how-to block ads
|
|  
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| Re: Watchdogs: Cable gouges broadband users 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. | |
| | 
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Watchdogs: Cable gouges broadband users 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. | |
| | |
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| Re: Watchdogs: Cable gouges broadband users 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  | |
| | | | | | | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| 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. | |
| | | |
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Re: Watchdogs: Cable gouges broadband users Losses? We're talking about a company that has a
FIFTY PERCENT PROFIT MARGIN
There are no "losses" to ride out!!! | |
| | | |
|
