Loker
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Fargo, ND
clubs:
| Better hope....
once Comcast hits 30% competition is out the window....everyone will be stuck with the telco tv offerings whenever they get around to getting it launched in more than 5% of their areas...(that number was pulled out of my butt....I think that is a fair assessment of areas that have TV service from a telco though....)
--
"While preceding your entrance with a grenade is a good tactic inQuake, it can lead to problems if attempted at work." -- C Hacking |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| How funny
Comcast opposes caps? How ironic.
Seriously though, I think caps would be a good idea for competition, IF it applied to all businesses regulated by the FCC. Verizon and ATT being held to 30% of the phone and DSL markets sounds good to me. And there needs to be an explanation of why they picked 30%. That's the right number if you want 4 major companies. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| But the FCC
thinks it's OK if a teleco owns more than 30% of the phone market. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here? By the way if AT&T ever got their TV offering available to all of their market wouldn't that exceed much more than the 30% cap the FCC is putting on cable? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit |  Cable has some legit grievances; and some not
The 30% cap does seem arbitrary, given that the courts already slapped that down and given the telco and other internet companies forays into video. But they have gotten a lot of deregulation rules in their favor over the years and their complaint that the FCC has it in for them is paranoid.
And the STB issue, especially by Comcast, is bogus. They were given an opportunity to address that MANY times, but have drug their feet.
And as far as a la carte is concerned, the cable companies can keep their tiers, but also provide a la carte(but at the prices they claim would be justified under a la carte). And the FCC should stay out of pricing decisions completely.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
steven s
Premium
join:2002-09-14
Dearborn, MI | .
Why is it okay that the telcos can own more than half of the landlines, but cable can't exceed 30% of cable customers? |
|
meowmeow
@pacbell.net
| reply to BF69
Re: But the FCC
said by BF69  :thinks it's OK if a teleco owns more than 30% of the phone market. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here? By the way if AT&T ever got their TV offering available to all of their market wouldn't that exceed much more than the 30% cap the FCC is putting on cable? Your forgetting that phones are a utility while cable tv is a luxury |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | reply to axus
Re: How funny
BINGO! |
|
meowmeow2
@pacbell.net
 from:
jgkolt
| reply to steven s
Re: .
Your forgetting that phones are a utility while cable tv is a luxury |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| So then a luxury should be regulated heavier than a utility? That makes a lot of sense!
SBC was able to buy SBC and then Bell South because the "landscape of communications has significantly changed due to competition from cable and wireless providers..." What I find ironic from that is the wireless providers ARE the telephone companies, for the most part, and the cable portion of that very competition is threatened to be held at 30%.
Government needs to do it's job better, no.. wait. Government needs to do their job, period! Government is supposed to be impartial to any side of anything. They are supposed to lay the ground for which business can operate. They are not supposed to take sides, they are not supposed to stand in the way of valid business either.
This government is getting WAY out of hand and WAY over reaching any more these days. If this particular move on the part of FCC Boss isn't clear that government is out of control, then I don't know what to say.
We're becoming a joke in the world very quickly.. soon, we are going to have to change the sign under out golden arches from "The land of the free" to "The land of Do what you're told... because we're the government"..
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to Loker
Re: Better hope....
said by Loker :once Comcast hits 30% competition is out the window.... what competition? we don't have competition now. There is the pretend, FCC competition (200k/200k definition for broadband, one connection in a zip code means the whole zip is serviced; oh, and don't forget BPL!)
yeah, yeah, we got telco video, but ATT is a crippled offering and prices are already going up for verizon video customers - doesn't smell like competition to me.
comcast going over 30% won't mean a damn thing. Martin just wants to suck up even more to the telcos. After all, he is thinking about running for political office (in NC, I think). |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| Does it matter?
Does it really matter how much of the country as a whole any particular operator covers? Surely, what is more important is how many options are available to any particular subscriber. Two companies, each covering 100% of the country, would give everyone a choice, whereas you could have ten companies each with 10% of the market and no one has any choice. |
|
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to Loker
Re: Better hope....
said by Loker :once Comcast hits 30% competition is out the window....everyone will be stuck with the telco tv offerings whenever they get around to getting it launched in more than 5% of their areas...(that number was pulled out of my butt....I think that is a fair assessment of areas that have TV service from a telco though....) Well, the only problem I see with your logic, is if you consider multiple telco providers can, and do, service an area, yet cable companies don't, then ask why... Basically, to provide the service, it is going to cost the same for both providers, so it's not possible to get much cheaper, hence your dish cost a few dollars more, or less, depending on your area, which location is another factor. Some cities have 2 or more cable providers, but neither is much different in price. Telco's, however, have ways of "cutting corners" on prices, by delivering their call on their own network, etc.. Nobody's restricting cable companies from building in areas where another one is present, it's just simply not a practical, or financially beneficial thing to do. Competition doesn't always grant peoples wishes. Personally, if another cable company sprung up in Jacksonville, I would be interested to see the cost difference. I doubt it would be much, because I take calls for an area where Knology is in the same area, and I hear people constantly say the prices are the same, and honestly, the cost for TV there is more than here.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. |
|
MadMANN
Premium
join:2005-08-19
·Comcast
| reply to fiberguy
Re: .
I hear you fiberguy . With all that being said, I can't think of a better argument against Nationwide franchises that our government would be in charge of mediating. |
|
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| reply to meowmeow
Re: But the FCC
said by meowmeow :
Your forgetting that phones are a utility while cable tv is a luxury
What difference does that make? They're still both run by large, greedy corporations.
It's not like telco is angelic because they provide a necessary utility. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to axus
Re: How funny
Agreed. The 30% cap is irrelevant because it doesn't increase competition since CATV provider mostly don't compete with each other. I don't believe the telcos should be capped either because they don't compete with each other. Let's not forget the satellite tv option that competes with everyone. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to meowmeow
Re: But the FCC
Please. How are phones any more utility than CATV? The arbitrary "utility" decision was made long ago before CATV existed. |
|
comcast_customer
@raf.com | I have Comcast now
and we have no other broadband/cable choice. We are in 98065. 'nuff said. |
|
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA
2 edits | reply to smcallah
Re: But the FCC
The word UTILITY.
The difference is that telephone service has HUGE government oversight, tariff requirements, etc, they have to go the PUC anytime they want anything (like a price increase).
If Verizon were at 30% in video they would be subject to the same ownership limitations.
--
There's only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
|
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA
| reply to steven s
Re: .
said by steven s :Why is it okay that the telcos can own more than half of the landlines, but cable can't exceed 30% of cable customers? Landlines are regulaed by the public utilities commissions in each state providing FAR more government oversight than CATV sees.
Landlines and CATV are apples and oranges...the cable industry lobbied hard to make it that way.
--
There's only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
|
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA
| reply to fiberguy
Are you trying to make the argument that the CATV industry is more regulated that the landline telephone industry?
I don't think for 2 seconds that Brian "Leased BMW" Roberts would want Comcast to fall under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission. That would put a cramp in his yearly double digit price increases.
--
There's only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
|
