said by nunya:
Actually, if you'll read the Sherman Act, they have no right to manipulate the market to prohibit access by a competitor.
How are caps and $200 activation fees preventing a competitor access?
All businesses want to, and try to, manipulate the market. Where Charter crosses the line is the caps. By instituting caps, they are driving people away from their newest form of competition - IP video.
Not even close. Online video is not even a real competitor to cable. The CONTENT owners are making sure of that. Charter's caps do not prevent you from accessing online video. I watch online video. How can that be I have a cap? Also if one really needs cap free internet you can always get a business account which doesn't have a cap.
Let's say Charter were to, oh I don't know, lower their prices
You mean like they already have? You know how the 30 meg pla nis $8 -$15 cheaper than what it was depending if you owned or rented a modem.
or offer a-la-carte video services; those would be perfectly legal forms of competition.
You really think ala carte will be much cheaper? Sure if you get 4 or 5 channels maybe. You think if they offered channels ala carte you be able to get access to those channels for 25 cents those channel currently get per sub. Here's the problem, if said channel only gets 1/10 the subs under ala carte then they will raise their fee by 10X. Thus you'd be paying $2.50 now. These networks are not going to take a 80%, 90%, 95% loss. Like ESPN? Be prepared to pay $15 for it.
Using (limiting) their ISP services to prop up their video services is where they get in trouble.
while I agree they need to get with the times you are way off base on your theory.