dslreports logo

Search similar:
Forums →

Small Cable Ops Say FCC's Cable Box Plan Would Kill Them → FYI, Why This is a Big Deal for the Little Guys

 uniqs
3
Share
« What he said • Haha this won't last. »
Bob61571
join:2008-08-08
Washington, IL
1 edit

Bob61571

Member

2016-Sep-1 10:59 am

FYI, Why This is a Big Deal for the Little Guys

From the cited article, minimum cost per system is $2 Million +.
If you are a small system with under 1,000 subscribers, this would be difficult.
said by Fierce Cable :

“ACA found that nearly all smaller MVPDs would need to make major investments to increase the capacity of their existing networks to free up bandwidth to enable simulcasting in all-IP,” the lobbying org said in its statement announcing its ex parte. “That would be in addition to having to purchase and deploy all-IP enabling equipment into their master headends, which ACA estimated would cost at least $2 million per system as noted in a mid-July meeting with the FCC.”

Polka added, "In all of my time representing smaller cable operators before the FCC, I cannot recall the FCC ever contemplating a rule that would impose on small cable operators so great a direct financial and operational cost. This burden of the proposed rules dwarfs that of the FCC's 2007 integration ban, which was imposed on these operators when they were better able to absorb it because they made far greater margins on their video business."

· actions · 2016-Sep-1 10:59 am ·

Anona6c9d
@charter.com

Anona6c9d

Anon

2016-Sep-1 2:05 pm

said by Bob61571:

From the cited article, minimum cost per system is $2 Million +.
If you are a small system with under 1,000 subscribers, this would be difficult.

I live in a Charter are but right outside of town the local cable company offers service. I doubt if they have more than 2000 customers if that. While their internet options are terrible their TV offerings are even worse. Most of their non-locals are still in SD about 80%. Even HBO is in SD and they want $13 a month for that. So most of their internet customers are going with satellite anyway. If I had to live in their area I wouldn't have a choice but to get their overpriced internet. $84.50 bundled for their highest tier they call "Extreme" which tops out at 15 Mbps. But I certainly would get their TV which they charge $62 for ONE outlet. Additional outlets $3 more. Who knows what kind of fees they also tack on? bundling knocks $15 off the internet but not worth it. Getting Vue or Sling would be a better option.

So really would this company investing a few million really be a bad choice since they'll have almost no TV customers within a few years as more people discover better options? At this point they should give up on TV and just offer internet and upgrade to docsis 3.0 at least.
· actions · 2016-Sep-1 2:05 pm ·
« What he said • Haha this won't last. »