Kevinicus
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 19,886
- Reaction score
- 12,670
Or get Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, etc. Or watch over the air, or get satelite. And so on and so forth.
Cable Companies feeling some Heat
- Thread starter BigStar
- Start date
- Status
Or get Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, etc. Or watch over the air, or get satelite. And so on and so forth.
BigStar
Stop chasing
- Messages
- 11,528
- Reaction score
- 17,081
The two services are generally grouped together and that's what the chart is displaying (at times/read color codes); TV and Internet provider lack of alternatives. The FCC rules to open cable boxes to competition (no forced rentals), relates to a broader problem referenced in the article I replied with in relation to a general lack of competition among cable/internet providers.
Kevinicus
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 19,886
- Reaction score
- 12,670
I think there are lots of alternatives for TV, and usually you can use your own modem/routers for internet, so I don't see any need for any involvement. Not that I am against monopolies in the first place (assuming they aren't using that status to lock others out).
- Messages
- 101,873
- Reaction score
- 112,840
I cut the chord on my cable company and went with Direct TV. They didn't even beg me to stay.
JD_KaPow
jimnabby
- Messages
- 11,072
- Reaction score
- 10,836
This applies to satellite. The others aren't true alternatives.
These monopolies are clearly using their status to lock others out (providers who would like to make you a better, cheaper box).
TwoCentPlain
Numbnuts
- Messages
- 15,171
- Reaction score
- 11,084
If Comcast and the cable companies are against it, then it must be good for the consumer. That's my conclusion based on years of experience dealing with cable companies.
Last I heard, Comcast is also fighting against letting consumers choose their channels and still fighting for forcing the customers to their bundled packages.
Last I heard, Comcast is also fighting against letting consumers choose their channels and still fighting for forcing the customers to their bundled packages.
Rockport
AmberBeer
- Messages
- 46,580
- Reaction score
- 46,004
I think you need to read the article. This is just to allow consumers to not have to pay cable box rental fees and let them purchase their own.
Rockport
AmberBeer
- Messages
- 46,580
- Reaction score
- 46,004
Not really. The only way I could watch the Spurs games would be to subscribe to cable, Directv or Dish. I live in an apartment which doesn't allow satellite dishes so that leaves me with Time Warner cable. The only cable company available.
CyberB0b
Village Idiot
- Messages
- 12,636
- Reaction score
- 14,101
Yes, that's it exactly.
Nightman
Capologist
- Messages
- 27,121
- Reaction score
- 24,038
A lot of people can't get satellite. Where I live the trees are a big problem. For others it is apartment buildings or condos.
It is easy to say 'cut the cord' but you don't get any sports over the air, if you even can get a strong enough signal. All those choices like Amazon, Roku, Netflix, Hulu don't solve the sports problem.
JoeKing
Diehard
- Messages
- 36,648
- Reaction score
- 31,939
Yeah, we've already hashed that out but thanks.
YosemiteSam
Unfriendly and Aloof!
- Messages
- 45,858
- Reaction score
- 22,189
BigStar
Stop chasing
- Messages
- 11,528
- Reaction score
- 17,081
The article I replied with speaks directly to this subject with facts/direct counter points, etc. and maps detailing what you're speaking against. I think you're just trolling us by now, or not reading the content.
Last edited:
Kevinicus
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 19,886
- Reaction score
- 12,670
No it did not. It didn't address TV at all, and did not discuss modems at all. The article didn't address anything I've talked about.
BigStar
Stop chasing
- Messages
- 11,528
- Reaction score
- 17,081
No mention of Cable TV or broadband access?
Cliffs-notes Version
From the above article,
"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?
"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"
The Twin Cities are one such example:
"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."
Example in New York City:
"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.
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."
Example in Boston:
"And then there’s Boston, where the line of cable competition is almost analogous to a map of the city borders...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."
Cliffs-notes Version
From the above article,
"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?
"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"
The Twin Cities are one such example:
"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."
Example in New York City:
"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.
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."
Example in Boston:
"And then there’s Boston, where the line of cable competition is almost analogous to a map of the city borders...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."
Last edited:
Kevinicus
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 19,886
- Reaction score
- 12,670
No mention of Cable TV or broadband access?
Cliffs-notes Version
From the above article,
"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?
"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"
The Twin Cities are one such example:
"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."
Example in New York City:
"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.
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."
Example in Boston:
"And then there’s Boston, where the line of cable competition is almost analogous to a map of the city borders...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."
Cable access is not what I was talking about. Nor was broadband access.
Content access is one thing. Cable access is another. Cable is just a means to the other, and not the only one..
BigStar
Stop chasing
- Messages
- 11,528
- Reaction score
- 17,081
Kevinicus
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 19,886
- Reaction score
- 12,670
I'm not a troll because your article doesn't talk about what you said it did.
Nightman
Capologist
- Messages
- 27,121
- Reaction score
- 24,038
you might not be a troll but you are wearing a troll's uniform and it is confusing people
the cable companies don't need white knight defenders, they are pretty despicable with their practices and I think they get off on it
- Status