how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
pkust
join:2001-08-09
Houston, TX | reply to DJQuantum
Re: Nice, but...... said by DJQuantum:
Ok how does any of this institutionalize a monopoly???
A city granting a franchise to any service provider creates a monopoly in that local market by definition. Cable franchises are exclusive in nature, and match the dictionary definition of "monopoly": "exclusive ownership through legal privilege"; a cable company has exclusive ownership of a local market.
In reading the article referenced at the top of this forum, it appears the city of Dalton is attempting to address quality of service concerns by imposing certain conditions on Charter Communications in return for a franchise (read "monopoly"). If there were competitive pressures on Charter Communications, there would be no need to address such concerns by the local government. That the city of Dalton feels compelled to address such concerns at the municipal level is itself proof of monopoly.
The solution reached by the city of Dalton reinforces the notion of cable vendor as a local monopoly by perpetuating the franchise arrangement. The franchise agreement, by its very existence, limits the scope of consumer choice. Consequently, the franchise arrangement confers market power on the provider, and denies market power to individual consumers. I do not consider such arrangements to be in the best interests of consumers.
--
Cordially,
Peter Nayland Kust
pkust@smsysinc.com
Secure Mobile Systems, Inc.
www.smsysinc.com | | |
|
| No cable franchise is exclusive, but in most communities there are not enough potential customers to warrant a second cable provider coming in and building a second infrastucture, two cable companies cannot share lines, as the services they offer would use the same bandwidth. If RCN/Comcast/COX wanted to come into your area, the government could not stop them, but they would have to run new lines, setup a new headend and setup new nodes. Unless you live in a city with at least 30,000-40,000 homes, it's not even worth it to the cable company. | |
 zoom3148SupermanPremium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
| I live in a City (Hesperia) with a population of about 60,000 and Charter Pipeline is It. But then again Charter is It for the entire Victor Valley area (Victorville, Apple Valley & Hesperia) which has a combined population of about 200,000 people total.  And that doesn't even include th surrounding county areas (50,000 to 150,000 there possibly). So It's Charter Pipeline or If You are less than 3 miles from a Verizon CO - DSL. It's either Cable, DSL, Dial-up or Satellite.
Edit: Our City has a Non-Exclusive Franchise agreement with charter too, But No one else will come in to the area at all.
--
Charter Pipeline rules in Hesperia, CA, Verizon (ex-GTE) sucks.....
[text was edited by author 2003-07-05 13:59:18] | |
| Most of the towns around here just renewed the franchise agreement with Charter, Comcast, Adelphia, etc... didn't even bid on it. I think the main thing is Charter's cable rates for digital cable and the channel offerings are more competitive than most cable companies and they probably wouldn't see many people move over and stay. Just a quick note, a population of 60,000 means you probably have about 20,000-25,000 possible accounts (houses/apartments). Auburn has 16,000 people but only 5,000 living areas. Each home/apartment can only have one account, so that's the number the cable companies are going to care about. | |
| reply to retrogame
said by retrogame:
No cable franchise is exclusive, but in most communities there are not enough potential customers to warrant a second cable provider coming in and building a second infrastucture, two cable companies cannot share lines, as the services they offer would use the same bandwidth. If RCN/Comcast/COX wanted to come into your area, the government could not stop them, but they would have to run new lines, setup a new headend and setup new nodes. Unless you live in a city with at least 30,000-40,000 homes, it's not even worth it to the cable company.
You are WRONG!!! In Baltimore City, Comcast has EXCLUSIVE rights to run a cable franchise within the city limits. No other company may run lines. The local government can and has stopped others from providing the service. Plus, Comcast has yet to install the equipment for cable modems and has no plans to do so in the future. The ONLY cable modem service is through another company via Comcast to business only areas and 2 extrememly expensive condominium complexes. | |
gpancner
join:2001-09-27
Nine Mile Falls, WA | stop complaining and find an alternative. just because your local officials are working against their constituency, shouldn't prevent you from finding another source of broadband access. if you want video you don't need cable companies. if you want broadband you don't need comcast. you can get it from cable's broadband competitors - your local phone company (isdn,dsl,adsl, etc), starband, direcpc or direcway. just because comcast brings the biggest bang for the buck (read fastest speeds for lowest price whether you subscribe to cable or not). and, exclusive cable franchises are ILLEGAl - the franchise agreement (should someone ever read it) will say the following "this non-exclusive franchise is granted to....). | |
| said by gpancner:
stop complaining and find an alternative. just because your local officials are working against their constituency, shouldn't prevent you from finding another source of broadband access. if you want video you don't need cable companies. if you want broadband you don't need comcast. you can get it from cable's broadband competitors - your local phone company (isdn,dsl,adsl, etc), starband, direcpc or direcway.
When I did live in Baltimore City, I did try and get DSL. ISDN was not available. Neither was ASDL. Even though I was 12000 feet from the CO, I was over 20000 feet from the CO line wise. With the exception of 2 days out of 90, I never got above 100kbps. Directway was not feasable either at the time.
Fact is Baltimore City is apparently not a good place to get DSL or cable for that matter. I moved and got cable since DSL was slower at the time and Verizon still does not impress me with their service either. Lesser of 2 evils. Doesn't mean I can't ask for better service. | |
 nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:5
 ·Charter
 ·voip.ms
| reply to pkust
pkust,
I agree with you somewhat. But your argument that cable is a monopoly does not hold water. There are no monopolies in telecom anymore. Cable is the closest thing left, but doesn't really qualify - I'll expand.
I get my T.V. from Dish Network (and before that DirecTV). Both far superior and less costly than Charter. Even the service calls are faster (how that is I don't know).
Just because your local cable co has decided to roll out BB, and no one else has, should they be punished or held to a higher standard? BB is not an inalienable right. Life goes on without it. For that matter Cable T.V. is a luxury. There are still people in this country who cannot get broadcast T.V.
I think the govt. needs to stay out of it, or make it the same across the board for every provider.
I am a startup. I would most certainly avoid this area of Maryland like the plague. So, in that matter I see them actually killing competition instead of spawning it.
Accountability is one thing. Who determines if the alleged violation even took place. Are we basing this all on the word of a disgruntled customer?
Capitalism works. The govt. needs to butt out and let technology and demand regulate the market.
--
Look Mom, I'm a Provider. "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been." Winston Churchill | |
|
