3 ms·

I live in Austin and switched from TWC to U-Verse when it was launched. Many customers also have Grande. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that TWC's long domin

by aero142 14y ago

I live in Austin and switched from TWC to U-Verse when it was launched. Many customers also have Grande. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that TWC's long dominance was from some government protection arrangement, but I'm not aware of it. Could you offer any specifics as to what gives TWC a monopoly and why it doesn't apply to U-Verse and Grande.

otterley 14y ago
The monopoly lies in the fact that municipalities need not provide a franchise to more than one cable operator (such as TWC). In some municipalities you can switch Internet service from, say, cable to telephone-based service (such as U-Verse) but in many others this is not a realistic option.
- majormajor 14y ago
  The ability to pipe TV over IP is dramatically weakening the natural cable company monopolies. In AT&T phone service territory, as they upgrade their network you can switch to U-Verse for not just internet but also television, with a much improved set-top box experience. I don't agree with the claim that opening up the ability to lay a cable network to everyone would help things -- heck, look how slow the deployment of U-Verse is taking over AT&T's existing infrastructure... having to do that from scratch, laying a whole new network over the city and in everybody's yards, would be a many times larger endeavor -- but technological changes are already making competition much more possible than before since now both of those entrenched networks can be used for TV.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    Do you have the any evidence that cable monopolies have been dramatically weakened? E.g., dropping prices, reduced ability to pressure vendors? I think we might get there one day, but I suspect they're barely noticing it right now.
lowmagnet 14y ago
In 1985 FCC rules were adjusted to create CLECs (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers) by forcing the I(ncumbent)LECs to allow competition on their hardware. This never happened in the cable industry because cable isn't considered necessary like phone service is.

by aero142 14y ago

otterley 14y ago

The monopoly lies in the fact that municipalities need not provide a franchise to more than one cable operator (such as TWC). In some municipalities you can switch Internet service from, say, cable to telephone-based service (such as U-Verse) but in many others this is not a realistic option.

majormajor 14y ago
The ability to pipe TV over IP is dramatically weakening the natural cable company monopolies. In AT&T phone service territory, as they upgrade their network you can switch to U-Verse for not just internet but also television, with a much improved set-top box experience. I don't agree with the claim that opening up the ability to lay a cable network to everyone would help things -- heck, look how slow the deployment of U-Verse is taking over AT&T's existing infrastructure... having to do that from scratch, laying a whole new network over the city and in everybody's yards, would be a many times larger endeavor -- but technological changes are already making competition much more possible than before since now both of those entrenched networks can be used for TV.
- wpietri 14y ago
  Do you have the any evidence that cable monopolies have been dramatically weakened? E.g., dropping prices, reduced ability to pressure vendors? I think we might get there one day, but I suspect they're barely noticing it right now.

lowmagnet 14y ago

In 1985 FCC rules were adjusted to create CLECs (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers) by forcing the I(ncumbent)LECs to allow competition on their hardware. This never happened in the cable industry because cable isn't considered necessary like phone service is.