FCC to review report that Cable Companies don't have enough competition

[Gibson486]

I am not really thrilled about cable plans. $8 for basic.....then it sky rockets to $51 to the next plan up. oh well....I do fine with just fox (All i watch is House) and I just wait for Rescue Me to come out on DVD.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: Kadarin
The FCC will most likely side with the cable companies and let this quietly drop. It seems that for the most part, the US government no longer serves the people.

The [government agency] will most likely side with the [industry] companies and let this quietly drop.

your second sentence is my pick for Understatement of the Year 2007.

 

[40Hands]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Keep the government out of it.

People act like you don't have a choice, you do...turn the television off or switch to an antennae, as far as internet...go back to dial-up.

Hey, while we're at it, let's bring back the cobblers and blacksmiths.

Some of us use the internet for, ya know... work.

Even those who don't, the internet over dial-up is like switching to b/w TVs. I'm all for keeping the government out of things, but don't make unreasonable arguments. That just dilutes your point.

and you did with dial up also....high speed only made it faster....instead of faxes you have email.

This microwave society and the "gotta have it now" attitude is what is partially responsible for half the crap that goes on in peoples lives.

You may not like it, but you can use dial up for work....you are not OWED anything when it comes to technological convenience.

You obviously don't know shit about working from home over a VPN. Your argument is a weak one. Shouldn't you be in your rocking chair scanning your lawn for kids to yell at?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: Kadarin
The FCC will most likely side with the cable companies and let this quietly drop. It seems that for the most part, the US government no longer serves the people.

The [government agency] will most likely side with the [industry] companies and let this quietly drop.

your second sentence is my pick for Understatement of the Year 2007.

Bullcrap. The FCC has had a strong customer focus since the latest chairperson took over.

No more monopolies for apartment complexes is just ONE of the many great actions taken.

Face it, this thread is full of misinformation and nothing more than "ooohhh, they're all evil and corporationy. They just want a profit". How DARE them try to make a profit and not give me my entitled services. I DESERVE super high speed data, 200 channels and full featured voice for 50 bucks a month.

Seriously, just look at how much choice is available. Cell, wifi, cable, telco voice/video/data, cellular data, satellite. And with 50-100 Megabit services coming to cable it is just going to get better and cheaper just as it has over the last few years.

Cable does not have a monopoly on services, there's always satellite. And if you don't like your voice, get a cell. Don't like your broadband, well you most likely have a choice in that as well. Just because you don't like your choices and are extremely picky and feel entitled just isn't right.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Keep the government out of it.

The local governments have granted monopolies to the cable companies pursuant to the federal government's regulations (or lack thereof). Can you un-ring that bell?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: daveshel
You'd have to be crazy to expect more regulation from the FCC during a republican administration.

Since the Reagan years, we have lost the Fairness Doctrine, the Rule of 7s (that protected us from a high concentration of media ownership like we have now) and any meaningful competition. So we get escalating rates and crappy service.

You have to look at the enormous amount of competition we have currently. What in the world do you mean by no meaningful competition?

The majority of broadband subscribers HAVE A CHOICE
The majority of phone service subscribers HAVE A CHOICE
The majority of television subscribers HAVE A CHOICE

There has never been so much competition for these services ever. Capitalism FTW.

The majority of broadband subscribers HAVE A CHOICE NOT ME.
The majority of phone service subscribers HAVE A CHOICE NOT ME.
The majority of television subscribers HAVE A CHOICE NOT ME

Sorry, big city boy. Tens of millions DON'T have a choice.
And if you really were for the free market, then how can you actually defend a monoply? And it IS a monoply. Try calling your town and asking them if you can run cable to start your own cable t.v. or internet company.

Who's fault is that? Do you really think that absent exclusive franchise agreements forced on cable companies by local government there wouldn't be more that 1 provider? The monopoly was set up by government, not the industry.

wtf??? Localities don't "force" exclusive franchise agreements on local governments. Its the other way around.

 

[Agentbolt]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Keep the government out of it.

People act like you don't have a choice, you do...turn the television off or switch to an antennae, as far as internet...go back to dial-up.

Hey, while we're at it, let's bring back the cobblers and blacksmiths.

Some of us use the internet for, ya know... work.

Even those who don't, the internet over dial-up is like switching to b/w TVs. I'm all for keeping the government out of things, but don't make unreasonable arguments. That just dilutes your point.

and you did with dial up also....high speed only made it faster....instead of faxes you have email.

This microwave society and the "gotta have it now" attitude is what is partially responsible for half the crap that goes on in peoples lives.

You may not like it, but you can use dial up for work....you are not OWED anything when it comes to technological convenience.

You know what's awesome about societies that make progress? They ignore people like you.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: waggy
you do understand if it goes A la Carte you are going to pay more a month? unless you want one or two channels...

Indeed. You know what the cable companies will do? They'll figure out the average number of channels used per subscriber. Let's say it's 5 channels. And if the average monthly bill is $50, their price will be at least $10/channel. Result: most people will wind up paying exactly the same as before for their "choice" of channels. But now they'll only get 5 channels for the same price, instead of a full selection of many channels they almost never, but might sometimes, watch.
The cable companies wouldn't dare say, "Average subscriber bill is $50/month, and we offer 100 channels, so we'll charge 50 cents per channel."
Suddenly, revenue plummets.
Industry will not do anything, ever, that is for the sole benefit of the consumer.

They will also still offer the same package deals as before, but now you can pay the bit extra if you want a channel from another package.

Is there something wrong with this?

The guy who just wants ESPN can pay his $10/month to get just ESPN

Those of us that want a light package plus one or two other channels from other packages without paying an extra $50/month can get those, too. I would love to get the discovery channel, but it's not on the most basic plan for my cable company; I'd have to pay an extra $30 just to get discovery channel. I would be happy paying $5 or $10 instead just to get THAT channel.

YOU ARE SOOOOOO WRONG. This is the most misunderstand part of a la carte cable. If ESPN was a la cart it would cost 30 dollars a month.
Let me explain this so everyone understands. Say 33 percent of a cable companies subscribers would choose to include ESPN if it were a la carte. And if it costs 10 dollars now (actually espn is one of the most expensive channels, but it only costs say, 3 bucks a month for the cable company to carry and that doesn't include profit for the cable company, I used to know how much it really costs the cable companies, but I don't remember). So if it costs 10 bucks now, ESPN needs to charge each of its a la carte subscribers three times as much to keep their revenue at the same level (or drop two thirds of their programming). Hence ESPN would cost 3 times as much a la carte as it does as part of a package that all subscribers get. So ESPN would cost 30 dollars, right?
Wrong!
At 30 dollars a month ESPN would lose some of their a la carte subscribers due to its high cost. So it might cost 40 dollars a month to keep the revenue for ESPN the same.

 

[Auryg]

I live in two different places - one in the summer, one the rest of the year.
Summer home - No cable provided, even though I'm in a fairly populated area, so sattelite tv only. Luckily, the local telephone company offers DSL. My only other option (not counting sattelite, because we all know that's..horrible) is the dial up the local telephone company also offers.
So, for each service, I have exactly *one* option.

The other home? Cable is offered instead of DSL. For TV, I have options. Everything else? Nada. This is in a city of 80,000.

Luckily phone companies are finally getting pressure from cell phone companies, so that's *something* that has some competition.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: Kadarin
The FCC will most likely side with the cable companies and let this quietly drop. It seems that for the most part, the US government no longer serves the people.

The [government agency] will most likely side with the [industry] companies and let this quietly drop.

your second sentence is my pick for Understatement of the Year 2007.

Bullcrap. The FCC has had a strong customer focus since the latest chairperson took over.

No more monopolies for apartment complexes is just ONE of the many great actions taken.

Face it, this thread is full of misinformation and nothing more than "ooohhh, they're all evil and corporationy. They just want a profit". How DARE them try to make a profit and not give me my entitled services. I DESERVE super high speed data, 200 channels and full featured voice for 50 bucks a month.

Seriously, just look at how much choice is available. Cell, wifi, cable, telco voice/video/data, cellular data, satellite. And with 50-100 Megabit services coming to cable it is just going to get better and cheaper just as it has over the last few years.

Cable does not have a monopoly on services, there's always satellite. And if you don't like your voice, get a cell. Don't like your broadband, well you most likely have a choice in that as well. Just because you don't like your choices and are extremely picky and feel entitled just isn't right.

Perhaps you need a harsh dose of reality. You clearly are not living in the same world as the rest of us.

Most apartment complexes are still subject to the cable company monopolies, specifically when it comes to broadband (for television as well). The FCC said this isn't okay, but hasn't done anything to stop it. If you enjoy paying more for the same channels and service, you can get satellite (although apartment complexes don't allow satellite dishes)

The only serious argument you have is in regard to cell phones; there are many phone companies, and you can subscribe to any of them. Most of them have poor quality service and offer the same plans/rates, but most people don't seem to care.

Don't like your broadband, well you most likely have a choice in that as well

Seriously, how can you say these things? Do you really know nothing at all? You're a walking, talking joke.

No one is suggesting cable companies should be giving out free entertainment, but there is a clear desire to screw the consumer and squeeze every last cent out of the public. I suppose you're satisfied with the subpar broadband that America suffers from, despite billions of tax dollars being poured into the infrastructure (which was immediately pocketed by the fine gentlemen at the FCC and the executives of the cable companies).

You've never actually investigated any of this, yet you feel like expressing your opinion as though it were authoritative? Please, go do some research. Go read some articles. Go and discover what a mess the cable/broadband infrastructure in America really is.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: techs
YOU ARE SOOOOOO WRONG. This is the most misunderstand part of a la carte cable. If ESPN was a la cart it would cost 30 dollars a month.
Let me explain this so everyone understands. Say 33 percent of a cable companies subscribers would choose to include ESPN if it were a la carte. And if it costs 10 dollars now (actually espn is one of the most expensive channels, but it only costs say, 3 bucks a month for the cable company to carry and that doesn't include profit for the cable company, I used to know how much it really costs the cable companies, but I don't remember). So if it costs 10 bucks now, ESPN needs to charge each of its a la carte subscribers three times as much to keep their revenue at the same level (or drop two thirds of their programming). Hence ESPN would cost 3 times as much a la carte as it does as part of a package that all subscribers get. So ESPN would cost 30 dollars, right?
Wrong!
At 30 dollars a month ESPN would lose some of their a la carte subscribers due to its high cost. So it might cost 40 dollars a month to keep the revenue for ESPN the same.

YOU ARE SOOOOOOO WRONG.

The Caps lock key is right below the tab key on the left side of your keyboard. Please turn it off. Sentences like this one make you look like a buffoon. Thank you.

You're using all hypothetical numbers without any real data to back you up. $40 per month for one channel? That's a joke. Even $30/month is ridiculous and downright delusional. You do realize that ESPN makes most of its income from ad revenue, right? The amount paid in by the cable company is but a small fraction of ESPN's income.

 

[spidey07]

EeeZee, I don't need to read any more articles. I read them everyday. It's part of my job, I have to keep up on these things.

What mess is the cable/broadband in? How is the triple-play threat from MSOs and telcos increasing service and lowering costs? What is the state of passive optical networks and what are the telcos doing about it? How about DOCSIS 3.0 and current movements in the MSOs to trial this technology?

This is what is driving competition. And if you'd read a little more it is an accepted fact that the majority of broadband subscribers have a choice - normally cable or DSL.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Keep the government out of it.

People act like you don't have a choice, you do...turn the television off or switch to an antennae, as far as internet...go back to dial-up.

This attitude that there is now digital cable and hi-speed internet and it's your god given right to have it for nothing is a bunch of bullshit.....the Revolutionary War was not fought so you could gain a sense of entitlement for your entertainment.

"Wahaaaa! I can't watch the NFL or Ohio State on my cable!!!!....someone call Congress! They have nothing better to do than fix my cable!!!"....pansies.

Thank goodness, someone who finally understands!

You two do realize it's the government that has allowed them a virtualy monopoly.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Bullcrap. The FCC has had a strong customer focus since the latest chairperson took over.

Um, didn't they recently revise a ruling that required tele companies to allow a third party to lease lines/switchboard to provide internet and what not.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: mugs
Cable companies have more competition than ever before. Two major satellite providers + AT&T & Verizon in many areas.

and yet i still pay 300% the taxes/ fees than people in neighboring cities (i live in mesa). we can only choose cox comm for cable. my house is also in too old of a neighborhood or DSL to be a viable option, being almost 4 miles from a switching station gives me a crappy speed report. if they have so much competition, why arent prices reflecting that?

 

[Auryg]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: spidey07

Bullcrap. The FCC has had a strong customer focus since the latest chairperson took over.

Um, didn't they recently revise a ruling that required tele companies to allow a third party to lease lines/switchboard to provide internet and what not.

According to this article, it would seem that way, but apparently the prices aren't low enough.

I want to see cable competing with cable, DSL competing with DSL, and phone companies competing with phone companies.

What we have now is like one company that offers a car, one that offers a truck, and one that offers a semi, and people are calling it competition.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
and you did with dial up also....high speed only made it faster....instead of faxes you have email.

This microwave society and the "gotta have it now" attitude is what is partially responsible for half the crap that goes on in peoples lives.

You may not like it, but you can use dial up for work....you are not OWED anything when it comes to technological convenience.

No, people really didn't work at home over dial up. The amount of jobs you could do were significantly less. I could do my job from home today, but not over dial-up. It's a bandwidth limitation.

It's not a matter of "waiting a couple extra minutes" it's a matter of waiting hours, days, perhaps longer.

Who said anything was owed? I pay for service thank you very much.

Do you churn your own butter?

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: lupi
Aka this months no shit award.

QFT

 

[IGBT]

..how come HD looks so crapy on cable?? and razor sharp over the air?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..how come HD looks so crapy on cable?? and razor sharp over the air?

Compression. Call your cable company and complain.