cork1958Cork Premium Member join:2000-02-26 |
cork1958
Premium Member
2013-May-10 9:10 am
The winning streakWonder how much it cost Comcast to continue their winning ways?! How specific can you get about them, or any other cable company in smaller towns, NOT having a monopoly? Here, it's Charter with the monopoly. | |
|
| FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ
1 recommendation |
FFH5
Premium Member
2013-May-10 11:26 am
Re: The winning streaksaid by cork1958:Wonder how much it cost Comcast to continue their winning ways?!
How specific can you get about them, or any other cable company in smaller towns, NOT having a monopoly?
Here, it's Charter with the monopoly. Contrary to popular opinion, a monopoly is NOT illegal. Only specific actions taken to abuse monopoly power are illegal. And proving those has a very high hurdle in the courts. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly | |
|
| | |
| fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX
1 recommendation |
to cork1958
said by cork1958:Wonder how much it cost Comcast to continue their winning ways?!
How specific can you get about them, or any other cable company in smaller towns, NOT having a monopoly?
Here, it's Charter with the monopoly. The lawsuit wasn't about Comcast being a monopoly. The lawsuit was about Comcast's alleged misleading marketing practices. Without specific evidence, it was basically a "he-said, she-said" situation. I don't know about you, but if someone sued me strictly on the basis of claims he could not substantiate w/o evidence, I certainly would hope the court would dismiss it. | |
|
| |
to cork1958
Actually this isn't true. I can provide you video and HSI over the Charter network without using them directly. different prices and all. Charter does allow 3rd party video providers and HSI providers. The same with TWC, Comcast, MediaCom, Cox and alike. It's just who you know and what to ask for. | |
|
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA
1 recommendation |
They should see the same fate as Ma' BellIt will be a good day when Comcast is broken up like Ma' Bell and forced to allow competitors on their lines and divest from their content producer holdings. Too bad US District Court Judge Harold Greene is no longer around (he broke up the phone company). Comcast is clearly a case of Antitrust.
As for Comcast, they should be sued over charging rent on modems that are owned by customers. | |
|
|
3 recommendations |
Re: They should see the same fate as Ma' Bellsaid by IowaCowboy:It will be a good day when Comcast is broken up like Ma' Bell What good did that do? Individual Baby-Bells maintained effective monopoly status over their respective territories and most of them came back together as AT&T. The first-mile access business is a natural monopoly just like power, waterworks, natural gas and roads. That's why it is nearly impossible to get companies to compete. In places like HK, most of the access infrastructure is co-owned by multiple network operators - one wire for everyone, which I believe to be the most cost-effective approach - I doubt HKBN could afford to offer 1G for ~$35/month if they had to overbuild. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:It will be a good day when Comcast is broken up like Ma' Bell and forced to allow competitors on their lines and divest from their content producer holdings. Too bad US District Court Judge Harold Greene is no longer around (he broke up the phone company). Comcast is clearly a case of Antitrust.
As for Comcast, they should be sued over charging rent on modems that are owned by customers. There is no similarity between Comcast and Ma Bell. My understanding is that Ma Bell was a publicly funded monopoly. Why do you use Comcast if you have such animosity towards them? Because they are the best provider in the market I'm guessing. Your animosity should be directed at the companies with lousy service in your area (Verizon) or those comanies that offer competing cable service in Mass but don't want to service your area (RCN). If Comcast charges for customer owned modems, I agree with you. Assumming your not referring to an isolated, individual billing error. I wasn't aware of any such practice. | |
|
| | Chris 313Because It's Geekier Premium Member join:2004-07-18 Houma, LA ·AT&T FTTP ·Comcast XFINITY
1 recommendation |
Chris 313
Premium Member
2013-May-10 10:36 am
Re: They should see the same fate as Ma' Bellsaid by PaulHikeS2:said by IowaCowboy:It will be a good day when Comcast is broken up like Ma' Bell and forced to allow competitors on their lines and divest from their content producer holdings. Too bad US District Court Judge Harold Greene is no longer around (he broke up the phone company). Comcast is clearly a case of Antitrust.
As for Comcast, they should be sued over charging rent on modems that are owned by customers. There is no similarity between Comcast and Ma Bell. My understanding is that Ma Bell was a publicly funded monopoly. Why do you use Comcast if you have such animosity towards them? Because they are the best provider in the market I'm guessing. Your animosity should be directed at the companies with lousy service in your area (Verizon) or those comanies that offer competing cable service in Mass but don't want to service your area (RCN). If Comcast charges for customer owned modems, I agree with you. Assumming your not referring to an isolated, individual billing error. I wasn't aware of any such practice. Comcast has a major history of charging rent for customer owned modems or firmly claiming that customer equipment as their own, going back years. There have been multiple reports on this site alone. | |
|
| | | |
Re: They should see the same fate as Ma' Bellsaid by Chris 313:said by PaulHikeS2:said by IowaCowboy:As for Comcast, they should be sued over charging rent on modems that are owned by customers. If Comcast charges for customer owned modems, I agree with you. Assumming your not referring to an isolated, individual billing error. I wasn't aware of any such practice. Comcast has a major history of charging rent for customer owned modems or firmly claiming that customer equipment as their own, going back years. There have been multiple reports on this site alone. So you are citing individual billing issues, I'm thinking. If they were charging for owned modems as a matter of policy, I would agree. They're a big company, so there will be lot's of examples of individual billing issues. That doesn't excuse them at all, but I don't agree with a lawsuit - just a refund when a billing error is brought to light. | |
|
| | | | IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
Re: They should see the same fate as Ma' BellOr another solution would be to separate the delivery of Internet from content like in the '90s where the phone companies delivered the data "packets" to a third party ISP as opposed to Comcast acting as an ISP. Similar to what they did to the electric industry in Mass, separating the delivery (incumbent poco) from generation (third party company).
The ideal system would be where Comcast's responsibility ends at the CMTS and goes to third party ISPs (customer choice) from there so Comcast could charge a data access fee (regulated by state DPU) and the third party ISPs could charge whatever they want (competitive pricing). | |
|
| | | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: They should see the same fate as Ma' BellActually the ideal solution would be to let Comcast do what they please with the infrastructure that they built, upgraded and own. I really dont know why you spend so much time dreaming about something that will never happen. The whole idea of a cable provider being the carrier and letting other companies resell is not only completely asinine and it would be nightmare from a support point of view. And what companies out there are jumping at the chance to resell cable services? | |
|
| | | | | | chip89 Premium Member join:2012-07-05 Columbia Station, OH |
chip89
Premium Member
2013-May-10 2:06 pm
Re: They should see the same fate as Ma' BellHow is it insane when it's working in Canada and they rent lines for a fee but they charge lower prices (Teksavvy) | |
|
| | | | | chip89
1 recommendation |
to IowaCowboy
That's how it's in Canada with Rogers and Bell they have the lines but company's like Teksavvy can use the lines with thir own network. I wish Teksavvy would come down here especially that they are less than 50 miles from me (that's the distance from Cleveland to Canada) You can even get roaming charges from Canada if your downtown on a nice day! | |
|
| | | | Chris 313Because It's Geekier Premium Member join:2004-07-18 Houma, LA ·AT&T FTTP ·Comcast XFINITY
1 recommendation |
to PaulHikeS2
said by PaulHikeS2: So you are citing individual billing issues, I'm thinking. If they were charging for owned modems as a matter of policy, I would agree. They're a big company, so there will be lot's of examples of individual billing issues. That doesn't excuse them at all, but I don't agree with a lawsuit - just a refund when a billing error is brought to light. And what would you call it when it happens on a monthly basis? | |
|
| | |
2 recommendations |
to Chris 313
said by Chris 313:said by PaulHikeS2:said by IowaCowboy:It will be a good day when Comcast is broken up like Ma' Bell and forced to allow competitors on their lines and divest from their content producer holdings. Too bad US District Court Judge Harold Greene is no longer around (he broke up the phone company). Comcast is clearly a case of Antitrust.
As for Comcast, they should be sued over charging rent on modems that are owned by customers. There is no similarity between Comcast and Ma Bell. My understanding is that Ma Bell was a publicly funded monopoly. Why do you use Comcast if you have such animosity towards them? Because they are the best provider in the market I'm guessing. Your animosity should be directed at the companies with lousy service in your area (Verizon) or those comanies that offer competing cable service in Mass but don't want to service your area (RCN). If Comcast charges for customer owned modems, I agree with you. Assumming your not referring to an isolated, individual billing error. I wasn't aware of any such practice. Comcast has a major history of charging rent for customer owned modems or firmly claiming that customer equipment as their own, going back years. There have been multiple reports on this site alone. | |
|
| | PapaMidnight
1 recommendation |
to PaulHikeS2
said by PaulHikeS2:Why do you use Comcast if you have such animosity towards them? Lack of any other choice but dial-up, satellite, and 3G/4G. Neither of those are valid options if you ask me. Comcast it is. | |
|
| | dfxmatt join:2007-08-21 Crystal Lake, IL |
to PaulHikeS2
there are a ton of similarities with comcast and Ma Bell.
take a look at how they both do business deals such as noncompetes which stifle competition.
if they were not similar, they wouldn't do the same strategy: Stifle everyone else. | |
|
| |
to IowaCowboy
"forced to allow competitors on their lines "
Why? Its Comcast's lines. What your suggesting is nationalization of the lines and that's wrong.
And helping their competitors out... What business does that? | |
|
| | fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX
1 recommendation |
fg8578
Member
2013-May-10 12:06 pm
Re: They should see the same fate as Ma' Bellsaid by JimMcCoy:"forced to allow competitors on their lines "
Why? Its Comcast's lines. What your suggesting is nationalization of the lines and that's wrong.
And helping their competitors out... What business does that? Telcos were required for years by the FCC to lease out their DSL lines to competitors. If you think about the bandwidth advantage of cable modem (over coax) vs. DSL (over twisted-copper-pair), it is mind-boggling that the market leader with the bandwidth advantage was able to keep its bandwidth to itself, whereas telcos with much smaller bandwidth were nonetheless required to share their meager bandwidth with competitors. Nothing wrong with that picture . . . | |
|
| | | |
skuv
Anon
2013-May-10 1:54 pm
Re: They should see the same fate as Ma' BellTelcos were required of that because they didn't pay to build out most of their network. AT&T was government funded before they were broken up in the 80's.
Comcast and other cable companies built out their networks with investors money, not government money.
Not even the same situation here. | |
|
| | IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
to JimMcCoy
said by JimMcCoy:"forced to allow competitors on their lines "
Why? Its Comcast's lines. What your suggesting is nationalization of the lines and that's wrong.
And helping their competitors out... What business does that? What I am saying is they should be forced to lease access to their lines at cost to competitors like the phone companies had to do after the Bell divestiture. If we can do it to Ma' Bell, we can do it to Comcast as the two have very similar anticompetitive behavior. | |
|
| | | |
skuv
Anon
2013-May-10 1:58 pm
Re: They should see the same fate as Ma' BellAnd the person you're replying to's point still stands.
Comcast paid for those lines. AT&T did not before they were broken up. Their build out was paid for by the Federal government.
That is why all the ILECs were forced to share their lines with CLECs. Because they basically received them for free.
Comcast and other cable companies built out their networks with investment money and money they've made on operations.
Not the same situation. | |
|
| | | | IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
Re: They should see the same fate as Ma' Bellsaid by skuv :And the person you're replying to's point still stands.
Comcast paid for those lines. AT&T did not before they were broken up. Their build out was paid for by the Federal government.
That is why all the ILECs were forced to share their lines with CLECs. Because they basically received them for free.
Comcast and other cable companies built out their networks with investment money and money they've made on operations.
Not the same situation. And a lot of broadband deployments are being publicly funded. | |
|
| | | | | |
skuv
Anon
2013-May-10 4:15 pm
Re: They should see the same fate as Ma' Bellsaid by IowaCowboy:And a lot of broadband deployments are being publicly funded. Funded by local bonds that are repaid over time is NOT the same as the government flat out paying for building out AT&T's original infrastructure. | |
|
| |
to IowaCowboy
1) There has never been any serious talking about breaking Comcast up
2) There is no need to break Comcast up
3) Comcast does not have near national penetration like AT&T did
4) What benefit would breaking up Comcast do for someone like me who lives in Upstate NY hundreds of mines away from the nearest Comcast head end?
5) Comcast has 22 million out of the 100 million pay TV subscribers the last time I checked. Your new beloved DirecTV has almost the same amount, are they a monopoly too?
6) Why should cable companies be forced to share the infrastructure they built?
7) If your half brained plan ever came to fruition, which it never will, what incentive would existing or new providers have to jump into the market? | |
|
|
...Soon as I saw the words 'conservatives' it was clear the corporation would win even though they are directly responsible for making sure they have no competition to speak of and screw consumers any chance they get. Conservatives fully support that because Comcast has $$$. | |
|
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2013-May-10 1:39 pm
As it should beSo long as you have a buy-out option, this is not an issue for the courts. | |
|
|
krystal
Anon
2013-May-10 7:23 pm
Don't ya ever read the bill lolI don't understand why people send money on services and never read the d*mn bill lol. | |
|
ski93 join:2005-02-14 Northwood, NH |
ski93
Member
2013-May-10 10:59 pm
MonopolyLast time I checked Earthlink, Juno and Netzero and a few others have open access partnerships with Comcast. So your not forced to use Comcast directly, if the cable modem service works well for you. | |
|
|
Probitas
Anon
2013-May-11 3:42 pm
treat them like they behaveThey act like utilities, so regulate like utilities. Problem solved. | |
|
|
|