moby866
Premium
join:2000-10-07
Above you | Unfettered access.... To higher bills
Appeal the raises in the bills too.... |
|
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
| Others can compete...
I use Cox. If somebody wanted to compete with Cox they can run their own cable and network buildings. There is nothing stopping them. Cable isn't like electricity or gas. The poles are available and if somebody else wants to pay the power company to use them I see no reason why they can't.
Also, it seems to me dish services are doing just fine competing with cable.
I suppose it's not fair that cable companies have to maintain their own equipment just for there services. Instead they must maintain their own equipment for everybody else to use and make money off of.
--
BBr| UT2003 Clan Server Administrator |
|
damonlab
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Detroit, MI
clubs:  | Cable companies will be fine....
They will drag their heels and kick and scream, but in the long run they will be fine. CLECS never drove ILECS out of business. I don't think any cable company will go out of business because of this. |
|
Chief Sparky
52 Still On Patrol
Premium
join:2001-04-25
Thibodaux, LA
| Wonderful... more "competion"
Great... if they open it up to "competition", all I see is my service degrading and more spam from the "competition". Why can't they just leave well enough alone?
When I got "competition" when I had DSL... my costs went up and the service quality went down. Go figure.
--
Life is too short to drive slow cars
[text was edited by author 2003-10-08 20:38:19] |
|
No_Strings
Premium,Mod
join:2001-11-22
The OC | Unfettered but intermittent
I have unfettered access to any content I desire, until Cox goes down that is. The Cox HSI forum lists the sordid details, but I've been falling back onto dialup far too frequently of late. I welcome a move toward more competition. |
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
 ·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| the new incumbants
i think it not going to work for competitors, everyone remenbers what i incumbants did to the clecs. It will be the same story all over again. Besides i dont want earthlink or aol. I like just plain access to the net.
--
Alright DR. Slotkin do your worst. |
|
Wall9
Tell Me, Did You See It Too?
Premium
join:2002-06-25
Dupo, IL
| reply to Lumberjack
Re: Others can compete...
said by Lumberjack  :
I use Cox. I suppose it's not fair that cable companies have to maintain their own equipment just for there services. Instead they must maintain their own equipment for everybody else to use and make money off of.
Exactly. They laid it, they paid for it. They continue to pay for it. As said yesterday, this will be ruling will be overturned.
When the day comes that someone is *made* to share what is theirs is a sad day indeed. |
|
dslwanter
Why would I want DSL? I have FTTH
Premium
join:2002-12-16
Lowellville, OH
·Armstrong Zoom In..
 ·AT&T Midwest
|  They're all different.
If you ask me, most people will be switiching to Dish Service if Cable doesn't improve greatly. My Cable I will be honest is horrible, channels are fuzzy, and they don't even offer Cable Broadband yet. A lot of people that I know anyway have switched to Direct TV. Many Dish Services now offer their services for less than Cable Service, at a better quality of service at that.
--
I asked for DSL, it came out, and now I'm too far from the CO! |
|
CCCMTech
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Pound, VA
| reply to Lumberjack
Re: Others can compete...
said by Lumberjack :
I suppose it's not fair that cable companies have to maintain their own equipment just for there services. Instead they must maintain their own equipment for everybody else to use and make money off of.
If you think this way, why should the FCC see telcos any differently from cable companies? They own the facilities, they run the cable, they pay the maintenance yet CLECs and resellers make a large portion of their profits, why should cable have this advantage? I agree it's not fair to companies, cable and telco. Neither should have to provide facilities for upcoming companies who can't afford their own, who would rather leech off everyone else.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today? |
|
HSD4490
join:2001-08-26
Matthews, NC
|  Cable companies are NOT subsidized in ANY way for their construction and up keep costs. The Telcos are heavily subsidized by federal money to the tune of about 17 billion dollars a year.
I think that makes a big difference as to why cable should not be forced to open their lines to "competition". Let the wannabes build their own stuff with their own money.
Simple. |
|
mig288
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Merchantville, NJ | reply to No_Strings
Re: Unfettered but intermittent
I agree with you! I welcome a move toward competition also. If OOL can use comcraps lines then I say do it! I'm tired of comcrap. |
|
CCCMTech
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Pound, VA
| reply to HSD4490
Re: Others can compete...
I'd suggest you look again into how much money most telcos get in government funding. You'll find that 99% of the cable in your area is paid for by the telco, not the government.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today? |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | reply to dslwanter
Re: They're all different.
I switched 2 years ago to satellite tv and am very satisfied. Although comcast may be better now for tv, they aren't offering anything I can't get from satellite and they sure aren't offering it cheaper.
HSI, on the other hand... |
|
WOWed
@kcnet.com
 from:
tomsprat
JTRockville
| You are all clueless to this issue.
I see all these comments defending the Cable co's position. Its quite ridiculous. Do you not realize that you can't compete with the cable co's? Let's look at the facts.
1) In order to be a cable co, you must petition the city government in which you live to grant you right of way rights over everyone's land in order for you to lay your cable. You can't just rent space from the power company, nice thought though.
2) It costs hundred of millions of dollars to roll out a full service cable company in just a small suburbian area. No startup has that kind of capital.
3) Current cable cos came about through monopoly agreements with the cities that allowed them to provide service at what ever price they chose without fear of compition, they simply gave a kick back to the cities in the form of cable line taxes. Fast ford 30 years and you now have 3 huge multi-billion dollar cable companies providing 95% of cable customers, Time-Warner, Cox, and Comcast.
4) Cable rates ahve increased year after year at rates much higher than the natural inflation... Yet costs for providing the services have decreased tremendously.
Let me give you an example of a small startup who tried this in the KC, MO area, Everest. They rolled out in highly targeted neighborhoods to increase their chance of success. As their trucks rolled out to build their network, Time-Warner cable trucks followed. Time-Warner sells reps went door-to-door, in front of Everest cable builders, and offered people the completely full channel package for under $35 a month... thats everything, not just basic, HBO, Cinemax, Showtime... you name it, hundreds of channels. Needless to say at these rates, Everest could not compete, they lost million in a matter of months. It got so bad they have ceased their limited expantion on hopes of just becoming profitable with the few areas they currently serve. In the meantime, time-warner has returned many of those customers on their special "test marketing" rate back to full price. The fear of competition is gone and so is their anti-competitive pricing.
That is a prime example of why cable co's should be treated exactly the same as telco's. I won't even go into the censoring they do by not allowing competitor ISPs to even advertise on their cable systems. How many small businesses do you think can afford to run ads nationwide on network TV?
Both Telcos and Cable Cos were create and paid for by You and Me, not themselves. They did it with our tax money and government subsidies.
PS. On a side note, don't feel to bad for Everest cable. They are owned by Aquila... another monopoly, the Power Co. Its a sad state of afairs when one monopoly can't compete with another across different markets.
PSS. Competition has been open among Cable Cos sinse '96, ever wonder why you can't fined Cox and Time-Warner in the same area, or Comcast and Cox, or any other combination... Can you say collusion boys and girls. If its as easy to come in and build your own network and compete as they say, then why aren't they doing it among themselves already? It would really make the whole issue mute if they did, but they won't because its not possible! |
|
ross96
VIP
join:2000-11-02
Dayton, OH
| reply to CCCMTech
Re: Others can compete...
Telephone companies own a lot of the poles out there too, and more times than not cable companies are on either a power pole or a telco pole without notifying either and paying rent for the space. That is criminal if you ask me. I think neither cable or telco should have there broadband networks regulated but you can't have one one way and the other the other way, just isn't right. |
|
I dontlikecable
@bellsouth.net
| The Ignorance runs rampant in this thread
You guys must love paying through the nose for cable broadband. You all should be happy. If you're consumers, now cable providers will have to charge you less if they want to keep you as a customer. Didn't you all read the headline that was posted here a while back that said that since Muni's were offering Cable TV in certain citys the cable monopolies were forced to lower their prices dramatically?
If you still think that the cable monopolies shouldn't have to share their lines... I'd like to offer you a subscription into my dial-a-fool line. Basically what it is me calling you at all hours of the night, telling you the headlines from a newspaper from 2 years ago, and you get to pay me $59.99 a month for it. I'm gonna go watch tv now.
Hey! I saw this one already!!! it was on like two years ago or something!
The sacarsm runs rampant... |
|
illregisterlater
@bellsouth.net
| reply to WOWed
Re: You are all clueless to this issue.
WOWed is 100 percent correct on this issue. I for one work at a cable company and it is a monopoly. Not just any company can move in in a territory. Now we do sometimes have two companies working in the same building , but they do have their own equipment. They do not share lines at all.
Mind you this would be better for the customer, but even in these situations the customer does not get a better rate. Perhaps it is cause this situation is only in a very small scale. I believe that if a company can go in and provide service to a whole system not only a part of it, the customer will see better prices.
We will see if anything comes out of this. |
|
Chief Sparky
52 Still On Patrol
Premium
join:2001-04-25
Thibodaux, LA | reply to I dontlikecable
Don't feed the trolls
Log on, register, or withhold your trolling.
--
Life is too short to drive slow cars |
|
Kommie
join:2003-05-13
East Haven, CT
| reply to I dontlikecable
Re: The Ignorance runs rampant in this thread
Anyone can start a Cable Company to compete look at RCN. It just costs too much. There are no monopoly agreements, No Town/City has the right to give exclusive access.
Lets say it costs a hundred million dollars to start a cable service then at best the company break even in 10 years(Might be even more with competition prices). There is no profit in. |
|
dav0r
translate
Premium
join:2003-06-15
Albertville, MN
·Charter Pipeline
·Embarq
| reply to CCCMTech
Re: Others can compete...
said by CCCMTech :
said by Lumberjack :
I suppose it's not fair that cable companies have to maintain their own equipment just for there services. ...blah blah blah
If you think this way, why should the FCC see telcos any differently from cable companies? They own the facilities, they run the cable, they pay the maintenance yet CLECs and resellers make a large portion of their profits, why should cable have this advantage? I agree it's not fair to companies, cable and telco. Neither should have to provide facilities for upcoming companies who can't afford their own, who would rather leech off everyone else.
I agree. I got slammed on my *** a couple years ago in the telecom industry. I think it's cable's turn to realize they can not corner any given market either. Welcome to free enterprise and the land of competition.
--
Ever met someone from Microsoft Q/A? ...EXACTLY! |
|
