Cable Companies feeling some Heat

[Nightman]

The government has no business getting involved in this. If people don't like paying the fees then they can find alternatives, or don't watch.

The government is supposed to protect the consumers from monopolies.

It is the only way Capitalism works.

 

[Hoofbite]

If a different (non cable company)box will enable you to unencrypt a channel you have not contracted with the cable company to unencrypt then that is stealing.

So maybe the answer is they somehow figure out how to allow people to use their own hardware without being guilty of stealing.

You know, like they do with modems. Buying your own modem doesn't just give you full access to the highest tier speed on the network.

It's a complete lie to suggest that it's not possible to achieve. If it were, TiVO wouldn't exist.

 

[JoeKing]

So maybe the answer is they somehow figure out how to allow people to use their own hardware without being guilty of stealing.

You know, like they do with modems. Buying your own modem doesn't just give you full access to the highest tier speed on the network.

It's a complete lie to suggest that it's not possible to achieve. If it were, TiVO wouldn't exist.

Having my own state of the art modem does allows me access to the highest speeds that cable can provide to me. Having my own TiVo does not give me access to all the channels that are brought to my residence on that cable. I have to pay for each channel I receive. So those two things are not the same and should not be the same.

 

[Hoofbite]

The government has no business getting involved in this. If people don't like paying the fees then they can find alternatives, or don't watch.

If cable companies don't want to have any sort of oversight, they can pull their lines off of all the utility poles whenever they wish.

Interesting how that works. Almost like a give and take type of situation. They're allowed access to utility poles as part of running their business, and in exchange they're only asked to not gouge and screw over the customer.

 

[Hoofbite]

Having my own state of the art modem does allows me access to the highest speeds that cable can provide to me. Having my own TiVo does not give me access to all the channels that are brought to my residence on that cable. I have to pay for each channel I receive. So those to things are not the same and should not be the same.

Yeah, if you pay for that tier. Just as you could access any and all channels on TiVO if you payed for them. You buy your own modem and then choose which download speeds you want. You do not just get the max speed that the network can supply.

TiVO is EXACTLY the reason why you wouldn't be stealing by having more options to choose from in terms of set top boxes. Somehow the ability to regulate which channels are functional is no longer possible? Ridiculous, TiVO proves that it is possible. End of story.

 

[JoeKing]

Yeah, if you pay for that tier. Just as you could access any and all channels on TiVO if you payed for them. You buy your own modem and then choose which download speeds you want. You do not just get the max speed that the network can supply.

TiVO is EXACTLY the reason why you wouldn't be stealing by having more options to choose from in terms of set top boxes. Somehow the ability to regulate which channels are functional is no longer possible? Ridiculous, TiVO proves that it is possible. End of story.

I'm paying for a 100Mb speed cable so I have purchased a modem capable of providing that max speed. I also have a privately owned TiVo(not the cable companies). My TiVo doesn't give me every channel that the cable company can provide. Even if I wanted to pay for every channel, TiVo is not capable of providing them without the cable company's box or TiVo card. A privately owned TiVo does not unencrypt the cable channels. Having a cable company owned TiVo is different.

 

[JD_KaPow]

The government has no business getting involved in this. If people don't like paying the fees then they can find alternatives, or don't watch.

People don't have alternatives, because the cable companies deny them alternatives. It's blatantly anti-competitive practice, and of course the government (meaning we the people) have an interest in preventing anti-competitive practices.

 

[Hoofbite]

I'm paying for a 100Mb speed cable so I have purchased a modem capable of providing that max speed. I also have a privately owned TiVo(not the cable companies). My TiVo doesn't give me every channel that the cable company can provide. Even if I wanted to pay for every channel, TiVo is not capable of providing them without the cable company's box or TiVo card. A privately owned TiVo does not unencrypt the cable channels. Having a cable company owned TiVo is different.

What speeds would you get if you paid for the tier just below the 100Mb tier that you are currently paying for?

 

[CyberB0b]

I'm paying for a 100Mb speed cable so I have purchased a modem capable of providing that max speed. I also have a privately owned TiVo(not the cable companies). My TiVo doesn't give me every channel that the cable company can provide. Even if I wanted to pay for every channel, TiVo is not capable of providing them without the cable company's box or TiVo card. A privately owned TiVo does not unencrypt the cable channels. Having a cable company owned TiVo is different.

You're either dense, or trolling. You don't get your cable Internet free, just because you have a DOCSIS 3.0 modem. The same logic applies. You would still need to pay for your channels and have the cable company activate your equipment.

 

[Kevinicus]

The government is supposed to protect the consumers from monopolies.

It is the only way Capitalism works.

There is no monopoly here.

 

[Kevinicus]

People don't have alternatives, because the cable companies deny them alternatives. It's blatantly anti-competitive practice, and of course the government (meaning we the people) have an interest in preventing anti-competitive practices.

There are plenty of alternatives.

 

[JoeKing]

What speeds would you get if you paid for the tier just below the 100Mb tier that you are currently paying for?

50Mb... but if I down graded to that lower tier, I would not be utilizing my modems higher speed capability.

 

[JoeKing]

You're either dense, or trolling. You don't get your cable Internet free, just because you have a DOCSIS 3.0 modem. The same logic applies. You would still need to pay for your channels and have the cable company activate your equipment.

On the contrary, I have an electronics engineering degree. I never said I get internet for free. The cable company can not "activate" my privately owned TiVo to unencrypt their channels... only a separate cable box can do that. I'm sorry you feel the need to use pejoratives... that is unfortunate.

 

[Hoofbite]

50Mb... but if I down graded to that lower tier, I would not be utilizing my modems higher speed capability.

Only 50Mb? Why not the 100Mb that your modem is capable of?

And when you answer that question, ask yourself how having companies produce new TiVO-like products would somehow mean that people are accessing channels they aren't paying for.

 

[JoeKing]

Only 50Mb? Why not the 100Mb that your modem is capable of?

And when you answer that question, ask yourself how having companies produce new TiVO-like products would somehow mean that people are accessing channels they aren't paying for.

I have the 100Mb tier. I thought I was asked what the next one down is.

 

[Hoofbite]

I have the 100Mb tier. I thought I was asked what the next one down is.

You were. I was hoping to provide an example about how you only get what you pay for. Just like the way things will be with a selection of non-proprietary cable boxes to choose from.

You pay for the 100Mb tier and get 100Mb. If you paid for the 50Mb tier, you would get 50Mb.

Seriously, you have TiVO and somehow you believe more TiVO-like products will result in people being able to freely watch whatever they please? To round out the comparison to the modem, this line of thinking would be like saying that 3rd party modems WILL IN FACT allow people to only pay for the 50Mb service and still receive the 100Mb speed.

The service provider will retain control over your access to programming based on your subscription. Just like modems and cell phones, you'll only get what you pay for.

The difference being, you won't have to pay $10/box every month, and at some point you probably won't even have to buy a box because TVs will start building them into the unit.

 

[BigStar]

There are plenty of alternatives.

Here’s What the Lack of Broadband Competition Looks Like on a Map
March 7, 2014 By Kate Cox
http://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadband-competition-looks-like-in-map-form/

When announcing Comcast’s intention to buy Time Warner Cable, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts called cable a “highly competitive and dynamic marketplace.” Dynamic it might be, but competitive it isn’t. Most of us live a local monopoly, cable-wise: it might be a Comcast city or a Time Warner town, but we don’t have that much choice with our providers. And those companies also, hugely, provide our broadband access. So what does 75% reach or a 15% market share really look like, to a city and the people in it?

All of the data for these maps comes from the National Broadband Map, a joint project of the NTIA and FCC. The map shows what broadband operators operate in every part of the country, and what technologies they provide. It’s a tool that shows both a national perspective or lets you view info for a specific address.

There are a few caveats about the data. First, it’s not an exact 1:1 representation of “here are all the houses that subscribe to [provider],” but instead a map of available services in a particular area. Secondly, the map works at the census tract level, which leaves a bit of room for error. For example, if there’s a building in the very corner of your census tract that can get FiOS, then your address will still show up as having FiOS access even if Verizon has refused several times to run the fiber an extra half mile down the road to you. (Sigh.)

That said, even with the potential imprecision the maps still provide a stark visualization of just how much your address matters when it comes to your broadband access.

The Twin Cities are one such example:


Competition in Minneapolis-St. Paul through June 2013. Click to enlarge.

Not only does the map for the area clearly show the city and county boundaries where service changes over, but also it highlights the divide between rural and urban/suburban areas. As you zoom out from Minneapolis and St. Paul, cable broadband service in Minnesota shows up in nodes along the interstate like a string of Christmas lights.

But if you do live in the city, and have cable access, your options are Comcast or bust. Charter barely hangs on around the edges.

Moving from the midwest to the West Coast, it’s the same story in Los Angeles: Time Warner Cable (which isn’t Comcast yet, but may well be soon) dominates the city, with Charter squeezed in around the edges:


Competition in Los Angeles through June 2013. Click to enlarge.

And then there’s Boston, where the line of cable competition is almost analogous to a map of the city borders:


Competition in Boston through June 2013. Click to enlarge.

Two years ago, Boston petitioned the FCC to be permitted to regulate cable after a decade of continuous rate increases from Comcast. Comcast, in its turn, claimed that as RCN also operated in the city, it wasn’t a monopoly and the prices were fair.

Technically, Comcast was telling the truth. Although RCN’s service mostly stops abruptly at the Boston city line, RCN does operate inside Boston’s borders. There are little purple rectangles of service dotting Beantown here and there. But the majority of those little dots aren’t residential areas; they’re commercial ones. (One of them is, inexplicably, Boston Common — a big park.)

It’s a technicality that doesn’t stretch all that far, though, and Boston is still seeking better ways to improve the internet in town. New mayor Martin Walsh has recently pledged to bring higher internet speeds to the city, and that means fiber. Verizon FiOS won’t expand to serve Boston, and the shortlist for near-term Google Fiber expansion skipped the northeast entirely, so Boston is seeking other options.

A representative from Boston’s office of Innovation and Technology told Consumerist, “The City is very interested in getting a fiber-based provider to build-out to all our neighborhoods,” and added:

In our efforts to get providers to build-out to all of our neighborhoods, we have negotiated a number of agreements with providers like Next G, American Tower and Lightower in order to introduce some measure of competition and new technologies in wireless & landline communications to our neighborhoods.

And from East Coast back to the West: Los Angeles, too, has decided fiber is the way forward. L.A. is actively working on a plan to create a fiber network. Even the bids for partnerships are still in the future, though, to say nothing of the actual build-out and availability to subscribers. For now, consumers are stuck with their local monopoly.

Even when a city sports active competition, actual choice for consumers can remain surprisingly limited. Enter New York: the five boroughs of New York City have, among them, four broadband providers.

To some extent, there is genuine competition in the city, and it works. When Verizon FiOS came to town in 2008, customers began fleeing Time Warner Cable whenever the option presented itself.

But by late 2013, it became clear Verizon’s “access everywhere” promises had stalled out. In October, The Verge reported on the situation. Verizon claims that they reach 75% of the city’s millions of residents; public advocate Bill de Blasio, who has since become the city’s mayor, claimed the number was closer to 51%. Verizon, meanwhile, has no plans to expand FiOS any further.


Competition in New York City through June, 2013. Click to enlarge and get a better view.

Large, very densely-populated swaths of Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and the Bronx remain limited to service from Time Warner Cable or from Cablevision. Even in a city that can claim four providers, your options depend entirely on what neighborhood, or even city block, you live in.

Consumers in most areas don’t really have any relief on the near horizon. Even if, hypothetically speaking, Comcast spun off whole markets like Minneapolis to competitors like Charter as part of the TWC merger, it wouldn’t really help the consumers who live there. If there’s only one option at your house, it barely matters who owns it. One provider might give better customer service than another, but there’s still no market in the area forcing a company to improve infrastructure or reduce prices.

Customers in most cities currently have two options for broadband: their cable provider, or slower DSL through copper wires. But the more resource-intensive 21st century entertainment gets — both in speed and in volume — the less traditional DSL will be able to handle consumers’ needs. That leaves fiber networks, both private and public, as the path of the future. And millions of consumers would benefit from making that future a reality as soon as possible.

March 7, 2014 By Kate Cox

 

[JoeKing]

You were. I was hoping to provide an example about how you only get what you pay for. Just like the way things will be with a selection of non-proprietary cable boxes to choose from.

You pay for the 100Mb tier and get 100Mb. If you paid for the 50Mb tier, you would get 50Mb.

Seriously, you have TiVO and somehow you believe more TiVO-like products will result in people being able to freely watch whatever they please? To round out the comparison to the modem, this line of thinking would be like saying that 3rd party modems WILL IN FACT allow people to only pay for the 50Mb service and still receive the 100Mb speed.

The service provider will retain control over your access to programming based on your subscription. Just like modems and cell phones, you'll only get what you pay for.

The difference being, you won't have to pay $10/box every month, and at some point you probably won't even have to buy a box because TVs will start building them into the unit.

If it is just the box and not the ability to unlock the box that you will be able to purchase then I see the convenience of the one time expense. With the cable company renting the box to you month after month, you end up paying the price of the box many times over. I never intended to debate any issue on this thread. I was intent on gaining knowledge of the subject and I have.

 

[LatinMind]

The government has no business getting involved in this. If people don't like paying the fees then they can find alternatives, or don't watch.

Thats what the gov is going. Giving you an alternative. It clearly says there that u can keep you r box and pay for it. Or buy a 3rd party box and not having the pay the rent price of the box. But still on receive the channels u pay for.

 

[Kevinicus]

Here’s What the Lack of Broadband Competition Looks Like on a Map
March 7, 2014 By Kate Cox
http://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadband-competition-looks-like-in-map-form/

When announcing Comcast’s intention to buy Time Warner Cable, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts called cable a “highly competitive and dynamic marketplace.” Dynamic it might be, but competitive it isn’t. Most of us live a local monopoly, cable-wise: it might be a Comcast city or a Time Warner town, but we don’t have that much choice with our providers. And those companies also, hugely, provide our broadband access. So what does 75% reach or a 15% market share really look like, to a city and the people in it?

All of the data for these maps comes from the National Broadband Map, a joint project of the NTIA and FCC. The map shows what broadband operators operate in every part of the country, and what technologies they provide. It’s a tool that shows both a national perspective or lets you view info for a specific address.

There are a few caveats about the data. First, it’s not an exact 1:1 representation of “here are all the houses that subscribe to [provider],” but instead a map of available services in a particular area. Secondly, the map works at the census tract level, which leaves a bit of room for error. For example, if there’s a building in the very corner of your census tract that can get FiOS, then your address will still show up as having FiOS access even if Verizon has refused several times to run the fiber an extra half mile down the road to you. (Sigh.)

That said, even with the potential imprecision the maps still provide a stark visualization of just how much your address matters when it comes to your broadband access.

The Twin Cities are one such example:


Competition in Minneapolis-St. Paul through June 2013. Click to enlarge.

Not only does the map for the area clearly show the city and county boundaries where service changes over, but also it highlights the divide between rural and urban/suburban areas. As you zoom out from Minneapolis and St. Paul, cable broadband service in Minnesota shows up in nodes along the interstate like a string of Christmas lights.

But if you do live in the city, and have cable access, your options are Comcast or bust. Charter barely hangs on around the edges.

Moving from the midwest to the West Coast, it’s the same story in Los Angeles: Time Warner Cable (which isn’t Comcast yet, but may well be soon) dominates the city, with Charter squeezed in around the edges:


Competition in Los Angeles through June 2013. Click to enlarge.

And then there’s Boston, where the line of cable competition is almost analogous to a map of the city borders:


Competition in Boston through June 2013. Click to enlarge.

Two years ago, Boston petitioned the FCC to be permitted to regulate cable after a decade of continuous rate increases from Comcast. Comcast, in its turn, claimed that as RCN also operated in the city, it wasn’t a monopoly and the prices were fair.

Technically, Comcast was telling the truth. Although RCN’s service mostly stops abruptly at the Boston city line, RCN does operate inside Boston’s borders. There are little purple rectangles of service dotting Beantown here and there. But the majority of those little dots aren’t residential areas; they’re commercial ones. (One of them is, inexplicably, Boston Common — a big park.)

It’s a technicality that doesn’t stretch all that far, though, and Boston is still seeking better ways to improve the internet in town. New mayor Martin Walsh has recently pledged to bring higher internet speeds to the city, and that means fiber. Verizon FiOS won’t expand to serve Boston, and the shortlist for near-term Google Fiber expansion skipped the northeast entirely, so Boston is seeking other options.

A representative from Boston’s office of Innovation and Technology told Consumerist, “The City is very interested in getting a fiber-based provider to build-out to all our neighborhoods,” and added:

In our efforts to get providers to build-out to all of our neighborhoods, we have negotiated a number of agreements with providers like Next G, American Tower and Lightower in order to introduce some measure of competition and new technologies in wireless & landline communications to our neighborhoods.

And from East Coast back to the West: Los Angeles, too, has decided fiber is the way forward. L.A. is actively working on a plan to create a fiber network. Even the bids for partnerships are still in the future, though, to say nothing of the actual build-out and availability to subscribers. For now, consumers are stuck with their local monopoly.

Even when a city sports active competition, actual choice for consumers can remain surprisingly limited. Enter New York: the five boroughs of New York City have, among them, four broadband providers.

To some extent, there is genuine competition in the city, and it works. When Verizon FiOS came to town in 2008, customers began fleeing Time Warner Cable whenever the option presented itself.

But by late 2013, it became clear Verizon’s “access everywhere” promises had stalled out. In October, The Verge reported on the situation. Verizon claims that they reach 75% of the city’s millions of residents; public advocate Bill de Blasio, who has since become the city’s mayor, claimed the number was closer to 51%. Verizon, meanwhile, has no plans to expand FiOS any further.


Competition in New York City through June, 2013. Click to enlarge and get a better view.

Large, very densely-populated swaths of Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and the Bronx remain limited to service from Time Warner Cable or from Cablevision. Even in a city that can claim four providers, your options depend entirely on what neighborhood, or even city block, you live in.

Consumers in most areas don’t really have any relief on the near horizon. Even if, hypothetically speaking, Comcast spun off whole markets like Minneapolis to competitors like Charter as part of the TWC merger, it wouldn’t really help the consumers who live there. If there’s only one option at your house, it barely matters who owns it. One provider might give better customer service than another, but there’s still no market in the area forcing a company to improve infrastructure or reduce prices.

Customers in most cities currently have two options for broadband: their cable provider, or slower DSL through copper wires. But the more resource-intensive 21st century entertainment gets — both in speed and in volume — the less traditional DSL will be able to handle consumers’ needs. That leaves fiber networks, both private and public, as the path of the future. And millions of consumers would benefit from making that future a reality as soon as possible.

March 7, 2014 By Kate Cox

Are we talking internet or TV?