Clear answers for boards investigating community-wide telecom rights.

CCG helps retrieve and review easement and service agreements, including records from providers, developer turnover, prior boards, managers, and recorded land documents. CCG also requests infrastructure and subscription data from providers. The board can share what it already has; it does not need to complete the research or receive a provider request first.

A missing document does not prove that no rights exist. The provider may rely on a recorded easement, prior agreement, permit, franchise, developer-era instrument, or another source of authority. The board should document the search, identify the property involved, and avoid assuming either unlimited access or no access until the facts are established.

Yes. Provider rights or obligations may originate in developer-era agreements, plats, declarations, recorded easements, bulk-service arrangements, marketing agreements, amendments, or contracts signed by a prior board or owner. The document language, property history, authority of the signer, assignment provisions, term, and current legal effect should be reviewed.

A Right of Entry, or ROE, defines a provider’s permission to enter and use specified property for activities such as installation, construction, maintenance, and repair. For an HOA, the focus is association-owned or controlled property. Marketing and service terms may be included in the same document, but they are separate rights—not automatic consequences of an ROE. The actual language controls.

The focus is the association as a whole. The review examines provider and contractor authority across HOA-owned or HOA-controlled property and the community-wide agreement governing access, construction, restoration, operations, accountability, and compensation. Individual lots and resident service rights may involve separate questions.

A non-exclusive marketing arrangement permits specified promotional activities without reserving those channels to one provider. The association may allow similar arrangements with others, subject to its documents and applicable law. The agreement should define channels, approvals, resident-data use, solicitation limits, and any compensation.

Exclusive marketing reserves specified association-controlled promotional channels for one provider—for example, a welcome packet or community newsletter. It does not automatically grant exclusive service, require residents to subscribe, or give unlimited physical access. For providers and properties covered by the FCC rules, written marketing materials must disclose the arrangement and explain that marketing exclusivity does not mean the provider is the only available service option.

In a bulk-service arrangement, the association contracts for a package of telecom services for covered homes or units. Costs may be included in assessments or other association charges. Review included services, pricing increases, equipment, term, performance standards, billing, and resident obligations. A resident may still owe the bulk charge if they purchase another available service. Bulk billing is not automatically the same as prohibited exclusive service.

No. Exclusive marketing reserves specified promotional channels for a provider; it does not by itself make that provider the only service option. Exclusive service or access clauses restrict competing providers from serving the property. FCC rules prohibit certain exclusive service/access agreements for covered providers and properties. Exclusive marketing is treated differently and carries disclosure requirements under those rules.

FCC rules prohibit covered providers from entering into or enforcing certain exclusive service/access clauses for covered properties. This is not a blanket statement about every internet provider or every property: coverage depends on the provider, service, premises, and clause. In its 2022 order, the FCC did not extend these rules to broadband-only providers. Association counsel should assess the actual provision and other applicable law.

Yes. One document might combine non-exclusive property access, exclusive marketing in specified channels, and compensation. That combination does not itself require residents to buy service. A bulk-service obligation is another question. Read each clause by what it does, rather than assuming the document’s title explains everything.

Communications Consulting Group, or CCG, is an independent telecommunications consulting firm founded in 2004. CCG helps community associations evaluate and negotiate telecom agreements, improve economic and service outcomes, and establish stronger provider accountability.

No. CCG is an independent consulting firm. It does not sell internet, cable, fiber, or telecommunications service, and its work is aligned with the community association rather than a telecom provider.

Association counsel should remain involved in appropriate legal review, and a property manager remains central to the community's operations. CCG brings a different specialization: telecom economics, provider negotiating practices, infrastructure costs, market intelligence, and experience negotiating these agreements nationally. CCG coordinates the telecom review and negotiation so it does not become another specialized project for the board or manager.

Older agreements may contain automatic renewals, unclear restoration duties, missing reporting, outdated service terms, or marketing provisions the current board has never reviewed. Understanding those provisions helps the board identify obligations and assess possible improvements. A review does not mean an agreement can be changed unilaterally.

An individual incident can reveal a larger community-wide issue. The board should determine whether the same provider authority, construction practices, restoration requirements, and escalation procedures apply everywhere the contractor is working on association-controlled property - not only at the location where the first complaint arose.

The central issue here is the provider's right to enter, construct, maintain, market, or operate on association-controlled property. A resident's ability to order service is a related but separate question.

Not necessarily. Authority in a public right-of-way and rights over private streets, common areas, conduit, or equipment rooms can be different questions. The answer depends on ownership, recorded easements, agreements, governing documents, and applicable law.

Locate and review the recorded instrument. Its location, beneficiaries, purpose, permitted uses, transfer rights, and continuing validity may matter. A claim of access is the beginning of the review, not the conclusion.

Not simply because access or marketing terms are improved. An ROE or exclusive marketing arrangement does not by itself require residents to buy a provider’s service. Bulk-service arrangements are different: the association purchases a package, and residents may share its cost through assessments even if they also buy another available service. Review each arrangement separately.

The agreement can preserve the board's ability to evaluate legitimate future provider options, subject to the negotiated terms, the community's property rights, and legal review.

No. Potential consideration depends on the property, provider, market, unit count, existing rights, competitive conditions, and negotiating circumstances. Sometimes the meaningful result is stronger protection or confirmation that no further action is appropriate.

Community access can have commercial value. Providers may benefit from rights to enter, construct, communicate with, serve, and retain residents within the community. CCG evaluates whether the association should receive compensation or other value for the rights and commercial arrangements affecting the community, including opportunities to improve existing agreements.

Depending on the facts, consideration may include an upfront access payment, per-unit or door fees, recurring revenue sharing, marketing consideration, infrastructure upgrades, courtesy services, service commitments, or a combination. These are possible structures, not guaranteed outcomes.

Relevant factors may include the number and type of homes, ownership and control of the property, rights the provider already holds, competitive demand, construction scope, marketing value, agreement term, infrastructure needs, and the provider's commercial objectives.

The agreement can address approved routes and methods, preconstruction documentation, notice, work hours, permits, traffic and safety controls, protection of landscaping and improvements, restoration standards, inspection, punch-list completion, warranties, reimbursement, and remedies if work is not corrected.

Start with the Declaration or CC&Rs, plats, recorded easements, existing provider agreements, amendments, provider names, and payment reports. Check county land records as well as association, developer, and management files. Record where each document came from and which questions remain unanswered. A complete file is not required. Under an agreed scope, CCG helps retrieve relevant agreements and requests available infrastructure and subscription data from providers.

An existing agreement may still be reviewed for scope, renewal dates, evergreen language, performance obligations, amendments, assignment, or future opportunities. A review does not mean the agreement can or should be changed.

Depending on the property and negotiating circumstances, CCG may seek resident-choice language, repair and restoration obligations, insurance and indemnification requirements, clear access rules, audit rights, limits on solicitation, approval over communications, infrastructure commitments, and enforceable provider obligations.

At no cost to explore. No obligation to proceed. CCG describes its standard structure as no upfront cost and 100% pay for performance. CCG is paid only if improvements are secured. The exact scope, fee calculation, authority, and terms are stated in a separate written engagement agreement before professional work begins. CCG does not receive outside compensation or fees from broadband or telecommunications providers for this work.

Communications Consulting Group performs the consulting and negotiation services through its negotiating, legal, revenue-assurance, and account-management resources. The responsible representative, scope, authority, compensation, confidentiality, and engagement terms are identified in a separate written agreement.

No. The board retains decision-making authority and determines whether any proposal should be accepted.

No. A submission is an inquiry only. It does not create a consulting, fiduciary, legal, or attorney-client relationship. A professional engagement begins only under a separate written agreement.

Not automatically. A resident may authorize service or installation at property the resident owns or controls. That authorization may not resolve the provider's route across private streets, common areas, buildings, conduit, landscaping, or other Association-controlled property. The service terms, ownership, recorded rights, governing documents, applicable law, and work being performed all matter.

No. CCG’s work can begin with understanding the community’s existing telecom position. Under an agreed scope, CCG retrieves and reviews agreements, requests provider data, identifies risks and opportunities, presents a summary, and negotiates updated, balanced agreements with board authorization.

No. Potential compensation must be structured consistently with applicable rules. For covered providers and properties, FCC rules prohibit exclusive and graduated revenue-sharing arrangements. A percentage payment is not automatically permissible or prohibited; the actual structure needs review. Any potential economic improvement depends on the community’s facts and lawful negotiating options.