 brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | hey Leave Comcast alone let them expand. At least they are doing better than AT&T. They are still in the dark ages with ADSL. | |
|
 | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: hey I'd agree on the first part:
Let them expand, as long as there is competition.
Since VZ is deploying FiOS TV, and AT&T is deploying U-Verse VDSL TV (and DirecTV), there is competition.
I do suspect that many of the 'small' players will be gobbled up, similar to what is happening with wireless. | |
|
| | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| Re: hey said by en102  :Since VZ is deploying FiOS TV, and AT&T is deploying U-Verse VDSL TV (and DirecTV), there is competition. The relative footprint of areas served by FiOS or U-Verse is pretty minuscule as compared to those serviced by cable TV. While they are competition in some areas, in most cable is still a land-based monopoly still and has no competition other then satellite. AT&T "deploying" DirecTV should have no bearing on the matter as anyone who could get AT&T'-billed DirectTV could already get it from DirecTV directly. | |
|
| NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by brianiscool :They are still in the dark ages with ADSL. ADSL, itself, isn't "Dark Ages" technology. The manner of deployment by AT&T is another matter. ADSL2+ can provide competitive speed with DOCSIS 3.0, when properly deployed. Whether at a competitive cost, I couldn't say.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| 
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey | I think they should able to expand to the size of Verizon, or ATT. Then we could have true competition... | |
|
| | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: hey said by DaveNJ :I think they should able to expand to the size of Verizon, or ATT. Then we could have true competition... Unsure what that means. Comcast has roughly the same, or slightly more Internet customers than AT&T, which is, itself, about twice as large as Verizon WRT Internet. Comcast is already way larger than either AT&T, or Verizon, for TV subscribers (Uverse and FiOS).
So Comcast is hardly "smaller" than either right now.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| said by DaveNJ :I think they should able to expand to the size of Verizon, or ATT. Then we could have true competition... That would be called a duopoly. | |
|
|
| 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: And they are right said by baineschile :Did anyone intervieneve when Microsoft owen 85% of their marketshare (computer operation systems)? If Comcast can expand they should...its called capitalism. ATT, Verizon, and the Satellites are formidale foes, and one will always keep the other from becoming a monopoloy. I say let them grow. But to answer your 1st statement, yes the Feds sued MS under monopoly anti-trust laws when they held the huge share of the computer market.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | |
| | | |
| | | | 
tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·Callcentric
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·FrontierNet Intern..
| Re: And they are right said by KrK :You are correct. It wasn't MS's size; it was how MS used their clout. IE Anti-competitively. wow...impressed myself with that one. i think i was maybe 10 or 11 at the time that the investigation really started (it began in like 1996 with the trial not starting until late 1997, early 1998 if memory still serves correctly).
i don't mind the market working and letting those who are successful grow, but the issue comes into play (much like microsoft, ibm, ma bell, etc) how will comcast use its newfound clout? we have already witnessed their failing service, techs who kill people, animals, and fill houses with sewage, and their customer satisfaction numbers are *consistently* towards the bottom. they also engage in collusion within local governments and practice some sleazy (and borderline deceptive) marketing practices. not only that, they will be controlling the information and media that is seen by a large percentage of the us population. little scary.
there is a reason why the us has passed laws and regulations prohibiting corporations from getting too large (and therefore too powerful); they generally don't have the best interest of the consumer at heart.
q. | |
|
| | | | | 
skuv
@rr.com
| Re: And they are right What really do "techs who kill people" have to do with anything?
Are you implying that Comcast willingly hired someone that said they planned on killing people?
Should Comcast be able to read minds? Does Comcast have a Minority Report machine, and should they have been able to stop these pre-crimes?
Do you not think there are employees of other companies that kill someone everyday in this world? That these people only get employed by Comcast?
Just because the news reports the really bad stories doesn't mean it's something widespread that any company should be treated differently than other companies. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| said by tubbynet :there is a reason why the us has passed laws and regulations prohibiting corporations from getting too large (and therefore too powerful); they generally don't have the best interest of the consumer at heart. The country's priorities shouldn't be consumerism. Consumerism doesn't equate to prosperity. So your logic about why large companies should be kept smaller is without merit.
There are valid reasons for such caps, in certain industries, and we've seen it very clearly with the economic crisis. The crisis was caused because some financial institutions (specifically) were too large, so when they failed, they represented the chance of too much damage to the overall economy to let the failure progress normally.
Super-large employers have a similar potential impact on the economy, which argues for capping the size (or breaking-up) companies such as the automakers, super-large nationwide retailers, etc.
The criteria for concern is not the impact on consumers, but rather the impact on citizens. They may be the same people, but the priorities that each of those two labels imply are different. Indeed, our government should foster the interests of citizens FIRST, then perhaps the interests of taxpayers, then perhaps investors, then perhaps consumers. Again, consumerism is part of the problem, not part of the solution. | |
|
| | | | | |
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Re: And they are right said by bicker : The crisis was caused because some financial institutions (specifically) were too large, so when they failed, they represented the chance of too much damage to the overall economy to let the failure progress normally. LMAO. Where do you get your information. Try understanding the problem before you spout off about that which you clearly have no comprehension of.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
| |
|
| | | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: And they are right Get over yourself. You are entitled to your personal opinion. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | AT&T was broken up strictly because of size. | |
|
| | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| It was the actions in the context of their size. "Abusing monopoly power" means they were a monopoly, which they couldn't be without having the vast majority of the OS market. Apple bundling their Safari browser isn't abuse, because they aren't a monopoly.
On the topic of Comcast, I think a 35% limit is more mathematically pleasing, but it seems like a good idea for competition. AT&T should have had a lot more conditions on their merger, I think Martin really was playing favorites, but the correct response would be strictness with both sides going forward. | |
|
| 
P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Mineola, NY
clubs:
| said by baineschile :Did anyone intervieneve when Microsoft owen 85% of their marketshare (computer operation systems)? If Comcast can expand they should...its called capitalism. ATT, Verizon, and the Satellites are formidale foes, and one will always keep the other from becoming a monopoloy. how do you sue a company that has a monopoly on one product? force them to stop making the one operating system they make?
i love people who always bring microsoft up. | |
|
| | 
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Re: And they are right The only reason I brought up microsoft, is that at one time, they were truly a monopoly (95%+ market share) | |
|
| | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Once Microsoft controlled the market on the OS, they began integrating products into it that were not part of the core functionality, yet added on to the cost of the product. You could not pay $35 for Windows without IE, Media Player, Paint, Wordpad, etc. You are forced to buy it all or nothing. And let's not even get started on forcing file format changes into Office so people get fed up with conversions and just buy a new version that has marginal benefits....
cw
| |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
·VOIPo
| I say let 'em grow. Maybe then I can get cable internet, I live about 10min from them(maybe 12-15-ish I don't look at the clock that much) and 5min or so away from a new subdivision was put in a few yrs ago and they don't have CC ether if they get it maybe CC will extend the line to my house. I would still keep dish and VOIPo though. And I like capitalism let. CC grow. | |
|
| rob316
join:2005-10-17
Carteret, NJ
1 edit | Re: I say let 'em grow. I am a Socialist pig, down with big business (lol)  | |
|
| | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: I say let 'em grow. Sarcasm? or not? | |
|
| | | rob316
join:2005-10-17
Carteret, NJ | Re: I say let 'em grow. Sarcasm of course, even though I hate Comcast this is America and they have the right to expand how ever they want. | |
|
| | | | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
·VOIPo
| Re: I say let 'em grow.  I do not like the throttle, but if it that or dial-up the provide a good service to some people. And in America business should be able to grow and stuff. Plus if other cablecos would just expand we would not have this problem. | |
|
| 
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Let them sprout with conditions. Make them share the lines..Hehe.
No more hiring of lowlifes...My declarations will be finalized at a later date. | |
|
| | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
1 edit | Re: I say let 'em grow. and we want the same thing with ATT and Bell South and every other phone company building out a new network.
And we want ATT and VZ to bring back ALL the jobs they outsourced over the years, Toledo has a nice office downtown that used to be staffed, i'm sure we could find some people here in town to go work there again.
by the way--Comcast didnt use tax payer money or anything from the feds to build out- they shouldn't be required to share like the Bells. | |
|
| | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: I say let 'em grow. said by hottboiinnc :by the way--Comcast didnt use tax payer money or anything from the feds to build out- they shouldn't be required to share like the Bells. Oh, How how blind we are. So if they weren't handed a check for X dollars I guess you say they received no benefit? They benefited/benefit greatly from taxpayers through many incentives that may not be a direct dole out of funds.
How many cable companies are there in your city, state, region? | |
|
| | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: I say let 'em grow. Buckeye cable carries today, and has over built TWC areas as well, TWC is here, Cox cable is in Ohio, WOW is in Ohio, Comcast is in Ohio, CinciBell offers cable tv services, Insight is here, ATT's u-shit product is here. the list goes on.
And the cable companies DID NOT receive any money. They were given the right to build out in those areas. If it wasnt for those rights at the time they would not have had cable then. Those deals are now gone and anyone can build out. The phone company though was actually given FEDERAL and STATE TAX BREAKS to build out. Electric was too. | |
|
| | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: I say let 'em grow. Your location is quite a rarity throughout the country and you know it. MOST people have 1 true choice.
I never said the cable companies directly received money. As a matter of fact my post was pretty clear on that. However, they were given pretty much exclusive access and a guarantee monopoly where they were building out and thus guaranteed profits. How many places waived fees for them or gave tax credits to "encourage" them to build? Would you seriously argue that is much different then giving them the cash to begin with?
It doesn't matter if "now" anyone can get the same agreements and build. The damage is already done, the barriers of entry have been multiplied, and the lack of guaranteed customers, thus return, are gone. Therefore the network they built, are rebuilding, build in the future will ALWAYS be a product of the help they received to begin with. | |
|
| | | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: I say let 'em grow. it may be a rarity but all the companies we have here in Ohio are only due to small companies selling out only because they refuse to upgrade to digital services. My old cable company was one of them. they wanted to keep analog services and didnt think they needed digital cable or HSI. Well the city said they would not renew any contracts with them unless they did. they later on sold everything the owned- the family sold the local cable company, both AM and FM radio stations, and closed their local office supply store (which couldn't complete with Staples anyway). TWC then was sold the entire network they left rotting away saying it was upgrade in 1990 and found out it wasnt and was the original lines they laid in the 80s in the city. TWC rebuilt the entire city from the ground up.
Toledo- the Block's have been here forever! but it wasn't until the Ohio VSA act went into affect they started to really expand. The were overbuilding well before then though but never really turned the lines on for resell only used them as back haul for their Business telephone services (which they're a CLEC in Ohio- but without all the fees ATT has).
Pretty much everyone moved into take over other small providers and Ohio is what it is with them.
But yes i do argue that cable did not get cash like the telcos did and still get millions of dollars a year for their falling landline business from the USF fees.
cable should not have the cap they do and Comcast is doing the right thing for suing the FCC. If the FCC wants to cap cable they need to cap VZ and ATT and all of the other phone companies--including the Co-Ops and the mom-and pop too that want to be TV providers too. | |
|
| | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Respect property rights It does matter, even though you want to believe that it doesn't. This isn't the People's Republic... a company's assets aren't a piggy bank for the consumerism-fevered. | |
|
| | | 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by hottboiinnc :and we want the same thing with ATT and Bell South and every other phone company building out a new network. I like that idea!
said by hottboiinnc :And we want ATT and VZ to bring back ALL the jobs they outsourced over the years, Toledo has a nice office downtown that used to be staffed, i'm sure we could find some people here in town to go work there again. If providers had to compete head-to-head like you're describing, then providers would likely have to do this.
Certainly, we can start expanding these footprints -- you can't do that with outsourced jobs.
said by hottboiinnc :by the way--Comcast didnt use tax payer money or anything from the feds to build out- they shouldn't be required to share like the Bells. Not "from the feds," maybe true. However, "their" network sits on significant public and private (non-Comcast) property.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- World Traveller -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... | |
|
| | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
1 edit | Re: I say let 'em grow. and the bell's network sits on the public land as well.
and how do you figure when you expand you have to outsource? no you don't. there are plenty of people in this country that would work for these companies, Just they all want to be union and make $25+ an hour plus get free healthcare. | |
|
| | | MrSpock29
join:2008-02-09
Hammonton, NJ
| said by hottboiinnc :And we want ATT and VZ to bring back ALL the jobs they outsourced over the years, Toledo has a nice office downtown that used to be staffed, i'm sure we could find some people here in town to go work there again. Best thing to do is complain to your representatives in Congress, and ask them to make things more competitive for businesses to succeed. Having the 2nd highest corporate tax rates in the world, BEFORE hiking taxes again, is not the strategy for that.
This is why many companies lately have decided to move to Switzerland. | |
|
| | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: I say let 'em grow. and the banks are in DE. | |
|
| | |
asdf1234
@bellsouth.net | they attach to the same poles that the phone cos got all that money to place, and in the same utility easements they paid for. | |
|
| | 
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | You could put it up on BitTorrent for all of us to read. | |
|
| |
| | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: I say let 'em grow. To be precise, they can sell-off areas that earn less profit, making room under the cap to buy new companies where the profit potential is higher. They've recently sold-off northern New England, for that very reason. | |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Law Suite Everyone knew this was going to come. The FCC tired it before and it was shot down by the courts. Time for the Courts to put the FCC back in its place.
Way to go Comcast! | |
|
|
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Re: Law Suite Suite law man!!!!
Suit* | |
|
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | You do realize that Comcast has sued the FCC for all of its decisions against the company. | |
|
| | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: Law Suite yes and they should. they have the right.. you have the right to sue them (regardless if its right or wrong) and they have the right to sue someone else. but i'm sure you're in favor of Comcast having a market cap but ATT and VZ doesn't. I'm sure your also okay with WM stores giving their employees pay caps too--but thats another topic. | |
|
| | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Law Suite said by hottboiinnc :but i'm sure you're in favor of Comcast having a market cap but ATT and VZ doesn't. No, I'm not in favor of ATT and VZ having different rules. I do understand what happened (the FCC trying to make things "fairer" by reducing Telco regulation and increasing cable regulation, but the rules still treated them like apples and oranges instead of apples and apples). The FCC failed.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- World Traveller -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... | |
|
| | | bac522
join:2003-08-04
Manchester, NH
| said by hottboiinnc :yes and they should. they have the right.. you have the right to sue them (regardless if its right or wrong) Yeah...except in this case it's the suit is paid for by the American tax payer, so for every suit Comcast files, the American citizens have to cover the court cost. So not only does Comcast screw us one way with their services, but now they are doing it in the courts! | |
|
UofMiamiGrad
Premium
join:2001-02-03
Great Neck, NY | Close Terrestial Loophole & Let Them Grow FCC should allow them to get bigger, but the terrestial loophole should be closed, so they can't screw rivals out of programming customers want. See if Comcast wants CSN HD in Philly all over the place, as well as CSN-NW HD. Bet they balk. | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| Re: Close Terrestial Loophole & Let Them Grow said by UofMiamiGrad :FCC should allow them to get bigger, but the terrestial loophole should be closed, so they can't screw rivals out of programming customers want. See if Comcast wants CSN HD in Philly all over the place, as well as CSN-NW HD. Bet they balk. Bravo! Bravo! and I don't mean the cable network. Not only should the terrestial loophole be closed but Comcast should be required to share any cable network it owns or partially owns on a non-discriminatory basis even with its competitors before it's allowed to exceed the 30% threshold. That's only fair. | |
|
| MrSpock29
join:2008-02-09
Hammonton, NJ
| said by UofMiamiGrad :FCC should allow them to get bigger, but the terrestial loophole should be closed, so they can't screw rivals out of programming customers want. See if Comcast wants CSN HD in Philly all over the place, as well as CSN-NW HD. Bet they balk. You read my mind. The FCC had a big hand in letting Comcast monopolize an area with the CSN Philly here, as none of the sat providers are allowed to carry it in SD or HD. And they have asked. The terrestrial loophole is stupid at its core, hurts competition, and consumers. The FCC doesn't see it as their issue though. They told me to go to Congress. | |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
1 edit | As the cop said in the Larry Craig case, "no wonder we're going down the tubes!"
All this talk in favor of allowing Comcast to control markets because they have the means is a 'might makes right' mentality born of - and in - ignorance of history. Sensible regulation isn't socialism; in fact, it's just the opposite: it's the only wall between us and fascism. But the sheeple buy into the endless 'smaller govt' mantra (rather than take control of THEIR govt.) and then wonder why everything is in the sh*tter when the dust settles and the corporations have their pe*ker up your arse.
History teaches people nothing.
-
EDIT: grammar
-- | |
|
|
See 27 replies to this post |
|
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | economy By not letting cable companies compete in other territories you're basically crippling the economy. | |
|
erikthebean
join:2007-06-25
Manchester, NH | Let Them Grow I say let Comcast grow..if they can afford it awesome!! Just as long as other companies are allowed to go into the same territories i don't see the issue. Its when only Comcast is allowed in a territory..now that's an issue. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Just some facts "The FCC was also pretty cozy with AT&T and Verizon when it came to changing the video franchise system so the telcos could selectively deploy TV services in the most profitable regions. The cable industry got no such relief, most municipalities forcing operators to deploy into less profitable rural areas (and municipal buildings) if they wanted to do business."
I know in my state statewide franchising rules apply to ALL. | |
|
|
juicebox00
@verizon.net
| Re: Just some facts wow. no statewide video franchise in PA. we are just starting to see FiOS and some smaller FTTP companies penetrate the existing incumbent CATV areas. As many also know the rural areas are skipped by incumbent CATV providers so choice is limited to Dish or DTV or OTA etc. Now politics come into play that have the a bigger goal of padding bank accounts more so than providing competition in the market.....sad but true... | |
|
FiOS LIVE
So fast, it's LIVE
join:2008-11-25
Collegeville, PA
| Before they start spreading their wings... Comcast needs to take care of their internal network before they can tackle adding on. Cable nodes need to be restructured and not continually overloaded to the point where their current customers have to be capped, throttled, and have their HD PQ compressed because of lack of bandwidth.
It also wouldn't hurt to be deploying FTTP for new rollouts because let's face it..you can't milk those last mile copper lines forever. Of course the blame doesn't exclusively fall on Comcast but to every cable or telco that thinks they can keep on milking copper to the point where it limits and restricts the end users.
--
AT&T + Comcast
Your world. Destroyed.
Throttle and put a cap on it. It's Comcastic! | |
|
DrModem
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA | Only Two Fair Courses of Action 1. Cap telecoms at 30% also.
2. Uncap cable.
I'd prefer 1, but 2 is much easier to implement. | |
|
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | Re: How about overbuilders Agreed. Maybe then places like Denver would have competition, rather than a Comcast monopoly for internet with decent upload... | |
|
| JohnSJ
join:2004-08-14
Lafayette, LA
| UH...sorry, there is no sucha thing as an exclusive cable contract. That was done years ago at the federal level and was excruciatingly rare years before that.
Overbuilders like RCN can build anywhere they find it profitable. Unhappily they generally do not find it profitable and RCN is drifting toward the drain.
Unpleasant truth time: the reason that there is only one cable provider in almost all cases has nothing to do with any legal impediments at all and everything to do with the fact that the cable business is a natural monopoly. The rational thing to do would be to treat it like other utilities and regulate it or turn it over to municipalities...
The reason that the 30% cap was imposed was precisely to try and keep monopolistic consolidation from occuring. Trouble is, from the standpoint of the consumer it already has. Do you have more than one choice of cable provider? Thought so. | |
|
| |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: How about overbuilders said by JohnSJ :UH...sorry, there is no sucha thing as an exclusive cable contract. That was done years ago at the federal level and was excruciatingly rare years before that. bullshit I KNOW for a FACT my local franchise authority signs exclusive deals. | |
|
| |
jsz0
join:2008-01-23
Jewett City, CT | Uncap it. As much as people bitch about Comcast there are lots of (mostly rural) cable providers who are far, far worse who might be happy to sell out to Comcast since they aren't willing to invest the money required to compete. | |
|
| |
|
mustang46
join:2005-05-06
Roseville, MI | Set to begin legal fight with FCC over growth cap... How ironic...Comcast doesn't like caps on them...but it's ok to cap us? | |
|
| Lion84
join:2007-08-10
Marietta, GA | Re: Set to begin legal fight with FCC over growth cap... My same thought. How about eliminating the FCC cap on Comcast growth if Comcast eliminates their monthly usage caps? | |
|
| 
Aozora
join:2008-11-28
·Comcast
| said by mustang46 :How ironic...Comcast doesn't like caps on them...but it's ok to cap us? Caps hinder their possible increase in profit like caps hinder our possible greater enjoyment.
To be frank, I think TV is already severely overpriced due to lack of competition and thus I do not purchase Cable TV or Satellite TV. People think one or two choices is very competitive. How many of you out there have more than one cable company to choose from? I know I don't and I live in Chicago. RCN serves only the parts of the city they found they wanted to serve. I am very in the city but they don't service my area.
Television is not a big concern for me as I am not that deeply addicted to television. I prefer Japanese anime which is hardly found in any USA network along with a few select shows like House M.D. I am more concern currently about the cell phone market which I am more affected by. The lack of competition pricing shows clearly there. The cell phone market really operates like a cartel. The television market is of similar degree, but like I said, I am not interested in television.
I think the anti monopoly regulation is fine but it needs to be expanded to telcos. A 30% market share means few are competing against it. Even worse is that VERY, VERY FEW are competing against it in the same state or county. That is ridiculously anti consumer. Lack of competition means higher prices, less inovation, and less choice for consumers.
Frankly, if I was the one making all the money I would also be fighting for expansion. Depending on what side you are on that determines what side you chose. | |
|
| | rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| Re: Set to begin legal fight with FCC over growth cap... The cell phone market is highly competitive. There used to be seven national providers (not all served the whole nation). Now there are 5. That's still more than the three needed for baseline national competition. And four of them are available in every continental state.
AT&T,Verizion,Sprint,T-Mobile
I can't believe you just claimed there is no competition in cell phones. There is plenty of competition, the problem with pricing is that the market itself is still growing resulting in increasing subscribers and revenue regardless of pricing (not that pricing hasn't come way down since cell phones started, because if you were older than 18 you would know how much cell phones used to cost). For the first time a national provider failed to grow last quarter. As a result price competition is beginning to take hold and prices should bottom out to the lowest price point possible. But that doesn't mean prices are high. On the contrary prices are pretty low given the massive infrastructure and it's maintenance costs. I wouldn't expect prices to fall below the cost of a landline + unlimited long distance plan. There is a baseline cost that must be recouped, and the constant upgrading of systems is costly. | |
|
| | | lynxy
join:2003-07-27
Danvers, MA
1 edit | Re: Set to begin legal fight with FCC over growth cap... don't count Sprint, they cannot survive with loses they have, so we have 3 now | |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
1 edit | I'm wondering... If Comcast got bigger, a lot bigger, what would stop them from using their market position for exclusive deals, basically taking channels off the market? I'm wondering if a cable operator like Comcast could get so big that channels could be purchased off of competitor networks. It could be completely 'legit' and a very lucrative deal for those channels...but what about the consumers who are then in a sense denied a choice other than take it or leave it.
That would be my concern. I don't want channels falling to NFL Sunday Ticket like exclusivity. I think these media ownership rules exist in part to prevent this type of problem. And rather than abolish it, the FCC should apply it to all video services including Verizon and AT&T. | |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Too Big To Fail So now we are witnessing another company that wants to grow to the point where they are so big, that they cannot be allowed to fail and will therefore require massive bailouts someday. Hopefully somebody smart will apply the new "too big to fail" rule and tell them they are big enough.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
lynxy
join:2003-07-27
Danvers, MA | Comcast should fight to keep their 27 percent Comcast should fight to keep their 27 percent since FIOS takes their customers | |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Split comcast? Is there anything preventing Comcast from splitting into two separate entities? Say Comcast East and Comcast West. That would allow them to grow until those companies hit 30% again (individually). | |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
|  Keep this in mind whenever you wonder about what Comcast ...
| |
|
|
|
|
Comcast Fights - For Its Right - To Get Bigger
·
Nuts!
What difference does it make what percentage of the market Comcast controls in view of the fact they are a monopoly in each market. It would be different if Comcast was trying to control all media like newspapers in one area.