Quote :

"State House members turned back several amendments filed by those who believe the new regulations wouldn't prevent companies from offering services only in the most profitable areas, leaving poor or isolated communities without cable television or high-speed Internet."

Oh noes, a for profit company that actually want's to make a profit when their guaranteed monopoly is removed? Such a travesty!

Quote :

"Rep. Drew Saunders, D-Mecklenburg, said an amendment to require companies to meet service thresholds in a coverage area in as little as three years of entering a market would hurt consumers. It would discourage companies from entering markets, he said. "This will cause providers to not consider providing cable service," Saunders said before the amendment was rejected 24-84. "It will continue that monopolistic system that we have in effect now.""

Do these people not understand basic economics? If there is money to be made, people will come make it. If the current monopoly is ended, and money can't be made in some area, then the company leaves, or never comes. That to me is not a monopoly, is this guy a moron?

Quote :

"Attorney General Roy Cooper said earlier this week he had reservations about the bill. "Although the intent of increased competition is good, I believe this legislation needs better protection for consumers," Cooper wrote in a letter to the bill sponsors."

What are these dipshits talking about "better protection"? End the fucking monopolies. Poor folks don't need cable TV. Over the air broadcasts are plenty to warn of disasters, etc. That's all they need.

6/23/2006 9:53:45 AM

the monopoly is about to be over once the telephone companies enter the competition

6/23/2006 10:16:19 AM

if we ever get fiber to the curb, cable will disapear.

6/23/2006 10:19:52 AM

Quote :

"if we ever get fiber to the curb, cable will disapear."

you'd have to not understand what the telcos are coming out with to say this

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=297214&page=939#8928590

the telcos are scared

6/23/2006 10:23:24 AM

^ Your comments don't follow.

What are you saying, that telcos aren't bringing fiber to the curb, or that they don't have an answer for cable or what? I'm not enjoying reading between your lines.

6/23/2006 10:40:36 AM

Who the fuck cares if people out in the stix don't get broadband? Thats what they get for living out in the stix. Move to civilization, and you will have access to these amenities. If a place doesn't have access to broadband, it isn't worht living in IMO

6/23/2006 10:45:41 AM

they are bringing fiber to the curb - i'm working on a project that's one of the implementations of how the fiber is going to be used iptv/hsia/phone

i'm saying that there will be competition once it gets rolled out later this year to the first markets

currently they don't have the answer - the first iteration won't even have hdtv - and the 2nd iteration is only going to allow 2 hdtv streams per house

few people will switch to a service that doesn't at least match what they have now

6/23/2006 10:45:48 AM

I live in the (pretty much) sticks in Eastern NC in a town of 2200 and I have broadband DSL.

I'm all for this though as the local cable companies up here suck a big ol' fat dick. Charge out the ass and have shit for quality. I went with satellite and am moderately happy with what I have, just hate when the weather messes up my signal.

6/23/2006 11:05:12 AM

I'm still confused, I apologize, but let me try to get this clear.

Quote :

"they are bringing fiber to the curb"

"they" = telcos, correct?

Quote :

"i'm saying that there will be competition once it gets rolled out later this year to the first markets"

competition from the telcos in the now un-competed domain occupied by the cable company?

Quote :

"currently they don't have the answer - the first iteration won't even have hdtv - and the 2nd iteration is only going to allow 2 hdtv streams per house"

again "they" = the telcos? Assuming this is right, why don't they have an answer? FTTC should be a fat enough pipe for many HDTV channels right? Where is the limitation with the current (the first?) implementation?

Quote :

"few people will switch to a service that doesn't at least match what they have now"

Agreed.

6/23/2006 11:06:03 AM

Quote :

""they" = telcos, correct?"

yes

Quote :

"competition from the telcos in the now un-competed domain occupied by the cable company?"

satellite companies compete right now - all of the telcos have deals with a satellite company until their solution is live

Quote :

"again "they" = the telcos? Assuming this is right, why don't they have an answer? FTTC should be a fat enough pipe for many HDTV channels right? Where is the limitation with the current (the first?) implementation?"

the cable companies have been doing tv for years - this is basically year 2 for telcos - the pipe is big enough and definitely not the limitation - the limitation is money which hinders the number of people and the amount of time

6/23/2006 11:19:08 AM

I'm not sure the name of it, I think 3GPP cellular's 4G is a form of it, but the cell phone companies in a few years will become fierce competitors for internet service as soon as we free up the channels currently being used by standard TV. If you can get a TV signal then your cell phone company will be able to offer you high-speed internet access comparable to cable and DSL.

I suspect the technology will get over-stressed for bandwidth in dense urban environments, places where cable and DSL thrive, but will service remote rural areas remarkably cheap with impressive capabilities.

[Edited on June 23, 2006 at 11:54 AM. Reason : (wrong technology, ish)]

6/23/2006 11:49:39 AM

Towns and municipalities get huge fucking perks/bribes from cable companies for exclusive rights to bury cable in the area. Ethical issues aside, towns and their citizens usually profit in some way from the current system(public access channels, etc).

But hell, as long as they still service my ghetto, I'm all for letting them fight it out free market style.

6/23/2006 5:08:35 PM

Quote :

"If a place doesn't have access to broadband, it isn't worht living in IMO"

am i the only one that read this or what?

6/23/2006 5:30:05 PM

we need to do whatever south korea is doing. Fuck this monopolistic bullshit we have now. Fuck Time warner. Fuck comcast. Fuck verizon.

6/23/2006 8:40:18 PM

Yea, I started to post another link in here about Seoul brining WiBro online in the past week, but I got lazy.

6/23/2006 9:25:22 PM

I think some have overlooked an odd feature of non-net neutrality: Even if every ISP went to tiered service, it would then look an awful lot like today’s Cable-TV service. What many have overlooked is the fact that popular channels are not paying money to be carried by the cable companies, they are being PAID money.

So, if we assume people love google.com, just like they love DisneyTV, then we must assume the results will be similar: SprintDSL will pay Google for the right to re-broadcast http://www.google.com.

This eventuality is obvious with a little thought: some parents sign up for cable simply to gain access to Disney programming, which means even a Cable monopoly must worry because to some subscribers pay-TV without Disney is not worth the money. Conversely, Pay-Internet without E-Bay may also not be worth the money.

Given this fact, I don’t think it is proper to worry that the cable company will seek to restrict access to google.com, we should worry that E-Bay is going to wake up and threaten to cut off service to Road Runner Customers if Road Runner doesn’t pay up. This, BTW, is an eventuality that the current proposed legislation would not prevent.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3169/is_22_40/ai_62499768

6/24/2006 9:53:01 AM

this thread could be VERY bad for the local government

and for public access television

hmmm and under this new system its not required that these companies provide cable access to impoverished areas - that's not good

[Edited on June 24, 2006 at 11:31 AM. Reason : -]

6/24/2006 11:30:37 AM

Quote :

"hmmm and under this new system its not required that these companies provide cable access to impoverished areas - that's not good"

Sure, because they already have access in impoverished areas: It is called Satellite television and it is available anywhere in the U.S. with a view of the southern sky.

Thanks to advances in technology and market maturity the likelihood of such mundane market failures have been eliminated.

6/24/2006 12:13:02 PM

Quote :

"we should worry that E-Bay is going to wake up and threaten to cut off service to Road Runner Customers if Road Runner doesn’t pay up"

Hahaha, really?

You think ebay would not let their own customers browse their website?

This is akin to the Saucer telling their customers they can't come in and spend money at their establisment if they don't receive small change (comparatively) from the cabbies that brought them there.

6/24/2006 1:37:46 PM

Why doesn't the government just implement a fair tax, this way they don't have to enact draconian legislation to get their peice of the pies

http://tinyurl.com/omtv7

6/24/2006 1:53:45 PM

Quote :

"This is akin to the Saucer telling their customers they can't come in and spend money at their establisment if they don't receive small change (comparatively) from the cabbies that brought them there."

It worked great for cartmen on SouthPark.

But you fail to recognize that your exact argument should work for Disney: Disney earns most of its money from advertisers which freak out if people are forced to stop watching the Disney Channel, yet this is exactly what happened in the article I linked to. Disney cut off all of its Time Warner viewers because Time Warner refused to pay $300 million on top the already $1 billion it was paying.

6/24/2006 2:05:11 PM

I just don't seeing the two models being the same for your point to be valid. I already pointed out a case where ebay/google, etc wouldn't willfully cut off customers. Can you think of an internet example that actually works.

Myspace might be a start.

As long as cable monopolies are in place at the local level, I don't think ISPs have too much to worry about.

6/24/2006 2:28:36 PM

Quote :

"I already pointed out a case where ebay/google, etc wouldn't willfully cut off customers"

Hmm, maybe I missed it, but where did you state this case?

And I have already demonstrated a case where a similar company, Disney, cut off its customers to extort another $300 million out of Time Warner. This happens whenever contracts come up for renewal: sure, the content providers risk alienating their individual customers, but that risk is compensated by the cash settlement they receive from the network provider.

6/24/2006 5:00:08 PM

Quote :

"And I have already demonstrated a case where a similar company, Disney, cut off its customers to extort another $300 million out of Time Warner."

Quote :

"I just don't seeing the two models being the same for your point to be valid."

At this point the internet (or internet + net neutrality if you want) and TV are two different animals.

6/24/2006 7:07:51 PM

Why?

I realize the two markets are so far operating very differently, but one of them is only 10 years old. I suspect in the beginning Disney had to pay to get carried by cable companies, amazing what time can change.

Both Disney and Google earn money directly from their customers through advertisers. The more viewers the more ad-revenue. Neither can reach their customers without being carried through the network of a 3rd party, Time Warner Cable or Road Runner Online. Both 3rd party networks earn connection fees directly from customers.

For Internet, the market is 10 years old. For CableTV the market is several decades older. In CableTV the ultimate result was Disney getting paid large sums of money by Time Warner Cable.

As far as I can tell the two comparisons are exact, there is no functional difference between the two situations except one is a TV channel and the other is an Internet web-site. So, again, please, point out the fundamental differences that will render such a comparison impossible.

Now, the Internet is different, Google will have trouble blocking all access by Time Warner subscribers thanks to the existence of remote proxy servers. Is this the type of reason you were alluding to?

[Edited on June 24, 2006 at 10:43 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/24/2006 10:40:09 PM

people treat their opinion as fact too much in soap box

6/25/2006 11:29:15 PM

Update

http://www.wral.com/news/9429696/detail.html

Also

Quote :

"I suspect in the beginning Disney had to pay to get carried by cable companies, amazing what time can change."

Feel free to find something to support this, I tried for about 10 minutes and couldn't. I'm sorry but you aren't enough of an authority for "I suspect" to replace actual fact.

Quote :

"As far as I can tell the two comparisons are exact,"

Quote :

"Now, the Internet is different, "

Ummm...does not compute.

But, going back to your original point

Quote :

"So, if we assume people love google.com, just like they love DisneyTV, then we must assume the results will be similar: SprintDSL will pay Google for the right to re-broadcast http://www.google.com."

I suppose after thinking about it, on the surface it makes sense, but I just don't see the two scenarios/models (whatever you want to call it) being the same.

Can you expound on just how Disney is getting the monster bucks out of the cable companies, that is, what do the cable companies have to lose by not offering Disney, especially in non-compete areas? Do the cable companies think customers will rapidly convert to sat. tv? I think if I could understand for myself how Disney got into such a situation, then I could think about if a google or something else could do the same. As you have stated it so far, I don't think there is enough evidence of the past (going back to your "at some point Disney paid") in this thread to make an accurate prediction of the future.

6/27/2006 1:05:22 PM

Quote :

"Can you expound on just how Disney is getting the monster bucks out of the cable companies"

This is not just Disney, of course, most of the major content providers manage to extort the network providers. Discovery, CNN, TMC, etc. They all manage to extract cash payments from Cable and Satellite providers in exchange for the right to re-broadcast their content. Of course, this system is very secretive: the actual amounts changing hands are usually kept secret until there is a crisis.

Quote :

"that is, what do the cable companies have to lose by not offering Disney"

As an undercover economist I cannot say for sure what is causing it, I can only speculate. All I can say for sure is that Time Warner must have more to lose than Disney in the event an agreement is not reached, otherwise the payments would be reversed.

I found it helpful to create an elaborate metaphore for the sake of simplicity. Let us assume that 10% of the population loves watching Disney; these people are currently spread around on Cable and Satellite providers. Now, Disney earns money by selling advertising and Time Warner earns money by selling network subscriptions. In the event of a deadlock, Time Warner no longer carries Disney. This, of course, hampers the ability of people that love Disney and have Cable to watch, which should hurt Disney advertising revenues. However, if people that love Disney are able to quickly get Satellite and drop their Cable then Disney has not really been harmed at all, it's core audience is still tuning in every night, just via Satellite instead of Cable, so the only real loser has been Time Warner.

Hence why Time Warner is paying Disney a large fee every contract. It is because Disney can hurt Time Warner without substantially harming itself, so Time Warner has to make it worth Disney's while not to do so by offering cash incentives.

Now, again, on the Internet: I can easily switch between DSL and Cable, and I really love http://cuteoverload.com/ , so it seems that if for any reason I could not access this site via my Cable connection I could switch to DSL. Therefore, in this sense my Cable provider was permanently harmed (I won't switch back just because the censorship has been lifted) and cuteoverload was only temporarily harmed. As such, if the market was sufficiently mature (and such a system of censorship could be implimented) then I suspect we will see Road Runner start paying fees to cuteoverload in proportion to the perceived potential damage.

6/27/2006 3:53:10 PM