Comcast Versus Broadband Utopia > It's Obvious

It's Obvious

Why should a private corporation or business be "required" to open up their pipes to others at the hand of the government? The governemtn is not god. They do not have the right to make any rules they deem fit. The government, like private industry or people, have to play by the rules too.

Phone? I can see the regulators require open access... cable? private industry. Government can also give incentive and concessions to get private industry to do things.. but this heavy handed tactic of the government? I'd rather do with out, thank you. The more government gets involved in private affairs of business, the more they reach. When does goernment stop? When they force you to have sex the way they want you to? (They've tried that) Marry who they deem is fit for you to marry> (They've done that too) Are we ready for government to see it ok as to who can be educated to what they want or see fit? (Not far off)

I am NOT willing to allow government to continue to reach into areas they have no business in order to save a few bucks on cable tv.. no way, no how.

Government's job is to work to ensure commerce flows... they are not there to micro manage every aspect of business.

I am still not convinved that Cable TV and broadband internet prices are in the reach of government since they are premium optinal services at best.

All I read on this site day after day are people that want a price reduction on their services and don't give a rats as*s what downfalls will come with wanting government invovled.

NEWS FLASH! THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND! If you think they are looking out for your best interested, you are VERY SADLY MISTAKEN! EVERYTHING the government does comes at a cost to us all.

Sheesh, if you were in charge, we wouldn't even have electricity, or a national highway system or even running water and public schools in most places.

"Government's job is to work to ensure commerce flows... they are not there to micro manage every aspect of business. "

If you believe THAT, then making sure that information can move between citizens IS the governments job. It IS the governments job to educate us, is it not? This is part of education, it has NOTHING to do with price cuts.

The price cuts occur, hmm.. ahh, because the incumbents are charging too much! It's very simple to understand. They cry wah wah when their collusion is discovered, and they have to compete. If comcast/verizon is so much better, then everyone will keep using them! Let the MARKET decide.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself.

reply to Steve B
My point was that the government is getting rid of too much competition. My wording in my original statement may have been vague and my apologies for that. Like I said though, my original point was that the government is getting rid of too much competition by these mergers, etc. The line sharing may have been a strecth but, competition is competition and if sharing lines is needed then that is how it is.

reply to G_Poobah
GP,

Let me draw a distinct line for you in my statement...

Cable - Private
Built on private money, not subsidizes, not a required service in life. Does not affect the safety or general public good in society. Considered an optional luxury premium service.

Telephone - Partially public in a way.
Built with some tax money, and subsidized. Taxes (or for those that prefer the term FEE) benefit the public. Telephone is considered a life line or emergency service to citizens. It allows people for communicate with each other and call for help in an emergency and possibly can save lives.

Broadcast Television - Important system to control by the FCC. EVERY person has free access to television for no cost other than the need to buy a TV and electricity. Information flows on network television. Can be considered a requirement for public safety for weather emergencies, governmental communication to the citizen base in case of disaster, etc. Seen as a necessity to many. FREE ACCESS.

GOVERNMENT IS NOT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE MOVEMENT OF NEWS OR INFORMATION OTHER THAN THE INFORMATION IT MUST SUPPLY THE PUBLIC. And, government already has a system in place to ensure information flows... broadcast television. They can't interfere with the print media or the message that broadcast media sends. To get involved in the flow of communication is to be too close to controlling the speech in this country.. bad bad bad.

The government does not have to educate us. Private schools, which many people opt, can do that same job.

Again, you and I disagree that somehow the government should be involved in controlling the price of a luxury item. I would LOVE the government to make a Hummer, Cadillac, or BMW more affordable for me too.. but they won't. Please don't bother telling me how they don't compare, or one of many other reasons why my point is invalid because it's not. You need a BMW like you need cable tv. You have the choice to a "more affordable care" (which is still out the of the price range of many) just as much as you have the choice to go satellite.

What we have here is a classic case of "I want a luxury, I have a right to it, and I want it at a price I am happy with"... Cable and satellite IS affordable... you can buy cable tv, actually, cheaper than satellite. When you start talking about how much you get for that, it doesn't matter. Then we go right back to the BMW vs cheaper car example.

Sorry, I just don't see how CABLE TV or broadband internet, satellite or ANY in-home ENTERTAINMENT service is something the government should be setting the price of.

I believe the industry can price their product at any price they want... they can do it all the way to the point where people just say enough is enough and drop the service all together. If the consumer would knock THEIR crap off and stop paying the higher rates, the providers would in fact lower their costs. As consumers continue to pay more, they will continue to charge more.

So, who's going to step up and cancel their service? Or, what other provider is willing to come in, spend billions to build competing services and take a loss for cheaper prices? Government has NO right to regulate the price of TV.

Let me add too... do you REALLY think that I like paying more for services as well? I am a cheapo when it comes to paying for monthly services.. hate it.. but it still doesn't mean I think the government should be involved in TV.

And no.. I DO belive that electricity and gas and water should be flowing and the government should be involved in it as it's important enough that the government needs to be involved. However, California a few years ago didn't see it that way.

You and I disagree on one major thing.

I don't think high speed access is a luxury item. I think it is a UTILITY, and every american has a right to it, just like public schooling, electricity, telephone, medical care and safe, clean water.

I'm not saying it's FREE access, but I am saying that if any company wires up town, they are required to wire up the ENTIRE town. No redlining, no cherry picking. And if the town does not feel they are being served in a manner they like, the town has a right to create their own utility (i.e. utopia, public waterworks, etc) to provide the services to the citizens.

Corporations exist only at the behest of the citizens. If I, a voter in my town, decide that it's in my towns best interest to kick comcast out, and I can convince people I have a better solution for THEM (again, the key point is a better solution for the PEOPLE, not the corporation), then comcast gets kicked out. Period.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself.

Ok.. fine. I will agree with you on this point. I DO beleive that companies should not redline parts of town. However, I do believe that government has been failing the people just as people believe that the providers have as well.

The government is well with in their power to incent and or help private industry wire those hard to read or expensive risky reach pockets of homes.

In the Twin Cities, even some of THE MOST remote areas have AT LEAST cable TV service with the full plate of services including phone, cable, and internet. It was all in part by the local governments to make it worth wiring the remote areas. Yes, I've traveled down 3 miles of unpaved dirt roads to reach some of these people before in parts of town 10 miles away from the cities.

I also agree that cities/towns should be able to wire areas where they are not being served. I do believe that the incumbatns should have first right of refusal.. and I do believe that it's still in the best interest of the local gov to work with the providers to get them to come in first.. (incentives, breaks, etc) most likely cheaper in the long run for the gov and less of a risk for the provider to wire in the long run... a win win situation for all. (Yes, some people have to pony up a little money, but it also benefits future growth potential as well)

One other thing, you can't vote or kick out a provider with an FA even when expired. Every FA will tell you that it's near impossible to do so. An agreement pretty much HAS to be reached at some level. Each side acan make it hard on the other.. take the east bay. Each side held out for months.. years.. in fact, comcast wanted to wire HSI, the FA wouldn't let them.. the FA wanted better facilities for public access, comcast refused. What happened? The system remained stale. That's pretty much what happens.

At that point, the FA should have shopped for another provider.. would have been easy too. They could have approved an F-agreement for the other provider to wire up and provide a full range of services leaving CC at a disadvantage.. easy opportunity.

There area other ways around that issue.. again, I REALLY think the local governments are being VERY ineffective and NOT doing the business of the people in general. For me, I view it this way.. just as the commentators on Fox news can sit there and tell you that $5 gas won't hurt anything, it's easy for THEM to say that when they amek 250k+ a year.. no crap $5 won't hurt them or their corporate funded expense accounts. But to those without big paychecks, it DOES hurt and affect them. Just as these government officials that "represent their people" it doens't adffect them becuase they HAVE cable, they HAVE what they want or can pay for it. Most of the people the become representatives have life much better, usually, than those they represent.. so do they represent the lower class? usually not.

reply to G_Poobah
why stop at broadband...let's make cable tv a utility as well. Everyone must have CNN. We should also make owning a car everyone's right as well, they need to get to work.

Broadband isn't a utility when private companies invested their own money in the infrastructure.

Please justify why the government should get involved with this. Price gouging isn't enough, this is a free market economy and the best business will win. If the people want to deploy muni broadband through voting and tax payer dollars..fine, but to much government regulation will just drive our costs up more.

reply to fiberguy
A company which has a government-granted monopoly is going to charge more than they could if there was competition. That's shown by this study, if it wasn't already obvious.

The extra money should definitely be considered when someone considers claiming that the cable companies built their infrastructure with their own private money.

There's nothing free-market about the way the cable companies got where they are.

Same with telephone.. electricity, natural gas... shall I go on?

Now that you've looked at one small piece of the puzzel, care to comment on the rest of it?

And no, the extra money does or should not need to be considered when talking about building them on private money. Please explain that conviluded notion.. unless you are thinking as a socialist. (Let me give you a little hint: obvious gauging in this country is still against the law.)

Also, please keep this in mind when making your argument:

1) Technology for CATV was never perfect back in the earlier and mid years of the history of cable.

2) The cost to operate a cable company was not driven purely by the cable company. Networks set alot of the prices.

3) Technology enhancements are expensive and the money to reinvest has to come from somewhere. (Notice I said "reinvest"?)

4) Over the years, the reason for mergers in CATV operators was mostly becuase the little guys couldn't afford to build the systems to the level they are today. Consolidating into larger companies gave them the power and money to advance as fast as they ahve.

5) Look at smaller indie CATV operators out there and ask those that live in those area. Ask many of them about their 1-way cable modem service today, or lack of cable modem service. Or the lack of HD all together or other services that larger system operators can provide.

There is definetly not 'something" about the way cable got where it did, but you also leave so much out of that statement as well. There's DEFINETLY something to say about ensuring an industry can grow too. There is something to say that we most likely wouldn't be where we are today with technology and offerings today if cable didn't have some protection. The early days of cable would not likely have survived and grown as fast with more than one provider due to cost and amount of customers that subscribed.

Back just 10 yeras ago, cable still had low penetration into the entire servicable area. Many systems were at about 35%.. ass another player and it would be a recipie for failuer. There would have been no money in any budget to invest into their systems, and one of the two, or more, would have folded.

That's just one piece. I don't expect alot of people are going to understand or accept much on economics in the way this country works. I know economics in many areas was an elective, so. And, many people compare the system the way it works to the way want it to and that doesn't work either. The reality is that you must work within the system of government as it is today, or change it first, then talk.