You admit that it isn't so "technically impossible", yes it is dated but the same rules apply today in the EU, I would imagine service expanded in that time not contracted. So you would argue that we stand a better chance without the deregulation which worked both in the telephone and utility industries and that we should leave local cable monopolies in place in order to drive down prices? The straw man argument is the "cord cutter" argument. Since it is true that even if you cut the cord, you are still tied to your cable company for internet and eventually if enough customers cut the cord, the local cable monopolies will simply raise your Internet prices or put caps in place to make up the revenue. By forcing more competition, they can't simply do that because they have to worry about competition. In the case of the phone company the Gov't didn't seize assets, they simply made a rule that you have to allow other providers to lease your lines at a reasonable rate. As far as the sanctity of private assets of corporations, give me a break, that certainly wasn't on their minds in 2007 when they went to DC to ask for a Gov't bailout. I wouldn't worry, the industry lobby in DC is very powerful and would do anything to prevent that from happening, your 401K is safe.
Almost nothing is "technically impossible". I could embed an HDTV, GPS, Digital Multimeter, IR Temperature Probe, Cell phone, GPS, and toothbrush in my watch. Would it make sense? Would the "cost" be worth the "service"? No and No.
You again inaccurately and at this point I can only say deliberately misrepresenting "monopoly" when in fact we have discounted that as being a total lie.
If enough customer "cut the cord" and you also force "net neutrality" those same carriers can simply raise their "carrier cost" - which you have to pay on TOP of the internet provider (just like you do with electricity, since you love to use that false analogy).
The phone company explanation is equally false, as analog services are not subject to the same capacity issues as are data services, and frankly seizure of an asset is simply seizure of an asset. Period. Don't believe me? Guess what - the providers were forced BY LAW to list and treat that infrastructure that they built out as assets.
I will give you no break. If you want to bias this discussion by bringing up who got what in a bailout (that I did not support personally) in 2007, you're turning bad analogies and false information to just plain idiocy. The FACTS are that the providers are publicly traded entities. They are institutional properties. So whether you like it or not (and I could not care less if you do or do not) the FACT is that financial performance results in share value. Share value results in portfolio changes, which affect 401K accounts. So, if you strip financial projections and market cap on an institutional asset, you reduce the value of 401k portfolios. Period. End of discussion. You have absolutely not the slightest ability to change this - no matter how socialistic your own preferences are.
[doublepost=1453999712][/doublepost]
I stand corrected on STBs... I was going with old data.
I am not for confusing or over regulations. BUT our history is rife with examples of companies lobbying doing very bad things where lax regulation existed. And sometimes those regulations were lobbied for by said industry.
I am happy to hear in one case you know the local manicipality decided against competing. I know where I lived Optimum tried their best to block Verizon from installing Fios. Thank God they lost because service and customer support suddenly improved for existing cable customers
History is rife with examples of good and bad. However, you made a statement about how EVERY time something happens, something else happens. That was untrue. In one location one thing happened. In another location something else happened. That is hardly an excuse for increasing regulation. This is coming from a person who sees first hand exactly how increased regulation is today - this very minute - increasing the cost to the consumer for no apparent value or increased service whatsoever.
BTW, wherever you live, if "optimum tried their best to block Verizon" I have no idea exactly how they could even possibly be successful. No provider - period - under any circumstance - has ANY ability to block another provider. It is - and has been - illegal for a long time now.
[doublepost=1454000277][/doublepost]
No, *our* government, notably the FCC, did no such thing. *YOUR* local government did because selling a franchise right within their borders is a cash cow and they (we the people, in actuality) own the telephone poles which provide an avenue to string lines on. Further beyond that, apartment buildings further sell rights to their building... because it's a cash cow.
Beyond that, it's also cheaper to have but 1 set of lines on those poles... rather than 50. Cost of buildout multiplied multiple times is counter-intuitive to wanting lower prices when in the hands of a private company... someone has to pay for the cable, and with less people to share that cost, the buyer pays a higher rate.
Yet another false statement. It is amazing to me how much BS people seem to believe.
1) A local government (municipality) does not "Sell" a Franchise Right. The agree to terms on a Franchise Agreement. Franchise Agreements are by federal law non-exclusive since 1996.
2) Franchise Agreements are NOT "Cash Cows". They are simply a percentage of federally specified products and services that can be assessed a fee that is paid to the municipality. It is typically a small percentage - between 3-5%. More importantly, that fee is paid by (wait for it) the CONSUMER. All the provider does is COLLECT the fee. Then they pass the fee along to the consumer. And guess what? Whether there are 1, 2 or 10 providers, the total amount of fees in that municipality is exactly the same percentage.
3) You the people do NOT own the telephone poles. The Telephone company and the Electric Utility company own those poles. You own the right of way where the poles are installed, just like you own the right of way where there are roads, sewer lines, gas lines, etc. But you don't own the gas lines, you don't own all kinds of things. You don't pay for the poles, you don't replace the poles, you don't maintain the poles.
4) It's also cheaper to have one airplane fly from NY to Boston than two different carriers at the same time. Do you want to regulate that also, to try and make it "cheaper for the consumer"? Where does your rampant disregard for private property and private business end? Where is the line where your own desires aren't allowed to impact everyone else?
5) It costs money to deliver ANY service. Your argument about how it's cheaper to string one wire than 50 can be applied to almost any service in existence.
What I'm reading is pure socialistic - if not actually communistic - behavior.
[doublepost=1454000497][/doublepost]
Yes, however, when "the guys willing to invest and take the risk" did so, they had the luxury of tax breaks and exclusive contracts with cities to be their sole provider. There was far less risk then , and now new company would face increased risk and would haver to compete with an large, established player to boot.
Are you friggin kidding me? You're saying that there was "far less risk" when Verizon rolled out FIOS? REALLY?
