DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | reply to swintec
Re: Martin doing a good thing by capping Comcast's growth ?
No it's that cable companies are granted access by gov't franchise and should be subject to basic rules designed to protect customers in exchange for this sanctioned monopoly. |
|
swintec
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
 ·surpasshosting
 ·VoicePulse
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by DotMac  :No it's that cable companies are granted access by gov't franchise and should be subject to basic rules designed to protect customers in exchange for this sanctioned monopoly. Any other cable company is free to enter towns and cities as they want, provided they follow the proper permit paperwork and such. They must build there own cable network and such, however. Just because other companies won't enter and build there network, the current cable company there is the bad guy?
--
BlockNews.Net- Quality Usenet Block And Unlimited Accounts |
|
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
edit:
November 29th, @12:16PM
| Sure, someone could fight the telco and cable video services if they want to spend millions in court fighting lawsuits »Qwest Sues 14 City Utah Fiber Project , push polls »Playing Twenty Questions , scare tactics »Muni Misinformation? , predatory pricing »'Discounted' Competition and propaganda.
Meanwhile in exchange for their money tree, cable and telcos can follow very simple rules designed to protect consumers. If not, they can sell their services in a way that doesn't require public ROW or in the case of telcos, billions in taxpayer money »Picture Perfect Deal
If companies like Comcast didn't throttle customers with massive price increases twice a year or like Cox, THREE times in a single year all while customer service goes into the toilet...there would be no problem. The FCC would ignore the cable industry.
But so long as companies like Comcast continue their anticonsumer policies, engage is predatory pricing and endlessly raise prices at 3X the rate of inflation, they're going to have the gov't spotlight on them. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·Mediacom
| Competition from a government entity, isn't a fair competition. You won't see cable or telco companies fighting/suing entry into their markets from private/public companies playing on an equal field.said by DotMac :If companies like Comcast didn't throttle customers with massive price increases twice a year or like Cox, THREE times in a single year all while customer service goes into the toilet...there would be no problem. The FCC would ignore the cable industry. Boohoo. Inflation. Things cost more all of the time. People want infrastructure improvements and 100 Mbps to their residences, but they don't want to pay for the privilege. I have no sympathy for those whining about their cable TV price going up. It's entertainment, not potable water or other another life necessity. |
|
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
edit:
November 29th, @02:18PM
| Funny, UPS and Fedex seem to compete with USPS overnight services just fine. Private schools seem to compete with public schools just fine. Our local privately owned toll roads seem to complete too well with our 'freeways'.
Private hospitals compete with public hospitals.
Private industries compete with public every day.
And boo hoo inflation...that is all well and good except companies like Comcast are raising rates at 3X inflation year after year after year and some like Cox, do it up to 3 times in a single year. All the while customer service goes into the tank.
If cable or telcos don't like it, let them surrender their gov't granted franchises and presence in public ROWs, return the billions in taxpayer money they got and make room for a replacement otherwise they can follow some simple rules that protect customers from crap service, channel extortion, lies, push polls, lawsuits, predatory pricing and endless price increases. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·Mediacom
| Most of your private/public examples began with government and introduced the private side. So, private industry began competing with the government, not the other way around.
»20% of Comcast Users To See DOCSIS 3.0 in 2008
Comcast is now on the front page committing to infrastructure upgrades and yet people complain that they continue to pay more money. Once again, I have no sympathy for those paying price increases for entertainment. |
|
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
edit:
November 29th, @02:51PM
| So will only 20% of users see the annual 3X inflation price increase on video services in 2008?
My guess would be no. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | I doubt it, but how is that relevant anyway? Do you seriously think any company would wait until after a new or upgraded technology is deployed before increasing revenue to cover the necessary capital expenditures? |
|
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
edit:
November 29th, @03:07PM
| That is just the excuse of the day. These 3X inflation price increases on VIDEO services have been going on for years. What...Comcast been saving up for DOCSIS deployments? And then only to areas served by telco fiber?
They didn't raise video prices 30% in 3 years and engage in predatory pricing to fund DOCSIS deployment in FiOS territories.
If cable doesn't want to comply with the most basic consumer protection rules, they are free to not renew their franchise agreements. If telcos don't want to follow the same rules...let them give back the billions in taxpayer money they stole. |
|
swintec
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME | reply to DotMac
Cable companies received money from the government to build there networks??
--
BlockNews.Net- Quality Usenet Block And Unlimited Accounts |
|
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
edit:
November 29th, @03:18PM
| Yes, both telcos and cable operators take taxpayer money hand over fist.
»www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/···149.html
In this example, Comcast got $17.1 million (the biggest cut of total aid) in grants, loans and tax breaks for Comcast's Phili HQ and data center and another $30 million for public improvements around Comcast's HQ. This despite Comcast reporting profits that year of nearly $1 billion.
The telcos are even worse. Pennsylvania gave Verizon over $2 billion in similar freebees for fiber deployment THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
These businesses (video service giants) also threaten to cost taxpayer money if they don't get their way. »Louisiana Fiber and 'Economic Blackmail' |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | reply to DotMac
You keep using the term "predatory pricing". How exactly are cablecos conducting "predatory pricing"? As for video service cost increases, do you think that might be the content providers' doings and not the cablecos? |
|
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
edit:
November 29th, @03:42PM
| Here's a perfect example of cable predatory pricing.
»'Discounted' Competition
As for content providers being the reason behind exponential price increases, no...cable operators could say no to the increases. I've posted on this exact subject way too many times to explain again why they could say no and win without losing customers.
»Re: a la carte can't work
Don't forget, we're not talking about turning cable and telco operations into a charity...just simple rules designed to protect consumers and stimulate competition. No different than any other industry like airlines about delays and telemarketers with the do not call lists. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·Mediacom
| Now you've confused me. You're complaining that Comcast has the ability to whimsically raise prices yet you also have issue with "predatory pricing" (which is common practice and isn't predatory IMO). How exactly is this "predatory pricing" going to fund upgrades. And why isn't it a good thing for consumers?
The cable operators can say no to content price increases in a similar manner that customers can say no to cable TV price increases...it doesn't mean that it will happen though. |
|
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
edit:
November 29th, @05:02PM
| Predatory pricing funds upgrades by eliminating competition which can even eliminate the need for upgrades in the first place. Once the competition is eliminated, they return to the annual 3X inflation price increases. What Comcast did was absolutely predatory.
Predatory pricing is such a serious threat to competition that its prohibition is clearly stated in the US Code. You can see that what Comcast did easily meets the definition of predatory pricing.
said by US Code :
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 13
§ 13. Discrimination in price, services, or facilities
Release date: 2004-05-18
(a) Price; selection of customers
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them
That is EXACTLY what Comcast did. They dropped the price to below market rates (from $97 to $56)only in this specific area to eliminate a competitor while across town (so the product was certainly of like grade and quality) Comcast charged their normal high rates. That is predatory pricing and it's illegal.
»assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode···00-.html
If Comcast ran a region wide sale at this price, or a nationwide pricing change then it's not predatory. But doing it only for 4600 people who could get the $76 service from the muni...it's absolutely predatory and illegal.
As for cable operators saying no, they certainly can. Apple did it with iTunes against the music industry. As I described in another thread, Jobs is under constant assault by the music industry to raise prices but Apple simply refuses. Some labels walk but as a result iTunes has grown into the #3 music seller behind Wal*Mart and Best Buy because of the $1 flat rate pricing scheme. If iTunes were run by a cable company there would be no a la carte music sales and a CD would be $25.
If Wal*Mart can hammer product distributers and iTunes can hammer the music industry, certainly the NCTA membership can do the same to the channel extortionists at ABC. And when ABC walks, cable runs endless commercials detailing the greed of ABC with a number to call. But cable hs never (at least I've never seen an example like I have with DBS) let a channel walk or even started going to war with these content creators (eg ABC). They are complicit in the channel bundling and blame their massive and consistent price increases on it. |
|
swintec
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
·surpasshosting
·VoicePulse
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by DotMac :But cable hs never (at least I've never seen an example like I have with DBS) let a channel walk or even started going to war with these content creators The NFL Network.
In the mean time, you still didnt address the fact that any other cable company is free to come in and construct there own cable system, provided they follow the proper rules for permits.
In fact, there are several markets right now that have 2 cable companies in there neighborhood among the other options like satellite. At any rate, ask those customers in those areas how much they are actually saving by having this "competition" you keep harping on. The pricing for services in these areas are largely the same, despite the competing cable companies.
Go to RCN cables website (who's business is over building in other cable companies areas), pricing looks pretty much in line with TW prices here in my area.
Also, do you keep skipping over fiberguy posts or something? He spells things out quite clearly for you.
--
BlockNews.Net- Quality Usenet Block And Unlimited Accounts |
|
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
edit:
November 29th, @08:03PM
| I cancelled cable TV (still am an RR Extreme customer and VERY happy) and went to E* (which I also ended up canceling) before this apparent NFL network war started. If true, it's a good start. If cable, telcos and DBS did this with all the channel extortionists, perhaps they could get prices into check and the FCC would no longer be interested in driving them crazy.
I have already explained why their (cable and telco) market position and tactics prevent competition (and gave numerous examples) but your RCN example is certainly a good counter-point. Unfortunately there aren't enough RCNs willing to take on that challenge. But the result from the lack of RCNs in this world shouldn't be instant carte blanche to run roughshod over customers. And as you state, adding a singular competitor doesn't help if that competitor follows the same forced bundling model. If that were the case, DBS is already in every market the cable and telcos are.
And yes, I place on ignore fanboys of all types (cable, telcos, Macs, Pee Cees, politics, consoles, etc) who demonstrate a long history of shilling and excuse making for their particular industry and constantly attack competing industries no matter how many times their claims have been debunked or counter examples have been shown. I'm open minded (so much so that I even post my displeasure with the all mighty Apple »Re: "Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off" »Re: "Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off") and on many occasions have had my opinions changed by reading compelling arguments here. These fanboys however will never change and rather use the forums to spout company talking points. If I want talking points I'll go to the CEOs blogs and PR mouthpieces and get them. They're certainly free to post them, but I chose to ignore them.
It's counterproductive to the discussion to entertain these few users. There are plenty of other users who are rational, objective and open minded to discuss this with even if I disagree with them and they with me. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | reply to DotMac
I won't argue semantics between predatory and competition.
The cablecos have no motivation to tell the content providers to take a hike when they can pass their costs on to consumers. I'm still failing to see the issue. |
|
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
| said by openbox9 :The cablecos have no motivation to tell the content providers to take a hike when they can pass their costs on to consumers. I'm still failing to see the issue. Exactly and THAT is the issue. It is my opinion, and that of many people that they need to be motivated to get their insane increases and anti-competitive (sometimes illegal) practices under control, by gov't intervention if necessary.
The gov't went after telemarkers when they got out of hand. They went after the airlines when delays were getting out of hand. They went after Microsoft. They went after insurance companies (in California anyway). It's time they do the same to these video providers who abuse their market position. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | Sounds like the government needs to be going after the root issue (i.e. content providers) instead of nagging the middlemen, just like the other governmental examples that you provided. |
|
