said by odog :

---

want DSL? you have to get a dial-tone capable copper pair... while it is completely possible and is done in some circumstances. try calling up the phone company for DSL without a dial-tone line, and they will tell you it's a requirement.

---

said by J D McDorce :

---

said by odog :

---

want DSL? you have to get a dial-tone capable copper pair... while it is completely possible and is done in some circumstances. try calling up the phone company for DSL without a dial-tone line, and they will tell you it's a requirement.

---

One difference (which may not be directly relevant to the monopoly discussion) is that having a dial-tone capable copper pair for currently common ADSL has always been a requirement. Much of the current churn (at least with what we are currently seeing in this forum) is that the additional cost for non-CATV subscribers is directly related to the change of ownership from AT&T to Comcast for an existing cable internet connection.

Things would be much cleaner if Comcast were to state that the standard rate for their internet service is $57.95 with a $15 discount for CATV subscribers.

---

said by AthlGrond :

---

I am aware that there is not competition everywhere. (There isn't everywhere in Denver too) But as I said in most places there is. (in most places where Comcast provides HSI)

---

said by AthlGrond :

---

BTW I get the same deal in the area with competition that you do without, though I'll be they try harder to keep me as a customer through better service and maintenance. (though I didn't get a bribe package like you did )

---

said by J D McDorce :

---

Things would be much cleaner if Comcast were to state that the standard rate for their internet service is $57.95 with a $15 discount for CATV subscribers.

---

said by JTRockville :

---

said by AthlGrond :

---

I am aware that there is not competition everywhere. (There isn't everywhere in Denver too) But as I said in most places there is. (in most places where Comcast provides HSI)

---

I don't know what kind of coverage CHSI has, but a recent study published by the pinkhamgroup shows that over 60% of folks in Alabama are beyond 18k cable feet from a CO. The study was done for all states, but only Alabama is shown in the free sample. I assume national DSL coverage doesn't vary too wildly from Alabama. Since there aren't that many places where Comcast has a cable competitor (oddly, I think Alabama is one of the exceptions), what leads you to believe there's competition in "most" places? Judging from the data I've found, I'd say there's NO broadband competition in most places.

---

quote:

---

said by AthlGrond :

---

BTW I get the same deal in the area with competition that you do without, though I'll be they try harder to keep me as a customer through better service and maintenance. (though I didn't get a bribe package like you did )

---

awwwwww, I'll share. Want the chocolate remote?

---

said by Combat Chuck :

---

In all seriousness, my question to all of you who think that regulation is needed now, what evidence do you see that comcast is abusing it's "monopoly status" short of there being no competition in some areas?

Essentially the only evidence that comes to mind is that the price went up.

---

said by AthlGrond :

---

My understanding was that AT&T built up in areas where other forms of HSI were already available. (may sound counter-intuitive but they did manage to get bought out by Comcast.) I was assuming that Comcast was the same. (but they may have a better business model.)

---

said by IH8TCOMCAST:

---

While Comcast may not be a monopoly in the purest sense of the word, face it, they have a monopoly on the coax to your house. Other utilities MUST provide outside access to their phone or power lines to your house, not cable.

---

quote:

---

Prove me wrong gharney......

---

said by DonLibes :

---

... One such issue is that when you buy broadband, they force you to buy another of their products (or pay a higher price) - the other product being TV where they have competition (from satellite). To use their monopoly to undercut their competition in another area this way is considered abuse of their monopoly

---

said by billybagoil :

---

if you think it costs too much go back to dial up. you people make me sick. if you dont have cable you are not gonna die. you remind me of the people complaining about drug prices being to high. its not your right to have affordable high speed internet service. please stop asking your babysitter, the government, to help you get cheap internet service.

---

said by gharney :

---

there is nothing stopping another cable company from coming in and overbuilding.

---

said by Robert Currey, Vice Chairman RCN Corporation:

---

The new entrant has no captive subscribers; no initial revenue and enormous start-up expenses such as securing the local franchise. This latter process alone generally takes six months to a year. Local franchise authorities usually attempt to secure as high a price as possible for granting a franchise and typically require high standards of proof of a franchise applicant’s financial and operational experience and capability. Multiyear construction commitments are normally required. Accordingly, the potential competitor must earmark funds, purchase long lead time items, enter into programming commitments, hire hundreds of employees in each market, and, most important, fight for each subscriber because the local citizens who want cable service are probably already customers of the incumbent. To use a well-worn metaphor, the lowhanging fruit has been picked. Installing fiber optic or coaxial cable throughout a community can cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per mile. As a result, it has generally been thought that competitive MVPD service based on construction of a second local broadband distribution network is not sustainable financially and there has been relatively little of it, either before passage of the Telecom Act of 1996, or thereafter.

---

said by billybagoil :

---

its not your right to have affordable high speed internet service. please stop asking your babysitter, the government, to help you get cheap internet service.

---

said by FCC Commissioner Kevin J. Martin:

---

Encouraging the deployment of broadband services to all Americans should be a national priority. Such services are essential to the economy of the 21st century, dramatically reducing the costs of exchanging information and allowing previously local businesses to serve the world. Broadband services are especially important to rural America, providing business, educational, and healthcare opportunities to remote parts of the country. I am hopeful that, just as rapid developments in telecommunications and technology have driven much of this nation’s economic growth in recent years, broadband deployment will lead to a new period of growth. I thus believe that all levels of government should work to eliminate barriers to infrastructure investment and to accelerate broadband deployment.

---

said by Combat Chuck :

---

The problem is that Comcast HSI has competition in many areas (And I would bet that there are more potential customers in areas with HSI competition than without). Their policies are set system wide for both areas. How can they be abusing a monopoly in the areas without competition when their policies are set the same in areas with competition. The only way it could be even marginally considered abuse is if the discount was only offered in areas without competition.

---

said by Combat Chuck :

---

I do agree that they are using HSI to get cable customers, but that in and of it self is not unfair nor illegal.

---

quote:

---

The Consumer Federation of America and the Consumers Union asked the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether the steep discounts offered when customers purchased both services constituted anticompetitive tying or predatory pricing.

"If there were ever a candidate for an investigation of predatory pricing under the antitrust laws, this would be it," said Mark Cooper, research director for the Consumer Federation of America. "Even if the government concludes that the price is not predatory in the classic sense, it must be deeply concerned about anticompetitive tying."

---

said by JTRockville :

---

Looks to me like there are lots of barriers.

---