Comcast XFINITY TV → Should Comcast be broken up?

Real simple do you believe that Comcast has become a monopoly and should be broken up into several smaller companies? This Is just a hypothetical question here The government long ago has abandoned Its quest to enforce monopoly laws.

You can't get video service providers in your area besides comcast? Netflix, hulu, dish, directv, Verizon Fios, OTA, Roku, Boxee? I also dont believe that any area has an exclusive cable franchise. They are all non-exclusive franchises meaning that any one who wants to get a franchise can apply for one with the municipality. It's an expensive business to start up from scratch.

I've been saying for years that Comcast should be broken into three separate companies:

1) network infrastructure, including the wiring / cabling to the customers

2) content creator (the NBC Universal stuff)

3) companies that use the network (phone, cable TV, home security, etc.)

So you want several smaller silo'd companies (content provider, network provider, ISP) needed to be contracted with to supply your service? or you want several non-overlapping territorial companies (exComcast NY, exComcast FL, exComcast CO, etc.) supplying service to Comcast's current footprint?

What is your end goal? How will it benefit the customer? How would it encourage ADDITIONAL providers to overlap Comcast areas and offer service?

 
That will not necessarily require a customer to contract with multiple companies in order to get service.

For example, look at Consumer Cellular cell phone service. You contract with Consumer Cellular, and they sub-contract with the wireless network for the network services as part of the cell phone service they provide.

On the other hand, à la carte does look good for the selection of content providers. I'd drop the way-overpriced ESPN in an instant.

You do know that some areas (not comcast) The network is seperate from the video and phone. The only thing that gets accomplished is higher rates. Just puts another hand in the pot and all hands need to get fed. Instead of comparing a wireless service how about comparing a similiar type company that does it how you describe.

In fact it has the opposite affect as when two or three companies are involved the one company cant make decisions for the other two. What you describe is exactly how service electric cable does it. Service Electric supplies the video end, PTD.net supplies the internet, Ironton supplies the phone service all thru service electric. Its never good to have to feed three hands compared to one. Three seperate CEOs, three seperate buildings, all needing to feed there families.

OK.

My first experience with broadband was with a company that leased its DSL infrastructure to my house from AT&T. The company's service was better than AT&T's service, and the price per month was lower.

Additionally, my use of a cellular company leasing the wireless network of another company is exactly what I am talking about and quite relevant. In one instance, the company provides the best customer service (according to Consumer Reports) and a feature set that is priced lower than that of the company that owns the wireless network.

So there are two instances where this type of arrangement results in increased competition and lower prices.

Here's another: here in Connecticut, I can buy my electricity from a variety of companies, all of which use the distribution infrastructure of Connecticut Light and Power. I currently pay a penny per kilowatt-hour less than I would if I had been buying electricity from the owner of the distribution infrastructure.

This seems to make sense if Comcast was indeed a common carrier. It is not. If anything, it is a quasi-common carrier. In terms of phone/internet, it is. In that case, there is abundant competition in my area for both those commodities. Although initial pricing may seem anti-competitive, I can still negotiate a price that is acceptable to me (and have.)

As for the video side, cable operators have indeed been ruled to not be common carriers and entitled to freedom of speech in choosing the programming we receive. I view the relationship between the cable/telco/dish providers and the content providers as a retail/wholesale type operation. The content providers give the operators wholesale pricing and the operators as retailers, bundle and resell the product. If I don't like what retailer A gives me, I am free to go to retailer B or C or maybe even D.

Let's face it, the price of everything goes up. Sometimes it fluctuates (as in gas prices) but in the end, we have no control over those prices. We can complain about food, gas, insurance, etc. but in the end we have no power. We then turn our attention to tv/phone/internet because in the end, these things are optional and we feel we need to take out our frustrations somewhere. In many respects, tv/phone/internet are no different than any other business.

Oh yes, OP. Good thread. Let me add this video to the conversation...

vimeo.com/59236702

comcast should not be allowed to own NBC, and they should dump the weather channel immediately, and get together with cablevision and have an nj12/comcast weather channel .