dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17
share rss forum feed

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to 34764170

Re: Demand

They offer several internet tiers at or below $50 that provide more than adequate broadband speeds, as evidenced by Karl's weekly attributions regards DSL flight to cable. You may not like the price:performance, but it is most certainly competition, and devastating to telco.

Cable probably can and will offer up 50M @ $50 in a few more years; 100M is a bit more difficult without more upgrades, which they're unlikely to do at that price point, and again, since few of us want to pay $70, they don't have much incentive to re-wire the neighborhood a 3rd or 4th time.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

They're still not competing.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

They certainly are.

If they weren't, they would enjoy the majority share of customers.


dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL

you know, there's these things which tend to contain marketshare. I believe the phrase is monopoly.

you might want to learn what competition is, and competitive offerings are - because TWC is neither competitive nor have they had competition before google.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

He goes out of his way to be ignorant.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to dfxmatt

said by dfxmatt:

you know, there's these things which tend to contain marketshare. I believe the phrase is monopoly.

you might want to learn what competition is, and competitive offerings are - because TWC is neither competitive nor have they had competition before google.

Cable is not a monopoly.
Perhaps you should learn what the term means.

They and they alone, have recognized the opportunity to compete with telco, who has chosen to offer only overpriced and/or underperforming product lines. Broadband speeds and rates reflect the extent of their investment, and that is why they enjoy their market share.

Telco is failing, precisely because cable competes.

Cable franchises are not protected. There no legal barrier for entry to market for legitimate private overbuilders.

If you want to make a case for yet another round of re-regulation, in which cable's former monopoly would be legally re-established, complemented by wholesale requirements, you are so welcome.

But be careful what you wish for, as that will result in only short-term gains, followed by long-term pain, as you will eliminate the competition and competitive threat that exists today and replace it with slovenly postal service efficiency.

Androidian

join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by elray:

Cable is not a monopoly.

Correct. Cable vs. Telco - when you're talking about one cable provider and Verizon - is a particular type of oligopoly called a duopoly. Take your pick of either of these terms; either way a simple search on them will indicate a market condition that's far from the competitive free market landscape envisioned by Adam Smith.

For things to become truly competitive, all cable companies need to be able to compete in all areas for each person's business using existing network connections to each home. Consumers need to have a choice between several - at least 4 or 5, and ideally more - options offering a relatively similar product.

A market in which an ISP solely determines service offerings, policies (such as caps), and pricing tiers can hardly be called competitive.
--
The only difference between Bush and Obama is the group they're wasting our taxpayer money on. It's time to elect responsible legislators.