FCC Proposal Aims to Make Subscription TV Available on Any Set-Top Box

[wmhjr]

Well, in my neck of the woods, the power company owns only the poles that have the cross-beam carrying primary lines, and poles with step-down transformers... and they've got metal badges and numbers on them. Going down the streets not so much.

On the other stuff... the exclusivity of the deal doesn't matter. Town governments, HOAs, Apartment buildings are selling access into the spheres they control. To combat this, some players - like Verizon before they abandoned FiOS - were seeking statewide franchise agreements and going above each town government. IPTV is likely the best avenue from here forward, with Title II now being applied to internet services. I equate this to electricity deregulation... there's still *a lot* of money to be had for the electric company that actually owns the wires, electricity, delivery mechanism and sometimes even the production.

Do you even know anything about what you're talking about? Do you for example know how the electric utility industry works? Do you understand the difference between how transmission, distribution, generation, and supply are handled and regulated? Do you realize the fundamental technical difference between electricity distribution and internet distribution? BTW, do you realize exactly how on an overall per unit basis, this "deregulation" (which frankly, I can't imagine how you're calling it de-regulation rather than increased regulation, considering FERC, DoE, multiple Utility Commissions, etc) has INCREASED the cost to the consumer.

Are you one of the sheeple that believe that if you select some wind/solar provider as your electricity provider, and you live in PA or WV, you're actually getting electricity that was generated by wind or solar generation? Really?

Holy cow! Every time I read new statements here I'm further amazed at the level of people who "assume" way too much and try to pass it along as fact........

Folks, DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Do it WITHOUT INTRODUCING YOUR OWN PERSONAL BIAS. Don't read with the intent to only find data to support your own position, but read to LEARN so you can understand actual cause and effect.

Wow.

 

[numtini]

Town governments, HOAs, Apartment buildings are selling access into the spheres they control. To combat this, some players - like Verizon before they abandoned FiOS - were seeking statewide franchise agreements and going above each town government.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not accurate.

There were three reasons Verizon wanted statewide agreements.

First, they wanted to eliminate the tedium of negotiating with every single town and there are a lot of very small towns in New England. Sending a representative to banter back and forth for weeks at a time with some podunk politico is not an efficient way to do business.

Second, they were looking for the ability to stop carrying PEG programming. It's a PITA. They have to collect the fees, which will vary from town to town, turn the money over to the towns, and connect their system to all these little municipal buildings and schools and do the broadcast switching.

The final and by far the biggest reason they wanted statewide licensing is they wanted to avoid requirements to serve all residents in a given municipality--one of the few restrictions a municipality can put into a license. What they wanted was to cherry pick dense wealthy parts of towns where they could make a profit and ignore people who were a bit further out or who were going to order packages that weren't profitable or just plain lived in an old section of town that was going to be a PITA to wire. This is effectively how Google does business. They will only wire a section of town if enough residents sign up ahead of time. If they don't tough luck. In their first rollout

 

[wmhjr]

actually NO. your logic sucks and has no similarity. Apple develops and distributes intellectual property in the form of software. cable companies develop nothing, they only distribute property provided by developers. they are nothing more than a middle man, just like a grocery store.

Also not true. Their video content is certainly only distribution. Their broadband and communications services are not only distribution. And, the technology to operate and maintain head end and distribution is actually intellectual property.
[doublepost=1454001914][/doublepost]

I'm sorry, but that's simply not accurate.

There were three reasons Verizon wanted statewide agreements.

First, they wanted to eliminate the tedium of negotiating with every single town and there are a lot of very small towns in New England. Sending a representative to banter back and forth for weeks at a time with some podunk politico is not an efficient way to do business.

Second, they were looking for the ability to stop carrying PEG programming. It's a PITA. They have to collect the fees, which will vary from town to town, turn the money over to the towns, and connect their system to all these little municipal buildings and schools and do the broadcast switching.

The final and by far the biggest reason they wanted statewide licensing is they wanted to avoid requirements to serve all residents in a given municipality--one of the few restrictions a municipality can put into a license. What they wanted was to cherry pick dense wealthy parts of towns where they could make a profit and ignore people who were a bit further out or who were going to order packages that weren't profitable or just plain lived in an old section of town that was going to be a PITA to wire. This is effectively how Google does business. They will only wire a section of town if enough residents sign up ahead of time. If they don't tough luck. In their first rollout

You are absolutely correct on all three accounts.

 

[BuffaloTF]

Do you even know anything about what you're talking about? Do you for example know how the electric utility industry works? Do you understand the difference between how transmission, distribution, generation, and supply are handled and regulated? Do you realize the fundamental technical difference between electricity distribution and internet distribution? BTW, do you realize exactly how on an overall per unit basis, this "deregulation" (which frankly, I can't imagine how you're calling it de-regulation rather than increased regulation, considering FERC, DoE, multiple Utility Commissions, etc) has INCREASED the cost to the consumer.

Are you one of the sheeple that believe that if you select some wind/solar provider as your electricity provider, and you live in PA or WV, you're actually getting electricity that was generated by wind or solar generation? Really?

Holy cow! Every time I read new statements here I'm further amazed at the level of people who "assume" way too much and try to pass it along as fact........

Folks, DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Do it WITHOUT INTRODUCING YOUR OWN PERSONAL BIAS. Don't read with the intent to only find data to support your own position, but read to LEARN so you can understand actual cause and effect.

Wow.

Yes... I know how electric deregulation has increased the cost to me.

I also know how AT&T being broken up sent cost of phone service skyrocketing.

I also know that industry consolidation in the cellular world made prices plummet from what they were in the 90s with many players.

And with a chosen name like mine, do you really think I'm not aware of where the literal free natural gigantic power plant in my back yard has its electricity sent to?

I mean... You said you read. I would expect you to have read my name at the very least.

But I also know that non-traditional players are the only ones that offer true competition, which is why cost of phone service has been brought down to nearly free when not using the copper, by instead using cable lines and Internet lines to provide VOIP services.

I also know non-traditional startups provide me with cheaper, yet incredibly faster, Internet alternatives when FiOS refuses to expand and the cable company stops capital improvements. And beyond that the threat of municipal broadband has kept prices in check elsewhere.

And I know this, without doing introducing any personal bias... Having done the actual homework you said I need to do... Which you clearly haven't.

 

[wmhjr]

Yes... I know how electric deregulation has increased the cost to me.

I also know how AT&T being broken up sent cost of phone service skyrocketing.

I also know that industry consolidation in the cellular world made prices plummet from what they were in the 90s with many players.

And with a chosen name like mine, do you really think I'm not aware of where the literal free natural gigantic power plant in my back yard has its electricity sent to?

I mean... You said you read. I would expect you to have read my name at the very least.

But I also know that non-traditional players are the only ones that offer true competition, which is why cost of phone service has been brought down to nearly free when not using the copper, by instead using cable lines and Internet lines to provide VOIP services.

I also know non-traditional startups provide me with cheaper, yet incredibly faster, Internet alternatives when FiOS refuses to expand and the cable company stops capital improvements. And beyond that the threat of municipal broadband has kept prices in check elsewhere.

And I know this, without doing introducing any personal bias... Having done the actual homework you said I need to do... Which you clearly haven't.

You keep making false statements.

1) I refuse to ASSUME where you're from based on your screen name. For all I know you could live in Buffalo, or want to hunt Buffalo, or love Buffalo wings.

2) Industry consolidation is NOT what brought cellular costs down. Technology advancements, process improvements, and scale brought cellular costs down.

3) By trying to say that VoIP costs are cheap because of non-traditional players rather than technology changes - whew! You REALLY like to make assumptions and state facts not in evidence. Wow.

4) You keep calling it "electricity deregulation" but in fact it was increased regulation. It only separated supply from transmission and distribution (with FERC calling supply "marketing"). And yet - it is the model - exactly - that you are using for how you want cable and internet to work....

5) Your statements about how you "know" things like the threat of municipal broadband, etc have kept prices in check, and how non-traditional providers have already provided you much faster and cheaper alternatives also smacks of over-generalizations substantiated with zero facts.

Head scratching continues.

 

[BeefCake 15]

Cable boxes are notorious electricity hogs. One study found that "They have become the biggest single energy user in many homes, apart from air conditioning." http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-power-hog-20140617-story.html

An Apple TV uses 2 Watts while streaming HD Movies. A typical cable box uses 35W. You could power 17 Apple TVs and still use less power than a cable box.

The cable companies have no incentive to spend any money on designing an efficient box, they just pass those costs onto the consumer.

Worst yet, I just got Comcast's new X1 box and found out it never shuts off by design....their reason is it takes too long to turn it back on so they disabled the option lol

 

[ggibson913]

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]

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]

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]

Are you friggin kidding me? You're saying that there was "far less risk" when Verizon rolled out FIOS? REALLY?

Monpooly - exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

Sounds like my local cable provider. In my town we only have one provider. I know for a fact that friends of mine is the next town who have both cable and FIOS get charged less. Why? There is a competitor in the same market.

 

[BuffaloTF]

You keep making false statements.

1) I refuse to ASSUME where you're from based on your screen name. For all I know you could live in Buffalo, or want to hunt Buffalo, or love Buffalo wings.

2) Industry consolidation is NOT what brought cellular costs down. Technology advancements, process improvements, and scale brought cellular costs down.

3) By trying to say that VoIP costs are cheap because of non-traditional players rather than technology changes - whew! You REALLY like to make assumptions and state facts not in evidence. Wow.

4) You keep calling it "electricity deregulation" but in fact it was increased regulation. It only separated supply from transmission and distribution (with FERC calling supply "marketing"). And yet - it is the model - exactly - that you are using for how you want cable and internet to work....

5) Your statements about how you "know" things like the threat of municipal broadband, etc have kept prices in check, and how non-traditional providers have already provided you much faster and cheaper alternatives also smacks of over-generalizations substantiated with zero facts.

Head scratching continues.

-Industry consolidation brought down cell phone prices. True statement. It was analog when it occurred. It was analog after. Technology didn't change until the industry had already consolidated and the prices were already low. If anything, they've increased as technology has changed.

-POTS phone prices are still high to this day and have long distance charges. Cable providers offer phone service, over cable for 20 bucks with free long distance. VOIP is next to free over the Internet. Non-traditional players. Non-traditional transmission.

-It was electricity deregulation. That's what it was. It's what it is called. You are placing your personal bias on it to call it otherwise, and being a pedant about it on top of that... Not exactly things that will win an argument, or even get many people to even join you in it.

-Municipal Broadband is most certainly cheaper for higher rates of speed. You need only use the Google machine to prove yourself wrong. As an example, Chatanooga's "The Gig" service offers *10* gbps Internet for every residence and business in the city. The 1 gig plan costs 70 dollars a month. Comcast serves the same city. For the same price you'll get a speedy 25 Mbps. So tell me again, what's the better buy? Oh... And their municipal broadband has also attracted business to the city that otherwise never would've considered them.

 

[ggibson913]

You keep making false statements.

1) I refuse to ASSUME where you're from based on your screen name. For all I know you could live in Buffalo, or want to hunt Buffalo, or love Buffalo wings.

2) Industry consolidation is NOT what brought cellular costs down. Technology advancements, process improvements, and scale brought cellular costs down.

3) By trying to say that VoIP costs are cheap because of non-traditional players rather than technology changes - whew! You REALLY like to make assumptions and state facts not in evidence. Wow.

4) You keep calling it "electricity deregulation" but in fact it was increased regulation. It only separated supply from transmission and distribution (with FERC calling supply "marketing"). And yet - it is the model - exactly - that you are using for how you want cable and internet to work....

5) Your statements about how you "know" things like the threat of municipal broadband, etc have kept prices in check, and how non-traditional providers have already provided you much faster and cheaper alternatives also smacks of over-generalizations substantiated with zero facts.

Head scratching continues.

Let me try to clarify for you with a very simple example:

Lets say that I am the only person in my town who sells green apples. I charge $2.49 per pound for my apples and my customers pay that because I am the only person in town who sells apples.

Now another person in my town starts selling green apples, only they are charging $1.49 per pound. Now I have to compete so I either lower my prices or lose my customers to my competitor who are also selling green apples but for less money.

So I am scratching my head on your theory that increase competition doesn't lead to lower prices for consumers.

 

[2010mini]

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]

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]

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]

Are you friggin kidding me? You're saying that there was "far less risk" when Verizon rolled out FIOS? REALLY?

They tried blocking Verizon by using its influence to persuade local pols to deny Verizon's application to offer telecom and tv service.

Where I live under the table deals has been as normal as water being wet.

BUT people hated Optimum in this area so much that failed. Then they tried running untrue ads and Verizon got the courts to stop it.

 

[wmhjr]

Monpooly - exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

Sounds like my local cable provider. In my town we only have one provider. I know for a fact that friends of mine is the next town who have both cable and FIOS get charged less. Why? There is a competitor in the same market.

Wrong again. If your definition of "control" is that nobody else WANTS to be in that market, then I guess so, but that is absolutely NOT an acceptable definition of monopoly. You have no idea why your "next town is charged less". It may or may not be related to the fact that VZ is there. And in terms of the "same market" - in fact, it is not the "same market".
[doublepost=1454009262][/doublepost]

They tried blocking Verizon by using its influence to persuade local pols to deny Verizon's application to offer telecom and tv service.

Where I live under the table deals has been as normal as water being wet.

BUT people hated Optimum in this area so much that failed. Then they tried running untrue ads and Verizon got the courts to stop it.

So what you're saying is that in your corrupt community, the people your community elected, somehow have enough power to illegally manipulate services that are already federally regulated, and you can do nothing about it........

And that your answer is to increase regulation.........
[doublepost=1454009643][/doublepost]

Let me try to clarify for you with a very simple example:

Lets say that I am the only person in my town who sells green apples. I charge $2.49 per pound for my apples and my customers pay that because I am the only person in town who sells apples.

Now another person in my town starts selling green apples, only they are charging $1.49 per pound. Now I have to compete so I either lower my prices or lose my customers to my competitor who are also selling green apples but for less money.

So I am scratching my head on your theory that increase competition doesn't lead to lower prices for consumers.

If you want to over simplify and make blanket statements based on such an over simplification, be my guest. I think you'll be remarkably unsuccessful in business and perhaps in life, but you have the constitutional right to do so.

In order for your particular analogy to be even remotely applicable, you'd have to edit it....

Let's say you are the only person in your town that sells green apples, and you charge whatever you want. Let's also say that it costs you X, and you sell for X plus 20 cents.

Now, let's say that somebody else might want to sell apples in your town. Let's also assume that the total number of apples sold can not increase. Meaning, every person is only going to buy one apple per month. Because, with what we're talking about, it is logical to assume that every single family residence is only going to have one set of providers per month.

And, let's say that it costs a certain amount in order to build out the necessary requirements to grow, transport, and sell those apples in your town.

Then, let's say that over a 10 year period for example, after considering the sunk cost, the "new" person would have to make at least 30 cents per unit in order to earn back their investment.

Cost of change is NOT free.

Now, let's talk about the REAL impact of "competition". Like exactly how "competition" has influenced electricity marketing. It has not.
[doublepost=1454010490][/doublepost]

-Industry consolidation brought down cell phone prices. True statement. It was analog when it occurred. It was analog after. Technology didn't change until the industry had already consolidated and the prices were already low. If anything, they've increased as technology has changed.

-POTS phone prices are still high to this day and have long distance charges. Cable providers offer phone service, over cable for 20 bucks with free long distance. VOIP is next to free over the Internet. Non-traditional players. Non-traditional transmission.

-It was electricity deregulation. That's what it was. It's what it is called. You are placing your personal bias on it to call it otherwise, and being a pedant about it on top of that... Not exactly things that will win an argument, or even get many people to even join you in it.

-Municipal Broadband is most certainly cheaper for higher rates of speed. You need only use the Google machine to prove yourself wrong. As an example, Chatanooga's "The Gig" service offers *10* gbps Internet for every residence and business in the city. The 1 gig plan costs 70 dollars a month. Comcast serves the same city. For the same price you'll get a speedy 25 Mbps. So tell me again, what's the better buy? Oh... And their municipal broadband has also attracted business to the city that otherwise never would've considered them.

Wrong again.

Cell phone prices and charges did not start to occur until after the digital conversion got momentum. You are making my point. Consolidation happened - during the initial boom, with prices remaining somewhat consistent through consolidation - until after digital migration. And if you REALLY think prices have grown, I'd love for you to try and defend that position. It is not defensible. For less today than you used to pay for normal .28/min off peak, .48 peak, and .99 roaming, you now get coast to coast unlimited calling, unlimited text, AND a reasonable amount of data. As somebody who got their first cell setup in 1989, I can speak with authority that your statement that "costs have increased" is a complete false statement.

BTW, you're also contradicting yourself. Did consolidation reduce prices (as you have said) or did competition reduce prices (as you have said). Consolidation reduces competition - so you just called yourself a bad name.....

POTS versus VoIP has NOTHING to do with "non traditional players". It has everything to do with technology. The same company providing POTS also provides VoIP. IF - and ONLY IF - that technology is available and deployed, then the same company provides you a cheaper alternative. You really need to learn the meaning of correlation.

In terms of Municipal Broadband being cheaper or not, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never indicated that Municipal broadband would or would not be cheaper. Whether it is or is not is not relevant. What is your point? There is nothing preventing a municipality from entering the market. As evidenced in many places, they can - WITHOUT FURTHER REGULATION BEING NECESSARY. Maybe, if you feel so strongly and you have such heavy evidence, you should stop complaining here, and do it yourself in your municipality.

It was not electricity deregulation. It was Electricity MARKET deregulation. THAT is what it was called. It is not my personal bias. It is a fact. And contrary to your pedantic position (using your term), regulation has actually significantly increased in that area. Regulatory bodies that did not even exist some years ago now impose regulatory impact, as evidenced by FERC, NERC, CIP (v3, v5, etc). You do not want to get in an argument with me about the electricity area.

 

[ggibson913]

Wrong again. If your definition of "control" is that nobody else WANTS to be in that market, then I guess so, but that is absolutely NOT an acceptable definition of monopoly. You have no idea why your "next town is charged less". It may or may not be related to the fact that VZ is there. And in terms of the "same market" - in fact, it is not the "same market".
[doublepost=1454009262][/doublepost]

So what you're saying is that in your corrupt community, the people your community elected, somehow have enough power to illegally manipulate services that are already federally regulated, and you can do nothing about it........

And that your answer is to increase regulation.........
[doublepost=1454009643][/doublepost]

If you want to over simplify and make blanket statements based on such an over simplification, be my guest. I think you'll be remarkably unsuccessful in business and perhaps in life, but you have the constitutional right to do so.

In order for your particular analogy to be even remotely applicable, you'd have to edit it....

Let's say you are the only person in your town that sells green apples, and you charge whatever you want. Let's also say that it costs you X, and you sell for X plus 20 cents.

Now, let's say that somebody else might want to sell apples in your town. Let's also assume that the total number of apples sold can not increase. Meaning, every person is only going to buy one apple per month. Because, with what we're talking about, it is logical to assume that every single family residence is only going to have one set of providers per month.

And, let's say that it costs a certain amount in order to build out the necessary requirements to grow, transport, and sell those apples in your town.

Then, let's say that over a 10 year period for example, after considering the sunk cost, the "new" person would have to make at least 30 cents per unit in order to earn back their investment.

Cost of change is NOT free.

Now, let's talk about the REAL impact of "competition". Like exactly how "competition" has influenced electricity marketing. It has not.
[doublepost=1454010490][/doublepost]

Wrong again.

Cell phone prices and charges did not start to occur until after the digital conversion got momentum. You are making my point. Consolidation happened - during the initial boom, with prices remaining somewhat consistent through consolidation - until after digital migration. And if you REALLY think prices have grown, I'd love for you to try and defend that position. It is not defensible. For less today than you used to pay for normal .28/min off peak, .48 peak, and .99 roaming, you now get coast to coast unlimited calling, unlimited text, AND a reasonable amount of data. As somebody who got their first cell setup in 1989, I can speak with authority that your statement that "costs have increased" is a complete false statement.

BTW, you're also contradicting yourself. Did consolidation reduce prices (as you have said) or did competition reduce prices (as you have said). Consolidation reduces competition - so you just called yourself a bad name.....

POTS versus VoIP has NOTHING to do with "non traditional players". It has everything to do with technology. The same company providing POTS also provides VoIP. IF - and ONLY IF - that technology is available and deployed, then the same company provides you a cheaper alternative. You really need to learn the meaning of correlation.

In terms of Municipal Broadband being cheaper or not, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never indicated that Municipal broadband would or would not be cheaper. Whether it is or is not is not relevant. What is your point? There is nothing preventing a municipality from entering the market. As evidenced in many places, they can - WITHOUT FURTHER REGULATION BEING NECESSARY. Maybe, if you feel so strongly and you have such heavy evidence, you should stop complaining here, and do it yourself in your municipality.

It was not electricity deregulation. It was Electricity MARKET deregulation. THAT is what it was called. It is not my personal bias. It is a fact. And contrary to your pedantic position (using your term), regulation has actually significantly increased in that area. Regulatory bodies that did not even exist some years ago now impose regulatory impact, as evidenced by FERC, NERC, CIP (v3, v5, etc). You do not want to get in an argument with me about the electricity area.

So literally everyone else you have responded to is wrong as is the dictionary but you are right, wait, are you Donald Trump?

 

[wmhjr]

So literally everyone else you have responded to is wrong as is the dictionary but you are right, wait, are you Donald Trump?

Please review the definition of "literally" and try that statement again........ Maybe if you read a bit more closely you'll see you (again) made a false statement.

As I've said before, I am constantly amazed in this thread at the lack of education on the part of the consumer - made further amazing by the sense of certainty those same people exhibit that only "their" facts (i.e. opinions) mean anything.

Read that however you want.

And no, I am not Trump - nor do I support Trump.

 

[BuffaloTF]

Wrong again.

Cell phone prices and charges did not start to occur until after the digital conversion got momentum. You are making my point. Consolidation happened - during the initial boom, with prices remaining somewhat consistent through consolidation - until after digital migration. And if you REALLY think prices have grown, I'd love for you to try and defend that position. It is not defensible. For less today than you used to pay for normal .28/min off peak, .48 peak, and .99 roaming, you now get coast to coast unlimited calling, unlimited text, AND a reasonable amount of data. As somebody who got their first cell setup in 1989, I can speak with authority that your statement that "costs have increased" is a complete false statement.

BTW, you're also contradicting yourself. Did consolidation reduce prices (as you have said) or did competition reduce prices (as you have said). Consolidation reduces competition - so you just called yourself a bad name.....

POTS versus VoIP has NOTHING to do with "non traditional players". It has everything to do with technology. The same company providing POTS also provides VoIP. IF - and ONLY IF - that technology is available and deployed, then the same company provides you a cheaper alternative. You really need to learn the meaning of correlation.

In terms of Municipal Broadband being cheaper or not, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never indicated that Municipal broadband would or would not be cheaper. Whether it is or is not is not relevant. What is your point? There is nothing preventing a municipality from entering the market. As evidenced in many places, they can - WITHOUT FURTHER REGULATION BEING NECESSARY. Maybe, if you feel so strongly and you have such heavy evidence, you should stop complaining here, and do it yourself in your municipality.

It was not electricity deregulation. It was Electricity MARKET deregulation. THAT is what it was called. It is not my personal bias. It is a fact. And contrary to your pedantic position (using your term), regulation has actually significantly increased in that area. Regulatory bodies that did not even exist some years ago now impose regulatory impact, as evidenced by FERC, NERC, CIP (v3, v5, etc). You do not want to get in an argument with me about the electricity area.

No... cell phone prices dropped as a result of consolidation during the AMPS days. Sorry about your luck. It happened in the mid-to-late 90s. As I so happened to have a bag phone and know what the bill was capable of, it shrank as Frontier scooped up the entire state of New York, and then further when Bell Atlantic bought them... on AMPS. You may know them better today as Verizon. Digital wasn't launched until 97, and prices were down from quadruple digits to double digits by then. By the time Bell Atlantic completed their acquisition in 99, only 20% of phones were on digital and you could get service at that point for $10/mo, pay per minute on an AMPS phone. Consolidation IN INDUSTRY lowered prices. Economies of scale took over.

POTS vs VOIP is the very definition of traditional vs non-traditional players. Competing industries that were NON-TRADITIONAL service providers entered the market as a phone service provider and used a different channel. Competition from OTHER INDUSTRIES lowered prices.

This is not a contradiction, it's a mammoth differentiation between the two.

As far as Municipal Broadband, YOU said they don't keep prices in check or lower them. They did when they were introduced, they do currently, and they will continue to do so. Now you're saying otherwise. Well, good thing the lobbying power of TRADITIONAL service providers is coming in strong, and Senator Marco Rubio is leading the charge to prevent municipalities from doing so, amongst some other ALEC members. Further regulation IS necessary to encourage it, explicitly.

And there you go again, being a pedant. Just a post back and in the following sentence... it was regulating. Now you're worried about the word "market" being in there. Oh noes. It was deregulation for what was a price-controlled industry. Unless you're counting the fact they made low-flow toilets mandatory in the same bill.

 

[diamond.g]

Worst yet, I just got Comcast's new X1 box and found out it never shuts off by design....their reason is it takes too long to turn it back on so they disabled the option lol

TiVo takes a while to boot up as well. They have it down to a couple minutes now, the older boxes used to take 5 to 10 minutes.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Must be nice having a choice. Most people don't.
[doublepost=1453996617][/doublepost]

Seriously? You don't get the difference between a company one chooses to buy into (i.e. your 'closed garden') and one where you have no choice? And apps can run whatever platform they want. That's up to the developers. Talk to them, not Apple.

People say they have no choice but they really just don't like the alternatives. Most people have at least one cell carrier and DirectTV and Dish and Hughes. Some have fiber and terrestrial wireless as well. Some of those are expensive. But choices they are.

 

[Swift]

The FCC needs to stay out of this. I hate the cable companies but it seems whenever we see one of these mandates things just get even more screwed up.

This is exactly what the FCC is there for. Enough of the local monopolies and their ridiculous cable charges -- and the three-foot stool you have to buy to get fast Internet. Give me fast internet and competition anytime.
[doublepost=1454021169][/doublepost]

That proposal is ridiculous. By the same logic, anyone should be able to use iOS or OS X on whichever device they have.

Cable is not a platform, it's a commercial monopoly that's outlived its usefulness.

 

[wmhjr]

No... cell phone prices dropped as a result of consolidation during the AMPS days. Sorry about your luck. It happened in the mid-to-late 90s. As I so happened to have a bag phone and know what the bill was capable of, it shrank as Frontier scooped up the entire state of New York, and then further when Bell Atlantic bought them... on AMPS. You may know them better today as Verizon. Digital wasn't launched until 97, and prices were down from quadruple digits to double digits by then. By the time Bell Atlantic completed their acquisition in 99, only 20% of phones were on digital and you could get service at that point for $10/mo, pay per minute on an AMPS phone. Consolidation IN INDUSTRY lowered prices. Economies of scale took over.

POTS vs VOIP is the very definition of traditional vs non-traditional players. Competing industries that were NON-TRADITIONAL service providers entered the market as a phone service provider and used a different channel. Competition from OTHER INDUSTRIES lowered prices.

This is not a contradiction, it's a mammoth differentiation between the two.

As far as Municipal Broadband, YOU said they don't keep prices in check or lower them. They did when they were introduced, they do currently, and they will continue to do so. Now you're saying otherwise. Well, good thing the lobbying power of TRADITIONAL service providers is coming in strong, and Senator Marco Rubio is leading the charge to prevent municipalities from doing so, amongst some other ALEC members. Further regulation IS necessary to encourage it, explicitly.

And there you go again, being a pedant. Just a post back and in the following sentence... it was regulating. Now you're worried about the word "market" being in there. Oh noes. It was deregulation for what was a price-controlled industry. Unless you're counting the fact they made low-flow toilets mandatory in the same bill.

You really keep exposing your lack of research and understanding.

1) Digital was launched in 1993 (TDMA). CDMA was launched in 1994. Facts. As of Sept 1993, 20 thousand US subscribers were digital on TDMA (ATT primarily) networks. This was on TIA IS-54 D-AMPS - aka - TDMA. Again, facts. Look for yourself. You just might want to review the annual reporting data from CTIA. I'm wondering how, based on your (false) statement that digital was not even available until 1997, all of those 20 thousand customers in the US were on Digital services. I'm wondering how Qualcomm commercially released their CDMA products via carriers to customers in 1994. Did they just look at the pretty screen and not actually talk on those devices?

2) Major cost reductions came NOT as the result of consolidation. One of the first major cost adjustments came with the implementation of System 7, allowing for non-preregistration of nationwide cellular use across different service areas.

3) I am very familiar with Bell Atlantic Mobile. I was one of their customers before you were. If you might recall, the *226 service call still available for VZ is a remnant of the B(ell) A(tlantic) M(obile) shortcut.

4) POTS vs VoIP is the very definition of different TECHNOLOGIES. Many of the same PLAYERS offered (and still offer) BOTH TECHNOLOGIES. VOIP IS NOT A PLAYER. IT IS A TECHNOLOGY.

5) I did NOT say that municipal services did not lower prices or check them. What I said was that your CONCLUSION that Prices were either "lowered" or "kept lower" as A RESULT purely of municipal services is an unsubstantiated opinion. That you have not the slightest idea or the slightest ability to even back up a conclusion. What I said was that you truly need to learn what a "correlation" is.

You and I obviously have far different values. I value honesty and accuracy, as well as unbiased evaluation. You apparently value socialism, perhaps a bit of communism, the seizure of private assets and/or services by government, and the taking from one person to suit the needs of yourself. We will never ever agree, and clearly you are either unwilling or incapable of figuring this out.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

You can play around with the definition of monopoly, but many areas are under an effective monopoly. Why? Any number of reasons:

• the dominate cable company in any given region was, years ago, given right-of-way access to lay down their cable or construct poles to run their cable.
• the dominate cable company in any given region was, years ago, given tax breaks to build their infrastructure.
  
• the dominate cable company in any given region is under no obligation to share or lease its infrastructure to others.
  
• the dominate cable company in any given region is now large enough that it could drop prices low enough to run any DSL provider out of business.

Monopolies aren't illegal tho. The abuse of monopoly power is illegal.

 

[thermodynamic]

Make the subscriptions less expensive with more selection and you'll get more subscribers.

Most business owners would love to do that, except there's a point where basic operational costs have to be met or else they go under. Especially workers who might not be able to afford current prices or theoretically lower prices to a certain point. Like companies, workers have constraints too...

Back to businesses -- all the customers whining about GameStop buying used video games for $1 but re-sold for $15, often teens, don't understand how a business works. Or why the fracking industry is about to go under - the open spigots with low low prices designed to wipe out competition (or was Iran the target of that, said some)... and they should be lucky they didn't live 40 years ago...

 

[sebAAD]

This is great news and a step forward into the reality that will be Internet based TV. Just like apps, there will be a paid version (sans commercials) and then a free version where every click pops up and ad.

 

[chriscrowlee]

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.

Clearly you don't understand the FEDERAL Communications Commission oversees these companies, not local authorities.
[doublepost=1454097466][/doublepost]

I have 2 Tivo Roamio Pros and 4 Tivo Minis. That requires 2 cablecards. I previously also had Tivos, and other DVRs as well. Cablecard is not easy and presents challenges to both the cable company, the third party device manufacturer, and the owner. And current cablecard is unidirectional - meaning that with a few rare exceptions, "on demand" is not available (meaning for example Verizon FiOS On Demand content).

Let's also be clear, however. With Tivo you have to buy your hardware up front. It's relatively expensive. And you have to rent cablecars per month. And you have to pay Tivo service fees per month - or pay a high "lifetime" cost (which is being discontinued by Tivo, BTW). To put my entire system in brand new, the up front cost - in cash - is

$600 each for Roamio Pro - times two = $1200. Includes one year of Tivo Service.
$150 each for Mini - times four = $600. No service required.

So, I'd have to spend $1800 up front.
Then cablecard rental of $4.99 each times two per month - so another $9 per month.
Then after the first year, it's $14.99 per Tivo Roamio Pro per month for Tivo Service, plus the cablecard rental.

Also, after initial warranty, I bear the cost of any repair and/or replacement of hardware.

it's worth it to me but let's at least be honest about the comparison. Not even considering the warranty and up front cash costs, averaged over 3 years a single Tivo Roamio pro costs the consumer $31.65 per month to use it. $599.99 purchase plus 36 months of cablecard rental plus 2 years of Tivo service fees (first year included).

You are so wrong on countless levels.

Cablecard supports OnDemand just fine with cable service. Maybe not with your FiOS service, but with almost any of the major cable providers it absolutely supports on-demand. Google it and see for yourself. The On Demand experience is even better than on a Comcast box.

Up front cost? That's entirely up to you. Tivo offers up front box purchases, up front lifetime subscriptions, OR monthly box rental and monthly service fees.

You're comparison is like you're comparing the TiVo of 1995 not the tivo of 2016. You may want to check out Tivo's website, they've really gotten with the program and now offer tons of options not previously offered. May find something you like.

 

[FriendlyMackle]

After cable companies required to let go control of cable internet modem, I was able to buy my own. The cost of modem paid off in less than year of the rent of modem from TWC. Same needs to be done for the STB. You buy any compatible STB and activate it.

I have thought about doing this, but what keeps me from purchasing my own cable modem are two factors: 1) I'll have to buy a new one when my cable co decides to upgrade to a new version of Docsis (I have no idea when that may happen), 2) they may change 'allowed' modem compatibility (again meaning I'll have to replace the modem), 3) if anything malfunctions with THEIR provided service, their csr reps in whatever third world country they've outsourced to will insist the problem is with my modem, not with their service, 4) and regarding #3, believe me, even a small problem when using the cable co.'s provided modem can take over an hour to diagnose and fix...I can only believe that resolving any problems would only be worse if I were to introduce a new variability into the mix.

 

[npmacuser5]

The end of the day we consumers can exert our will by not purchasing what is being sold. Maybe a bit painful for some, none the less we can make changes. I removed traditional cable, some areas painful, but I adjusted, and actually are enjoying my viewing experiences more. Spend less time on brain dead shows, doing more outdoors activities, reading, and hand selecting seasons, shows, movies, for purchase. Additionally use Netflix, OTA, and Amazon to fill in the gaps. Perfect for me.

 

[wmhjr]

Clearly you don't understand the FEDERAL Communications Commission oversees these companies, not local authorities.
[doublepost=1454097466][/doublepost]

You are so wrong on countless levels.

Cablecard supports OnDemand just fine with cable service. Maybe not with your FiOS service, but with almost any of the major cable providers it absolutely supports on-demand. Google it and see for yourself. The On Demand experience is even better than on a Comcast box.

Up front cost? That's entirely up to you. Tivo offers up front box purchases, up front lifetime subscriptions, OR monthly box rental and monthly service fees.

You're comparison is like you're comparing the TiVo of 1995 not the tivo of 2016. You may want to check out Tivo's website, they've really gotten with the program and now offer tons of options not previously offered. May find something you like.

Chris, you are totally incorrect. Maybe you need to do a little checking yourself. Cablecard with Tivo does NOT support on demand with "almost any of the major cable providers". Specifically, Tivo supports on demand - to some extent - and not terribly reliably - with a percentage of cable providers. If you're talking about non-provider based streaming services, then that is a different story. For example, access to Amazon/Amazon Prime, Hulu, Netflix, etc, are NOT provider on-demand services - and frankly have not the slightest thing to do with cablecard to begin with. The cablecard spec is not bidirectional. There are in fact On-Demand implementations, most notably with Cox and "some" of Comcast. It is hardly "almost any" of the providers. How you could possibly say that provider on Demand is "better than on a Comcast box" is hard to comprehend.

As to cost, it is NOT entirely up to you. And you, sir, need to check back with Tivo to see the changes that were implemented when the Bolt was released. You are not up to date. The offerings that existed just a few months ago no longer exist as standard offerings. Prices were changed, multi-discounts were eliminated, all kinds of things. I would humbly suggest that YOU check out the website, and perhaps read up a little at tivocommunity.

Tivo released the Bolt recently (an ugly piece of hardware if I ever saw one). It no longer has a normal "lifetime" option, but has what they now call "All In". Monthly sub fees are now $14.50 - again, with no multi-discount. There is only a single model of Bolt, and no 6 tuner unit. Had you read more thoroughly my post, you'd see I have 2 Roamio Pros - which prior to the recent release of the Bolt - were the top of the line of the Tivo food chain. As somebody who owned Series 2's, Series 3/HDs, Premieres, and Roamio Pros - as well as minis - I think I'm pretty up to date on EXACTLY what products, services and pricing Tivo offers right this very minute. And since we're on the subject, here's some more information about Tivo.

Tivo - with last years mid year SW update - placed FAR FAR FAR more dependency on IP based Tivo hosted services for local functions. What I mean specifically is that now, even doing a local search on your own Tivo Roamio/Bolt, or creating/modifying a seasons pass (now called "One Pass") - or even just hitting "Play" from the content menu - all require IP (internet) connection between the Tivo and Tivo Hosted Services. Why is this important to know? Because Tivo hosted services are notoriously unreliable and poor performing. So, there is the new "feature" called the "Blue Spinning Circle" (BSC) that becomes very disruptive when using the device. Obviously, when I say "feature" I really mean defect. This has being going on for months - starting frankly with a major total service outage last year that made Tivos across the country bricks - until Tivo got their hosted service back up (which took days). This defect does not manifest itself all the time - it is highly unpredictable and inconsistent - but it occurs across regions, providers, etc - and users across the country for example all report similar "spikes" of when these problems occur with more frequency. This is still going on with SW ver 20.5.6.RC2.1-01-6A92 on the minis (most recent SW version) and 20.5.6.RC21-USA-6-840 on the Roamio Pros (again, most recent SW version). These SW versions were just deployed VERY recently.

Like I said, I'm pretty solid on the Tivos.