3 ms·

Will this really matter in the long run? I mean don't most cable companies have a local monopoly anyway? I don't think there are many Comcast subscribers who ca

Will this really matter in the long run? I mean don't most cable companies have a local monopoly anyway? I don't think there are many Comcast subscribers who can switch to TWC. I know there's still a diversity of offerings across the market that will change, but that seems a minor thing compared to the fact that most broadband users don't have a choice who they get their broadband from anyway.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
The future isn't cable though, it's internet, and even the cable companies know this. In most places the best internet is still via cable. Having such a dominant monopoly would put them in prime position to gouge everyone in every direction. Gouge downward by charging the consumers higher prices. Gouge upward by charging companies like netflix to have their content not be horrendously throttled over your pipes. With such a large customer base, it becomes much harder for folks to resist. And, of course, with more customers they have more revenue, which better positions them for future acquisitions. Comcast already owns NBCUniversal, so they are already positioned to become an even larger media conglomerate.
iends 13y ago
It matters to me as a TWC customer. Luckily I have a choice between TWC and AT&T internet currently. I don't want to do business with one of the worst American companies, too bad both my choices are just that.
dreamdu5t 13y ago
People get up in arms about them being monopolies and their solution is to grant them monopolies. It's stupid. How about this? No monopolies at all. If I want to run cable and I get the easements, I should be able to...
- harshreality 13y ago
  Suppose there weren't any official monopoly grant from way-back-whenever to your existing local telco and cable companies. There would still be a de-facto monopoly or duopoly: The easement permitting process, currently entirely blocked due to the monopoly grants, would exist, but as a sham... with the (mono|duo)polies coercing city politicians not to let upstarts dig up roads or string new cables. I've lived in a city with lots of fiber being put in. It's a nuisance, and without vocal public support it's easy for entrenched ISPs to argue that the nuisance isn't worth the increased choice, particularly in markets where there is already "competition" between one [horrible] "cable" provider and one [horrible] "telco" provider.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

The future isn't cable though, it's internet, and even the cable companies know this. In most places the best internet is still via cable. Having such a dominant monopoly would put them in prime position to gouge everyone in every direction. Gouge downward by charging the consumers higher prices. Gouge upward by charging companies like netflix to have their content not be horrendously throttled over your pipes. With such a large customer base, it becomes much harder for folks to resist. And, of course, with more customers they have more revenue, which better positions them for future acquisitions. Comcast already owns NBCUniversal, so they are already positioned to become an even larger media conglomerate.

iends 13y ago

It matters to me as a TWC customer. Luckily I have a choice between TWC and AT&T internet currently. I don't want to do business with one of the worst American companies, too bad both my choices are just that.

dreamdu5t 13y ago

People get up in arms about them being monopolies and their solution is to grant them monopolies. It's stupid. How about this? No monopolies at all. If I want to run cable and I get the easements, I should be able to...

harshreality 13y ago
Suppose there weren't any official monopoly grant from way-back-whenever to your existing local telco and cable companies. There would still be a de-facto monopoly or duopoly: The easement permitting process, currently entirely blocked due to the monopoly grants, would exist, but as a sham... with the (mono|duo)polies coercing city politicians not to let upstarts dig up roads or string new cables. I've lived in a city with lots of fiber being put in. It's a nuisance, and without vocal public support it's easy for entrenched ISPs to argue that the nuisance isn't worth the increased choice, particularly in markets where there is already "competition" between one [horrible] "cable" provider and one [horrible] "telco" provider.