  LokerPremium
join:2004-07-11
Fargo, ND | Better hope.... once Comcast hits 30% competition is out the window....everyone will be stuck with the telco tv offerings whenever they get around to getting it launched in more than 5% of their areas...(that number was pulled out of my butt....I think that is a fair assessment of areas that have TV service from a telco though....)
--
"While preceding your entrance with a grenade is a good tactic inQuake, it can lead to problems if attempted at work." -- C Hacking | |
|
 | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | Re: Better hope.... said by Loker:once Comcast hits 30% competition is out the window.... what competition? we don't have competition now. There is the pretend, FCC competition (200k/200k definition for broadband, one connection in a zip code means the whole zip is serviced; oh, and don't forget BPL!)
yeah, yeah, we got telco video, but ATT is a crippled offering and prices are already going up for verizon video customers - doesn't smell like competition to me.
comcast going over 30% won't mean a damn thing. Martin just wants to suck up even more to the telcos. After all, he is thinking about running for political office (in NC, I think). | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Bright House
| said by Loker:once Comcast hits 30% competition is out the window....everyone will be stuck with the telco tv offerings whenever they get around to getting it launched in more than 5% of their areas...(that number was pulled out of my butt....I think that is a fair assessment of areas that have TV service from a telco though....) Well, the only problem I see with your logic, is if you consider multiple telco providers can, and do, service an area, yet cable companies don't, then ask why... Basically, to provide the service, it is going to cost the same for both providers, so it's not possible to get much cheaper, hence your dish cost a few dollars more, or less, depending on your area, which location is another factor. Some cities have 2 or more cable providers, but neither is much different in price. Telco's, however, have ways of "cutting corners" on prices, by delivering their call on their own network, etc.. Nobody's restricting cable companies from building in areas where another one is present, it's just simply not a practical, or financially beneficial thing to do. Competition doesn't always grant peoples wishes. Personally, if another cable company sprung up in Jacksonville, I would be interested to see the cost difference. I doubt it would be much, because I take calls for an area where Knology is in the same area, and I hear people constantly say the prices are the same, and honestly, the cost for TV there is more than here.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
|
| | | | Re: Better hope.... said by phattieg:Well, the only problem I see with your logic, is if you consider multiple telco providers can, and do, service an area, yet cable companies don't, then ask why... Not for long.
Verizon doesn't have to share their fiber and is pulling copper fromhomes that get FIOS service. | |
|
| | | Competition? Where?
All we have is cable and satellite and satellite Internet stinks, so we have cable for T.V. and Internet, there is no competition. | |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| How funny Comcast opposes caps? How ironic.
Seriously though, I think caps would be a good idea for competition, IF it applied to all businesses regulated by the FCC. Verizon and ATT being held to 30% of the phone and DSL markets sounds good to me. And there needs to be an explanation of why they picked 30%. That's the right number if you want 4 major companies. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: How funny BINGO! | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Agreed. The 30% cap is irrelevant because it doesn't increase competition since CATV provider mostly don't compete with each other. I don't believe the telcos should be capped either because they don't compete with each other. Let's not forget the satellite tv option that competes with everyone. | |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | But the FCC thinks it's OK if a teleco owns more than 30% of the phone market. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here? By the way if AT&T ever got their TV offering available to all of their market wouldn't that exceed much more than the 30% cap the FCC is putting on cable? | |
|
| | | Re: But the FCC said by BF69:thinks it's OK if a teleco owns more than 30% of the phone market. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here? By the way if AT&T ever got their TV offering available to all of their market wouldn't that exceed much more than the 30% cap the FCC is putting on cable? Your forgetting that phones are a utility while cable tv is a luxury | |
|
| | | | Re: But the FCC said by meowmeow :
Your forgetting that phones are a utility while cable tv is a luxury
What difference does that make? They're still both run by large, greedy corporations.
It's not like telco is angelic because they provide a necessary utility. | |
|
| | |  RideRedVista needs a popup blocker for VistaPremium
join:2005-06-18
USA
2 edits | Re: But the FCC The word UTILITY.
The difference is that telephone service has HUGE government oversight, tariff requirements, etc, they have to go the PUC anytime they want anything (like a price increase).
If Verizon were at 30% in video they would be subject to the same ownership limitations.
--
There's only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: But the FCC And cable companies will be subject to a 30% cap for video AND phone, while phone companies will not. It's not like a cable company is going to move into an area to just offer phone and no video.
So at this point, I doubt that phone companies will even see the 30% cap for video, for the "sake of competition." | |
|
| | | | | RideRedVista needs a popup blocker for VistaPremium
join:2005-06-18
USA | Re: But the FCC said by smcallah:And cable companies will be subject to a 30% cap for video AND phone, while phone companies will not. Phone companies are subject to the same pay TV subscriber caps.
--
There's only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. | |
|
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: But the FCC How?
Where does it say that.. and where have it been mentioned...? No policy has yet to be written.. it's a 'desire to' at this moment.
Further.. do you really think they are going to be able to tell ATT who has FAR more than 30% of the nations homes will have to simply halt their roll outs because they hit 30%?
That's silly.. just like the cap.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown | |
|
| | | | | | | RideRedVista needs a popup blocker for VistaPremium
join:2005-06-18
USA
2 edits | Re: But the FCC The caps aren't "homes passed" it's "current subscribers" so AT&T being in 35% of homes is irrelevant.
But no fear, as Verizon and AT&T deploy, the total number of subscribers increases (slightly because they'll typically just be stealing subs from DBS and cable) thus decreasing Comcast's share of that increasing total. Additionally, despite Comcast's best efforts they will certainly lose subscribers to telco and DBS video competition just as the telcos have lost subscribers to cable telephone competition.
The only thing this is going to do to Comcast is stop them from continuing to gobble up new cable systems. It has zero impact on their current business or other sources of revenue (telephone, possibly cellular, internet, etc).
This cap is only a horizontal ownership cap, not a vertical one. Comcast is free to expand their business into other sectors like cellular should they choose to.
--
There's only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. | |
|
| | | | | | But Cable/IPTV and Internet are not. So they can enforce the numbers for those if they set one.
But i agree. No one phone company should control more than 30% of the nations telephone services regardless if they're a utility or not. | |
|
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Please. How are phones any more utility than CATV? The arbitrary "utility" decision was made long ago before CATV existed. | |
|
| | | mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA | Re: But the FCC
That has nothing to do with how something is considered a utility.
A phone is a utility because it is needed to get emergency assistance... fire, police, etc. Last I checked, TV's could not make outgoing phone calls. | |
|
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: But the FCC Ok but in relevance to this topic, why should that matter in regards to capping a provider's market share? | |
|
| | | | | | yes but with tv, you get weather/natural disaster information. | |
|
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by meowmeow :said by BF69:thinks it's OK if a teleco owns more than 30% of the phone market. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here? By the way if AT&T ever got their TV offering available to all of their market wouldn't that exceed much more than the 30% cap the FCC is putting on cable? Your forgetting that phones are a utility while cable tv is a luxury AT&Ts Tv service isn't a utility. And if offered in all of its markets would exceed 30%. AT&T TV whatever it's called, Verizon's FIOS and cable all bring TV into the home for a fee. So why shouldn't the same rules apply to all? | |
|
| | | LokerPremium
join:2004-07-11
Fargo, ND | Re: But the FCC said by BF69:said by meowmeow :said by BF69:thinks it's OK if a teleco owns more than 30% of the phone market. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here? By the way if AT&T ever got their TV offering available to all of their market wouldn't that exceed much more than the 30% cap the FCC is putting on cable? Your forgetting that phones are a utility while cable tv is a luxury AT&Ts Tv service isn't a utility. And if offered in all of its markets would exceed 30%. AT&T TV whatever it's called, Verizon's FIOS and cable all bring TV into the home for a fee. So why shouldn't the same rules apply to all? because they pay out more money than the cable companies.....we all know politicians go to the highest bidder anymore....
--
"While preceding your entrance with a grenade is a good tactic inQuake, it can lead to problems if attempted at work." -- C Hacking | |
|
 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit |  Cable has some legit grievances; and some not
And the STB issue, especially by Comcast, is bogus. They were given an opportunity to address that MANY times, but have drug their feet.
And as far as a la carte is concerned, the cable companies can keep their tiers, but also provide a la carte(but at the prices they claim would be justified under a la carte). And the FCC should stay out of pricing decisions completely.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
|  tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5 | Re: Cable has some legit grievances; and some not I don't see what a limits on nationwide ownership accomplishes. There are certain economies of scale.
What matters are how many First-Mile service providers are in a given area.
/Tom | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | TCH,
Let me point out your shortfalls here..
The easiest one.. ala cart. This is a 100% bogus argument and the congress or FCC has NO authority to structure business models. If they touch this, they are 1) over stepping - as they usually do, and 2) interfering with free enterprise.
First off, it's not cable who sets the rules on channel sales, it's the networks who impose those rules. I know it's easy for people to bash cable all the time, but I tend to ignore those that don't bother to open their ears, eyes, and brains and do some research. Cable must do what they are told. They don't own all the channels.. some cable operators don't own any. They do what they are told in contracts of carriage.
I agree with ANY government intervention of cable packaging just like I do with them telling the grocery store they MUST sell one slice of bread - and not the whole loaf. Government has NO RIGHT to tell a business how to sell and package their products. I don't care where they've done it - spare me the stories.. they always overstep their boundaries.
Second - a lot of the deregulation has been the key to bringing you fast HSI speeds, DVR, digital services, and more. When you regulate a company, you stifle growth. Our government has grown WAY beyond it's reach.. with every law, ever regulation, and every so-called action they do, they further reach into areas they have no business in the first place.
Finally - the STB. Again.. this is another example of government finger fu**ing things they shouldn't. I simply don't agree with the so-called rights of public outcry for the use of their own box over the rights of an industry to make a product and sell it. Cable was fought by government from day one. Now that cable has made an industry and has done well for itself, everyone else wants a piece of it.
There are ways for government to work around these issue if they want to get involved. One way is to stop writing exclusive agreements - end them! Another is to incent the incumbent to work them. After all, they wrote the contract they now don't like, it's up to government to work with cable and stop acting like a criminal bully them self. Finally, open and level the playing field for others to compete and make it worth their while to build with conditions. This is where you get change.
Forcing the hand of anyone is, in my opinion, CRIMINAL. As far as I'm concerned, this government has been operating damn near like the common criminal. According to our great leader alone, the constitution is nothing but another piece of paper.
Oh yea.. since I'm accused of being republican or democrat or even the independence party.. I'm neither. I'm libertarian. I believe that the government has a specific roll and needs to get back to doing what their job is.. and NOTHING else.
My views of cable have NOTHING to do with my past - it ALL has to do with the level of involvement of the government in breaking the very laws we live by.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown | |
|
steven sPremium
join:2002-09-14
Dearborn, MI | . Why is it okay that the telcos can own more than half of the landlines, but cable can't exceed 30% of cable customers? | |
|
|
approval from:
jgkolt 
| Re: . Your forgetting that phones are a utility while cable tv is a luxury | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: . So then a luxury should be regulated heavier than a utility? That makes a lot of sense!
SBC was able to buy SBC and then Bell South because the "landscape of communications has significantly changed due to competition from cable and wireless providers..." What I find ironic from that is the wireless providers ARE the telephone companies, for the most part, and the cable portion of that very competition is threatened to be held at 30%.
Government needs to do it's job better, no.. wait. Government needs to do their job, period! Government is supposed to be impartial to any side of anything. They are supposed to lay the ground for which business can operate. They are not supposed to take sides, they are not supposed to stand in the way of valid business either.
This government is getting WAY out of hand and WAY over reaching any more these days. If this particular move on the part of FCC Boss isn't clear that government is out of control, then I don't know what to say.
We're becoming a joke in the world very quickly.. soon, we are going to have to change the sign under out golden arches from "The land of the free" to "The land of Do what you're told... because we're the government"..
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown | |
|
| | |  MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2 | Re: . I hear you fiberguy . With all that being said, I can't think of a better argument against Nationwide franchises that our government would be in charge of mediating. | |
|
| | | RideRedVista needs a popup blocker for VistaPremium
join:2005-06-18
USA | Are you trying to make the argument that the CATV industry is more regulated that the landline telephone industry?
I don't think for 2 seconds that Brian "Leased BMW" Roberts would want Comcast to fall under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission. That would put a cramp in his yearly double digit price increases.
--
There's only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. | |
|
| | | |
See 10 replies to this post |
|
| | | | | you mean sbc bought at&t and kept the at&t name. | |
|
| RideRedVista needs a popup blocker for VistaPremium
join:2005-06-18
USA | said by steven s:Why is it okay that the telcos can own more than half of the landlines, but cable can't exceed 30% of cable customers? Landlines are regulaed by the public utilities commissions in each state providing FAR more government oversight than CATV sees.
Landlines and CATV are apples and oranges...the cable industry lobbied hard to make it that way.
--
There's only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: . And do you know what caps do?
Ask anyone in the MediaCom areas. I hear a similar statement spoke regularly.. "I wish comcast or TimeWarner would buy us".. why? Because MediaCom has hit it's limits. They are not cash rich, they serve mostly rural and smaller areas, and their customer base will long suffer because of it.
Why doesn't comcast or TWC come into MC areas? They are held back by these threatened caps. Why doesn't Cox come in? That's a step down for them and they aren't stong enough to handle those areas where players like Comcast and TWC is. In the long run, those MediaCom customers are under served and will remain to be under served so long as these caps get passed. Charter is another example of areas and customers who are harmed by caps.
It was mergers and growth of the power players that have driven the way for cable customers in this country. Mergers in todays climate is ok since there IS heat from another industry. Until AT&T came in, do you think Bell South customers were singing praise or the blues?
These are the little things that people like you who argue for caps because you hate an industry don't think about. I usually call this selfish wishing.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown | |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX | Does it matter? Does it really matter how much of the country as a whole any particular operator covers? Surely, what is more important is how many options are available to any particular subscriber. Two companies, each covering 100% of the country, would give everyone a choice, whereas you could have ten companies each with 10% of the market and no one has any choice. | |
|
|  ftthzIf love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | Re: Does it matter? only to telcos and cable operators maybe internet tv in the future | |
|
| | I have Comcast now and we have no other broadband/cable choice. We are in 98065. 'nuff said. | |
|
| | down with him fire him!!! What the world??!!! They wanna limit a cable op to 30% sheesh!!!Im lookin for time warner to come here not to be limited and say forget kentucky we don't wanna waste our 30% on that low population!!!Someone may need to fire this guy...Seriously fire him!!!! | |
|
 Dominokat"Hi"Premium
join:2002-08-06
Boothbay, ME
kudos:2 | Verizon How much can Verizons FIOS TV have? 100% is my guess. | |
|
| | | Re: Verizon I would imagine that it's at least partially because the cable companies are the incumbents when it comes to cable services, often with franchise monopolies granted by local governments.
I greatly disapprove of the FCC favoring incumbent telcos against CLECs and against cable companies selling phone service. (Though, for the most part the FCC has defended cablecos selling phone service; see some of their actions in SC the last two weeks.)
However, I can't get too upset about the FCC encouraging cable TV competition by the telcos. Especially not when Verizon TV is still a miniscule part of the market right now. Yeah, they have raised rates for TV, but around the rate of inflation, unlike Comcast and others. I also get more channels for less money than I would with Cox here, or people near me do with Comcast.
Verizon's nowhere near 100% market share in TV, and not going to get there anytime soon. The competitive upstart in a market always (should) get lighter regulation. The telcos are heavily regulated in the voice area, wheras the cablecos aren't. The cablecos are more regulated in the TV area. That's as it should be. | |
|
 PashuneCaps stifle innovationPremium
join:2006-04-14
Gautier, MS | Aye.. So much for my hopes of Comcast taking over the ridiculously expensive Cable One in my area.. | |
|
 Vodka2
join:2005-12-20
Sacramento, CA | A few observations. So, the FCC wants no one cable operator to control no more than 30% of cable subscribers? I believe Comcast likely has that, if not more. Oh well, they'll spin off a division, wait for the Republicans to take over and eat it all again. Comcast was part of AT&T at one time, if I remember right. Who knows...
Make it interesting, 20%. Hell, 15%. No, 10%!!! That'll piss off Wall Street. FCC loves doing that.
I wonder why they don't mention satellite there. Dish and DirecTV would both scream bloody murder as they try to spin off. That would be fun to watch. Add satellite radio to the mix, whoo! The newly-merged Sirius & XM would STAB people over that.
FCC's definition of broadband sucks, agreed. There should be a "WAN port to first gateway" round trip minimum at the least, as well as at LEAST 384kbit down /256kbit up speeds. At LEAST.
And for the coup de gras... which will get tomato thrown at me:
Should Tier 1 backbone carriers be held to that 30% maxima too? *giggles, runs from the Tier 1 folks* | |
|
| Vodka2
join:2005-12-20
Sacramento, CA | Re: A few observations. Just an addendum... unless your local franchise allows for multiple cable operators to exist, there is no such thing whatsoever as cable competition. To my knowledge there are only two towns in America that have this. I should also note, the prices are beautiful in those towns.  | |
|
 NiarlanExcelsiorPremium
join:2002-11-09
Manville, NJ | Nobody gets it.... I've read through all the posts here and nobody has brought up WHY there is a cap on media ownerships.
The reason is the same for newspapers...you don't want just one side of the story. If TWC...you know the guys who have CNN were the only news you could get in your area then you would only get their spin on the news.
And God forbid that you could only get FOX news!
Its not the phone, it's not the HSI, it's the news media that's capped. When you own the news outlets...papers/cable/Sat you are subject to ownership limits for that reason.
Nia | |
|
| | Free speech not consumer rights If i recall right, the 30% cap on PayTV (not just cable) is intended to ensure that no one company can control the media - it's not an issue of consumer rights, pricing or competition but one of maintaining diversity of access. Comcast argued in their submission a few weeks back that due to internet based access to media sources that the 30% cap should no longer apply as this argument is invalidated. Strictly, the 30% level is not currently allowed since being struck down buy federal appeals court in March 2001 but is informally maintained by the FCC through merger conditions. | |
|
 Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1 | Our only hope is that those wishing for more cable ownership get what's coming to them so they finally get the message. Give Comcast 75% or total run of the whole shebang for that matter. I can't wait to hear the same morons mewling over their just deserts ... | |
|
| | How bout this angle? Utilities are governed by REGULATORY commissions.
So maybe comcast should be classified as such.
then any rate increases must be approved by committee after review. | |
|
|
|
