FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects

On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:53:02 -0700, AJL <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:41:20 -0700, Bhairitu <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>One wonders how fast the use of analog TVs is dwindling?
>
>Surprisingly my cable company (Cox) still supplies 70 analog channels.
>It's great because I can supply my lesser watched sets (6) without
>needing (read paying for) extra cable boxes. I'm holding my breath as
>to how long this will last...

My cable company, Comcast, has been phasing out the analog channels
market by market. My area will go all digital on June 5th of this year
and Comcast has been robocalling and sending flyers in the mail to
make sure I'm aware.

In my area, Comcast offers three DTA's at no charge.

--
Paul Miner

---

› See More: FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects

Bhairitu wrote on [Thu, 24 May 2012 12:41:20 -0700]:
> On 05/23/2012 04:34 PM, Phil Kane wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:29:12 -0700, "David Kaye"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> What I'm saying is that there'll come a time when Comcast offers a "basic
>>> basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
>>> and local brodcasters.
>>
>> IIRC that's what one gets with their Digital Transport Adapter, their
>> name for the gizmo (technical term) that allows continued use of
>> analog TV receivers connected to their cable network.
>> ---
>> Phil Kane
>> Beaverton, OR
>>
>
> One wonders how fast the use of analog TVs is dwindling? HD sets are
> getting pretty cheap though I don't understand why 32" (the equivalent
> image height of a old 27" set) aren't down to $150 (or far less than
> those 27" sets sold). The manufacturers did get in trouble for some
> price fixing regarding LCD screens. Today's $225 32" is likely to be
> LED rather than the cheaper non-LCD. Those use to carry a premium
> price. They probably aren't making the non-LED ones anymore.

LED are LCD. The difference is the illumination, not the panel themselves

In article <[email protected]>,
Bhairitu <[email protected]> wrote:

> We're talking broadband and telecoms here and my "two monopolies" are
> what you find in most of the Bay Area with Comcast on cable and AT&T on
> DSL. Not the OS monopoly or windfall that Microsoft has.

All it takes is to go somewhere outside the Bay Area (or any other major
metro area) to find out how good you have it for connectivity. In
Pahrump, NV, you have literally two choices: slow Internet from the
cable company (not Comcast) or even slower Internet from AT&T. That's it.

In the Bay Area, there are literally dozens of providers. The big
misconception is that AT&T and Comcast is all there is. Not true. But
you do have to think out of the box.

In Pahrump, I'm going to have to put in my own Internet, hauled in from
Las Vegas.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400

On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:28:09 -0700, John Higdon <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In Pahrump, I'm going to have to put in my own Internet, hauled in from
>Las Vegas.

What will that look like?

--
Paul Miner

In article <[email protected]>,
Paul Miner <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:28:09 -0700, John Higdon <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In Pahrump, I'm going to have to put in my own Internet, hauled in from
> >Las Vegas.
>
> What will that look like?

Two hops (with a mountain in the middle) to a big Internet hub.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400

On Thu, 24 May 2012 15:16:40 -0700, John Higdon <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Paul Miner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:28:09 -0700, John Higdon <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In Pahrump, I'm going to have to put in my own Internet, hauled in from
>> >Las Vegas.
>>
>> What will that look like?
>
>Two hops (with a mountain in the middle) to a big Internet hub.

Microwave, WiFi, or something else? I hope it works out. I like to see
projects like this.

--
Paul Miner

On 5/24/2012 12:47 PM, Bhairitu wrote:

> We're talking broadband and telecoms here and my "two monopolies" are
> what you find in most of the Bay Area with Comcast on cable and AT&T on
> DSL. Not the OS monopoly or windfall that Microsoft has.

You have two different cables to your house, but there are choices of
which provider to use over those cables. I.e., over the copper pair you
can have U-Verse, AT&T DSL, Sonic DSL, and several other DSL choices.

No one ever granted Microsoft the kinds of monopoly granted to the Bell
System or to the cable companies. The copper and broadband cable
infrastructure was installed basically at public expense due to the
rates they were allowed to charge captive customers.

On 05/24/2012 02:28 PM, John Higdon wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Bhairitu<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> We're talking broadband and telecoms here and my "two monopolies" are
>> what you find in most of the Bay Area with Comcast on cable and AT&T on
>> DSL. Not the OS monopoly or windfall that Microsoft has.
>
> All it takes is to go somewhere outside the Bay Area (or any other major
> metro area) to find out how good you have it for connectivity. In
> Pahrump, NV, you have literally two choices: slow Internet from the
> cable company (not Comcast) or even slower Internet from AT&T. That's it.
>
> In the Bay Area, there are literally dozens of providers. The big
> misconception is that AT&T and Comcast is all there is. Not true. But
> you do have to think out of the box.
>
> In Pahrump, I'm going to have to put in my own Internet, hauled in from
> Las Vegas.
>

Hmmm, are you going to be wiring some of the "houses" there?

On 5/24/12 14:47 , Bhairitu wrote:
> On 05/23/2012 12:48 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
>> On 5/23/12 14:13 , Bhairitu wrote:
>>> On 05/22/2012 10:34 PM, AJL wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/2012 8:44 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>> > At 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700 AJL wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >The free market tends to sort these things out.
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't agree more.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really? You let the dogs of capitalism run wild and you wind up with
>>> about two monopolies running things. That's not a "free market" by
>>> any means.
>>>
>>
>> Well, first of all, 'two monopolies' is a contradiction in terms.
>>
>> Secondly, the dogs of capitalism rarely run wild. In today's market,
>> there are too many regulations to prevent it. But, that said, one of the
>> companies, for instance, that threatened to become a monopoly in the
>> computer industry, was Microsoft. After some pretty hairy game playing,
>> crushing defeats of rivals for market share, manipulation of vendors and
>> computer manufacturers to include, preemptively, Internet Explorer, MS
>> came under pressure from competitors' lawsuits, and improved competitor
>> products, as well as customer demands. With resultant competitive OS's,
>> applications, and dozens of browser products entering, and staying in,
>> the market. MS still has the Lion's share of the market (sorry, I
>> couldn't resist) but they are not by far a monopoly, and their further
>> attempts to curtail competition have resulted in new product, companies,
>> and innovation for the consumer benefit.
>>
>> And what near monopolies MS still has, is, in part, a result of
>> gamesmanship with legislators by playing to the most extreme letter of,
>> rather than the spirit, of laws resulting from governmental intervention
>> in the market.
>>
>> It's hard today, to understand that the Darwinist nature of the free
>> market is little different than the Darwinist nature of species'
>> survival in nature. And that interference in the process, ultimately
>> results in less, not more, successful businesses, and less, not more,
>> broad and diverse customer satisfaction.
>>
>> The wolves of Yellowstone should serve as an object lesson about the
>> dangers of intervention in the Darwinian process.
>>
>> The explosive burgeoning of Google while MS was dealing with potential
>> regulatory straitjacketing should serve as an object lesson in the
>> dangers of intervention in the market.
>>
>>
>
> We're talking broadband and telecoms here and my "two monopolies" are
> what you find in most of the Bay Area with Comcast on cable and AT&T on
> DSL. Not the OS monopoly or windfall that Microsoft has.
>
>

The point is that the priniciples are the same. You can't have TWO
monopolies. It's a matter of definition. And ONE monopoly is eventually
dethroned by competition, as the market finds alternatives. Alternative
strategies. Alternative products. Even alternative technologies.

Copper is giving way to cable and wireless. Cable is yielding ground
to wireless and satellite.

Monopolies, in a market environment are short-lived at best. Only in
a government protected environment, do monopolies exist.

D. Peter Maus wrote on [Sat, 26 May 2012 10:08:39 -0500]:
>
> Copper is giving way to cable and wireless. Cable is yielding ground
> to wireless and satellite.

Cable is only yielding in TV, not internet and it's picking up speed in
telecom

> Monopolies, in a market environment are short-lived at best. Only in
> a government protected environment, do monopolies exist.
Obviously. Without government protection any kind of "ownership" lasts
only till someone with a faster gun comes around.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

> > Monopolies, in a market environment are short-lived at best. Only in
> > a government protected environment, do monopolies exist.
> Obviously. Without government protection any kind of "ownership" lasts
> only till someone with a faster gun comes around.

Ignoring massive barriers to entry, like capital expenditures that make
the investment impractical for any except the most well-heeled to
attempt--and they probably already have better profit margins in what
they are already doing, so why engage in a race-to-the-bottom with a
competitor?

Steve

--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, sidecar in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

On 5/26/2012 9:20 AM, Justin wrote:
> D. Peter Maus wrote on [Sat, 26 May 2012 10:08:39 -0500]:
>>
>> Copper is giving way to cable and wireless. Cable is yielding ground
>> to wireless and satellite.
>
> Cable is only yielding in TV, not internet and it's picking up speed in
> telecom
>


Also, Cable only has the popularity that it does, because of it's
existing infrastructure (which seems to be second only to telephone) and
relative ease to work with, but a coaxial cable is still copper, and
will eventually max out on bandwidth, as ATT found back in the day with
their Long Lines department, which used large Coaxial cables, but just
didn't have enough bandwidth, and eventually gave way to Fiber Optics
and Satellites.