NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind awayPremium,MVMReviews:
San Jose, CA
|reply to tshirt |
Re: bad link Karl
said by tshirt:Maybe. If cable were regulated by the state PUCs, it would be closer to the "natural monopoly" envisioned by the telco regulators. But cable goes beyond providing TCP/IP connectivity, and is a content delivery conduit for the entertainment industry. I don't want Hollywood crap; a decent TCP/IP connection will suffice. It can't possibly cost Comcast so much to distribute TCP/IP over the Last Mile as to justify the $44.99 price tag for "Performance"; my DSL provider throws in telephone with Internet for that price!
Ahh so you get it.
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
Sure it's a bit more expensive than the Telco, the plant is relatively new, and was built without the gov't subsidy.
It is however far more capable (bandwidth wise) in return.
that makes it not always affordable to everyone, and yes as the CATV broadcast side phases out the HSI side has and will become more expensive as well as maybe the phone (even though it seem expensive compared to straight/third party VoIP, it still can undercut POTS with NEAR similar qualities and reliability.)
for the Hollywood/entertainment side, the model is changing but will move slowly until there is a proven replacement capable of replacing at least as much revenue as they currently get/forecast.
The idea that you will get the same product MUCH cheaper just because it's delivered IP rather than broadcast is wrong (it's actually much more expensive to deliver.
in true ala carte really popular stuff but expensive to make stuff (lobster) will be VERY expensive, and cheap to produce products (floor sweepings and mystery "meats") will be less plus the delivery cost. The very expensive maybe a better value to those that can pay for it, as a lower % of the total is delivery.
Unfortunately nothing will be really cheap.