5 ms·

I had TWC/Spectrum and it was cheaper and faster then the Comcast I get now after moving. What does the state plan on doing for all the millions of people who

I had TWC/Spectrum and it was cheaper and faster then the Comcast I get now after moving. What does the state plan on doing for all the millions of people who only had TWC/Spectrum? Maybe they should invite more competitors in rather than kicking them out.

reaperducer 8y ago
Maybe they should invite more competitors in rather than kicking them out. Gotta kick one out to make room for the other. New York isn't about to let every ISP in the nation run independent lines over all of the poles in the state. The good thing is that when the replacement company steps up (or wins the bid), it will know that the state is serious about keeping obligations. OTOH, this might be when we find out just how much collusion there is between the big companies, if none decide to fill the gap, thus putting pressure on the AG from the voters.
- mmt 8y ago
  > New York isn't about to let every ISP in the nation run independent lines over all of the poles in the state. Why not? I would expect the barrier to entry there to be the expense of doing so, not regulatory refusal. It makes sense for a regulator to require "universal" coverage and prohibit cherry-picking only the profitable areas, which brings the cost barrier back into focus. However, encouraging a monopology would seem to encourage a similar result. Has the state actually expressed or implied such a policy?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    Why not? I would expect the barrier to entry there to be the expense of doing so, not regulatory refusal. A quick GIS of telephone poles in India or Thailand will provide you an answer.
    - mmt 8y ago
      No, it does not, unless you're asserting that India and/or Thailand have comparable regulatory structures for utilities, other than the one detail of which ISPs are permitted on poles. To whit, I believe you're presenting a false dichotomy between monopoly and completely unregulate free-for-all.
      - reaperducer 8y ago
        You're thinking about it too hard. People don't want massive bunches of cable lines running through their neighborhoods. Most people don't even like the few they have unless they're underground and there aren't access pillars every hundred feet. Voters aren't going to let regulators ugly up their neighborhoods and drive their home values down.
        mmt 8y ago
        > You're thinking about it too hard. Mostly, I'm trying to determine if your assertion was a speculation based on, say, evidence (either from NYS previous behavior or from another jurisdiction), or strictly your intuition or guesswork. So far, I've only seen the latter. My own intuition is this has nothing to do with voters and everything to do with legislators and administrative regulators, over whom voters have only a vague influence and only after deals like this are already done. Even so, do you even have anything to back up your claim that voters (and most of them, at that) care about additional cables on utility poles, especially in New York State (and not just something that shows people merely prefer underground utilities to pole-mounted, which is undisputed)?
- cimmanom 8y ago
  Maybe an appropriate recourse here, then, would be to force Spectrum to rent access to their lines so that all consumers have a choice?
  - lylecubed 8y ago
    You might find this an interesting read: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/technology/how-to-give-rural-america-broadband-look-to-the-early-1900s.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/technology/how-to-give-ru...
    - cimmanom 8y ago
      Yeah, there are sort of two different issues at stake here. One is how to get broadband to rural areas, which is why Spectrum is being penalized. The other is how to provide some sort of competition in urban areas, which this move seems to further undermine.

reaperducer 8y ago

Maybe they should invite more competitors in rather than kicking them out. Gotta kick one out to make room for the other. New York isn't about to let every ISP in the nation run independent lines over all of the poles in the state. The good thing is that when the replacement company steps up (or wins the bid), it will know that the state is serious about keeping obligations. OTOH, this might be when we find out just how much collusion there is between the big companies, if none decide to fill the gap, thus putting pressure on the AG from the voters.

mmt 8y ago
> New York isn't about to let every ISP in the nation run independent lines over all of the poles in the state. Why not? I would expect the barrier to entry there to be the expense of doing so, not regulatory refusal. It makes sense for a regulator to require "universal" coverage and prohibit cherry-picking only the profitable areas, which brings the cost barrier back into focus. However, encouraging a monopology would seem to encourage a similar result. Has the state actually expressed or implied such a policy?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- reaperducer 8y ago
  Why not? I would expect the barrier to entry there to be the expense of doing so, not regulatory refusal. A quick GIS of telephone poles in India or Thailand will provide you an answer.
  - mmt 8y ago
    No, it does not, unless you're asserting that India and/or Thailand have comparable regulatory structures for utilities, other than the one detail of which ISPs are permitted on poles. To whit, I believe you're presenting a false dichotomy between monopoly and completely unregulate free-for-all.
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      You're thinking about it too hard. People don't want massive bunches of cable lines running through their neighborhoods. Most people don't even like the few they have unless they're underground and there aren't access pillars every hundred feet. Voters aren't going to let regulators ugly up their neighborhoods and drive their home values down.
      - mmt 8y ago
        > You're thinking about it too hard. Mostly, I'm trying to determine if your assertion was a speculation based on, say, evidence (either from NYS previous behavior or from another jurisdiction), or strictly your intuition or guesswork. So far, I've only seen the latter. My own intuition is this has nothing to do with voters and everything to do with legislators and administrative regulators, over whom voters have only a vague influence and only after deals like this are already done. Even so, do you even have anything to back up your claim that voters (and most of them, at that) care about additional cables on utility poles, especially in New York State (and not just something that shows people merely prefer underground utilities to pole-mounted, which is undisputed)?
cimmanom 8y ago
Maybe an appropriate recourse here, then, would be to force Spectrum to rent access to their lines so that all consumers have a choice?
- lylecubed 8y ago
  You might find this an interesting read: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/technology/how-to-give-rural-america-broadband-look-to-the-early-1900s.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/technology/how-to-give-ru...
  - cimmanom 8y ago
    Yeah, there are sort of two different issues at stake here. One is how to get broadband to rural areas, which is why Spectrum is being penalized. The other is how to provide some sort of competition in urban areas, which this move seems to further undermine.