how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to sonicmerlin
Re: Only for bundles? Korea and Sweden both get government subsidies for broadband. True, AT&T et al did as well, but Comcast has gotten no such thing.
Personally, I'd rather my internet bill be $20 higher per month than my tax bill being $600 higher per year.
If you want to build your own network as a private entity, there's nothing stopping you, though if you want to go wireless you have to fight for spectrum with everyone else. If you want to lay out cash for fiber, heave at it. | |
| said by iansltx:Korea and Sweden both get government subsidies for broadband. True, AT&T et al did as well, but Comcast has gotten no such thing. Personally, I'd rather my internet bill be $20 higher per month than my tax bill being $600 higher per year. If you want to build your own network as a private entity, there's nothing stopping you, though if you want to go wireless you have to fight for spectrum with everyone else. If you want to lay out cash for fiber, heave at it. The initial cost of the coaxial plant laid down by cable companies has long been paid for. Using the cost of laying down the network is a terrible excuse for companies whose only focus is on maintenance and upkeep.
Just look at Time Warner's financials, where over the last two years they have tremendously increased profits while *decreasing* investments in upgrading their network. Besides capex, actual upgrades only cost them tens of millions, compared to the billions in profits they make every year.
The only cable company to invest in DOCSIS 2.0 was Cablevision. Why is that? A lack of money? Really?
And what about DOCSIS 3.0? Besides Comcast and Cablevision, who is investing? And even with those companies upgrading, are they providing legitimate, affordable tiers, or just using it to dig into the pockets of the ravenous early adopters?
You think cable companies and their annual rate increases on cable television are the result of a steadily increasing cost of service? Please.
And as for the telcos, you best be staying away from defending those thieves. | | |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Again, capitalism. Publicly held companies are the worst about it. If they can keep an old system without tearing up roads to make a new one, guess what sticks around? They provide services at prices the market will bear.
Also, about DOCSIS 3, you've got Comcast, Cox, Cablevision, Sunflower Broadband, Suddenlink, Charter, Service Electric Broadband/PenTeleData, MidContinent Communications and maybe a few others that have deployed the tech, though all but Comcast and Cablevision stop at the 5 Mbps mark for uploads.
Realistically though, it would cost just as much for the big cable companies to deploy fiber as it would for a new provider to come in and do it. Economies of scale would be offset by transition costs.
One thing to note: Cablevision is privately owned. They also have the highest broadband speeds in the nation over a cable network. Coincidence? I think not.
All that said, I'd rather have free enterprise (without lobbying and a government that can mar the market on a national level) than a government-owned or government-subsidized/tax-subsidized/taxpayer-subsidized network. Municipal projects are great, because they're fine-grained enough to address market realities in those cities.
In a system with little competition, the value proposition of network upgrades is merely to offer higher tiers of service, assuming people will pay for those tiers. In areas with decent competition, prices will stay the same for better speeds, or they might even drop. See the Southwest Effect with airlines.o
Again, if you think the value proposition for a for-profit business is great enough to create your own fiber network, come to my area. I'll be the first one to sign up. That's the great thing about a free country; you can do stuff like that. It's my opinion that government in this area is too large; if it has enough power to effectively give an entity or goup of entities preferential treatment over other similarentities, government is too big. | |
|
