Cable Monopoly

[stevenl]

I hear that word tossed around alot here.. People saying they dont want to use cable because of the monoplies... I'm just wondering where this monoply is? Their are how many differnt cable companies? Granted most areas only have one serving them, but you cant blame the company that is their.. Blame the others who dont want to pay for a network to be built.. Their is only so much easement space anyway for lines to be ran.. Only so much pole space.. In half of BHN Orlando their is both BHN and comcast.. Man those poles get messy where we both have plant.. Besides that How many dish providers are their? how about FTA? how about OTA? You have plenty of choices for tv, blaming cable companies for a "monoply" is not gonna solve anything.. You have choice.. Plenty of it. And soon your getting even more.. FiOS iptv, ATT, so fourth.

Just because cable is the dominate provider doesnt make them a monoply.. People can leave them and get dish.. But they stay with cable because of its better quality dallor for dallor product...

 

[mdovell]

To a degree that is true although still take cable as being as something with a ease of use as opposed to by a dish or fios etc. Cable has been around for decades and as the companies gradually consolidated it became less to the public so to speak.

sometimes I would say it's akin to the railroads because back in the day there was multiple companies running commerically for the public. For the past 24 years it's pretty much been Amtrack (on the national scale that is I'm not talking on city public transit) the other thing is that you cannot (yet) buy the equipment whereas with satellite you can...

 

[damaged]

I think you mistake the meaning of monopoly here, they do not have a monopoly on TV delivery, it refers to the monopoly as in, one can only get cableTV from Concast (for example) in a certain area, and noone else (like if I want cableTV but I want AT&T not Concast, I can't because Concast has the cableTV monopoly in this area), because they have made 'deals' not to sell to customers within each others territory, entire cities and counties have done this, they also do things like lock HOAs (and the residents), into a perpetual payment scheme where the residents must pay for the cable even if they do not watch it, even if they want satellite, they get denied satellite dish placement because as far as they are concerned, you are already provided a signal (which you are forced to pay for), it is this kind of practice that gets them the monopoly name.

 

[GaryPen]

I hear that word tossed around alot here.. People saying they dont want to use cable because of the monoplies... I'm just wondering where this monoply is? Their are how many differnt cable companies? Granted most areas only have one serving them, but you cant blame the company that is their.. Blame the others who dont want to pay for a network to be built.. Their is only so much easement space anyway for lines to be ran.. Only so much pole space..

It has nothing to do with easement, or lack of companies wanting to build systems. Cable comapnies pay municipalities franchise fees to grant them exclusive rights as the cable TV provider in those municipalities. Mini-monopolies, if you will, sanctioned by the local governments

The telcos have been fighting these antiquated cable franchise laws, in order to build their fiber TV systems, while cable companies are fighting to keep them. It seems that the spirit of free enterprise is winning, as many states are over-riding local franchise laws.

 

[Van]

I live in a cable monopolized area where charter cable is the soul provider. Because of this the service is poor as in the work that is done by the sub contractor that they have on contract to do all the work here. My experience with charter goes beyond my having them here in Athens GA, it also goes back to working for Dish for six years and working in several area's that they were the soul provider, again the issue was the quality of the work being done by the technicians and the frequent service issues from the local hub.

Personaly I have had 4 visits from 3 techs and have sent in photo's of the shotty work that has been done by the local guys, if there was another provider here then there would be more pressure to do the job right and to take care of the customer.

 

[stevenl]

I live in a cable monopolized area where charter cable is the soul provider. Because of this the service is poor as in the work that is done by the sub contractor that they have on contract to do all the work here. My experience with charter goes beyond my having them here in Athens GA, it also goes back to working for Dish for six years and working in several area's that they were the soul provider, again the issue was the quality of the work being done by the technicians and the frequent service issues from the local hub.

Personaly I have had 4 visits from 3 techs and have sent in photo's of the shotty work that has been done by the local guys, if there was another provider here then there would be more pressure to do the job right and to take care of the customer.

Sub-contractors are just that. Crap. Often time these are people hired with 0 expericance, to do the job because their is such a high volume of work to be done. usally given just a week or two of training and thrown out their.. Sure after a month or two of crappy work theyll be fired but imagine how many customers houses they touch in that time? Maybe 7 houses a day? 5 x 7 x 30 x 2 ? Quite a bit..

Now that isnt always the case, your "career contractors" who jump from company to company area to area looking for the place offering the best rates, are usally soem of the BEST installers in the industry.. These guys are dedicated to their job and make a small fortune doing it. Regardless of which provider you choose rather it D*/E*, cable, you can find hundreds of stories just like yours for each and everyone of the differnt providers... I know in Orlando with BHN we are the dominate provider in the area, and have AMAZING customer care.. The focus in the company is all about customer care. We dont try to be the "cost provider" but simpley "the best provider" Now even though their is so much focus and money spent in this area it doesnt mean we dont have customers who have problems. Or techs who are idiots.. The turn around rate in this industry is very high and usally the people who are good dont remain as "service techs/isntallers" very long they move up to jobs in the company that usally dont require them to meet with the customers, but do work out in the field that you never know about..

But I ask you to find any company that doesnt have issues like this, regardless of their field.. You goto 100 mcdonalds owned by corp, and you may get 100 differnt levels of service...

 

[cablewithaview]

FCC DOES NOT allow exclusive franchises period. This is yet another misconception. Another franchise however can either be denied or granted. Verizon makes out like this just does not happen but yet I see over builders like RCN and Knology having no issues. As Stevenl pointed out, there is other alternatives out there and always have been. See, C Band, DirecTV, Dish Network, IPTV, FTTH and even FTA satellite systems. WOW!!! Could you ever imagen all of the choices out there. People in general see the glass half empty instead half full. Nothing has not stopped telco's from building out fibre. They can build all they want. This boils down to a publicity stunt to advertise their service. WE ALL SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE!!! In reality, you already have choices. Telco's basically wants to pick and choose where to build out and offer their services to. Redlining still comes to mine. States shouldn't override the local franchise process but yet set up laws for them not to be abused. Example, a swimming pool or something that is not within the spirit of a franchise. I'm not a fan of franchises period, but at the same time I feel what is in place should be on equal footing for ALL providers.

It has nothing to do with easement, or lack of companies wanting to build systems. Cable comapnies pay municipalities franchise fees to grant them exclusive rights as the cable TV provider in those municipalities. Mini-monopolies, if you will, sanctioned by the local governments

The telcos have been fighting these antiquated cable franchise laws, in order to build their fiber TV systems, while cable companies are fighting to keep them. It seems that the spirit of free enterprise is winning, as many states are over-riding local franchise laws.

 

[damaged]

FCC DOES NOT allow exclusive franchises period. This is yet another misconception. Another franchise however can either be denied or granted. Verizon makes out like this just does not happen but yet I see over builders like RCN and Knology having no issues. As Stevenl pointed out, there is other alternatives out there and always have been. See, C Band, DirecTV, Dish Network, IPTV, FTTH and even FTA satellite systems. WOW!!! Could you ever imagen all of the choices out there. People in general see the glass half empty instead half full. Nothing has not stopped telco's from building out fibre. They can build all they want. This boils down to a publicity stunt to advertise their service. WE ALL SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE!!! In reality, you already have choices. Telco's basically wants to pick and choose where to build out and offer their services to. Redlining still comes to mine. States shouldn't override the local franchise process but yet set up laws for them not to be abused. Example, a swimming pool or something that is not within the spirit of a franchise. I'm not a fan of franchises period, but at the same time I feel what is in place should be on equal footing for ALL providers.

Wow, which cable company do you work for CABLEwithaview?

If there is so many choices (we are talking CABLETV choices NOT TV choices, so satellite, FIOS, IPTV etc, is not part of the topic) why can't I get AT&T instaed of Concast, when AT&T serves people just across the way from me?

Because Concast has the monopoly.

P.S. While some people say the glass is half-full, and some people say it's half-empty, I say, "Who's been drinking from my f*ckin glass?'.

 

[cablewithaview]

As been said, utility ride of ways, pole attachment and mainly cost dictates if other "cable tv choices" come into the picture.
Who I work for does not play a roll in my feelings and thoughts. I have been a customer of both satellite and cable and have installed both (mainly c band and cable, some FTA).

 

[damaged]

As been said, utility ride of ways, pole attachment and mainly cost dictates if other "cable tv choices" come into the picture.
Who I work for does not play a roll in my feelings and thoughts. I have been a customer of both satellite and cable and have installed both.

Among other laws, they were put into place by the [biggest at the time] cable companies themselves.

Cable companies are stinking, thieving, monopolizing pieces of garbage.

 

[cablewithaview]

Among other laws, they were put into place by the [biggest at the time] cable companies themselves.

Like ???

 

[damaged]

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=cable tv lobby monopoly

One out of that mess:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/congress_kills_community_tv

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,976099,00.html

There's f*in millions.

 

[cablewithaview]

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=cable tv lobby monopoly

One out of that mess:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/congress_kills_community_tv

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,976099,00.html

There's f*in millions.

The Nation article: "effort on behalf of the telephone lobby (principally Verizon and AT&T" Telco lobbyist not cable. ALSO "they (Telco's) wish to remove any obstacle to securing lucrative revenues from signing up customers from the wealthiest parts of the country." sound more like redlining, at least cable is required, if feasible, to build and offer to all, note here: "phone companies could engage in a form of economic redlining, serving only the most affluent parts of town; the current local franchise system prevents such discrimination." O' heaven forbid all get a part of the service equally. Last but not least: "to operate without regard for local concerns." In other words let a local community lose their identity as such to any business giant for gain. A shame anyone would go that low. To bad you don't care about your community, I do and help out anyway I can.

Time article: "Cable companies complain that phone carriers can compete unfairly by drawing on ratepayer funds to subsidize new TV ventures and using their monopoly over local telephone lines to restrict access from competitors." See and I wonder how that would be fair? A fair level playing field is there, telco ignores it. Should cable get the same ratepayers fund to subsidize ventures? Also: and to lower cable rates by promoting more competition. " Verizon announced an increase, not a decrease. Link to that: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6393559.html

 

[damaged]

Well being that multichannel.com is owned by reedbusiness.com (do a whois on multichannel.com to see), it seems quite biased, since the exec VP is Bill McGorry, whos bio[1] reads: "Bill is the recipient of numerous awards within the cable television industry.

He received an Honorary Beacon Award from the Cable Television Public Affairs Association, the Joel A. Berger Award from Cable Positive, as well as the Vanguard Award for lifetime achievement presented at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association in New Orleans."

So, I'd say that's going to tend to be biased towards cable.

[1]: http://www.reedbusiness.com/index.asp?layout=bio&articleid=CA6304141

 

[cablewithaview]

What is biased on reporting a price increase by a telco?

 

[damaged]

What is biased on reporting a price increase by a telco?

Umm, just a reminder, the thread is about cable monopolies not telcos. None of what you posted went against the fact that cable monpolies exist.

 

[stevenl]

Wow, which cable company do you work for CABLEwithaview?

If there is so many choices (we are talking CABLETV choices NOT TV choices, so satellite, FIOS, IPTV etc, is not part of the topic) why can't I get AT&T instaed of Concast, when AT&T serves people just across the way from me?

Because Concast has the monopoly.

P.S. While some people say the glass is half-full, and some people say it's half-empty, I say, "Who's been drinking from my f*ckin glass?'.

Not to mention say timewarner wouldnt want to open plant in the same area as comcast, just like your telephone companies dont. Why? Because first off its expensive to operate a cable plant, and why would they want to build out and try to take customers from another cable company, when they can just build in an area without a cable company or buy a smaller one.. its kinda like why one person who has a burgerking franchise wouldnt build another burger king next door... When they can build it up the road and not worry about competeing with another BK restraunt...

 

[stevenl]

Umm, just a reminder, the thread is about cable monopolies not telcos. None of what you posted went against the fact that cable monpolies exist.

Im not saying they arent their.. As far as your definition (cable companies competeing againest each other) But their is other compeition in the TV Service industry... In any area you have at least 5-6 choices (OTA, Cable, dish, directv, cband, FTA,) to name the ones im aware of.. Now you are getting some telcos into the game as well...

Its just not finacially possible for cable companies to build plant next to each other and compete and still make a profit.. In areas where their are cable overbuilds like in east orlando, BHN is still the dominate provider but Adelphia (now comcast) has such a small footprint ive been told it costs them money to operate, and they make nothing on it..

 

[Splicer]

Cable companies are stinking, thieving, monopolizing pieces of garbage.

As are the power and telephone companies.

 

[hilltopper]

There is no government sanctioned cable monopoly. Governments can't give exclusive franchise agreements.

Verizon can come into any community and go through the franchising process and ultimately get one. They don't want to do that... and for a lot of good reasons. The county where I live has a population of 400,000... and 72 different municipalities to deal with. That's 72 franchise negotiations... And those negotiations can often get testy as the local governments work to get stuff from the company. PEG channels, local data networks, service agreements, maybe even a call center. Verizon would much rather deal at the state level.

The cable company's argument is that we had to do it the old way, so why shouldn't Verizon? They're a huge company... why do they need special rules? It's the "level playing field" argument.

The question remains: why don't the big cable companies compete against each other? Simple... it's more profitable to invest the company's resources into new products for their existing market. It costs a lot of money to build a cable plant... spending that much money to compete against an entrenched company isn't a wise move. It's far easier and better to develop new services and increase revenue per customer (not to mention that there's still a substantial market to win locally... the people who have satellite or are happy with OTA channels).

There's a perception that Verizon is the knight in shining armor riding in to save people from the evil cable monopoly -- but let's not forget that the telcos are the true masters of the monopoly game. They're not getting in FIOS because they want to... they're doing it because they have to. Their telephone monopoly is being broken up... by the evil cable monopoly, no less. Even they don't know what the future holds... but with the core phone market drying up, not taking the chance would mean they're doomed to wither away.

Disclaimer: I work for a cable company. That said, I'm thrilled with the plans for FIOS. Satellite forced cable to develop a host of new and exciting products... FIOS will do the same, only more so because, frankly, the new competitor is considerably more formidable. Satellite has inherent limits -- no realistic internet option, no good VOD solution, no phone service, etc. FIOS has no apparent limits. Even for a low-level call center grunt like me, it's an exciting time to be in the telecommunications business. I may not always like my current job, but I can't think of any other industry I'd rather be in right now.