| Author |
Message |
Dr. Cajones
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:07 am Post subject:
Re: recommend Ethernet DOCSIS 2.0 modem? |
|
|
"Warren" <wholzem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R9qdneFW5qIMJaHeRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
| Quote: | Timothy Daniels wrote:
Have you a suggestion for a strategy to cut down my current $60/mo
cable bill without subscribing to Comcast Video? I'm in an SBC
area, and I was wondering what kind of deal I might be able to
negotiate with Comcast if I threaten to go to DSL.
|
Being intimately informed of any and all plans and offers, including the
cometition is always your best bet. I didn't understand all that Warren
rambled on about, but any company at any time, either wants to keep you or
doesn't. Simply asking to speak to retention, or asking the agent if there
is anyone you can talk to about staying with them, or seeing if there are
any offers that make changing to someone else less attractive, have always
gotten me some info to work with. Even if you have to go to dial up for a
brief period to requalify for a deal, is always an option. Maybe Earthlink
is available over your providers' system? It is equally helpful to be aware
of all video/cable TV deals as well. Sometimes there are low barebones
cable service that qualifies you for a discount on the internet. Of course
if you have few options if you do leave them, in your market, it has seemed
to me they are highly less likely to accomodate you.
My few cents.
dj |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Timothy Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 2:59 pm Post subject:
Re: recommend Ethernet DOCSIS 2.0 modem? |
|
|
"Dr. Cajones" wrote:
| Quote: |
"Warren" wrote:
Timothy Daniels wrote:
Have you a suggestion for a strategy to cut down my current $60/mo
cable bill without subscribing to Comcast Video? I'm in an SBC
area, and I was wondering what kind of deal I might be able to
negotiate with Comcast if I threaten to go to DSL.
Being intimately informed of any and all plans and offers, including the
cometition is always your best bet. I didn't understand all that Warren
rambled on about, but any company at any time, either wants to keep you or
doesn't. Simply asking to speak to retention, or asking the agent if there
is anyone you can talk to about staying with them, or seeing if there are
any offers that make changing to someone else less attractive, have always
gotten me some info to work with. Even if you have to go to dial up for a
brief period to requalify for a deal, is always an option. Maybe Earthlink
is available over your providers' system? It is equally helpful to be aware
of all video/cable TV deals as well. Sometimes there are low barebones
cable service that qualifies you for a discount on the internet. Of course
if you have few options if you do leave them, in your market, it has seemed
to me they are highly less likely to accomodate you.
My few cents.
|
Thanks for the suggestions. In my area, which is about 17,000 ft. from
the DSLAM, the choice is dialup from Earthlink, SBC DSL, Yahoo DSL
via SBC, Comcast cable, or satellite. In other words, there aren't any
real broadband alternatives to Comcast. How the government justifies
letting Comcast not carry Earthlink while it grants Comcast a monopoly
on cable right-of-way is a mystery to me.
*TimDaniels* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Warren
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject:
Re: recommend Ethernet DOCSIS 2.0 modem? |
|
|
Timothy Daniels wrote:
| Quote: | Thanks for the suggestions. In my area, which is about 17,000 ft. from
the DSLAM, the choice is dialup from Earthlink, SBC DSL, Yahoo DSL
via SBC, Comcast cable, or satellite. In other words, there aren't any
real broadband alternatives to Comcast. How the government justifies
letting Comcast not carry Earthlink while it grants Comcast a monopoly
on cable right-of-way is a mystery to me.
|
If you live in the US, your local government cannot grant Comcast a monopoly
to put cable in the right-of-way. They can allow Comcast to have exclusive
use of the cable that Comcast puts in the right-of-way, but they cannot give
Comcast exclusive access to the right-of-way. If another cable company comes
along, and can meet the same requirements that Comcast did, the local
government would be required to grant the franchise.
You'd probably be surprised at how many competing telecommunications
companies have separate cables running in the right-of-way. In some cities,
their downtown area streets are pock-marked by patches from all the cuts
made by companies installing various cables (usually fiber-optic, but
sometimes various copper-based cables).
There are many densely populated areas where there are two cable TV
companies, each with their own cables, of course. When enough demand exists
for more than one company to exist, it happens. The problem is that the
cable TV business has competition already from the satellite companies who
can provide the same TV service without laying cable.
As for residential Internet service, the prices consumers are willing to pay
make it unprofitable for even a single company to cable-up an entire city
for just Internet service. They have to be able to offer cable TV and/or
phone service as the primary reason for the cable to exist, so if there
isn't enough consumer demand to support a profitable cable TV service or
local phone provider, no one is going to be interested in installing the
cable.
If the consumer demand in your area isn't great enough to support another
cable TV company to the point that they can afford the initial
infrastructure costs, then the question becomes, do you want them to use tax
dollars to build another cable network in order to provide additional
competition to Comcast? In most cities, the answer is no, because Comcast
already faces enough competition from the satellite companies. In some
cities, they've built or are building data networks, but it's difficult to
get public opinion behind spending tax dollars to do so when other
government provided services, such as schools, police, and road maintenance,
are suffering.
But the point remains that while Comcast may have exclusive use of the cable
they own that was laid in the public right-of-way, they do *not* have
exclusive rights to lay cable in that public right-of-way, and no local
government has the authority to grant exclusive use of the public
right-of-way to any cable company.
--
Warren H.
==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Your guide to Network Television's Fall Premiers:
http://www.holzemville.com/television/fall2005.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timothy Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 10:26 pm Post subject:
Re: recommend Ethernet DOCSIS 2.0 modem? |
|
|
"Warren" wrote:
| Quote: | If you live in the US, your local government cannot grant
Comcast a monopoly to put cable in the right-of-way.
|
Thanks. I didn't know that. I had believed that to be the
reason why Time-Warner wasn't in here, too. I guess
wireless this-and-that is a tremendous cap now on
any new cable-laying.
*TimDaniels* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Berger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:10 am Post subject:
Re: recommend Ethernet DOCSIS 2.0 modem? |
|
|
In article <toKdnQ1mV5RePqPeRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
"Warren" <wholzem@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Snip
If you live in the US, your local government cannot grant Comcast a monopoly
to put cable in the right-of-way. They can allow Comcast to have exclusive
use of the cable that Comcast puts in the right-of-way, but they cannot give
Comcast exclusive access to the right-of-way. If another cable company comes
along, and can meet the same requirements that Comcast did, the local
government would be required to grant the franchise.
big snip
But the point remains that while Comcast may have exclusive use of the cable
they own that was laid in the public right-of-way, they do *not* have
exclusive rights to lay cable in that public right-of-way, and no local
government has the authority to grant exclusive use of the public
right-of-way to any cable company.
|
Warren -
That's a well-reasoned brief. Thank you!
Could you give us some insight as to the cat-fights concerning who
controls "the last mile," viz., the cable run from the toadstool on the
corner to your house? That was laid by a single entity, and there are
precious few homes that have either multiple POTS lines from several
telephone companies or multiple cable lines from competing cable
companies entering the home to provide competitive service.
I have enough problems with Comcast trying to sell me everything and
Verizon trying to do the same. < grin / sigh >
George
--
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
-- Robert McCloskey, State Department spokesman (attributed) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Berger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:20 am Post subject:
Re: recommend Ethernet DOCSIS 2.0 modem? |
|
|
In article <LNadncIJpq8AyKLeRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
"Warren" <wholzem@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | very big snip of discussion
So why can the Federal government demand local phone companies grant access
to their physical network, but the same can't be done in the case of cable
companies? Well, it's because phone service is considered a public utility.
Access to the telephone network is now considered a necessity. Access to
watch ESPN and HGTV is not. And frankly, I don't expect that access to
television programming will ever be considered a necessity. Access to the
Internet may some day be considered a necessity, but since that's already
provided in most areas by the local phone company by providing lines clean
enough to use a dial-up modem, I wouldn't expect it to be used as a
back-door to further regulate cable TV companies because they happen to
offer premium access to the Internet.
|
Warren -
Thank you very much for the explanation. We have neighbors and friends
who were just as puzzled as we were - - so, now we can give them an
answer! We're being besieged by both Verizon and Comcast, as they have
the "rights" in our city - - and sometimes it's difficult to separate
the bull from the facts.
Thanks again
George
--
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
-- Robert McCloskey, State Department spokesman (attributed) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Warren
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:20 am Post subject:
Re: recommend Ethernet DOCSIS 2.0 modem? |
|
|
George Berger wrote:
| Quote: | Could you give us some insight as to the cat-fights concerning who
controls "the last mile," viz., the cable run from the toadstool on the
corner to your house? That was laid by a single entity, and there are
precious few homes that have either multiple POTS lines from several
telephone companies or multiple cable lines from competing cable
companies entering the home to provide competitive service.
|
There was a time that local governments could control cable service, right
down to deciding what channels could be offered. Many of the big city cable
systems built in the '70s and early '80s fell under those rules. At those
times, anyone who could meet the requirements, such as providing a bond and
meeting health and safety codes, could install cable -- but why would they
if they couldn't offer any services to residential customers? No source of
income. No reason to put in the cable.
The reason why the Federal government allowed local governments to grant
exclusive franchises to offer the service (not the same as an exclusive
right to the right-of-way) is that it was believed that no one would invest
in building a system if they immediately would/could face competition. In
most cities, 1 in 10 houses passed subscribing to basic cable was an
accomplishment, and it was only future expansion that would eventually pay
for it all.
Eventually, the right to regulate cable was largely taken away from local
governments. Local governments can still set the price for the most basic
cable: Local broadcast stations and local access stations. And they can
regulate the health and safety issues of right-of-way access. But they can't
grant exclusive access to the right-of-way, nor can they regulate any cable
service beyond basic cable. (You will, however, find that cable companies
will work to cooperate with the local cable authority on complaints out of
their jurisdiction because such voluntary cooperation goes a long way when
the regulating authority wants to start dealing with the things they do have
control over.) But essentially, as far as cable TV goes, anything beyond
basic cable is private business.
Basic telephone service is mostly regulated by the FCC and state utility
commissions, and not local authorities. But again, they only regulate the
most basic service. Anything beyond that is beyond their jurisdiction. Local
governments only have authority over the public health and safety issues
regarding the use of the public right of way.
And believe it or not, there are some areas where local phone companies
compete. I know of one co-op telephone company that has been inching into a
territory served by a baby-Bell company as new subdivisions are built. This
same co-op tried to propose a merger with another nearby co-op, but when
that co-op said they weren't interested, the first co-op developed a plan to
invade that territory, too. The baby-Bell is annoyed at having competition
on the fringes of their territory, but it's not going to put them out of
business. The second co-op is very worried because there isn't enough
potential revenue to support two phone networks as the area involved is a
mix of rural and light suburban. A densely populated urban area might be
able to support two local phone companies, but in most of those cases, the
second local phone company used Federal regulations to gain access to the
first local phone company's cables. They didn't over-build a whole network.
So why can the Federal government demand local phone companies grant access
to their physical network, but the same can't be done in the case of cable
companies? Well, it's because phone service is considered a public utility.
Access to the telephone network is now considered a necessity. Access to
watch ESPN and HGTV is not. And frankly, I don't expect that access to
television programming will ever be considered a necessity. Access to the
Internet may some day be considered a necessity, but since that's already
provided in most areas by the local phone company by providing lines clean
enough to use a dial-up modem, I wouldn't expect it to be used as a
back-door to further regulate cable TV companies because they happen to
offer premium access to the Internet.
--
Warren H.
==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Shop for gifts for fans of "The Simpsons":
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/simpsons |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in