Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

Cable TV Franchise Says No To DSL Ads 46

Posted by timothy from the thanks-for-the-local-monopoly-fellas dept.
Sloppy writes "The Albuquerque Tribune reports that Comcast, who has cable TV franchise agreements with many city governments, refuses to run ads for competing internet service providers. I guess that's something that citizens need to remind their local governments to correct the next time the monopoly terms are negotiated .. fourteen years from now."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cable TV Franchise Says No To DSL Ads More

Cable TV Franchise Says No To DSL Ads

Comments Filter:

  • So what (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Loosewire ( 628916 ) * on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @06:22PM (#5848332) Homepage Journal
    I may get flamed for this but when was the last time you saw ads on linux.com advertising windows xp......

    • Re:So what (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Blkdeath ( 530393 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @06:26PM (#5848373) Homepage
      I may get flamed for this but when was the last time you saw ads on linux.com advertising windows xp......

      Try that analogy when linux.com is the homepage for 90% of the Internet users in a particular geographic area.

    • Re:So what (Score:4, Informative)

      by SeaEye420 ( 613209 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @06:46PM (#5848536)
      Well, maybe not WindowsXP specifically, but I went to verify that you were right after reading your post. Lo and behold an ad for "A free Java on Windows tutorial" courtesy of Oracle and Dell. :-P

      Also, I find it quite odd that they won't accept ads from DSL providers, but they accept money from DirecTV and Echostar?!?

      • Also, I find it quite odd that they won't accept ads from DSL providers, but they accept money from DirecTV and Echostar?!?

        Any ads for DirecTV or Echostar that you see on your TV were not placed at the local level. They are placed at the national level. They can't block out the national ads. Just like the cable company can't block out ads that are placed on the local ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX affiliates. The ads that cable companies place are on ESPN, CNN, FOXNews, and other cable networks through negotiation

    • I may get flamed for this but when was the last time you saw ads on linux.com advertising windows xp

      I think you mean ad on Microsoft.com advertizing Linux, the story is about a monopoly refusing to run ads for any competitors.

      -

    • Re:So what (Score:2, Informative)

      by FroMan ( 111520 )
      Just for kicks, you can check out Linux Journal for Microsoft ads. I don't know if their website has them, but the hard copy does.
    • How often do you see ads for letterman on NBC? (N.B. I live in Australia. I think letterman is on CBS, could be wrong though)

  • They're within their rights... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @06:42PM (#5848508) Homepage Journal
    "...who has cable TV franchise agreements with many city governments, refuses to run ads for competing internet service providers.... guess that's something that citizens need to remind their local governments to correct the next time the monopoly terms are negotiated .."

    Umm, that's not a monopoly action. They have the right to refuse service to anyone. Sorry but I'm not dusting off my pitchfork over this one.

    • Re:They're within their rights... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gehrehmee ( 16338 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @06:46PM (#5848542) Homepage
      Sure it is. They're manipulating a monoply in one field (cable TV) in an attempt to corner an independant field (broadband internet). Pretty straightforward monopoly abuse.
      • "Sure it is. They're manipulating a monoply in one field (cable TV) in an attempt to corner an independant field (broadband internet). Pretty straightforward monopoly abuse. "

        No, they're refusing to let their service be used to aid their competition. I mean seriously, would you give a ride to a guy who's on his way to date your girlfriend?

        The only way this could be considered 'straightforward monopoly abuse' is if Comcast was the only way you could advertise in that area. It's not. You can advertise a
        • The cable company has been given a monopoly on the use of the cable television infrastructure. In exchange for that monopoly, they have to behave to a higher standard.

          No, they're refusing to let their service be used to aid their competition

          Their competition in another market. This is precisely what MicroSoft was found guilty of (using a monopoly in one market to unduly influence another market). Nobody argued that this should be allowed. Hell, even MicroSoft didn't argue this (they argued that they did

        • Re:They're within their rights... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by aronc ( 258501 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @10:58PM (#5850094)
          I mean seriously, would you give a ride to a guy who's on his way to date your girlfriend?

          If you're driving a city bus at the time, you damn well better. That's closer to the situation here. The cable companies are in control of a public trust thus have to abide by some stricter rules than some random schmoo yelling from him dorm room.
        • By having a monopoly they have an obligation of fairness. That said, thay are not allowed to select their ads on any other argument than any other public service would.

          They may not have monopoly of advertisement but they have monopoly ot TV. TV should then be considered as a public service offered by them. That is not the case.

    • Rights, wrongs, monopolies. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @08:31PM (#5849319) Homepage Journal
      They have the right to refuse service to anyone.
      That's incorrect. A cable system isn't a kind of publisher. They operate under a franchise from a public entity -- usually a city or county. And there are various federal rules governing what they carry. They must, for example, carry all local broadcast stations.

      Though I doubt if any of this results in rules that require them to sell ads to their competitors. And presumably dish companies can still get access by buying time from the channels themselves. God knows I see plenty of dish commercials.

      Still, the word "monopoly" is quite appropriate. Except that cable companies are actual monopolies, not potential ones. Few cable customers have a choice of providers, despite attempts to create a competitive market. If you consider how much Americans rely on their TV sets for information, you should be considered about anybody in a position to control that information.

    • Sorry, but you're quite wrong.
      Since they are awarded franchise status by city governments, they are compelled to accept advertisements from anyone offering services or products, as long as they are legal.

      I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this violates antitrust laws, since this is a clear example of a corporation abusing its dominance in one market in order to stifle competition in another.

      If you own one of the biggest newspapers in your town, and you also own a restaurant in that town, you cannot re
      • If the local paper won't run your ad you're free to start your own paper, and if enough consumers consider your paper more worthy of their purchase than the other you'll have the satisfaction of having run them out of business. Publishing your newspaper won't use any limited public resources in such a way as to prevent anybody else from publishing their newspaper. A community can have as many newspapers as it can financially support, just as it can have as many plumbers, lawyers, private music instructors
  • with ads for their own add-on services.

    I have been buying DVDs and using an antenna recently for cost and value reasons. Spent a weekend house sitting for a friend. The number of self-serving Comcast ads is sickening.

    It is like listening to Clear Channel vs NPR.

    You are better off buying content on removable media you control, getting DSL and ignoring their self serving fat pipes...

    • This is what blows my mind: I usually see 2-3 ads for Comcast every day. WTF? I already have Comcast cable.

      However, I take exception at preferring removable media and DSL over cable. First, DSL isn't available everywhere (it was available through Northpoint, but Verizon won't). Also, in many areas, cable is much faster. I know it is for me. Second, believe it or not, but there are a few things worth watching on both cable and broadcast television. I also spend much less than one DVD rental per night on cab
      • Yeah that is a lot of ads.

        I chose the DSL because of provider choice. End user policy is primary where speed is secondary to me. I get to run what I want how I want when I want. That's pretty valuable.

        Speed? No question cable is faster. So, there is both. So long as there are enough DSL'ers maybe that will preserve enough choice to keep Comcast semi-honest :)

        Things I miss on cable: SG1, Sopranos, Food Network (Iron Chef!). Ah well, gives me a reason to visit friends.

        I like having the content on
        • I only wish there were broadband competition where I'm located.

          The backfilling can be expensive. At one point in time, I had maybe 20 or 30 DVDs unviewed. Then, life intervened, and I think I only have 3-4:) But, I think I found the best of all worlds: borrowing my father's Sopranos DVDs. Sure, it's a year late, but I'll live.
    • In the 4 year history of the DMCA, it has only been used against new technology developers, not actual infringers.

      Right.
      Copyright law protects copyrights and targets infringers. The DMCA isn't copyright law, therefore the it doesn't protect copyright and it doesn't target infringers. The DMCA is anti-cricumvention law, it protects DRM. Therefore the DMCA targets people who create technology that might interfere with DRM.

      In otherwords the DMCA is working exactly as designed.

      By the way, the DMCA makes cer
      • You are right on, but not the first. I have been bitching about that aspect of the DMCA from its inception.

        The DMCA treats us all like little kids. The knowing is wrongly connected to the doing, even if it is ethical.

        The way I grew up and how I make my living today is being slowly criminalized and I resent every last day of it.

        Fuckers.

  • Dish Networks? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by snubber1 ( 56537 )
    In my area, Comcast just bought out AT&T cable. AT&T was in the habit of refusing to run advertisements for dish systems on the cable channels (you'll still see those ads on the local broadcast channels). Why should they have to advertise their competitors? Adversiting is not a right, its a service. Don't like it? Start your own cable network (where I live in tacoma, they did, Click Network.)
    • Most places cannot form their own cable network, as they don't have the money to lay a second set of cable. Comcast has a monopoly on cable television, therefore they essentially have a monopoly on television advertising.
    • Adversiting is not a right, its a service.
      In a free market, certainly. This is a government-granted monopoly. Even the most reactionary Libertarian knows that government monopolies (if they're allowed to exist at all!) are a special case.
    • You'll still see ads for Dish on some networks. Networks typically have slots alloted for the cable company to sell locally, while other slots are used at a national level. If USA Networks sells a national slot to DirectTV, DirectTV pays for the entire nation to see that ad. The cable company can't resell that slot locally.

  • Slashdot First? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dankow ( 462225 ) <dankowNO@SPAMmac.com> on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @06:54PM (#5848613) Homepage
    How often do you see people on Slashdot complaining about a lack of advertising?

  • use the laws against them (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zogger ( 617870 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @08:42PM (#5849383) Homepage Journal
    --make it a federal case, literally. Have a "minority" from the dsl service try to get the ad. If they refuse then, have the firm of dewey, cheatham and howe send them a letter. Most places will do anything to avoid getting a discrimination lawsuit. Don't emphasize the service you are trying to advertise,emphasize the person doing the asking if they refuse, then shop it to some law firms and local minority activism center. They love that stuff. Might even help if the local activism center was using this dsl service already-maybe, not sure on that one. It's a tightwire to walk though, going out of your way to FIND a lawsuit is quite risky. Weight the odds on it.

    Point two, screw 'em! Why would you want to beneift a monopoly company? If they sell ads, they "make money" off the ads. I say don't go there. Give your advertising money to talk radio instead,(especially independent, mom and pop stations, not clearchannel if possible, etc) the local alternative press newspaper, webcasters, make up a buhzillion flyers and hire some young folks to spread em out.

    Anyway, talk radio has a better cost/benefit ratio in most markets, especially target placement, study the shows, the hosts, the times. Obviously rush hour shows are usually the most expensive, but cover the widest range demographically..
    • So you're basically advocating the abuse and bastardization of the race card just to bully someone into doing something totally unrelated?

      It's people like this that give minorities and real-life discrimination a bad rap.
      • --actually, I was advocating not advertising with them at all, to spend the advertising money in other venues and areas. I mentioned the other as a possible tactic, but no, I don't really advocate it, but, because we DO have laws setup that way, all is fair. Change the law, or use it, all of the above. I probably should have reversed the sequence in my post, but oh well, that's how it came out. The riaa have political power, money to buy what they want, they've taken the gloves off bigtime, and being convic

  • Comcast aren't the only ones (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Time Warner Cable does it too [google.com]. I don't see any commercials for DSL, they also cut out the EarthLink commercials (can't tell whether those are advertising dialup or broadband) and replace them with RoadRunner commercials.

  • Comcast does more than that... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...they own the Philadelphia Flyers and 76ers, and steadfastly refuse to sell any broadcast rights to the satellite TV companies, no matter how much they offer. If you don't have Comcast cable, you ain't seeing any of those teams' home games.

  • DSL sucks... We'd all be better off if the teleco's go under instead of propping up those dinosaurs. You have to ask yourself, who do you like less? Your cable company or SBC? After all, SBC is trying to re-create "Ma Bell." Only prob is, its a different world than pre 1984. Once the cable companies have switched over to pure digital transmission and offer telephone service, say goodbye to SBC.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra

Close