 
kba4
join:2001-10-23
Akron, OH
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| now's a great time to use that rural penetration data as flawed as it is, now is a great time to utilize that broadband-penetration data that the FCC has been gathering all these years with the 'help' of the providers! it's gonna come back and bite those ISP's and Video providers in the ass now, cause they'll have to make a decision on how they want to spin the data: do they want to pretend that an entire zip code has access now based on one address or be real and say 'wait maybe our reports are wrong'... either way they're sure to back themselves into a corner now 
--
illegal wars, prisoners with no trials, and state controlled media. welcome to the land of the free! | |
|
 | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
 ·Cruzio Internet
| Re: now's a great time to use that rural penetration data I want a choice for cable tv operator. I dont want to pay for 20 spanish channels so thier "partners" can advertise/market the illegal aliens.
I dont want 20 different sports channels.
I dont want reality, soap opera, or cooking channels.
Ole` Ala Carte | |
|
| | jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
 ·Dreamhost
·Armstrong Zoom In..
| Re: now's a great time to use that rural penetration data said by gaforces  :I want a choice for cable tv operator. I dont want to pay for 20 spanish channels so thier "partners" can advertise/market the illegal aliens. I dont want 20 different sports channels. I dont want reality, soap opera, or cooking channels. Ole` Ala Carte I agree, I would like a choice of cable provider. But I would also like a choice of phone service. Maybe if Verizon were to offer service in AT&T land, AT&T would get off thier asses and start pushing fiber.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | | 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: now's a great time to use that rural penetration data said by jimbo2150 : I agree, I would like a choice of cable provider. But I would also like a choice of phone service. Maybe if Verizon were to offer service in AT&T land, AT&T would get off thier asses and start pushing fiber. Hold on there. Verizon must wire me for FIOS before they take on at&t in a money losing situation. | |
|
| | | | 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse
| Re: now's a great time to use that rural penetration data I disagree. I used Verizon (and then a VZ line reseller) in Florida, and I was much happier than I am now that I'm stuck with AT&T.
That said.....damn, did the FCC Chairman get raped by a cable company employee when he was a kid? Why are they b*tch slapping the cable industry, while caving to telcos at every turn? I'm all for competition, but if you are going to overly-regulate one side, do the same to the other.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
|
| | | | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: now's a great time to use that rural penetration data said by Camelot One :I disagree. I used Verizon (and then a VZ line reseller) in Florida, and I was much happier than I am now that I'm stuck with AT&T. That said.....damn, did the FCC Chairman get raped by a cable company employee when he was a kid? Why are they b*tch slapping the cable industry, while caving to telcos at every turn? I'm all for competition, but if you are going to overly-regulate one side, do the same to the other. TPC is the provider of last resort and must provide service to anyone at a government set price. Isn't that a quaint idea? | |
|
| | | | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| said by Camelot One :That said.....damn, did the FCC Chairman get raped by a cable company employee when he was a kid? Why are they b*tch slapping the cable industry, while caving to telcos at every turn? I'm all for competition, but if you are going to overly-regulate one side, do the same to the other. I noticed that as well. Verizon FiOS has been getting some latitude for implementing fiber *and* for not trying to short-circuit the government process *as much as* AT&T (Verizon used to be worse than they are now, but they took a congenial attitude during this rollout, which no doubt was a wise decision). However, Comcast also did a pretty decent fiber rollout recently. FCC has allowed cable companies to go all digital, which I keep advocating and advocating that they (cables) *not* buy any more sub-XVID quality boxes, but other than that I noticed they (cables & FCC) are not on best terms.
I think part of the game being played here is that AT&T charges less for their crap than Comcast does for their comparatively better stuff, so FCC is giving AT&T extra latitude. I think they need to start leveling and equalizing the playing field, though, making rules that are more specific for what they intend rather than rules that are more technical in nature that are only supposed to have certain side effects (made difficult by a variety of different delivery methods). However, that would take accountings: how much gov't and monopoly customer investment went into each network, etc.. If we looked at everything, there'd be some interesting resultant data for who should be doing what.
It seems to me there are a lot of factors, not just garbage politics, but us armchair readers here can really see a lot of shots missing TPC and being shot at the cables.
I'm not quick to assume FCC's shots are entirely wrong, though -- far from it. | |
|
| | | | | GPSrob
join:2007-05-21
1 edit | Camelot One on 2007-11-10 at 19:49:37 said:
That said.....damn, did the FCC Chairman get raped by a cable company employee when he was a kid? Why are they b*tch slapping the cable industry, while caving to telcos at every turn? I'm all for competition, but if you are going to overly-regulate one side, do the same to the other. Get a clue. You obviously have no idea how thoroughly regulated telcos are.
The FCC IS doing, "the same to the other."
It is a shame that the FCC is bringing more regulation to cable companies instead of lessening regulation on telco, but the effect is the same. They're leveling the field. You really ought to consider CLEC (open/UNE telco networks vs cable's closed networks) and provider of last resort (telco must build, cable not so) requirements. Those regulations are very costly in terms of both capital (build out) and market share (competition from CLECs).
Since cable and telco are increasingly competitive with each other it is about time that the regulations are equally beneficial or burdensome. Please note that the recent TV franchise rules enacted have largely been tailored to be of benefit to both CATV and Telco; CATV primarily opposed them (sometimes they didn't) due to the fact that CATV already enjoyed a competitive advantage w/ local franchise agreements already in place. | |
|
| | 
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Yes, because everyone who speaks Spanish is an "illegal alien"  | |
|
| | | |
| | |
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
1 edit | Re: now's a great time to use that rural penetration data said by kapil :Yes, because everyone who speaks Spanish is an "illegal alien" No, mostly the mexican nationals who are here, who dont want to learn english.
I dont want to start or participate in a race war.
I dont care if they want cable channels, I dont want to have to pay for them. | |
|
| | 
Toropop
join:2001-11-11
Vancouver, WA
·Vonage
| said by gaforces :I want a choice for cable tv operator. I don't want to pay for 20 Spanish channels so their "partners" can advertise/market the illegal aliens. I don't want 20 different sports channels. I don't want reality, soap opera, or cooking channels. Ole` Ala Carte Whilst your comment about "illegal aliens" is completely inappropriate, I do have to agree with you about having to pay for Spanish-language channels.
Por ejemplo, Comcast just did a lineup "enhancement" here in the Portland Metro area. The enhancement included over 25 Spanish-language channels, 3 Filipino networks, a Farsi network, and additional HD channels, which consisted of The Golf Channel (no split with Versus), NFL Network, and some other channel that I can't think of right now. Point being, who the f**k watches that crap. I mean, I know who does, but it's highly unlikely that the 4 million plus subscribers here all prefer additional sports and Spanish-language channels (especially since we have a high Russian-speaking population). So where's the benefit to the customer?
Here's the kicker: did I mention that they jacked up the formerly-known Platinum package approximately $20/month. What used to cost $91 now costs $121. Oh, and HD is a separate package that costs $11.95. They also no longer offer Digital Classic, Digital Plus, Digital Silver, and Digital Gold. Basic has been reduced to 13 channels, and Expanded Basic is now reduced from 72 channels to 65. They also jacked up the price, too.
What's my point? I guess I don't have one and just really needed to vent.
Ain't feelin' so Comcastic now. | |
|
| jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | These are two differnt issues. On is cable programming, the other is "broadband" internet. Different issues. Some cable companies, s strange as this may sound, still do NOT offer internet access, on demand, or any high definition channels... | |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | what about the Deathstar? CABLE COMPANIES ARE TO BIG wait what?
*cough* AT&T *cough* | |
|
| 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| Re: what about the Deathstar? said by elios :CABLE COMPANIES ARE TO BIG wait what? *cough* AT&T *cough* Not big enough to lobby like T and VZ.
When the FCC gets balls, they sure are pretty selective about what outrages them, aren't they?
--
with every mistake we must surely be learning | |
|
| |
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: what about the Deathstar? im meh about Verizon FiOS is win but since im in AT&T land im kinda pissed about the lack of bandwidth here >.> Uverse is a joke and AT&T is bigger then most of the cable co.s put togeather | |
|
| | 
DarthVader
@rr.com
| A bit harsh? Aren't we? He's a typical government employed wimp! We live in the age of corruption and it can be seen in the highest layers of government and Law enforcement. Corruption is to be expected!
Just the other day a policeman pulled my wallet out of my hand during a traffic stop and lifted my cash(60 Bucks)!
....But I was doing 80 in a 50 and he let me off so I got off cheap!......So I keep my mouth shut! | |
|
| | | 
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: what about the Deathstar? said by DarthVader :
Just the other day a policeman pulled my wallet out of my hand during a traffic stop and lifted my cash(60 Bucks)!
I don't doubt your story, but you need to report that kind of activity. You may think you're pissing up a rope, but if enough civilians report this kind of behavior, the rotten cops eventually get their due.
By remaining silent, you just make the crooked cop's job that much easier.
The honest cops LOVE it when the crooked ones get the come uppance, trust me on that one.
It's your duty as a citizen to make a complaint...
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: what about the Deathstar? said by N3OGH :I don't doubt your story, but you need to report that kind of activity. If you travel to many Latin American and Asian countries it's common to "settle" (or expedite) dealings with government with a small bribe to the government worker. Americans have a gag reflex to this idea. But, I'm not sure which is better. We have a system where you have to buy the top guys to get them to intervene for you. In some ways I like the idea of cutting my own deals with another little guy like me. It has an element of distributing power (which we sorely lack).
Mark | |
|
| | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA | What location and what kind of PO? | |
|
| | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | That about sums it up...
I guess it will be Verison or AT&T after the FCC | |
|
| bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | I don't suppose the "rules are rules" advocates will step in here to defend the FCC now. | |
|
ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT | sigh Regulate cable ? You can start by regulating voIP to get dialtones on even playing ground.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...... | |
|
joeblob
@arlaw.com
| Bout time... Bows wholeheartedly to FCC. Thank you, Thank you...
It sucks that comcast holds a monopoly, yet they refuse to give thier customers the appropriate service to back it up.
I think, if you got a monopoly, you better have the service to back it up. It's marketing 101. If you got a hold on the market. You keep it by having the best products and customer relations in the industry. | |
|
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: Bout time... and we all KNOW that this same thing "fixed" MaBell RIGHT? | |
|
| whiteyonenh
join:2004-08-09
Keene, NH
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by joeblob :
I think, if you got a monopoly, you better have the service to back it up. It's marketing 101. If you got a hold on the market. You keep it by having the best products and customer relations in the industry.
I'm sitting here in amazement, as it seems that statement makes no sense. If a company has a monopoly, where do people turn if their service is crap. Don't say sattelite or dialup, for many having broadband is a must, and many don't have access to dsl either.
If a company has a monopoly on a certain thing, whats to say that they have to be good at it?
I do agree that companies need to be held accountable, but the current FCC thats pro-telco is a bunch of crap. There is nothing more that I would like to see as forcing the telcos to return the money that they have been leeching off the USF without increasing any buildout of new services, while cherry-picking the more lucrative markets.
Of course, I am also of the mindset that all government officials are bought, to the point that government isn't for the people anymore, it's all a government/corporate bureaucracy. | |
|
| | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Bout time... said by whiteyonenh :If a company has a monopoly, where do people turn if their service is crap. Should be the government agency that gives a company a monopoly. For example, with utilities it's the corporation commission. Maybe cable, city wi-fi, etc. should be considered utilities and subject to corporation commission oversight.
Mark | |
|
| | | whiteyonenh
join:2004-08-09
Keene, NH
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Bout time... said by amigo_boy :Should be the government agency that gives a company a monopoly. For example, with utilities it's the corporation commission. Maybe cable, city wi-fi, etc. should be considered utilities and subject to corporation commission oversight. Mark While I agree with you on your point, it's also the fact that many if not all areas are actually franchises overseen by the local franchise authority, the problem is, in many of the areas that have cable, if there is no other options for customers, what is the franchise authority supposed to do?
It's not like the franchise authority really has any kind of real power, as if these cable companies get pissed off enough, they can just pull out at the end of the franchise agreement.
I don't know how this is worded in other localities, but in mine it seems pretty black and white that if the cable company and local government cannot agree, the cable company has the option to leave at the end of the franchise agreement. While I agree somewhat on this, it gives the local governments very little negotiating power because in many rural areas, there is no other real option to broadband. I believe that many would agree that broadband opens doors for learning, jobs, and business success in an area. But at the same time, many franchise authorities are pretty much in one-sided contracts with the cable companies. If it's something that a cable company really doesn't want to do and it's not required in the current franchise agreement, they don't usually do it.
An example of this is that the local cable company for my area is stalling and balking at an increase to the franchise fees. They are stating that it will cause them to lose customers. Local community TV is about to be non-existent, as they have run out of funds. The city has been in discussions with the cable company for close to a year, asking for an increase from 0.75% to 2.5%. The head of the cable company supports local TV, and in the city that he lives in, the franchise fees are 5%. They have been discussing that the increase in the franchise fees will be on average $0.25 additional on each customers bill. Do they really think that people will switch to satellite over $0.25? I don't think that this is a valid point to stall the talks and play games with. Although in the event of having a franchise agreement, the city basically can't negotiate anything until the franchise renewal date, as it's basically a legally binding contract.
Another issue to think about is that many other cable companies will not build out a new system if they're not going to see relatively immediate returns on it, and thats true of most publicly owned companys, as investors want more of the here and now, and only being slightly ahead of everyone else. This is another reason why the current system is not working, as if the city/town were to kick the cable companies out, there could be serious economic repercussions from it, and it will take quite some time for another cable company to come into the area to service the customers.
I think the fttp system is the future, but only verizon seems to be putting it out on a semi-large scale, but what I don't agree with is that there is no build-out requirement or any kind of protections for the consumer, and therefore verizon gets to cherry-pick. It's also why they're trying to sell off my area to fairpoint, as it seems that they don't deem it profitable to roll out in certain areas, and yet they keep taking the USF dollars. | |
|
| | 
TomS_
debugger it
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-19
Australia
| said by whiteyonenh :If a company has a monopoly on a certain thing, whats to say that they have to be good at it? Because when competition does arrive they will lose a lot more customers than they would have lost if they had decent service and products to begin with.
Its easy enough to say they dont have to bother doing anything about it when theres no one else to turn to. Even a monkey could tell you that. But it WILL come around to bite them eventually. Then when they rush to pick up their game, it just looks like a half arsed attempt in the face of competition.
If they have decent service and products from the start, there is less incentive for people to get the shits and leave.
Analogy:
The same principal applies to Government. Unlike America, here in Australia any one Government can be voted in time after time. Unless that Government continues to do a good job, come election time they will be booted out by the voters in favour of any other party which looks like they can do a better job. This is about to happen in our upcomming Federal election. | |
|
| |
joeblob
@arlaw.com
| said by whiteyonenh :said by joeblob :
I think, if you got a monopoly, you better have the service to back it up. It's marketing 101. If you got a hold on the market. You keep it by having the best products and customer relations in the industry.
I'm sitting here in amazement, as it seems that statement makes no sense. If a company has a monopoly, where do people turn if their service is crap. Don't say sattelite or dialup, for many having broadband is a must, and many don't have access to dsl either. If a company has a monopoly on a certain thing, whats to say that they have to be good at it? I do agree that companies need to be held accountable, but the current FCC thats pro-telco is a bunch of crap. There is nothing more that I would like to see as forcing the telcos to return the money that they have been leeching off the USF without increasing any buildout of new services, while cherry-picking the more lucrative markets. Of course, I am also of the mindset that all government officials are bought, to the point that government isn't for the people anymore, it's all a government/corporate bureaucracy. Basically the guy below you nailed it..
But my response is that new products and services come from a need or diservice in the market. If you have consistently the best availible service and upgrading it on a reasonable basis to go above and beyond the needs of your customers then when someone comes up with a new idea they wouldn't dare market it because you've set the consumers bar of expectation so high that no one would dare try to compete with you.
Crushing competition through innovation. Novell idea huh? | |
|
| Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| said by joeblob :
Bows wholeheartedly to FCC. Thank you, Thank you...
It sucks that comcast holds a monopoly, yet they refuse to give thier customers the appropriate service to back it up. In my area Comcast service is nominal (from almost acceptable to good); sounds worse in yours. I think it differs by area. They are dedicated enough here to try to deliver. Most of the experience here is pretty good, with the very large exception of the penance owed monthly. | |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | ROFL Cable bills do not go down. they just don't. | |
|
| kommander
join:2003-11-03
Yakima, WA | Re: ROFL Neither do taxes | |
|
elister
join:2006-07-17
Seattle, WA
| Long Term Lease Agreements. If cable companies were able to make long term leases for channels (from the programmers themselves), then you wouldn't see rate increases for years. Prices wouldn't go down unless you forced the programmers to sell at lower rates, which will happen ... round-a-bout ... NEVER! | |
|
dadarkside
Premium
join:2006-05-20
The Moon | A year and a half too late 6 million Adelphia customers and 10,000 employees got screwed, you douchebag! | |
|
| 
Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY | Re: A year and a half too late yeah, you can throw RCN on that pile
of competitors TW stomped due to the
FCC's lack of anti monopoly policies. | |
|
whocares
Premium
join:2003-07-26
..
·AT&T Southwest
| Cable Companies Have Grown Too Big it not a question of cable companies getting to big,
its the attitude of those in charge of the cable companies think,getting as much $$$ out the consumer/CUSTOMER as they can get & returning as little service as they can get away with | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
wahoospa
join:2006-03-23
Charleston, SC
| Competition will not lower rates. In my area we had Comcast for years. Then someone got the bright idea to let Knology in so the cable rates would be in competition and therefore go lower. Didn't work. All cable competition does is allow another company to enjoy part of the pie. Rates for both have gone only one way and that is up. 5 different cable companies could be serving one area and all will still have the same rates within a dollar of each other. Having competition isn't always as good an idea as it seems, you only get choices with whom you want to buy from. | |
|
| 
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
| Re: Competition will not lower rates. That is certainly the case here. Speeds have increased to 15Mb in my area from Time Warner vs FiOS, but Verizon has already taken a 12% increase on HSI rates and a similar increase with their video services.
And even when speeds increase, there isn't really a benefit as the providers just engage in traffic control measures like Comcast's nastygrams, cancellations and traffic shaping, Cox's monthly caps and Time Warner's traffic shaping. | |
|
| jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | Look up the word oligopoly. Look up duopoly. We're not really see free market competition, so the rules of economics aren't going to work. | |
|
Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA
·Cox HSI
| better tech, not regulation Cable beats satellite crap because the technology is better. I dont want to have to fix my own damn dish after a major storm for a service that actually provides less than cable. satellite: just another sector looking for government protection when it cant compete by making itself better. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
megalosaurus
join:2000-11-29
North Salem, NY
·Optimum Online
| We're from the government and we're here to help. How many times have we seen this? "These changes will bring about needed reform and result in lower prices for consumers." Sounds to me like someone's campaign contributions are about to pay off.
This from the New York Times:
"The commission’s conclusion that the cable industry has grown too large will be used to justify a raft of new cable television rules and proposals. They include a cap that would prevent the nation’s largest cable company, Comcast Corporation, from growing, and would prevent other large cable companies, like Time Warner, from making any new large cable acquisitions."
OK - now, with our best Beavis & Butthead cackle:
"Heh heh ... he said Cap." | |
|
| jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | Re: We're from the government and we're here to help. I agree with you. This isn't in OUR best interest, necessarily. If it happens to coincide with what we'd like, that's just icing on the cake... We are irrelecant to the FCC. | |
|
Ikyuao
Pro. debian Linux
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS
·Cox HSI
| I admit that cable really even better than DSL... ...because due cable have invested more bandwidth than DSL do. due cable was invested lots of fiber optical lines laying out linked to nodes. I stay with cable for good reason due cable companies have invested fiber optical lines before telecom invested fiber optical lines to reach homes or before telecom investing exchange remote terminal be very shorter be closer to homes. telecom did not make investing to building exchange remotes be very shorter to homes... At least, cable did invested fiber optical lines to extend long distance to homes.
Cable wins for raw speeds in USA. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
1 edit | Absolutely..unbelievably... positively..astounding.
Ladies and Gentlemen..here is the tale of two companies.
AT&T..and Comcast.
First..AT&T's statistics
»finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=T
Then...comcasts
»finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=CMCSA
Here's just a few comparisons for you to absorb.
ATT market cap...237.74 Billion
Comcasts....59.56 Billion
ATT's revenue... 104.47 Billion
Comcasts...29.91 Billion
ATT's net profit..10.75B
Comcasts..3.01B
And what Martin and his AL capone gang wants to now do is
to stop Comcast from growing citing their size, dominance..
Lack of programming (LOL!) Prices (LOL! Triple play anyone?)
Martin needs to flat out be kicked out of office for this amazing stunt. | |
|
|
See 19 replies to this post |
|
cypherstream
Looking forward to the future of things.
Premium,MVM
join:2004-12-02
Reading, PA
clubs: | CC & TW: Quick buy all the cable companies while you can! Comcast and Time Warner should quickly try to buy every little cable operator they can NOW before the law goes into effect!
HURRY!!!
Really the FCC is so anti-cable it isn't even funny. Way to 'overlook' AT&T. | |
|
| 
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Corona, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: CC & TW: Quick buy all the cable companies while you can! some magical pre-intuition tells me that this will end up causing the cable co's to split into the "RBOC"'s, or atleast their 21st-century cable equivalents. Remember the carterphone decision in 1984?
most likely, comcast may be split and some parts merged with split divisions of TW and adelphia. The same goes for the rest of the smaller cabloco's. | |
|
| bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | AT&T isn't a cable company. You got a point? | |
|
| | fldiver
Premium
join:1999-12-27
Jacksonville, FL | Re: CC & TW: Quick buy all the cable companies while you can! Apparently another individual that knows NOTHING about technology; there should be NO distinction between cable and telco, the definitions are antiquated and no longer apply. | |
|
| | | GPSrob
join:2007-05-21
| Re: CC & TW: Quick buy all the cable companies while you can! Not to split hairs here, but there shouldn't be a distinction between cable and telco company regulations of similar service types. There should be distinctions in the services, because each should have it's own service metrics. For example, dial-tone services should have an up-time or availability rate that is much higher than CATV services, etc. They would match across service types from one company to another, but there is a difference in the necessity of the various services.
I agree with you that each industry should be regulated the same, but that isn't likely to happen given the private/public backgrounds of each industry's beginning. CLECs are a direct result of the premise that the telco network is at least partially a public asset. As far as I know, except in the cases of a CATV municipal Co-Op or something, CATV never enjoyed monopoly status granted by the government or government money for an infrastructure build out. The legacy of this is "provider of last resort" build-out requirements for all residents in an RBOC's territory, and the unbundling of the network for CLECs to provide service w/o providing their own facilities. I imagine that CLECs will disappear altogether before you ever see an unbundled cable network. | |
|
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD | I'm sooo glad to see this Finally the FCC is going to take a hard look at how Comcast screws over it's subscribers. | |
|
| Lineage
rawr?
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA
·EarthLink
·1and1
 ·PeoplePC
| Re: I'm sooo glad to see this They should be fair then and look how just about EVERY isp screws their customers over to get ever increasing profits. No running a buisness is not a charity, but corparations arent satisfied with just turning a profit. They want more and more ever increasing profts becuase the stockholders demand higher and higher returns. | |
|
sturgess66
join:2007-11-10
Philadelphia, PA
| Comcast Well I hope this is for real. Comcast has a monopoly in my area in the middle of a city - apt so no dish availability. The service is horrible, the speed is horrible - population density.
And I too get a gazzion channels I don't want and don't get ones that I do want.
And I PAY way too much for all of this. | |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Increased competition? Considering that in 99% of the country cable companies get exclusive deals to be the only cable provider in the area how is having more companies going to help? You're still going to have ONE choice as a cable provider. | |
|
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | 4 or more Should be mandatory to have a MINIMUM of 4 services or more, not 2. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| Much ado about nothing Oh please do need more inependant programmers like Millennium Digital Media? A company the refused to upgrade the system. We were stuck with hem till Comcast bought the lines. A regulation will hurt the consumer. The is plenty of competition. There streaming video, satellite and DVD sales. | |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| What the, who the, why the, ... I'm speechless. How can the FCC make this claim while letting telco after telco merge and recreate the original Ma Bell?
I'd rather see them act on both sides of the fence rather than pick on one particular area.
Does this decision mean the poor telcos can't compete without the FCC helping them or is this just dirty pool being played by the masters? | |
|
| fldiver
Premium
join:1999-12-27
Jacksonville, FL | Re: What the, who the, why the, ... $$ | |
|
| GPSrob
join:2007-05-21
1 edit | rradina, on 2007-11-10 at 21:20:13, said:
I'm speechless. How can the FCC make this claim while letting telco after telco merge and recreate the original Ma Bell?
I'd rather see them act on both sides of the fence rather than pick on one particular area.
Does this decision mean the poor telcos can't compete without the FCC helping them or is this just dirty pool being played by the masters? Did you read the reasoning behind the regulations? They're regulating CATV operations because the cable companies have done a piss poor job of it themselves.
Cable is about 11 years late to this party. Competition was forced on telcos with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Those CLECs still exist today. Cable is just lucky that they're being limited in this way instead of having their facilities broken apart to allow access by CLECs to provide their own video services over CATV's own facilities.
I'd expect the regulations to remain in place until other intra-market competition exists to a point so as to pose a meaningful threat to CATV. It might not be fair, but telco has been dealing with it on the wireline front for a very long time now. | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: What the, who the, why the, ... Until I switched to VOIP, the telco act of 1996 gave me one competitive choice to SBC (now AT&T). I was able to switch my telephone to a company called Sage Telecommunications that bundled caller id and call waiting for the same price as one of those options with SBC. I saved a few bucks a month and in return, my billing was routinely botched.
That's not competition.
The telcos have never had competition. Cable has never had competition.
If you want to cite telco 1996, I think satellite TV has given cable just as much, if not more, competition (if you want to call it that) as the regulation. And at least the TV competition was brought about by market forces vs a botched piece of regulation.
I just cannot believe the FCC thinks cable is getting too big while AT&T II has been rebuilt by SBC. | |
|
| | | GPSrob
join:2007-05-21
| Re: What the, who the, why the, ... I think you're missing the point entirely. No one has said that AT&T isn't too big and in need of regulation. AT&T and the other telcos are already massively over regulated due to their size.
Cable is finally growing up and realizing first hand what their huge market share means when the regulators don't like their operating practices. | |
|
|
|
|
FCC Says Cable Companies Have Grown Too Big
