta's units are occupied and about 90 percent of the occupied units are receiving satellite television programs.

Moran, who said there are now at least 17 tenants from 11 of Spencer's 18 apartment buildings that requested Cox's cable services, estimates Cox will lose thousands of dollars in revenues if it's blocked from servicing those tenants.

But Spencer said it isn't interfering with its tenants' rights to get Cox's services. It said it wants to restrict Cox's installation of cable TV services only to those buildings or units where tenants have specifically requested such services.

Spencer said it offered to license its existing cable facilities to Cox to help it service Cox's subscribers provided Spencer retains the right to reacquire all rights to the facilities should those subscribers later terminate Cox's services.

Spencer, which described its offer as the "most economical, practical and cost effective solution," said Cox rejected the offer and threatened to start installing a secondary set of cable facilities in the entire Augusta complex if Spencer refused to sell all its existing facilities, the lawsuit said.

Spencer again refused and offered to allow Cox to install its cable facilities at its subscribers' units only if it was done in a "non-intrusive and aesthetically pleasing manner" similar to its installations at other apartment complexes.

But Spencer's suit said: "Rather than run the cable wire into the attic and then down into the apartments through the walls, Cox started cutting trenches around the outside of the apartment buildings for conduit."

"The installation plan was to then place conduit through the trenches and all over the outside of the buildings. At points determined by Cox, and not by Spencer or the tenant, Cox intended to punch holes through exterior stucco wall through to the interiors of the apartments," the lawsuit said.

But Steve Schorr, Cox's spokesman, disagreed.

"We provided a single link on a single building to show Spencer what it looked like and this was done with the approval of the previous manager of the complex."

Spencer also seeks compensation for monthly revenues it would lose if Cox gains Augusta subscribers. "(Nevada code) provides that landlords may not prevent or interfere with a tenant's right to obtain such cable service. In return, the statute, recognizing the taking, provides for compensation to the property owner," the lawsuit said.

But Schorr disagreed.

"The law states that the landlord of an apartment complex can't demand payment from a cable company for provision of services. Spencer sought to block our services and rights of its residents to gain services from us, and we will pursue this issue."

The Greenspun family, owner of the Las Vegas Sun, is a minority investor in the Cox Communications cable system in Las Vegas.

archive