dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
15
share rss forum feed


marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2
reply to RJ44

Re: Cherry picking vs nada

said by RJ44:

At least with statewide franchises they will offer it in profitable areas, and as time goes by and costs go down, the definition of a profitable area will change to include more and more places.
Costs do not go down over time in television retransmission land. With the advant of broadcast retransmission consent, the marginal costs should escalate dramatically over the next six years. There will be fewer profitable areas rather than more. We would need to get rid of syndex if we want the costs of television retransmission to go down.
If you look at the cable and television factbooks over time, coverage has gone up considerably since mandatory buildout ordinances started happening.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher

RJ44

join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN

said by marigolds:

[Costs do not go down over time in television retransmission land. With the advant of broadcast retransmission consent, the marginal costs should escalate dramatically over the next six years.
I was referring to the costs of fiber optic transmission equipment, DSLAMs, routers, etc used by telcos to provide IPTV, all of which is steadily trending downwards and will continue to do so. That's the investment a telco has to foot to get into the business. Programming costs are applicable to anyone who wants to provide programming, not something that the telcos have to pay that incumbents don't.

Either way, my original question still stands. Does anyone think a telco is more likely to serve a community if they have to build out in unprofitable areas as well as profitable? If so I have a great deal on some prime land in the Everglades I can tell you all about