axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Price goes up, demand will drop At some point, people will not sign up if the cost is too high. It happens with illegal drugs, surely it can happen with cable TV as well.
I haven't had cable TV since college, and that was because Comcast built a stadium in exchange for forcing the school to include cable in the price of housing.
I was off cable before internet video existed, to save money. I think it works the other way, once you stop paying for cable, then you seek out internet video. If I could afford cable, and liked TV enough, I wouldn't switch to internet video to save a buck.
I think the illegal music downloading is similar, the people who couldn't afford CDs turned to the internet for music, people who can still afford CDs will buy them... but since they can't afford every CD they download the ones they don't have. |
|
1 edit | said by axus:At some point, people will not sign up if the cost is too high. It is called supply & demand. If prices keep going up, then customers will downgrade to lower tier pkgs(which I did) or drop it altogether. Then the cable companies will end the constant price increases and they will stop paying Hollywood's outrageous price demands for content. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | Then the cable companies will end the constant price increases and they will stop paying Hollywood's outrageous price demands for content. I'll believe that when I see it. Broadcasters want their money, and cable TV operators won't eat those costs, and both face the pressure of expected quarterly revenue bumps. It's a dance of death that opens the door wide for a disruptive, low-cost, a la carte Internet video alternative.
The only thing stopping Internet video right now is the broadcasters' restrictive licensing, and if cable operators stop being willing to shell out the cash, guess where the broadcasters turn instead? The very Internet video services they've been constricting for fear of cannibalizing revenue they'd now be losing...
It's all set up like a bunch of bowling pins over the next ten years. I bet cable execs see it but respond late in the game by finally lowering prices or offering a la carte or much smaller channel bundles. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by axus:At some point, people will not sign up if the cost is too high. It is called supply & demand. How is it just a market condition (supply and demand) when cable uses public easements and rights of way to reach its customers? In a true "market" they would have had to negotiate with every customer along the path to purchase the right to use their property to reach other customers (and neighborhoods).
Those easements and rights of way are finite resources. It's not like anyone can just jump in and use those resources to provide a service to their neighbors.
I remember when cable companies came into existence, and were discussed as a "franchise." They were knowingly given monopolies to cities, with conditions that they use their positions for the public good (such as public "access" channels).
Today, it seems like they're just accepted as a naturally existing entity. Beyond questioning whether they serve the public interest. Beyond questioning whether they are competitive (in the absence of competition). |
|
| My city has a non exclusive franchise agreement with Comcast. But we don't have any other takers trying to offer cable or compete with Comcast. Easements and right of ways aren't barriers to entry if the franchise agreement is setup right. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by wkm001:Easements and right of ways aren't barriers to entry if the franchise agreement is setup right. I disagree. I'm pretty sure that if I dig up the street to run a cable to my neighbor's house, I'm going to be in trouble.
There is tremendous overhead to gaining access to easements and public rights of way. Worse, the more they're used, the less they can be used without risk of damaging what's already there.
I.e., when Cox laid its cable here a few decades ago, they had the advantage of not having to negotiate around competitors lines. It's much less lucrative now that Cox's cable is in the ground. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by amigo_boy:I disagree. I'm pretty sure that if I dig up the street to run a cable to my neighbor's house, I'm going to be in trouble. I'm sure that if you pay relevant fees, obtain the proper permits, conduct an engineering study, and have your plan approved by your municipality, to include detouring traffic as necessary, that you can have your street dug up to bury a cable. |
|
| Most municipalities require that if you bury something in the ROW that it be a "public" utility in that you offer service to everyone you can. Amigo_boy digging a cable across the street to his neighbor wouldn't qualify and he likely wouldn't be issued the permits.
What Amigo_boy and most of the people like him with zero knowledge of infrastructure don't know is that the digging up the street is damn expensive. I seriously doubt you could trench a 2 lane road in this country for less than $1500 in construction costs. The Labor, Equipment and material will easily exceed that, not even including the inspection fees, permits and testing. Now if you wanted to deploy a real utility, not only do you have all the construction costs, but you have engineering, plant development, marketing and Billing and customer related expenses.
There is a reason there are only a few over-builders in the market and it's mostly related to the inability to recover the cost of installation.
A build-out in a single average American city of more than a million is going to cost several billion dollars. That's a lot of money to pay back with interest. And because most municipalities require that Utilities be buried these days those costs are even more astronomical. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by rahvin112:And because most municipalities require that Utilities be buried these days those costs are even more astronomical. How is a new user of easements and rights of way affected by existing users? I've heard they're required to purchase bonds and pay for any disruptions to existing users.
That's my point. When Cox laid its cable 30 years ago it had one less risk to insure against (compared to anyone who may wish to lay cable and "compete" today).
For that reason, I doubt that it's possible to get access to easements and public rights of way. That's a finite resource. Each new users creates a barrier to entry for any new users. I suspect the city has a responsibility to govern that resource with future generations in mind. (Even if someone could raise the money navigate existing users of that finite resource.). |
|
| reply to axus
I dropped my cable tv when comcast did a channel flop and moved some of the tier channels around forcing me to pay 15 dollars more to get one channel I watch the most. Now with Hulu and other sites that we all know about, I watch them online. I have to wait an extra day, but that saves me 90 bucks per month!!!!
And all this economy jazz is BS. Its all hype from the communist government of the USA! |
|
rody_44Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA | reply to amigo_boy
Just plain incorrect. As FIOS is a perfect example. You as a single person could go and open a corporation and start. Any corporation with money is free to overlay on easements. Sure its expensive which is why you dont have many takers. |
|
1 edit | reply to Karl Bode
It seems to me that producers, broadcasters, cable tv operators, and every other distribution operator would want things just as they are as that is where the money is.
Look at ESPN 360. You can tap an ISP with 10,000,000 subscribers for $1 per subscriber or you can try to get individual subscribers at $10 a piece. Maybe you get 1,000,000 people to sign up, maybe you only get 10,000. Look at it from production too. Want to produce a prime time network show at a cost of millions per week and sell it over a network of millions or put it up a la carte and hope millions sign up. Cable operators can maintain their networks and overhead selling $10 a la cart per subscriber with a $3 gross profit or $75 package with a $20 gross profit.
I like American Idol and watch it anxiously every season. But I only watch it because it is included, so to speak, in my programming. I wouldn't sign up and pay to watch it. Some would I'm sure. But the 10's of millions that watch it now? It seems to me that every producer down to the in home distributor wants things just the way they are.
The money, from every angle, seems to be in the numbers. Big numbers of subscribers. a la carte seems to be contrary for everyone involved in producing and providing content. Unless, of course, you and I want to pay $10 for every little thing we watch like today's pay per view porn or $30 wrestling show, or $30 Blue Ray. |
|
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by axus:At some point, people will not sign up if the cost is too high. It is called supply & demand. If prices keep going up, then customers will downgrade to lower tier pkgs(which I did) or drop it altogether. Then the cable companies will end the constant price increases and they will stop paying Hollywood's outrageous price demands for content. It's not going to happen. Consumers want the content and the first person they get angry at is the cable company.
And today, many people have multiple choices - cable, dish, fios, OTA. Verizon in fact takes full advantage of contract disputes with cable companies and encourages people to switch. The only way for your theory to work is if they all band together against the networks.
It won't happen because they're all fighting against each other. Verizon in particular sees it as an opportunity to soak up disgruntled subscribers. |
|
| reply to axus
I agree! It took Comcast's constant raising of my rates and my special "Triple Pay" pricing to get me motivated. I cut the cord and between TV and Phone service I save *over* $100 per month. After realizing that over the air and Internet video is more than adequate replacement, I don't miss Cable TV at all!
Here is my experience and I built a better box than my Comcast DVR ever was!
»www.cuttingthebills.com/2010/04/···ord.html |
|
| reply to axus
Why do you people continue to give this guy attention? Like seriously. |
|
| reply to Karl Bode
As long as the cowsumers do little more than bitch about the rate hikes they will continue. If a large majority take a stand and vote with their feet the Cable Cos will take note. Until the masses do that it will be business as usual. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·ooma
| reply to axus
yes. i'm now paying $80/month for digital cable connected to a cable card on a tivo. lots of channels... none of them premium.
i'm going to cut the cable cord. i looked the price of video on demand at amazon. it works great on my tivo and i can get a hell of a lot of content for $80. i also have about a twenty over the air hd channels and netflix.
also, we spend more time on our laptops than watching tv.
if the cable company charged me about half of what i'm now paying, i'd keep it. it's just not worth it, especially when money is tight.
things are tight for me and every other freelancer like myself that i know. |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:How is a new user of easements and rights of way affected by existing users? I've heard they're required to purchase bonds and pay for any disruptions to existing users. That's my point. When Cox laid its cable 30 years ago it had one less risk to insure against (compared to anyone who may wish to lay cable and "compete" today).rchase bonds and pay for any disruptions to existing users. Existing utilities complicate installation, but it's not like this is a business that's just been created. They've been installing utilities in existing ROW for more than 200 years. Most states have dig laws that if you give at least 2 days notice you aren't responsible if you dig up an unmarked utility and that significantly reduces costs. The only time a new installation would be hit with costs for cutting an existing utility would be if they didn't call the dig service.
To answer your real question, yes it does cost more to install into existing ROW rather than greenfield development. But baring unmarked utilities other than slowing things down a slight bit it's not really a big deal. As for your second question, I've never heard of a situation where installation is hampered by the number of existing utilities where communication lines are concerned. In the installation of water or sewer there are spacing requirements to avoid cross contamination and as a result existing utilities can severely hamper installation, but with communication lines it's simply not an issue.
Fiber is routinely buried in the same trench with other utilities in green field development and even in brownfield installations we are talking lines that are at most inches in diameter where the existing ROW is typically, in most states, back of walk to back of walk (30' or more). Different states handle things differently but even if there were like 30 lines in the area from curb to back of sidewalk making a new installation exceedingly difficult it's not unheard of to simply install under the Curb or under the street itself, although costs will go up dramatically because of the additional number of hard surface repairs needed.
I've personally never heard of a situation where a telecom line couldn't be installed because of existing utilities. Again, you are dealing with cables that are inches in diameter, digging and installing new utilities is a common practice and there are many ways to skin the same cat, between trenching, directional drilling, microtunneling and a few dozen other construction practices it's simply not a big deal to install around other utilities (the only ones that are scary are high pressure (80-1200psi) gas lines because of the danger of an accidental breach). Insurance and bonding has little to do with cutting utilities because as I said most states have laws that if you call the dig line and it's not marked in the time period specified it's not your fault for cutting it and there isn't a single cost to the installer for breaking an existing utility. The purpose of insurance and bonding is to make sure the contractor doesn't walk away with the clients money, repair the ROW with substandard material or walk away without paying his employees and to cover unemployment and workplace injuries. Marked utilities are extremely easy to avoid, you need to understand that nearly every single time a roadway is widened most of the existing utilities are moved that would end up under the pavement because of the cost to repair anything under pavement. This is done routinely, the only reason greenfield is cheaper is because they typically dig one trench in greenfield and put all the utilities in it at the same time, saving the cost of individually trenching every single line. In addition in greenfield developments they don't typically have to worry about repairing pavement or concrete as it's not been installed yet. That's the only reason greenfield development is cheaper for utilities. It has nothing to do with the ROW or government.
said by amigo_boy:For that reason, I doubt that it's possible to get access to easements and public rights of way. That's a finite resource. Each new users creates a barrier to entry for any new users. I suspect the city has a responsibility to govern that resource with future generations in mind. (Even if someone could raise the money navigate existing users of that finite resource.). And that is statement is exactly why your entire line of argument is complete BS. No municipality, state or county can restrict use of the ROW by public utilities for any reason such as there is existing utility already there. There is an entire body of law on this subject that has been built over the 200+ years this country has existed. Government arbitrarily restricting the use of the ROW would be a major violation of all kinds of constitutional protections, not the least of which is the equal protection clause.
Yes government regulates the use of the ROW, they set conditions on it's use (for example that it must be a public Utility or serve the public good), and they manage the ROW by requiring that companies file permits in advance detailing what will be done, and they require that the installer provide protections during construction (traffic control and safety procedures), that the ROW and surfaces are repaired afterwards and repaired properly (testing and inspection) and they charge fees for the permits for this to cover the costs incurred making sure these things are actually done.
But the key point here is that unequivocally no government agency can prohibit overbuilding. It's been ruled against in court numerous times. There is no such thing as a monopoly franchise agreement where they can legally block overbuilding. Sure the city can write the agreement and even sign it, but they can't block the overbuilder. The best they can do is erect a lot of red tape and increase costs for the overbuilder.
You argue cox has some natural advantage because they are already there, but the fact is that hampers them as much as it helps them. The reason is simple, Cox has likely rebuilt that network at least once and probably twice since installing it (and still carries the debt from all installations). Technology and requirements have changed twice since they originally installed the cable and they likely dug up and replaced significant portions of their cable network to meet expanding needs. They also have ongoing maintenance as copper is quite expensive to maintain and it has a LOT of problems. This the reason most baby bells and cable companies have billions of dollars of debt. Comcast has nearly 30 billion in debt, Verizon was pretty close to that total before the fairpoint and other deals that shed large amounts of debt and ATT and all the cable companies have similar levels of debt (unless they have gone through bankruptcy and shed most of the debt). RCN and WOW also have that level of debt and because they are over-builders they are also faced with very low profit margins.
It might make a good conspiracy to say that public ROW is the reason there are very few over-builders, but you are lying yourself if you believe it. The reason there are so few over-builders is that every single over-builder barely makes money and almost all of them have gone bankrupt. RCN is in probably the best markets and highest density municipalities in the US and they are lucky to survive every year.
Even after going through bankruptcy and shedding nearly all their debt they can barely make a profit. Consider that for a moment, they have no debt, a fully installed modern network and they can barely make money. You think creditors are lining up to loan money with that prime example of the value of over-building? Especially when the creditors take into account that the creditors that loaned RCN all the money to over-build got maybe a few cents on the dollar for all the money they loaned the company when it went through bankruptcy and the debt was vacated by the court?
No, there isn't overbuilding because there is no financial benefit to doing so. Would you loan a company money knowing you would get back a few cents for every dollar loaned? Stop blaming some fictitious ROW advantage for what is clearly a clean financial reason.
And finally, the ROW isn't some resource to be preserved like an endangered species. It's not going to be all used up some day. It's land, things are installed in or over it, in time those things are replaced and repaired and other things are built but at no point is the ROW ever going to be used up. It's so silly to even speculate that government is trying to preserve it for future generations. Preserve it from what? Being dissolved? Contaminated? Alien invasion? You appear to be arguing it's going to be used up and some day all the ROW will be gone.
Utilities don't use up the ROW, thousands of utilities could be installed in a single 2 lane Roadway by digging a single trench 20' or even 100' deep and installing everything vertically. Then adding another utility would be as simple as some direction drilling, micro-tunneling or other trench-less construction method. It's not the issue you make it out to be and by making these arguments you make your ignorance of infrastructure very very public.
Being ignorant of something isn't something to be embarrassed about, but don't turn around and take my explanation of why you are ignorant as an attack. |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | reply to Karl Bode
Yep, just like manufacturers that refused to sell online for fear of upsetting the stores that carried their products either started online sales or mostly died. |
|
SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | reply to rody_44
And you are all forgetting that the existing corporations will use their existing capital to unfairly keep you from doing business in their territory. |
|
