how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
407 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| Bout time... Bows wholeheartedly to FCC. Thank you, Thank you...
It sucks that comcast holds a monopoly, yet they refuse to give thier customers the appropriate service to back it up.
I think, if you got a monopoly, you better have the service to back it up. It's marketing 101. If you got a hold on the market. You keep it by having the best products and customer relations in the industry. | |
 elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | and we all KNOW that this same thing "fixed" MaBell RIGHT? | |
| reply to joeblob
said by joeblob :
I think, if you got a monopoly, you better have the service to back it up. It's marketing 101. If you got a hold on the market. You keep it by having the best products and customer relations in the industry.
I'm sitting here in amazement, as it seems that statement makes no sense. If a company has a monopoly, where do people turn if their service is crap. Don't say sattelite or dialup, for many having broadband is a must, and many don't have access to dsl either.
If a company has a monopoly on a certain thing, whats to say that they have to be good at it?
I do agree that companies need to be held accountable, but the current FCC thats pro-telco is a bunch of crap. There is nothing more that I would like to see as forcing the telcos to return the money that they have been leeching off the USF without increasing any buildout of new services, while cherry-picking the more lucrative markets.
Of course, I am also of the mindset that all government officials are bought, to the point that government isn't for the people anymore, it's all a government/corporate bureaucracy. | |
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by whiteyonenh:If a company has a monopoly, where do people turn if their service is crap. Should be the government agency that gives a company a monopoly. For example, with utilities it's the corporation commission. Maybe cable, city wi-fi, etc. should be considered utilities and subject to corporation commission oversight.
Mark | |
| said by amigo_boy:Should be the government agency that gives a company a monopoly. For example, with utilities it's the corporation commission. Maybe cable, city wi-fi, etc. should be considered utilities and subject to corporation commission oversight. Mark While I agree with you on your point, it's also the fact that many if not all areas are actually franchises overseen by the local franchise authority, the problem is, in many of the areas that have cable, if there is no other options for customers, what is the franchise authority supposed to do?
It's not like the franchise authority really has any kind of real power, as if these cable companies get pissed off enough, they can just pull out at the end of the franchise agreement.
I don't know how this is worded in other localities, but in mine it seems pretty black and white that if the cable company and local government cannot agree, the cable company has the option to leave at the end of the franchise agreement. While I agree somewhat on this, it gives the local governments very little negotiating power because in many rural areas, there is no other real option to broadband. I believe that many would agree that broadband opens doors for learning, jobs, and business success in an area. But at the same time, many franchise authorities are pretty much in one-sided contracts with the cable companies. If it's something that a cable company really doesn't want to do and it's not required in the current franchise agreement, they don't usually do it.
An example of this is that the local cable company for my area is stalling and balking at an increase to the franchise fees. They are stating that it will cause them to lose customers. Local community TV is about to be non-existent, as they have run out of funds. The city has been in discussions with the cable company for close to a year, asking for an increase from 0.75% to 2.5%. The head of the cable company supports local TV, and in the city that he lives in, the franchise fees are 5%. They have been discussing that the increase in the franchise fees will be on average $0.25 additional on each customers bill. Do they really think that people will switch to satellite over $0.25? I don't think that this is a valid point to stall the talks and play games with. Although in the event of having a franchise agreement, the city basically can't negotiate anything until the franchise renewal date, as it's basically a legally binding contract.
Another issue to think about is that many other cable companies will not build out a new system if they're not going to see relatively immediate returns on it, and thats true of most publicly owned companys, as investors want more of the here and now, and only being slightly ahead of everyone else. This is another reason why the current system is not working, as if the city/town were to kick the cable companies out, there could be serious economic repercussions from it, and it will take quite some time for another cable company to come into the area to service the customers.
I think the fttp system is the future, but only verizon seems to be putting it out on a semi-large scale, but what I don't agree with is that there is no build-out requirement or any kind of protections for the consumer, and therefore verizon gets to cherry-pick. It's also why they're trying to sell off my area to fairpoint, as it seems that they don't deem it profitable to roll out in certain areas, and yet they keep taking the USF dollars. | |
 TomS_Git-r-donePremium,MVM
join:2002-07-19
Ireland
kudos:1 | reply to whiteyonenh
said by whiteyonenh:If a company has a monopoly on a certain thing, whats to say that they have to be good at it? Because when competition does arrive they will lose a lot more customers than they would have lost if they had decent service and products to begin with.
Its easy enough to say they dont have to bother doing anything about it when theres no one else to turn to. Even a monkey could tell you that. But it WILL come around to bite them eventually. Then when they rush to pick up their game, it just looks like a half arsed attempt in the face of competition.
If they have decent service and products from the start, there is less incentive for people to get the shits and leave.
Analogy:
The same principal applies to Government. Unlike America, here in Australia any one Government can be voted in time after time. Unless that Government continues to do a good job, come election time they will be booted out by the voters in favour of any other party which looks like they can do a better job. This is about to happen in our upcomming Federal election. | | |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
| reply to joeblob
said by joeblob :
Bows wholeheartedly to FCC. Thank you, Thank you...
It sucks that comcast holds a monopoly, yet they refuse to give thier customers the appropriate service to back it up. In my area Comcast service is nominal (from almost acceptable to good); sounds worse in yours. I think it differs by area. They are dedicated enough here to try to deliver. Most of the experience here is pretty good, with the very large exception of the penance owed monthly. | |
| reply to whiteyonenh
said by whiteyonenh:said by joeblob :
I think, if you got a monopoly, you better have the service to back it up. It's marketing 101. If you got a hold on the market. You keep it by having the best products and customer relations in the industry.
I'm sitting here in amazement, as it seems that statement makes no sense. If a company has a monopoly, where do people turn if their service is crap. Don't say sattelite or dialup, for many having broadband is a must, and many don't have access to dsl either. If a company has a monopoly on a certain thing, whats to say that they have to be good at it? I do agree that companies need to be held accountable, but the current FCC thats pro-telco is a bunch of crap. There is nothing more that I would like to see as forcing the telcos to return the money that they have been leeching off the USF without increasing any buildout of new services, while cherry-picking the more lucrative markets. Of course, I am also of the mindset that all government officials are bought, to the point that government isn't for the people anymore, it's all a government/corporate bureaucracy. Basically the guy below you nailed it..
But my response is that new products and services come from a need or diservice in the market. If you have consistently the best availible service and upgrading it on a reasonable basis to go above and beyond the needs of your customers then when someone comes up with a new idea they wouldn't dare market it because you've set the consumers bar of expectation so high that no one would dare try to compete with you.
Crushing competition through innovation. Novell idea huh? | |
|
