 |
kalphearion
In nomine Patri
Premium
join:2003-11-08
Denver, CO
clubs: | They would be stupid to not sue | |
|
NewMariner
join:2005-06-24 | AT&T didnt Compete At&t didnt compete with Bellsouth. Thats why the merger went through. It didnt reduce the number of companies providing service. Comcast wants to buy out the competition. Thus, reducing the number of providers... | |
|
 | 
Paulg
Formerly Arctic Wolf
Premium
join:2004-03-15
Hubbell, MI
clubs: | Re: AT&T didnt Compete Comcast is doing exactly the same thing as AT&T, expanding their footprint. | |
|
| BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by NewMariner  :At&t didnt compete with Bellsouth. Thats why the merger went through. It didnt reduce the number of companies providing service. Comcast wants to buy out the competition. Thus, reducing the number of providers... And Comcast doesn't compete with TW, Charter or Cox. Hardly anyone lives in an area where there are 2 cable companies. Comcast competes with DirectTV which is allowed to have more than 30% of the TV market. If DirectTv had 50 million subscribrs would the FCC be stepping in and preventing that? No. If at&t or verizon had 50 million Tv subscrinbers would the FCC be trying to stop that? No. So exactly what is the difference? | |
|
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: AT&T didnt Compete The difference is: They are Telcos, and Charter is a Cable Co.
Which is to say, none really. Except: Martin's bias. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL | Comcast doesn't compete with TWC, Cablevision, Charter, etc. Comcast merging with or acquiring additional pay TV providers is absolutely no different than AT&T purchasing Bellsouth. | |
|
| | 
OMGWEAGREE
@tds.net | Re: AT&T didnt Compete I agree. I hate Comcast, but this is no different than AT&T | |
|
UofMiamiGrad
Premium
join:2001-02-03
Great Neck, NY
| Comcast hates competition! Do any of the bells offer TV service to 30% of the US market? I doubt it, excluding bundled satellite service. FIOS TV only passed the 1 million mark recently. U-Verse TV is nowhere near that, only 231,000 subs. So why is Comcast crying foul over the Bells? Afraid of competition? How do they control more than 30% of the market solely as a pay TV provider, which is the issue? I hope Comcast loses in court.  | |
|
| BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Comcast hates competition! said by UofMiamiGrad :Do any of the bells offer TV service to 30% of the US market? I doubt it, excluding bundled satellite service. FIOS TV only passed the 1 million mark recently. U-Verse TV is nowhere near that, only 231,000 subs. So why is Comcast crying foul over the Bells? Afraid of competition? How do they control more than 30% of the market solely as a pay TV provider, which is the issue? I hope Comcast loses in court. Do they( the bells ) have 30% of the market or more? No. CAN they? Yes. which is the issue. So can DirectTv. They have 17 million subscribers and are adding at least 1 million a year. | |
|
| | UofMiamiGrad
Premium
join:2001-02-03
Great Neck, NY
| Re: Comcast hates competition! said by BF69 :Do they( the bells ) have 30% of the market or more? No. CAN they? Yes. which is the issue. So can DirectTv. They have 17 million subscribers and are adding at least 1 million a year. And when they pass that 30% mark, you can bet the FCC will tell them to sell assets (areas) to get below 30%. If they don't then and only then does Comcast and other MSOs have a case that the FCC rule is flawed. Until such time, Comcast can enjoy the new competition, since they seem to love it so much already. | |
|
| | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: Comcast hates competition! You bet on it -- I'll take your action and win your money. The anti-cable FCC doesn't believe in level playing fields. | |
|
| | | | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
| Re: Comcast hates competition! Comcrap has a lot of nerve suing anybody about caps. How about identifying ones imposed onto customers!
Funny, maybe Comcrap should look at the irony here.
--
"There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion."....Winston Churchill
| |
|
| | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by UofMiamiGrad :said by BF69 :Do they( the bells ) have 30% of the market or more? No. CAN they? Yes. which is the issue. So can DirectTv. They have 17 million subscribers and are adding at least 1 million a year. And when they pass that 30% mark, you can bet the FCC will tell them to sell assets (areas) to get below 30%. If they don't then and only then does Comcast and other MSOs have a case that the FCC rule is flawed. Until such time, Comcast can enjoy the new competition, since they seem to love it so much already. How can DitrecTv sell areas? In fact how can at&t sell areas? Sell to who? verizon? No wait they'll have to sell too. Oh wait maybe to crappy TDS the only other telcom that servies my state and they don't offer TV hell they barely offer DSL. Try THINKING before posting. | |
|
| | | | UofMiamiGrad
Premium
join:2001-02-03
Great Neck, NY
| Re: Comcast hates competition! said by BF69 :said by UofMiamiGrad :said by BF69 :Do they( the bells ) have 30% of the market or more? No. CAN they? Yes. which is the issue. So can DirectTv. They have 17 million subscribers and are adding at least 1 million a year. And when they pass that 30% mark, you can bet the FCC will tell them to sell assets (areas) to get below 30%. If they don't then and only then does Comcast and other MSOs have a case that the FCC rule is flawed. Until such time, Comcast can enjoy the new competition, since they seem to love it so much already. How can DitrecTv sell areas? In fact how can at&t sell areas? Sell to who? verizon? No wait they'll have to sell too. Oh wait maybe to crappy TDS the only other telcom that servies my state and they don't offer TV hell they barely offer DSL. Try THINKING before posting. The 30% rule doesn't apply to satellite, it's wireline. So what the hell does D* have to do with it? AT&T/Verizon would have to sell their wireline assets to other wireline providers, if they ever offered TV services to 30% of US market. So Quest can't buy a AT&T/Verizon area? Northpoint can't purchase more areas? Any wireline provider will have to offer TV if they are to survive in 10 years. How about you try thinking before posting. Must suck to live in your area of TN, if you are broadband limited. Enjoy your limited options. | |
|
| | | | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
moderated:
March 14th, @02:28PM
| Re: Comcast hates competition! said by UofMiamiGrad :The 30% rule doesn't apply to satellite, it's wireline. So what the hell does D* have to do with it? Try reading what you quoted of me and then your response. anyways why can DirectTv have more than 30% and not Comcast? How is that not hampering competition?
AT&T/Verizon would have to sell their wireline assets to other wireline providers, if they ever offered TV services to 30% of US market. So Quest can't buy a AT&T/Verizon area? Is there a Quest area west of the rockies? No. would quest be interested in such areas? No. Could quest even afford to buy other areas? No. Does Quest even offer Tv? No.
Northpoint can't purchase more areas? Any wireline provider will have to offer TV if they are to survive in 10 years. How about you try thinking before posting. You try thinking. At&T will NOT be forced to sell areas when they hit 30% FACT. No other TV provider but cable is subject to this rule. FACT. Therfore it's not right. FACT.
Must suck to live in your area of TN, if you are broadband limited. Enjoy your limited options. How would Comcast owning more than 30% of cable going to limit my options? If Comast own 100% of the cable market how would that affect my option. Ther has ALWAYS be one cable provider in my area. There will ALWAYS be one cable provider in my area. In fact this rule would actually LIMIT my choices.
Say if Charter wanted to sell my area well because of the cap Comcast can't buy it. There for limiting the number of suitors for my area. Increasing the chances that some inferrior company with crappy service and no plan on increasing service or speeds would take over instead of a company working on Docsis 3.0 for all it's areas within 2 years.
yeah it sucks for broadband here. I can only get 6Mbps/512Kbps max from at&t and only 10Mbps/1Mbps max from Charter until later this year when they roll out 16 mbps/2Mbps. Oh the horror! | |
|
| | | | | | 
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
moderated:
March 14th, @02:29PM
| Re: Comcast hates competition! Here in the developed world there are multiple choices. In Chicagoland alone Comcast has competition from WOW and RCN in various suburban and city areas. U-Verse is ramping up. Should Comcast be allowed to become so huge that they can control program origination? They're already in the shit for withholding their sports network from competitors.
As for satellite, what are their market shares? Do you even know?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | | | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
moderated:
March 14th, @03:32PM
| Re: Comcast hates competition! there are multiple choices. In Chicagoland alone Comcast has competition from WOW and RCN in various suburban and city areas. U-Verse is ramping up. Should Comcast be allowed to become so huge that they can control program origination? They're already in the shit for withholding their sports network from competitors. Once again Uverse is not subject to the 30% rule. is that fair? No. Those areas with more than one cable providor are in the extreme MINORITY. And if not having 2 means one doesn't live in the "developed world" then 99% of America is a 3rd world country then.
As for satellite, what are their market shares? Do you even know? doesn't matter if they had 50% the TV market they would NOT be affected by this rule adn that's kind of the point. They certainly have more than 30% of the satelite market. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
moderated:
March 14th, @03:33PM
| Re: Comcast hates competition! That's priceless.
U-Verse currently is a form of video on demand and will never even approach a 30% market share as such. Nice straw man.
The rule states 30% of the video market. That you want to ignore the definitions and wrap your argument around false assumptions (let along ignoring reality) speaks to how vacuous your argument is.
Go read the rules.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: Comcast hates competition! How is U-Verse a form of VoD? I didn't know you got to select what shows you wanted to watch all the time. I thought it was just like cable just according to AT$T used a different platform for delivery. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Comcast hates competition! It's video over IP which is not sent until you 'order' it via the remote, which is the same as VoD. The only difference is that it picks up live program feeds instead of recorded feeds. It has more in common with SDV than traditional digital cable.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| Re: Comcast hates competition! said by RadioDoc :It's video over IP which is not sent until you 'order' it via the remote, which is the same as VoD. The only difference is that it picks up live program feeds instead of recorded feeds. It has more in common with SDV than traditional digital cable. Wow.
And that makes a difference? Its still TV service. VoD is content stored on servers, not a live feed. Hence = TV. But even if it was, So? | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | Re: Comcast hates competition! In the context of the FCC rules, there is a difference. By your definition, YouTube is cable if you watch it on your TV. So would be anything via Apple TV.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
anonomous
@comcast.net
| Re: Comcast hates competition! Why does the FCC have all those stupid technicalities? What is it, for the bells to be able to get around obstacles cable can't(thanks to FCC chairman Martin  ). I'm no cable fan boy(I think FIOS is a great service overall), but Martin has an extreme bias and it isn't right. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
edit:
March 16th, @02:48PM
| Re: Comcast hates competition! What technicalities are you complaining of? These rules were written before Martin was on the FCC and came via directives from Congress. The Communications Act is not an FCC document...they are tasked with implementing it.
Cable is the one who fought to have their non-video services classified as "information services" not subject to common carrier regulation. The rest of this stems from that.
Don't believe everything you read on company websites.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 
bobjohnson
join:2007-02-03
Titusville, FL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
| Re: Comcast hates competition! What I see that sucks about this cap is not just about the tv, but this includes internet, phone and the other services that they offer.. They don't even have the option for those services and it's not included in the cap... The telco tv will take years to get big enough to compete with comcast or tw, and will never make it to the rural areas.. but since they made this rule it should be universal with tv providers (except dish and such) because they technically cover like 99% of the us markets... | |
|
| | | |
| |
| |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Comcast hates competition! Clear Channel owns far less than 30% of all US radio stations. More like 13% at their peak and considerably less today. You might want to refine your arguments to reflect the reality of the numbers.
The CATV 30% cap is mostly related to video programming delivery and not the Internets. If Comcast operated as a common carrier this would not be an issue, but they do things that are anti-competitive within their own systems and are justifiably spanked for it.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
| Re: Comcast hates competition! I'm not going to refine my statement. They have, or had way too much control over media in the US and ruined a lot of stations I "used" to listen to.
"Market share
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the company became an object of persistent criticism. Critics claim that it has abused its market position and has operated in an unethical manner. FCC regulations were relaxed following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, allowing companies to own far more radio signals than before. After spending about $30 billion, Clear Channel owned over 1,200 stations nationwide, including as many as seven stations in certain markets. Competitors and listeners complained, but so far the company has been able to hold on to all of its stations after divesting a few following the acquisition of AMFM, although over 500 stations have since been sold or are in the process of being sold since the company announced plans to become privately held."
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Chan···et_share
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day! | |
|
| | | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Comcast hates competition! The owners who sold out to Clear Channel are the ones who "ruined" those stations. Format changes are a way of life. Seek them out and complain that they ruined your station. I'm sure they'll apologize while rolling in the hundreds of million dollars Clear Channel pumped out to acquire these smaller groups.
Your Wikipedia article is flawed, implying that Clear Channel along exhibits the bad traits the author(s) attribute to them. While CC certainly deserves criticism for certain operating policies they never managed to control much of the media and in fact failed in their growth experiment. They may have had way too much control in certain local markets but overall they never managed to gain an advertising stranglehold. And, as I noted above, they never managed to acquire more than about 13% of the total commercial radio stations before the organization became too large to manage profitably. But this has nothing to do with the cable ownership cap.
When it comes to local strangleholds, nobody beats the cable monopoly. In many smaller markets if you want to advertise locally on TV you have one option--cable. There are excellent public policy arguments made to support a limit on how much of the cable TV market one company should be allowed to control. At some point the industry should be turned into a common carrier and regulated as such.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | |
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
| Re: Comcast hates competition! LOL, we mostly agree. I havent found that 13% number and I'm not really looking. I think you just enjoy arguing with me 
Only one thing more to say on this subject for me, the format change on one station went from Rock to Mexican RAP, ughh its aweful.
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day! | |
|
| 
BSD24
Premium
join:2008-04-30
Taunton, MA
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
edit:
May 15th, @01:30PM
| said by UofMiamiGrad :Do any of the bells offer TV service to 30% of the US market? I doubt it, excluding bundled satellite service. FIOS TV only passed the 1 million mark recently. U-Verse TV is nowhere near that, only 231,000 subs. So why is Comcast crying foul over the Bells? Afraid of competition? How do they control more than 30% of the market solely as a pay TV provider, which is the issue? I hope Comcast loses in court. UofMiamiGrad,
Verizon Fios was given the ok to have no-cap on the market. So basicly the FCC believes that Telephone Companys (TELCOS) should be able to provide cable services to as many people as they want anywhere with no cap. But if Comcast wants to do that, since they are Cable Operator and not Telco, they have to obide by the 30% cap. MAKES NO SENSE - WE NEED TO FIRE THE FCC! Comcast will and should win in court!~!
That is why Comcast is sueing them. TWC and Charter are both on the side of Comcast just as Cable Industry in general is. Verizon doesn't even want there to be local-franchise control restrictions for them, They say because they are Telco, they shouldn't have to obide by franchise laws, and be able to offer tv services to anyone, state by state (state-wide approval). | |
|
Davebo_
join:2002-11-19
Canada
| Hey If they have money burning holes in their pockets to buy more telecom shit, why don't they take some of that coin and upgrade their network?
Then they wouldn't have to throttle their users unmercifully... Fat chance of that ever happening, though, when they can slime their way out.... | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX | Silly rule The 30% rule doesn't help competition at all. If you are going to have legislation, do something that will ensure competition in key geographic areas, such as mandating at least two cable-type carriers in cities with over 250,000 people. | |
|
| sharksfan3
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Pleasant Valley, NY
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Silly rule said by DMS1 :such as mandating at least two cable-type carriers in cities with over 250,000 people. I'm not sure how that will work over one pipe. Given the space crunch that cableco's are experiencing all by their loansome with HD channels. | |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| Different environments The telcos and cablecos have a different regulatory history and evolution. So of course they're going to be different.
You can argue that we need to scrap current regulations and reinvent them... but I don't think you want to see VOIP getting treated the same as POTS. Unless you want higher bills. | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
| i agree with comcast IF this new legislation does not apply to the telecoms and satellites with there tv then it is unfairly targeting cable.
The same way voice legislation should apply to voip.
Verizon is getting a free pass to do what ever they want and thats not right. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
elijah
@ms.us
| The FCC is a joke The FCC needs to set some regulations that bring broadband through DSL and cable to rural households and quit worrying about nonsense like this. I can't stand how all these companies are making record breaking profits yet they only worry about the urban customers. Yes i understand that's where they stand to make the greatest profit, but come on enoughs enough. Broadband gets faster and faster in cities, while rural areas are still listening to the modem dial up. What is somebody going to do about this? NOTHING!!! | |
|
deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA
·Cox HSI
| Hmm While I think that Martin certainly seems to have a bell slant, I am not sure where I stand on this whole 30 percent thing. I tell you what though, based on the reaction from Congress and the newly opened investigations, I wonder if there is something to it. | |
|
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| Go for it Personally I find annoyance with both AT&T and Comcast but hey...
It shouldn't really matter how they arrive at the 30% and it really shouldnt't matter if the provider's history is as cableco or telco.
I don't see a reason why they shouldn't sue. Go for it.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. Ralph Waldo Emerson
| |
|
anonomous
@comcast.net
| Wouldn't this actually LIMIT competition? When a provider hits that 30%, they can't expand thus limiting options for other areas. For example IF Verizon hits the 30% mark,(IF the FCC makes the same rules apply to the bells...  ... probably not now that I think about it...) in their current markets in the northeast, they can't expand and offer service to new areas, LIMITING competition in some areas. Also, once a provider hits that 30% mark, what is the point for them to improve service? There usually are just 3 choices for consumers to choose from, so those providers think "Hey! Their stuck with one of us no matter what, and can't expand our business any more. So why should we spend money to improve our service?". So once again, the FCC is just doing what is truly best for consumers! | |
|
| BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Wouldn't said by anonomous :this actually LIMIT competition? When a provider hits that 30%, they can't expand thus limiting options for other areas. For example IF Verizon hits the 30% mark,(IF the FCC makes the same rules apply to the bells... ... probably not now that I think about it...) in their current markets in the northeast, they can't expand and offer service to new areas, LIMITING competition in some areas. Also, once a provider hits that 30% mark, what is the point for them to improve service? There usually are just 3 choices for consumers to choose from, so those providers think "Hey! Their stuck with one of us no matter what, and can't expand our business any more. So why should we spend money to improve our service?". So once again, the FCC is just doing what is truly best for consumers! Oh quit making so much sense! | |
|
| |
anonomous
@comcast.net | Re: Wouldn't What?! You don't like the truth ? | |
|
pepperxn
join:2001-02-21
| fcc I agree with the fcc on this one.
Comcast would start buying the rest of the cable companies if they could buy more. Comcast services most of the states, with around 10 million more customers than the 2nd largest cable company, Time Warner Cable. Plus, with cable, you really don't have a choice.
Could you imagine Comcast buying Time Warner Cable once it's spun off from Time Warner? Then they'll buy Cox, Charter, Cablevision, etc. They'll raise prices some more, poke more fun at the telcos.
Cable started this battle. They think they're "cool". They added VoIP to "steal" customers from telcos. They have intro prices, then the prices go up, with rate increases every year. So now the telcos got into tv to fight back (u-verse iptv, fios tv).
Comcast just doesn't want competition. I don't see how anyone could be on their side, you either work for them, or you have them as your cable provider. It's a monopoly that should be broken up. (note: Microsoft owns like 10% of Comcast) | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Simple solution Any Video service provider is forbidden from owning or controlling a Media content creator. OR must offer the content to anyone who wants to carry it for the exact same rates they charge their subs for it. IE Cable giants (or Telco Giants) can't buy up or have exclusive rights to channels or events... or if they do, they must provide it to all who wish to carry it for the exact same rate THEIR customers pay for it.
Problem solved. Fair for all service providers.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
|
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Simple solution That is the smartest solution. Turn the whole mess back to common carrier status while you're at it.
There is precedent for your scenario: The TV networks were prohibited from originating prime time network programming for a couple of decades because they got snippy about running indie productions, preferring to keep it in house. Viacom (for example) was created from CBS's production operation and spun off to it's own company in compliance.
It's time.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
SKYWARP
join:2005-02-02
Portland, OR
·Comcast Formerly ..
| 30% Mark The reason that a cable company could potentially be limited to 30% of tv subs is so that they will not have an unfair advantage in the market regarding purchase of programming.
If Comcast held 50% of the entire pay tv market, they could in turn, use that position to secure more advantageous deals with broadcasters. They could force ESPN to offer better pricing to them, they could potentially buy some programming as exclusives (limiting competition's ability to purchase that programming), etc. It would give them a more heavy hand in negotiations than they have already. Comcast would have too much potential control over TV content.
This is the "competition" that the law is talking about, not direct subscriber competition with other providers.
I personally don't agree, but this is the reason the law is in effect for a cable company. | |
|
|
|
|
Comcast Sues FCC Over 30% Cap
FCC destined to lose this one in court
