Cable Companies Free To Grow, Grow, Grow 106
Dasheiff writes: "A federal appeals court [NYTimes, free reg. req. [?] ] struck down a set of regulations today that had prevented the nation's largest cable companies from growing beyond serving more than 30 percent of the cable and satellite market's subscribers and providing more than 40 percent of its channels with programming from its affiliated companies. In other words AT&T and AOL Time Warner can now continue to expand their monopoly. However it's not clear if this is a bad thing, if shows continue to be poor people will not watch them. Companies need to compete with the viewer more than the other companies." So, were those limits actually doing customers good or not? And will this make high-speed access (even if AOL-TW dominated) available in many places it's not right now?
It's channel, not partners!! (Score:1)
In general, it's a good idea to test you links before posting, and it can be done via the preview page. I thought this would be obvious...
In case someone missed my other post, the correct link is here [nytimes.com].
--
This has absolutely nothing to do with monopoly (Score:2)
Now, without the regulation, it is at least remotely conceivable that either AT&T or TW might attempt to expand by invading the others' area. Hence, competition. Probably won't happen though. It's going to be a couple of large cable companies with non-overlapping service areas for decades to come.
With large monopoly comes expectations (Score:1)
Re:Monopolies are not bad always. (Score:1)
The pagan credo goes "Harm none, do what you will". However, these cable companies (with higher prices and bad customer service in tow) will "harm anyone and do what they will". The government has given them license to. So, when they are screwing us...we have no legal recourse...and don't think that the government cares about the citizens. We don't have enough money to lobby them.
It's like the steel companies. They did nothing to prevent lower grade, cheaper, imported steel from coming in and as a result legions of steelworkers lost their jobs and whole cities economies have been devastated (example: Youngstown, OH, USA) The point is the government could have stopped the steel from being imported to allow the American steel industry to prosper but they did not. Now the government is being asked to help the bleeding stop...when they are holding the machete. Doesn't make much sense... So, in short, we have NO recourse.
Re:Cable companies=lousy service (Score:2)
A business therefore has two choices:
1) Expand to increase revenue and increase "economies of scale" efficiency.
2) Raise prices.
Unless you want your cable rate going up constantly, your cable company needs to expand or perish. Where in the Constitution of the United States is the government granted the power to tell them HOW MUCH they can expand?
Now, if your state or city has laws preventing other cable companies from moving into your area, there's something for you to protest. If other cable companies just don't choose to do it, however, that's your problem, not the government's. Start your own cable company.
-
Changes in Programing (Score:1)
Re:Monopoly? (Score:1)
Re:An Expanding Monopoly (Score:1)
Re:Monopolies are not bad always. (Score:1)
I think we should be particularly careful about monopolies when they are monopolies of media outlets. Monopolies may not always cause harm, but they certianly have the potential.
A large media outlet has enormous potential to influence public opinion and maintain their hold on power even after they have caused harm. If we wait until they cause harm, they may be much harder to stop.
Re:I'm so confused (Score:3)
Here's just one story talking about it (the first good one that came up in google):
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2
Now, Allen isn't as tight with MS as he once was, but perhaps there is more to your parody than even you realize...
Re:A monopoly can be more than one company (Score:1)
What dictionaries say not really what's important. What is important is how much opportunity firms have to increases prices (above cost of producing whatever they sell) without losing customers. The more firms there are, the less opportunity each firm has to do this. But even with more than one firm, there is still some opportunity.
Free-market economic theory would indicate that CEOs would never do this
Not necessarily. You can look at it as a repeated prisoners dilemma, which case, your best strategy is usually cooperating (i.e. keeping prices high). Try for yourself here [princeton.edu].
Re:A monopoly can be more than one company (Score:3)
The problem is that cable companies don't acheive their monopolies through collusion but rather through spatial monopolies. For instance, here in Canada, there are a number of cable companies: Rogers, Shaw, Videotron, etc. However, my only choice in cable company is Rogers Cable or no cable.
The problem is that Shaw and Videotron only have cable running to people's houses in their territories. The situation is no different in the US (or for that matter, pretty much anywhere in the developed world). If you have AT&T you can't pick TW. This is a monopoly.
Are these monopolies dangerous? In some sense, because they do control the flow of information into households, this might be a problem. However, as time goes on, there are more and more sources of information (ie dialup internet, satellite TV & internet, not to mention newspapers, magazines, etc).
Oh, and BTW, check out AT&T's website [att.com]. There you'll see that, far from being in danger of buying more cable networks, the US's largest cable system is actually selling off parts of it's network.
Re:This is one of the stupider comments today... (Score:1)
Yes, government granted itself that power through those acts.
The Constitution doesn't allow them to do that, but they did it anyway. I have a problem with that.
-
Re:Cable companies=lousy service (Score:1)
You, sir, are an ignorant ass.
Not only is that not true (I have a choice of Comcast or Americast as my cable TV provider), but it is currently a violation of U.S. federal law for any U.S. community to grant a cable TV monopoly. Has been for eight years now.
Re:Cable companies=lousy service (Score:1)
In federal court. U.S. law has prohibited exclusive cable franchises for the last eight years.
Re:High Speed? (Score:1)
The "private garden" approach has been considered, even attempted by companies like AT&T. Nobody's very sure if it's going to work out very well-- so far precedent has closed ISPs like AOL opening up more and more to the rest of the internet.
This is an open access issue. Pushing the ownership limits from 40% to 60% is right on schedule for ATT's recent acquisitions...
Yes, they have been pushing these issues, but don't forget that AT&T's in the process of imploding right now. And they're the biggest cable company-- even TW isn't that big.
Re:Cable companies=lousy service (Score:1)
Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3. Congress shall have power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". (emphasis added)
5.075 feet? (Score:1)
Monopolies? (Score:1)
Is it really any better to force one area to have one cable company simply because company a is too big?
I live in Northern VA. and we have the *worst* cable company I have ever had (adelphia) and I would be very happy if someone else could move into this area so I might finally get broadband (no possibility of dsl here either)
dewke
Re:High Speed? (Score:1)
And this is because having '@home' means nothing. @home is not your cable company.
No dishes here (Score:2)
I live in an apartment in the city, as do most people here. I'm sure some do it, but I can't imagine that my landlord is going to let me put a dish-- even a little one-- out my window. So Time Warner it is. Plus, how many satellite services are there going to be? At most a couple, and what's to stop the cable monoliths from buying them up when they hit hard times (with this ruling as precedent?)
Cable monopolies (Score:2)
Re:Monopoly? (Score:4)
The only solution to this is to have the government impose restrictions. Like the article submitter said, the government should choose what cable companies you should be allowed and not allowed to subscribe to, by putting caps on the marketshare of each company. The government always knows what's best for us. We're not smart enough to make decisions for ourselves, and the only solution is a massive, overreaching government beauracracy to control every aspect of our spending decisions (which, as we all know, are much more friendly and efficient than all of those evil, big, bad corporations).
Local governments stifiling competition (Score:1)
If that is de-regulation, I'm scared.
As for the lame shows thing, I have not had cable TV for over a year now (I belive the quote from Pink Floyd is "Got thirteen channels of sh*t on the T.V. to choose from"). My Comcast @Home Cable Modem still sucks, but it's still cheaper than DSL for the same speeds. Until competition really arrives, I'm stuck with the best of a bad situation.
Re:High Speed? (Score:2)
Re:Non-Competition (Score:1)
This assumes that the government is ever going to be willing to break anything up again. With the current state of Antitrust litigation in our country, I'd get used to monopolies for the better part of the next couple of decades.
They can't stop you... (Score:1)
If you want to install your own DIRECTV System first check with your landlord or property manager for permission to install it on your rooftop. If you are not able to install it on a rooftop, you may be able to take advantage of a January 1999 FCC ruling stating that apartment, condominium, townhome and single family home renters can install either satellite dishes or TV antennas on private balconies, patios or gardens. Remember, regardless of where the satellite dish is installed, it must have a clear view to the southern sky.
AT&T is selling some broadband assets to Mediacom (Score:2)
story here [att.com]
Basically, AT&T is in debt up to their eyeballs and need cash. I live in one of the markets being acquired, and can't wait. I don't use AT&T for broadband anymore, been with Qwest for a year on a buisness DSL plan and have been very happy. I still use AT&T for digital cable, but I hardly watch t.v. Besides, I'm pretty sure it would defy some law of the universe for Mediacom to charge more for less than what I'm currently getting from AT&T digital cable.
Media Monoply (Score:1)
The canonical treatise on the concentration of corporate power in the media is Ben Bagdikian's excellent The Media Monopoly [uua.org].
We need real alternatives to the corporate gerber, and one real alternative is Public Access Television. For those that don't know what this is, it is a system whereby the cable provider allocates channel space, and provides studios, equipment and training to *anyone* to create their own TV shows. A fairly complete list of these facilities is here: http://www.openchannel.se/cat/ [openchannel.se]. Educate yourself about Public Access, petition your local city government to require it (if you don't have it), and MAKE YOUR OWN TV SHOW! (It's real fun!)
Keep in mind that for these corporate media companies to operate, they generally must obtain the grant of a franchise from your city government. These franchise agreements have a term limit (like 10 years), and ensures a bit of local control w/r/t taxation (franshise fee), and that the franchise operate in the public interest.
Now remember that in the USA, government is created by the people, and the government charters or franchises these media companies. A creates B and B creates C... Get it? The people ultimately sanction the corporations, and thus, they must operate in the public interest.
So, while you're petitioning your city government to provide Public Access Television [binghamton...access.org], be sure to remind them that it is their duty as public servants to make sure these monopoly franchisees operate in the public interest, like the Terms of Use "Agreement" [stny.com] , where YOU the user must usually "consent" to monitoring, such that you won't engage in any sorts of illegal speech (whatever the hell that is), that you won't run servers, etc. This stuff is NOT PROPER SUBJECT MATTER for a common carrier to require in contracts with customers, especially when they are the only game in town (monopoly) AND that they are supposed to be operating in the public interest, as they were created by the government which "derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed" [constitution.org], to quote TJ.
Real World Up/Down (Score:3)
I'm sorry you're getting such shitty bandwidth, but I'm afraid it depends almost completely on the company rather than the technology.
I have been a faithful and happy customer of MediaOne (now AT&T, who would have thought I'd *ever* say something like that?) for about 2 years now. The reason is that my cable modem has consistently given me speeds to rival those of a T1 on downloads and about half that on uploads. When downloading from university ftp sites, I will consistently get speeds of approx. 1.5 Mb/s. As far os uploads go, the best indicator I've seen is Napster uploads; people get transfer rates of about 120 KB/s (Yes, I'm pretty sure that's Bytes not bits, feel free to correct me, I don't feel like firing up napster to check which units it uses).
On the other side, I used to work for Bell Atlantic/Verizon in their DSL department, and I can attest that it is about the shittiest broadband service I have ever seen. I know however that there are many good DSL providers out there (although I don't think any of their customers get speeds like mine). It all depends on the company.
Now to keep the post at least moderately on-topic; this business with allowing Cable providers over *40* percent market penetration seems completely insane. Do people have no memories? Well, stupid question...
A monopoly can be more than one company (Score:5)
Depending on which dictionary you go to, monopoly is either held exclusively by one company, or by a group. (Dictionary.com [dictionary.com] uses the word "group", while Merriam-Webster [m-w.com] just refers to a single company.) The definition of "group" is what's important here. There are many instances in business history where competitors in one field got together to agree not to compete in certain ways -- most notably by price-fixing.
Free-market economic theory would indicate that CEOs would never do this, that they would decide to compete in any way possible to eke out more market share. Yet this does happen. We have documented cases of price-fixing across all sorts of industries: legal research [lawnewsnetwork.com], oil firms [usatoday.com], even vitamin manufacturers [quackwatch.com]. There are plenty of theories as to why it happens, though my personal favorite is psychological. I think that CEOs, when they're placed in charge of vast corporations they cannot entirely control or understand, become extremely risk-averse. This is why large corporations rarely innovate; it's also why a CEO might enter into a price-fixing agreement. It's just one less thing to worry about. At least for the CEO; everybody else usually suffers, in higher prices and poorer quality.
Re:Cable companies=lousy service (Score:1)
Re:Charter is ANTI-TECHNOLOGY!!! (Score:1)
1) Sports blackouts occur because the federal government allows monopolistic businesses (i.e., professional sports leagues) to control how their product is distributed. Fair enough, but blame the professional sports organizations trying to protect the local gate and not the government for sports blackouts.
2) You can now get "local channels" from the Dish Network for $4.99 a month [dishnetwork.com]. If you get local channels that are on cable due to the "must carry" rule, then those channels are local to you and should be available to you. If the Dish Network cannot provide you with local service then it may be them and not the big, bad government that is causing your problems. And how do you know it is the Feds? Local/state governments also are involved through franchise agreements with communications companies.
3) Why do you even need analog cable? How about using an outside antenna instead? Get one at Rat Shack and install it in your attic -- problem solved.
4)Without line breaks your post is very hard to read. <br> is your friend...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
Re:Local governments stifiling competition (Score:1)
People will watch poor shows (Score:1)
I am wondering, where this is coming from ...
It's been five years since I've been in the states, but I bet you have your fair share of complete TV-junk like we have here in Germany. "Explosiv", "Big Brother", "Talk talk talk" to name a few. Shows like "When animals attack". Who in their right mind watches this crap? Why is this complete and utter crap even being produced?
Looks like the normal TV consumer will thankfully accept any kind of bullshit that is stuffed in his head. Even more, he'll prefer it over quality programming, which can be seen in the way that the public television in Germany is readjusting their programming to suit the new market needs. This is why a loathe TV. A pile of junk--without which the civilization would be definitaly better off.
I guess that the principle of competition bring better quality products can't be applied to TV at all.
Kinda sad that is.
Re:Cable companies=lousy service (Score:1)
All areas are served by one cable company, as is electric and telephone utilities. Back at the turn of the century (1900) the streets began to be flooded with telephone poles and wires everywhere. To end the morass, governments decided to let just one company serve one area.
The free market is not always the best way to serve the public. I'm of the opinion that the cable lines should be owned by the government, and that cable companies could license channels just like they do the airways.
As things are now, cable TV is a sham and a scam. The majority of the channels available are either pay-per view, or premium movies or shopping networks.
What's even worse is cable internet. Instead of the cable companies selling you an IP number, they sell you junk you probably don't need (web space, newsfeed, email address) and do so at a premium price. Dialup ISPs have no chance to get into the lucrative cable internet market. It is a closed, protected monopoly.
blessings,
Re:An Expanding Monopoly (Score:1)
cable companies are a common carrier (Score:3)
It's also worth noting that many people now consider cable a common carrier. There are certain types of communications networks that are considered common carriers, in that they should only be built once and then opened on a non-monopolistic basis, because it would be economically wasteful to duplicate the network for the sake of competition on that level.
There was once a time, for example, when AT&T owned not just the phone network, but all local service and long-distance service. They argued that decoupling the network from the service didn't make any technical sense; the government eventually decided to break them up anyway. The fact that you can have a different long-distance carrier than AT&T now is a direct result of governmental interference, and I for one am happy about the results.
And guess what? AT&T's still around. They're not in such great shape -- in large part because they were a large bureaucracy, unfit to compete in a world where they no longer owned a monopolistic advantage over the phone networks -- but they're still around. I never understand why companies argue against fairness in the marketplace by saying "We're so ass-backwards here that without our unnatural monopolistic advantage, we'll perish." If I believed my company was that fucked, I'd leave and find another employer.
Re:Bad Economics (Score:2)
Go re-read your free market economic texts. This is not what they say. None of them say tht collusion or cartels can never happen. Quite the opposite. However, they point to market forces as being a very difficult thing for collusionists to overcome. No cartel that did not have government or criminal backing of some form has ever survived for any appreciable length of time.
One example is OPEC, one of the most successful cartels in history. But they are only able to maintain their cartels because all the members are governments. There is no free market in oil. Another example is one of yours: legal services. Attorneys in the US have the legal equivalent of a "Letter of Marquis", and can control their exact membership through the force of law.
Tune out, turn off, drop out. (Score:1)
I beg to differ. Mencken was right on when he said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Given that Gresham's Law has overtaken Sturgeon's -- bad shows are driving good ones off the screen -- I say let AOL/TW have their cable monopoly. They're not getting any of my money, anyway.
--
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delenda est Windoze
Monopoly? (Score:1)
Yes, they own a lot of media, but they have no power in stopping you or i from starting our own competing website or magazine, etc...
Re:A monopoly can be more than one company (Score:1)
Oh great (Score:1)
No reg req (Score:1)
--
Re:Cable companies=lousy service (Score:2)
Inflation is what happens when the government issues more currency, causing the value of existing currency to decrease. We're not living in a particularly inflationary time. Why do you think inflation has anything to do with this?
Expanding to increase revenue would not solve your hypothetical problem of rising costs, because the costs will presumably scale along with the revenue. As for economies of scale, I would guess that even the smallest cable company is already past the point where further growth would yield further economies of scale.
In the Commerce Clause [lls.edu], of course.
As far as I know, every cable TV operator in the US is operating under a "franchise" granted by the municipal government. A quote from this page [beaconhill.org] sums it up:
Re:Local governments stifiling competition (Score:1)
There are some new technologies on the horizon that should make cable even more profitable, and attract more overbuilders. Video on Demand (VOD), interactive TV (quite popular in europe now), and other services could generate enough revenue to encourage competition - if you make the pot too attractive, more and more companies are going to want a piece of it. If the existing cable companies try to block the entrace of competitors, they become monopolies abusing their power, and open up their firms to anti-trust laws - very expensive give the treble damages clauses and such.
lest we forget (Score:1)
Many are forgetting it is we the people, who subscribe and pay for cable and there are alternatives to use instead of Time Warner, or any other cable company. e.g., A satellite dish will cost over time less than cable. Anyways, everyone is ranting over AOL and TimeWarner, while a smaller fish can cause just as much damage, AT7T and MediaOne. Where are the screams and outrage for this?
[?] [antioffline.com]
Ummm... (Score:2)
Many people will watch something even if they don't like it that much, just to avoid doing other things(reading?).
When you have 500 channels there is always something good on TV.
TechTV.com (good stuff)
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2)
I agree with the sentiment, but foresee implementation problems. Both the telco and cable co. have fat, expensive cables running along poles. The difference is that the telco's cable contains (typically) hundreds of twisted pairs, each of which is dedicated to one circuit. The cable co's cable contains (typically) a center conductor, insulation, and an outer shield. Although the cable has tremendous bandwidth, RF multiplexing is needed in order to have multiple signals peacefully share that cable.
What this means is that telephone cables are perfect for splitting up among many vendors. As long as their equipment is FCC compliant, the different vendors can't interfere with each other's signals. The TV cable, however, does not offer this automatic isolation of different signals. Some trusted entity has to be in charge of the equipment that actually connects to the cable.
I'm so confused (Score:2)
Bandwidth - Freedom = "Interactive TV"? (Score:1)
> So, were those limits actually doing customers good or not? And will this make high-speed access (even if AOL-TW dominated) available in many places it's not right now?
It doesn't matter how fat the pipe is, if your not free to put anything you want down it.
Si
ps. This phrase applies equally well in other areas 8-)
High Speed? (Score:4)
The prospect of large cable companies is disheartening. Their customer service sucks because they do not have anything that approaches competition. They think they are entitled to my business and they act like it.
As soon as I can I am dropping Cable and looking at satellite access for my tv and as soon as DSL makes it here I am making the switch.
Dubious reasoning (Score:1)
"if shows continue to be poor people will not watch them."
HAHA!! Yeah, like American families are going to suddenly realize that they've been staring at crap 4 hours a day.
aol time warner aren't all that bad. (Score:2)
Quality of shows (Score:3)
Re:Monopolies are not bad always. (Score:2)
Now- care to BET on it? Preferably large sums of money...
Correction (Score:1)
Sure you will. You're not the dumbest nation on earth for nothing, you know.
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2)
I believe what you are saying make sense for old-style cable systems, but is that really
the case in these days of fiber optic cables? Why wouldn't it be possible to have an architecture that supported several vendors of TV and broadband services on one optical pipe?
MOVE 'ZIG'.
Monopolies are not bad always. (Score:3)
1. Large companies are not bad if they are not hurting people or other businesses. Who says that by having a large market share is bad, only if you hurt consumers.
2. Large Companies are not bad if they are properly run and offer their services at the lowest cost to consumers.
3. The Bigger the company the more capital it has to expand to areas that they would not normally go to becuase of the cost to do so. Companies will offer services to people even if they lose money just to GET customers and know they will keep them. Small companies cannot do this.
4. AOL/Time Warner has the capability to become the consumers best friend by expanding broadband and expanding its cable and fiber optics to areas that cannot get them. If they do so and offer their services at a reasonable rate then they are helping consumers not hurting them.
I will agree 100% that if a company does hurt consumers and does hurt other competing business they should be find and or broken up by the government. Government is here for the People, By the people.
Let AOL/Time Warner expand and let AT&T expand and see what happens. If they do good, than things are ok, if they dont we have a recourse later.
Lord Arathres
Cable companies=lousy service (Score:2)
Re:500 channels = there is something good on TV. (Score:1)
"The Naked Chef?" (yes, it's on the listing)
I'm out of here....
NY times log in (Score:3)
Monopoly? (Score:2)
I think it would be nice if cablecos were treated like telcos, that is they have to rent their lines to other cable companies.
MOVE 'ZIG'.
Just start your own DSL based network (Score:1)
Expanded coverage? (Score:1)
Perhaps even expanding cable internet access to us...mmm...cable modem....
No wonder DBS sales are going strong (Score:2)
It's all these complaints about lousy cable service that is driving people to buy satellite dishes on a large scale.
No wonder DirecTV and Dish Network receiver sales are going strong lately; for the price of basic cable per month in most of the USA you get frequently two to three times the basic channels available with a DBS system compared to most cable providers.
DBS systems have far more pay-per-view movies and sporting events than any cable system, too. And you can get multichannel versions of HBO, Showtime, The Movie Channel and Cinemax that even digital cable systems mostly don't offer.
This is one of the stupider comments today... (Score:1)
Re:Monopoly? (Score:1)
My hope is that one day most of them will grow up , have kids and simply blend in into society.
Re:Media Monoply (Score:1)
Re:High Speed? (Score:1)
monopoly economics (Score:2)
There may be benefits to monopolies. For example, AT&T invested so much in research only because they had a monopoly; since that was broken up, their research labs have steadily declined. But that was, in part, due to close government scrutiny and other idiosyncratic factors. I don't expect AT&T research to go back to the old days--I think you can be pretty sure that any profits they get now will be transferred to stock holders one way or another.
Re:High Speed? (Score:2)
That, of course, depends on the type of cable modem used. My ISP (Chello, in The Netherlands) uses Terayon (TeraLink S-CDMA) equipment which has a shared uplink of about 3-5 Mbit/s (depending on distance to the headend and quality of the cable infrastructure). Even so, uplink is capped at 128 kbit/s to keep people from running servers on their connections. Problem with this is that TCP connections are not that happy with asymmetric bandwidth, so the downlink suffers a heavy penalty when the (capped) uplink gets saturated. A better solution would be to create a limited data uplink in concert with an unlimited (or less severely limited) control uplink. The latter would only be useable for 'traffic control' type of traffic (SYN/ACK/RSET/etc, ICMP, ...) and limited to a small ( 100 bytes?) packet size. I recently had a somewhat heated discussion on this with some people from an organisation which claims to represent customers to the ISP, but in reality often seems to represent the ISP to customers...
Re:NY times log in (Score:1)
Alternative? (Score:2)
Well, are there any TECHNICAL solutions around this problem? Something which can be implemented in a distributed fashion, so that each individual doesn't have to pay too much, but where the whole solution can "route around" the control of these monopolies?
Re:Independent Programming (Score:1)
Maybe. But have you looked at AT&T's stock [yahoo.com] lately?
It seems that the biggest guarantee in business these days is end-to-end control. Look at the wireless phone companies; they control distribution of phones, service, data content, etc. Same with ISPs like AOL; the only ISP who's really making money is the one that provides most of the services. These could both be bad examples, but it strikes me that any company with such broad control of copyrighted content and distribution channels is going to be at a major advantage over other content-only or distribution-only competitors. Apparently the FTC and FCC have felt the same way, as prior to this decision they have placed a lot of restrictions on these businesses.
I like what i get vs. I get what i like (Score:1)
This boils down to the core problem with the media conglomerates: are you getting what you like, or liking what you get? I would argue the former, though i think neither are inherently bad or good. THe problem is that you have no say in what you get, but the advertisers do. Advertisers will not want you to be pressed to stand up for your view, unless they can sell you something to support your view. It can even be anti-corporatism if it means buying cute t-shirts and cool soda (think sprite ads).
But we like this, because ads and consumerism are fun and even easier than supporting your political ideas. So no one will ever really feel such animosity to any corporation which brings you the things you like so much. Giving them more coverage only pushes this phenomenon further, because they can expand their advertising and expand their reach into even more of your everyday items that you prefer to use. I love my whitening tartar-control gel better than a hippie concoction anyday, so i'll continue to support them, because their aren't any other viable options. This is the problem.
monopolies monopolies (Score:1)
and shortage of innovation. Innovation, whereever
it is, means expenses, and it does not bode well
with short sighted PHB type individuals that run
the companies.
A monopoly does not have to have negative
connotation. If company strives for bettering of
the world around them and they do have effective
100% control of the market, that may be a good
thing for a while. But people will come and go,
and eventually lazy, incompetent and power hunry
types would make their way up the ladder and spoil
it all.
Let me see, if the company is superpowerful and
trying to move itself as fast as it can with
encouraging others to do so, it is a good company.
If company is trying to presevrve status quo they
have acquired in the market place, whatever they
call it, research for just enough info so they
can patent it, FUD etc. They deserve to be
disciplined, or dissolved.
Re:High Speed? (Score:1)
Hope from a Monopoly (Score:2)
Re:Charter is ANTI-TECHNOLOGY!!! (Score:1)
Now, as to your points:
Now, as for "tiny brain" and "right-wing propaganda", get real. Our government, left and right sold out its people years ago. Only someone with a "tiny brain" would think that government regulation does no harm.
Abuse of the First Amendment (Score:1)
In its decision [uscourts.gov] the court in part agrees with Time Warner's contention that the rules violate its First Amendment rights. I just finished reading the excellent Rich Media, Poor Democracy [uillinois.edu] by Robert McChesney, which contains a chapter entitled "The New Theology of the First Amendment: Class Privilege over Democracy" devoted to this subject. McChesney criticizes the invokation of First Amendment rights to protect anti-democratic control of the media. He notes that if the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect citizens from the government's control of speech, it is unfortunate that it is being used as a weapon by corporations to do just that.
Re:Charter is ANTI-TECHNOLOGY!!! (Score:1)
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
Re:aol time warner aren't all that bad. (Score:1)
If they raise it more.. I'll seriously consider switching to Dish (It will suck losing the ability to watch cable on my PC but thats life)
Re:Charter is ANTI-TECHNOLOGY!!! (Score:1)
Re:cable companies are a common carrier (Score:2)
Your information is about 30 years out of date, and only applies to small manufacturing firms nowadays.
We're talking about huge corporations here, that aren't involved chiefly in manufacturing.
Their people's salaries go up. The costs of their replacement machinery go up. The costs of their replacement computers stays static, but they have continuing upgrade costs for software if they use Microsoft products.
-
Broadband Microsofts. (Score:1)
(Digressing a moment, do you think that Microsoft's productivity software is going to be any cheaper on the pay-per-use model? Excuse me while I laugh.)
It could be good... (Score:1)
Right now, my local cable company has the monopoly (for this area) on both cable tv and my cablemodem access. I'm required to have cable tv service (even though I don't watch much tv!) just to have my cablemodem...but that is beside the point.
Lately my service has been pretty bad. My cablemodem lost block sync for 6 hours last night, and did the same thing last week. This has been happening more and more frequently lately. This is a very bad thing as I host the mail lists for my local endurance racing club.
Of course, my choices are deal with it, or go back to a 56K modem. Neither are good. It would be nice if I could tell the incompetent broadband provider and my cable company to fsck themselves and go with a different provider.
Perhaps having the choice of the big guy will force the local cable operators to get their shit together.
Non-Competition (Score:1)
The bad side is that when a big company takes over completely, they can control the entire nation's cable content and advertising. Then the government can break them up into little MaPaSuxes. The prices skyrocket (read: deregulation) due to overhead costs of keeping track of who's using what wires how often. Then the process starts all over again.
Talk about no-win scenarios.
----------------------
Re:I'm so confused (Score:3)
Yes. This is a common problem, not knowing which of the evil entities to blame, but wanting to post something suitably enraged at the injustice of the world.
The solution is instead of targetting either party involved, to instead set your sights on Microsoft. For example, a good response to this article might start something like this :
"So now there's nothing to stop Microsoft from starting a cable television company, taking over the entire market and making it a condition that everyone installs Windows if they want to watch television?"
You'd need to pad it out a bit but you get the general idea.
HTH
Re:Monopolies are not bad always. (Score:2)
----------
Avoid the login (Score:1)
Or you could use the classic slashdot2000/slashdot2000 username/password pair
On an OT note, how long do you think it will be before NYT catch on to this and eliminate it?
Independent Programming (Score:2)
I could really care less whether we have dozens of independent cable companies, as these companies don't actually compete against each other. But it seems to me that this decision opens the way for a few companies to exert even greater control over what we see, read and hear. AT&T seems to have been much more sensitive about this, perhaps due to their previous run-ins with the law. They have thus far specifically avoided becoming a content company to avoid conflict (which may have been a disastrous decision, considering this ruling.) But they, along with the other major media and content providers will now begin looking to consolidate. Within a few years, we're going to have a very different competitive landscape.
Charter is ANTI-TECHNOLOGY!!! (Score:1)
Re:Correction (Score:1)
You are the product, not the consumer (Score:1)
As more of the population is pacified by television, the IQs of those who elect to leave the TV set off have nowhere to go but up.
--
EFF Member #11254
Re:High Speed? (Score:1)
Good point. But if that's true, then it was a bad miscalculation on the part of the cable companies. AOLTW isn't the only service provider offering DOCSIS compliant cable-modem service. There are others, and not all of them offer internet content. It seems odd that cable-modem providers would deliberately hamstring themselves with this decision when the designs were being considered, knowing full well that this would seriously weaken them in the business market. Meanwhile many DSL services offer relatively fat uplinks (and last I heard DSL was outpacing cable-modems in deployment.)
It seems reasonably likely that most US cable companies just figured that 400kbps would be plenty for your average person, back several years ago when they first started deploying networks. Given it to do all over again, they might think differently...?
Re:Abuse of the First Amendment (Score:1)
And democracy is not liberty; being given orders by by a mob is still being given orders.
Re:A monopoly can be more than one company (Score:1)
Re:High Speed? (Score:1)
Consumer grade dsl is ADSL (A for asymetric
Why? Because they want to be the content delivery system for the big media producers to the consumers. Or in the case of AOL/TW they want to own the whole shebang. They did not miscalculate in designing the networks, they asked the media producers and the advertisers what they wanted. Ultimately, their goal will be to make money not by selling bandwidth to consumers, it will be the access to those consumers that they give to those same media producers and advertisers.
This is an open access [mediaaccess.org] issue. Pushing the ownership limits from 40% to 60% is right on schedule for ATT's recent acquisitions...
Oh yes they can (Score:2)
Over 66% of the US population gets their TV exclusively over cable. You don't think those folks would want to change to something, anything else? I surely would.
The fact of the matter is you have to have access to a private area. Unfortunately, those of us who live in shared dwellings, apts, condos without balconies, etc. don't usually have a private area to put up an antenna. Most rental agreements specifically state that you can't modify the outside of the building in any way, and if you don't have access to the roof, you're shot.
This is why you'll see many condo dwellers mounting their dish in a cement block in the middle of their balconies, because they're not allowed to mount it to the rail or have it extend past that point.