UofMiamiGrad
Premium
join:2001-02-03
Great Neck, NY
| reply to BF69
Re: Comcast hates competition!
said by BF69  :Do they( the bells ) have 30% of the market or more? No. CAN they? Yes. which is the issue. So can DirectTv. They have 17 million subscribers and are adding at least 1 million a year. And when they pass that 30% mark, you can bet the FCC will tell them to sell assets (areas) to get below 30%. If they don't then and only then does Comcast and other MSOs have a case that the FCC rule is flawed. Until such time, Comcast can enjoy the new competition, since they seem to love it so much already. |
|
jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | You bet on it -- I'll take your action and win your money. The anti-cable FCC doesn't believe in level playing fields. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
| Comcrap has a lot of nerve suing anybody about caps. How about identifying ones imposed onto customers!
Funny, maybe Comcrap should look at the irony here.
--
"There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion."....Winston Churchill
|
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to UofMiamiGrad
said by UofMiamiGrad :said by BF69 :Do they( the bells ) have 30% of the market or more? No. CAN they? Yes. which is the issue. So can DirectTv. They have 17 million subscribers and are adding at least 1 million a year. And when they pass that 30% mark, you can bet the FCC will tell them to sell assets (areas) to get below 30%. If they don't then and only then does Comcast and other MSOs have a case that the FCC rule is flawed. Until such time, Comcast can enjoy the new competition, since they seem to love it so much already. How can DitrecTv sell areas? In fact how can at&t sell areas? Sell to who? verizon? No wait they'll have to sell too. Oh wait maybe to crappy TDS the only other telcom that servies my state and they don't offer TV hell they barely offer DSL. Try THINKING before posting. |
|
UofMiamiGrad
Premium
join:2001-02-03
Great Neck, NY
| said by BF69 :said by UofMiamiGrad :said by BF69 :Do they( the bells ) have 30% of the market or more? No. CAN they? Yes. which is the issue. So can DirectTv. They have 17 million subscribers and are adding at least 1 million a year. And when they pass that 30% mark, you can bet the FCC will tell them to sell assets (areas) to get below 30%. If they don't then and only then does Comcast and other MSOs have a case that the FCC rule is flawed. Until such time, Comcast can enjoy the new competition, since they seem to love it so much already. How can DitrecTv sell areas? In fact how can at&t sell areas? Sell to who? verizon? No wait they'll have to sell too. Oh wait maybe to crappy TDS the only other telcom that servies my state and they don't offer TV hell they barely offer DSL. Try THINKING before posting. The 30% rule doesn't apply to satellite, it's wireline. So what the hell does D* have to do with it? AT&T/Verizon would have to sell their wireline assets to other wireline providers, if they ever offered TV services to 30% of US market. So Quest can't buy a AT&T/Verizon area? Northpoint can't purchase more areas? Any wireline provider will have to offer TV if they are to survive in 10 years. How about you try thinking before posting. Must suck to live in your area of TN, if you are broadband limited. Enjoy your limited options. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
moderated:
March 14th, @02:28PM
| said by UofMiamiGrad :The 30% rule doesn't apply to satellite, it's wireline. So what the hell does D* have to do with it? Try reading what you quoted of me and then your response. anyways why can DirectTv have more than 30% and not Comcast? How is that not hampering competition?
AT&T/Verizon would have to sell their wireline assets to other wireline providers, if they ever offered TV services to 30% of US market. So Quest can't buy a AT&T/Verizon area? Is there a Quest area west of the rockies? No. would quest be interested in such areas? No. Could quest even afford to buy other areas? No. Does Quest even offer Tv? No.
Northpoint can't purchase more areas? Any wireline provider will have to offer TV if they are to survive in 10 years. How about you try thinking before posting. You try thinking. At&T will NOT be forced to sell areas when they hit 30% FACT. No other TV provider but cable is subject to this rule. FACT. Therfore it's not right. FACT.
Must suck to live in your area of TN, if you are broadband limited. Enjoy your limited options. How would Comcast owning more than 30% of cable going to limit my options? If Comast own 100% of the cable market how would that affect my option. Ther has ALWAYS be one cable provider in my area. There will ALWAYS be one cable provider in my area. In fact this rule would actually LIMIT my choices.
Say if Charter wanted to sell my area well because of the cap Comcast can't buy it. There for limiting the number of suitors for my area. Increasing the chances that some inferrior company with crappy service and no plan on increasing service or speeds would take over instead of a company working on Docsis 3.0 for all it's areas within 2 years.
yeah it sucks for broadband here. I can only get 6Mbps/512Kbps max from at&t and only 10Mbps/1Mbps max from Charter until later this year when they roll out 16 mbps/2Mbps. Oh the horror! |
|
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
moderated:
March 14th, @02:29PM
| Here in the developed world there are multiple choices. In Chicagoland alone Comcast has competition from WOW and RCN in various suburban and city areas. U-Verse is ramping up. Should Comcast be allowed to become so huge that they can control program origination? They're already in the shit for withholding their sports network from competitors.
As for satellite, what are their market shares? Do you even know?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
moderated:
March 14th, @03:32PM
| there are multiple choices. In Chicagoland alone Comcast has competition from WOW and RCN in various suburban and city areas. U-Verse is ramping up. Should Comcast be allowed to become so huge that they can control program origination? They're already in the shit for withholding their sports network from competitors. Once again Uverse is not subject to the 30% rule. is that fair? No. Those areas with more than one cable providor are in the extreme MINORITY. And if not having 2 means one doesn't live in the "developed world" then 99% of America is a 3rd world country then.
As for satellite, what are their market shares? Do you even know? doesn't matter if they had 50% the TV market they would NOT be affected by this rule adn that's kind of the point. They certainly have more than 30% of the satelite market. |
|
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
moderated:
March 14th, @03:33PM
| That's priceless.
U-Verse currently is a form of video on demand and will never even approach a 30% market share as such. Nice straw man.
The rule states 30% of the video market. That you want to ignore the definitions and wrap your argument around false assumptions (let along ignoring reality) speaks to how vacuous your argument is.
Go read the rules.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Time Warner VOIP
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to UofMiamiGrad
Ah, but by that logic, the cable companies can also reduce their percentage by only accounting for actual customers who bought service, rather than the entire territories they serve.
On our street, we've got tons of Dish, DirecTV and even some U-verse subs now. I'd be surprised if TW had 50% of the market share of my street.
My biggest problem with the 30% cap is that I have not seen any real evidence that the big guys are offering significantly worse service than the smaller outfits that such a rule seems to be designed to encourage. Comcast in particular seems to be very aggressive about deploying the latest and greatest technology. I would rather have Comcast or Time Warner than some small outfit that can't afford to keep up with what the bigger guys are doing. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·AT&T U-Verse
·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner VOIP
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to RadioDoc
quote:
Should Comcast be allowed to become so huge that they can control program origination? They're already in the shit for withholding their sports network from competitors.
I totally agree that's a major problem, but how about enacting regulations that address that specific issue, rather than a "30% market cap"? Because again, I would really hate to lose my Time Warner service and get stuck with some half-baked cable company simply because the FCC doesn't like TW's size. |
|
bobjohnson
join:2007-02-03
Titusville, FL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
| What I see that sucks about this cap is not just about the tv, but this includes internet, phone and the other services that they offer.. They don't even have the option for those services and it's not included in the cap... The telco tv will take years to get big enough to compete with comcast or tw, and will never make it to the rural areas.. but since they made this rule it should be universal with tv providers (except dish and such) because they technically cover like 99% of the us markets... |
|
hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | reply to RadioDoc
How is U-Verse a form of VoD? I didn't know you got to select what shows you wanted to watch all the time. I thought it was just like cable just according to AT$T used a different platform for delivery. |
|
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| It's video over IP which is not sent until you 'order' it via the remote, which is the same as VoD. The only difference is that it picks up live program feeds instead of recorded feeds. It has more in common with SDV than traditional digital cable.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| said by RadioDoc :It's video over IP which is not sent until you 'order' it via the remote, which is the same as VoD. The only difference is that it picks up live program feeds instead of recorded feeds. It has more in common with SDV than traditional digital cable. Wow.
And that makes a difference? Its still TV service. VoD is content stored on servers, not a live feed. Hence = TV. But even if it was, So? |
|
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | In the context of the FCC rules, there is a difference. By your definition, YouTube is cable if you watch it on your TV. So would be anything via Apple TV.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
anonomous
@comcast.net
| Why does the FCC have all those stupid technicalities? What is it, for the bells to be able to get around obstacles cable can't(thanks to FCC chairman Martin  ). I'm no cable fan boy(I think FIOS is a great service overall), but Martin has an extreme bias and it isn't right. |
|
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
edit:
March 16th, @02:48PM
| What technicalities are you complaining of? These rules were written before Martin was on the FCC and came via directives from Congress. The Communications Act is not an FCC document...they are tasked with implementing it.
Cable is the one who fought to have their non-video services classified as "information services" not subject to common carrier regulation. The rest of this stems from that.
Don't believe everything you read on company websites.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
