Re: Watchdogs: Cable gouges broadband users

Author	All Replies
Combat Chuck Too Many Cannibals Premium join:2001-11-29 Erie, PA	reply to DanB Re: Watchdogs: Cable gouges broadband users I just hope to God that you people who really want this to land in a court realize what you are doing and the precident it could set should it land in a courtroom; the implications could quite possibly extend far, far beyond Comcast (everything from discounted airline tickets to toothpaste coupons to mcdonalds value meals to preferred credit card rates could be affected). And the irony is that should you get your way, you're not even going to get the lower price, they're just going jack everybody up to the higher price. -- So it begins.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-27 01:40:54 ·
fuzydice join:2000-12-18 Sunnyvale, CA	its a form of regulation for the cable industry ppl are seeking. it needs regulation otherwise comcast can do anything they want from not providing any service to raising rates as high as numbers can go (infinite?). They're a monopoly, they need government regulation. -- [referring to the RIAA...] These guys buy congress people like M&Ms
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-27 02:05:33 ·
Combat Chuck Too Many Cannibals Premium join:2001-11-29 Erie, PA	But thats not what they're going to get. What they're going to get is a court set precident that companies that bundle services are extorting customers that choose not to take advantage of bundle pricing, and thus no more bundled pricing or anything that looks like bundled pricing on anything, anywhere. Contrary to popular belief, regulation is not the holy grail of dealing with pseudo-monopolies. It's going to end in medeocre service or no service at all should comcast decide that it's not profitable to provide service under the regulation, and nobody picks up where they left off. I might agree with you that regulation is needed if the price was way higher in areas where Comcast is the only provider, or if the price was significantly higher than other options such as DSL; but quite frankly neither of those are true at this point in time. -- So it begins.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-27 02:26:45 ·
Zoder join:2002-04-16 Miami, FL	reply to Combat Chuck quote: I just hope to God that you people who really want this to land in a court realize what you are doing and the precident it could set should it land in a courtroom; the implications could quite possibly extend far, far beyond Comcast (everything from discounted airline tickets to toothpaste coupons to mcdonalds value meals to preferred credit card rates could be affected). Based on the article it looks like they are questioning whether Comcast has a monopoly and if so, are abusing their monopoly power to extort customers who don't subscribe to their television service. Since antitrust law only applies to monopolies I doubt any decision against Comcast, if they are proven to be a monopoly, would have an effect on the other industries you mentioned.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-27 04:10:45 ·
gharney join:2002-01-04 Laurel, MD	reply to fuzydice said by fuzydice : They're a monopoly, they are far from a monopoly. unless of course you are using your own definition which differs from the real world definition.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-27 09:42:43 ·
somebodeez Premium,MVM join:2001-09-24 here ·Verizon FIOS ·Comcast	Comcast is the only cable company in my area. There simply are not any other cable services around here. This is a fact that can not be denied no matter how badly some try to sugar coat it, twist words - whatever. This is the "real world". Evidently, according to an article I read some where around here (can't find it now)Comcast only cuts prices in the very few areas where there is another cable company. So if Comcast only considers other cable companies competiton and since there are no other cable companies around here and because of that I have to pay a higher price than what the customers get to pay in those few areas where they have a choice in cable companies, Comcast is a monopoly in my book. Please note, I did not state whether I am happy with Comcast or not, did not voice complaints or praise. Just wanted to get my 2 cents in about this monopoly stuff [text was edited by author 2003-03-27 10:23:23]
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-27 10:20:45 ·
AthlGrond Premium,MVM join:2002-04-25 Aurora, CO ·Comcast	reply to gharney said by gharney : said by fuzydice : They're a monopoly, they are far from a monopoly. unless of course you are using your own definition which differs from the real world definition. /rolls eyes Fact is there are multiple definitions for monopoly. (please consult your dictionary to confirm, as I will not argue this point) The economic definition is "The sole provider of a good or service", and this is by far a more "real world" definition than most others. (since when this condition is encountered people tend to suffer due to price, innovation, offerings, etc. problems) The economic one applies to Comcast providing cable service in most places. (in the vast majority of the places where they provide cable service they are the only available provider) They are not a monopoly for high speed internet access in most areas however, since DSL, wireless, and other services are available those areas that Comcast sells high-speed internet service. gharney likes to use the legal definition of monopoly, saying that by law Comcast can't keep competition out of the areas in which they operate. And he is correct in that regard. His is a real-world definition, but it is not the only one.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-27 10:40:58 ·
JTRockville Data Ho Premium,MVM join:2002-01-28 Rockville, MD clubs: ·LINGO ·Sprint Mobile Broa.. ·surpasshosting ·Verizon FIOS	reply to gharney said by gharney : said by fuzydice : They're a monopoly, they are far from a monopoly. Comcast by legal definition in most cases is *technically* not a monopoly. But I wouldn't say they're "far" from it. In the overwhelming majority of locations, Comcast enjoys the benefits of offering a unique service, which is in high demand, without competition. So they can behave like an *unregulated monopoly. Sure, Comcast can justify their behavior by splitting legal hairs. Every move, disclaimer, and price hike they make is entirely within the law. But the result is the same. Many people feel they're being ripped off and bullied, and they're downright angry about it. [text was edited by author 2003-03-27 11:56:30]*
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-27 10:41:37 ·
MikeDz3$ join:2003-03-15 Weirton, WV	the government isn't gonna do anything. The justice department and the fcc both approved this merger with little or no restrictions on comcast. The fcc chair has always turned down requests to regulate the cable industry and to let it flourish on its own. Therefore i don't think anything will change. If anything they will raise the rates for everyone and make everyone pay $60/month and they will see all the 2.5million subscribers leave because they don't see paying $60 for lowband high speed internet service(1.5/256).
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-27 11:12:55 ·
JTRockville Data Ho Premium,MVM join:2002-01-28 Rockville, MD clubs: ·LINGO ·Sprint Mobile Broa.. ·surpasshosting ·Verizon FIOS	reply to AthlGrond said by AthlGrond : The economic one applies to Comcast providing cable service in most places. (in the vast majority of the places where they provide cable service they are the only available provider) They are not a monopoly for high speed internet access in most areas however, since DSL, wireless, and other services are available those areas that Comcast sells high-speed internet service. I guess things are different in Denver, AthlGrond . In Rockville 20852, between Rock Creek Park and the CSX line, that's simply not true. There is no ~~choice~~ competition for broadband services at my location. •DSL at 19,300 cable feet? Please provide a link! •Wireless? Not in Rockville! •other services? I'm all ears. But I've already ruled out: •Powerline - I'm iso trials, but there are none in Rockville. •Satellite - Last time I checked, the only offering was a telco return. Edit: I changed "choice" to "competition". In fact, I do have a "choice". I can remain at the mercy of whatever torture Comcast decides to bestow on its customers, or I can regress to technology of the last millennium. [text was edited by author 2003-03-27 11:30:05]
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-27 11:16:14 ·
AthlGrond Premium,MVM join:2002-04-25 Aurora, CO ·Comcast	said by JTRockville : I guess things are different in Denver, AthlGrond . In Rockville 20852, between Rock Creek Park and the CSX line, that's simply not true. There is no ~~choice~~ competition for broadband services at my location. •DSL at 19,300 cable feet? Please provide a link! •Wireless? Not in Rockville! •other services? I'm all ears. But I've already ruled out: •Powerline - I'm iso trials, but there are none in Rockville. •Satellite - Last time I checked, the only offering was a telco return. Edit: I changed "choice" to "competition". In fact, I do have a "choice". I can remain at the mercy of whatever torture Comcast decides to bestow on its customers, or I can regress to technology of the last millennium. 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) Obviously in some area's Comcast is a monopoly for HSI too. (well obvious to you and me anyway) 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 ) FYI Some satellite systems allow for uplink via the dish, but the usually problems with satellite systems still apply. (not all that fast, expensive and high latency)
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-27 12:06:01 ·
JTRockville Data Ho Premium,MVM join:2002-01-28 Rockville, MD clubs: ·LINGO ·Sprint Mobile Broa.. ·surpasshosting ·Verizon FIOS	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. 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?
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-27 15:32:10 ·
AthlGrond Premium,MVM join:2002-04-25 Aurora, CO ·Comcast	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. 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.) 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? Hehe, not really. But thanks for offering, its the thought that counts!
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-27 17:41:40 ·
J D McDorce Premium join:2001-12-29 Westland, MI	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.) While I have very limited knowledge of the ex-TCI areas of (the former) AT&T Broadband, MediaOne (at least in areas that I am familiar with) was pretty indiscriminate regarding the locations where they had their high speed internet built out. Comcast was (and is) pretty much the same way - working toward the goal that if you can get our cable, then you can get our High Speed Internet. Sometimes I get the impression that Comcast believes that there is no other form of High Speed Internet than Comcast High Speed Internet.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-27 22:31:22 ·
Net192 join:2001-03-26 Renton, WA	reply to gharney said by gharney : said by fuzydice : They're a monopoly, they are far from a monopoly. unless of course you are using your own definition which differs from the real world definition. Oligopoly...A market dominated by a small number of participants who are able to collectively exert control over supply and market prices. (»www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/ge···cgi?3404) Either way, they're just as big and ugly as a monopoly. Those who have a choice between cable and DSL are the exception, not the rule. For us that have only one choice, Comcast is a virtual monopoly that uses it's dominant market position to exploit consumers. Why should someone be forced to pay for a product they dont want, pay-TV, to get broadband internet? This is not like the McD's analogy where I can walk across the street to BK and get a similar product at a competitive price without the happy toy.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-29 14:37:02 ·
J D McDorce Premium join:2001-12-29 Westland, MI	Net192 - thanks for the link. Here's where I make enemies of friends, while continuing the same relationship with others. said by »www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/ge···gi?3112: monopoly A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition (for example, vast economies of scale, barriers to entry, or governmental regulation). In such an industry structure, the producer will often produce a volume that is less than the amount which would maximize social welfare. The question is, for High Speed Internet service (which this thread was originally based on), does Comcast have a monopoly? On a macro level, no. Looking at Comcast, as a whole, their High Speed Internet service falls into the definition of Oligopoly that Net192 previously provided. However, on a micro level, there are cases where Comcast High Speed Internet does have a monopoly with regard to High Speed Internet service. One case would be a frequent poster to this forum who's only option for High Speed Internet is Comcast, as she cannot get DSL, Wi-Fi, or even a T1. In her direct area, Comcast owns the market (largely due to barriers to entry, as contained within the definition above). However, even in those cases where Comcast has a localized monopoly on High Speed Internet services, it would be extremely difficult to show that Comcast is using that status to gouge its customers. Why? Comcast's published policy for High Speed Internet is consistent throughout all of the areas that they service throughout the United States. Are you a Comcast CATV customer? $42.95 per month. Need a modem? That's $3.00 per month extra. You don't subscribe to Comcast's CATV? $57.95 per month (also $3.00 per month extra if you have a modem). Want Pro? $95.00 per month. It doesn't matter if Comcast High Speed Internet is all you can get or if you have a choice of Internet from two different cable companies and a couple of different flavors of DSL. Does it suck to have to pay $15.00 per month extra for CHSI if you don't want Comcast's CATV? You bet. But in the words of author (amongst other things) Richard Marcinko, I will treat you all alike - just like sh!t.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-29 22:22:56 ·
JTRockville Data Ho Premium,MVM join:2002-01-28 Rockville, MD clubs: ·LINGO ·Sprint Mobile Broa.. ·surpasshosting ·Verizon FIOS	said by J D McDorce : One case would be a frequent poster to this forum who's only option for High Speed Internet is Comcast, as she cannot get DSL, Wi-Fi, or even a T1. I'd think you were talking about ME J D, except I can't get powerline broadband either! said by J D McDorce : However, even in those cases where Comcast has a localized monopoly on High Speed Internet services, it would be extremely difficult to show that Comcast is using that status to gouge its customers. Why? Comcast's published policy for High Speed Internet is consistent throughout all of the areas that they service throughout the United States. That's true, J D. But some strategies, like bundling burgers with fries and soda, that are acceptable in competitive circumstances, are considered no-no's under monopolistic circumstances. In other words... *It's ok to treat customers like sh!t, but only if they have a choice*.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-29 22:48:37 ·
J D McDorce Premium join:2001-12-29 Westland, MI	said by JTRockville : That's true, J D. But some strategies, like bundling burgers with fries and soda, that are acceptable in competitive circumstances, are considered no-no's under monopolistic circumstances. Maybe the next time I stop at the Burger King in a Service Plaza on the Pennsylvania Turnpike (westbound, west of Pittsburgh), I'll tell them that they can't sell me a combination meal for less than the price of the individual items
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-29 23:01:31 ·
Combat Chuck Too Many Cannibals Premium join:2001-11-29 Erie, PA	reply to JTRockville said by JTRockville : That's true, J D. But some strategies, like bundling burgers with fries and soda, that are acceptable in competitive circumstances, are considered no-no's under monopolistic circumstances. In other words... *It's ok to treat customers like sh!t, but only if they have a choice*. You'd have to prove that they were actively trying to eliminate competition with their discount. And the only way I can see that happening (other than in a goofy California court) is if you could prove that they have many more people in HSI "monopoly" areas than competitive areas (such that they could ride out the losses in competitive areas on the profits from monopoly areas) , or you could find a paper trail stating they were attempting such. -- So it begins.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-29 23:50:40 ·
JTRockville Data Ho Premium,MVM join:2002-01-28 Rockville, MD clubs:	Losses? We're talking about a company that has a *FIFTY PERCENT PROFIT MARGIN* There are no "losses" to ride out!!!
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-03-30 00:08:04 ·


Sunday, 29-Nov 04:00:50	Terms of Use \| Privacy Policy \| Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo \| feedback \| contact over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com. page compression OFF