Re: Too Big To Fail?

Author	All Replies
fAcEtIOUs Premium join:2002-03-03 kudos:4	reply to iansltx Re: Too Big To Fail? said by iansltx: they shouldn't be allowed to have a monopoly in any area if someone else wants to build the infrastructure. They don't as a matter of law. Any municipality in the US can OK competitors to Comcast. There are no exclusive franchise deals that prohibits over-builders - that is against the law.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-11-04 12:17:33 ·

iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews: ·Comcast	Then we're good to go then. Comcast is the second-fastest MSO in the U.S. (behind Cablevision) in terms of internet speeds, their national network is solid, their digital voice product is fine...not sure about TV though since I've never paid for my own TV service from anyone.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-11-04 12:22:04 ·
kapil The Kapil join:2000-04-26 Chicago, IL	reply to fAcEtIOUs said by fAcEtIOUs: said by iansltx: they shouldn't be allowed to have a monopoly in any area if someone else wants to build the infrastructure. They don't as a matter of law. Any municipality in the US can OK competitors to Comcast. There are no exclusive franchise deals that prohibits over-builders - that is against the law. Aah. But we both know that's not how it plays out in reality. 1. MSOs induce the municipality into structuring the contract in a way that makes an overbuilder competitor highly unlikely. 2. Let's not forget the state-level franchises the telco-tv guys have been fighting (and winning) for that, by and large, make the local franchise agreements and local control and regulation of cable companies irrelevant. The battle is over. The public, the consumer lost. With the current administration and the anti-big guy winds around the country there may just be one more fight left that can turn the tables...otherwise it may (and probably is) already be too late. -- »www.VoIPTrunk.com
	to forum · permalink · 2009-11-04 12:41:53 ·
kapil The Kapil join:2000-04-26 Chicago, IL	reply to iansltx said by iansltx: Then we're good to go then. Aah. Yes. The hallmark of the average American..."if I have mine, the rest of you can go to hell". There is more at issue than just YOUR internet speed or phone line. The nation's infrastructure is crumbling. A handful of companies have bought their way on to the tallest mountain top and are now shooting at anyone who dares question them. We're sorely lacking in broadband deployment and connecting the masses. In the "information economy" this stuff matters. There is a direct co-relation between why a 100 year old copper loop that's been depreciated down to $0 for decades costs more than it ever did and why India and China is kicking our ass. But there's far many of your type who look at their cable modem, judge that all is well, and go back to sleep until the next tea party. -- »www.VoIPTrunk.com
	to forum · permalink · 2009-11-04 12:47:22 ·
iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews: ·Comcast	I'm not saying that there shouldn't be competition in the broadband market. I'm not saying that Congress should be at the beck and call of large corporations. However what I AM saying is that Comcast isn't AT&T, they didn't take money from the government to build infrastructure, they don't have a monopoly on anything and they shouldn't be punished for their success. Do I want my internet bill to be lower? Absolutely! Do I want a faster connection? Yup. However breaking up Comcast or limiting its growth isn't the way to do that, at least from an infrastructure standpoint. As a content company, I'll grant that things are getting iffy.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-11-04 13:10:32 ·
iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2	reply to kapil Who are you proposing for competition?
	to forum · permalink · 2009-11-04 13:11:23 ·
rawgerz The hell was that? Premium join:2004-10-03 Grove City, PA	reply to fAcEtIOUs said by fAcEtIOUs: They don't as a matter of law. Any municipality in the US can OK competitors to Comcast. There are no exclusive franchise deals that prohibits over-builders - that is against the law. It can't be that simple, hardly anything is. Every area I've researched so far, for whatever reason, has just one choice in cable. Be it TWC, Comcast, RCN, ect. Isn't that why Philly got excited to have Fios TV in the city, because all they had was Comcast? How about this, what's your alternative to Comcast? -- You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-11-04 15:45:17 ·
openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:2	reply to kapil said by kapil: 1. MSOs induce the municipality into structuring the contract in a way that makes an overbuilder competitor highly unlikely. How so? I'd venture a guess that the bigger issue is the cost entailed in overbuilding which prevents market entry, not contractual issues with municipalities. said by kapil: 2. Let's not forget the state-level franchises the telco-tv guys have been fighting (and winning) for that, by and large, make the local franchise agreements and local control and regulation of cable companies irrelevant. Would state-wide franchises not make it easier for over builders to move into markets?
	to forum · permalink · 2009-11-04 16:05:15 ·
fAcEtIOUs Premium join:2002-03-03 kudos:4	reply to rawgerz said by rawgerz: How about this, what's your alternative to Comcast? Dish & DirectTV for TV and Verizon DSL & a couple of fixed wireless outfits for internet.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-11-04 16:17:54 ·
rawgerz The hell was that? Premium join:2004-10-03 Grove City, PA	Yes, that proves my point. Most everyone has only one choice in cable TV.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-11-04 16:32:45 ·
hottboiinnc ME join:2003-10-15 Cleveland, OH	reply to openbox9 In Ohio the state wide deal makes it easier. Pay $2,000 to the State submit you proposal and off you go building when approved. The thing is getting the $$$$ to build.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-11-04 16:43:31 ·
hottboiinnc ME join:2003-10-15 Cleveland, OH	reply to rawgerz no they don't. Dish and DirecTV are BOTH considered an option. That would leave 2 other options besides your local cable company.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-11-04 16:44:34 ·
dfxmatt join:2007-08-21 Evanston, IL	reply to iansltx Actually, if you take into account their 50% throttling, they're WAY slower than 2nd fastest.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-11-04 16:55:04 ·
iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2	Wait what? I've actually never been throttled on Comcast. Awhile back I thought I was, then realized that if you max out your upstream you kill your connection naturally...
	to forum · permalink · 2009-11-04 16:57:38 ·
AJR join:2009-03-18 Alabaster, AL	reply to rawgerz said by rawgerz: It can't be that simple, hardly anything is. No...It is that simple. Over the past 15 years or so, I've lived in 7 different cities across two states and I've yet to see a franchise agreement that prevented an overbuilder from offering service.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-11-04 19:46:40 ·
sonicmerlin join:2009-05-24 Cleveland, OH kudos:1	reply to hottboiinnc Those are not direct competitors because of the0 extra hardware required, making it impractical for anyone living in apartments or dense, urban areas.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-11-05 07:20:51 ·

Comcast Is Simply Getting Huge > Too Big To Fail?