Can Someone Explain The Rationale For Capping Cable Growth?
from the capping-cable dept
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is looking to reinstate a national cap on cable ownership, which would bar any one firm from serving more than 30 percent of the U.S. subscriber base. (A similar rule was thrown out by the courts back in 2001.)The rationale for a national cap has always been a bit opaque to me. Because cable is geographically constrained, from a consumer perspective, all that matters is the market power my provider can exercise locally. If I've got three regional cable providers to choose from, it makes no difference whether two of them each hold a 40 percent national share. If I've got only one serving my area, the fact that it only controls 3 percent of the national market is similarly irrelevant. And if I'm in the latter boat, declaring that the largest firms with the most resources are forbidden to expand their operations into my neighborhood scarcely seems calculated to increase my access to alternatives. The FCC cites regional consolidation as a motive for the cap, but if cable providers are gunning for such regional monopolies, then won't they divest first in the regions where they do face competition, and hold on to the areas where they're the lone option?
It also seems a little perverse to introduce such limits just as consumers are finally starting to experience more robust choice in premium video. According to The Wall Street Journal, satellite now holds 30 percent of the pay-TV market. And despite some rocky first steps, phone companies are ramping up to aggressively expand IPTV over the next few years. Racing in to rescue viewers from monopoly now is, if not technically "ironic," then at least close enough to meet the Alanis Morissette definition.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cable, fcc, growth, monopolies
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FiOS cannot be installed in Condominiums, Townhouses, Apartments, Duplexes or any thing other than a single family dwelling. Unless the entire Condo or multifamily structure goes completely FiOS.
FiOS cannot be installed in underground wiring restricted areas. Thats about 99.999999999999% of every new housing development in the last 10 years.
Subdivions, are siging non-competion contracts with the local Cable company.
Cable is cheaper for cities. How much to run cable to a school? FiOS... about $5,000 and at a monthly cost of about $60. Cable's bill? $200 bucks at a monthly cost of about $20. Which do you think a School is going to choose?
How many hotels have FiOS? Not one. Not a single hotel in the U.S. has it. How many hotels have cable 100%
Damn shame too. FiOS has much better picture and can provide faster internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In many new housing developments, VZ is pulling fiber before the houses go up. In others, it's going back and trenching. Most new housing developments have underground utilities, and once the municipality allows the utility a ROW, it can't prevent them from going back and pulling new plant.
Private subdivisions (i.e., "gated communities") are a different story; they can limit utility access, sign exclusive deals with a particular provider, etc. And those kinds of deals typically lead to homeowner dissatisfaction (and a decline in housing values) which either leads to changes in the terms of the deal or breaks the deal. Plus, VZ will compete for those exclusive deals as much as will the cablecos and any other provider.
Most hotels, actually, have satellite service, not cable.
In the long run, fixed-line communications (telephone, internet, video) will basically be a duopoly, with telcos and cablecos splitting a market roughly down the middle (40%-60% each). Satellite will keep 10%-20% of video, and there will be 10%-20% "cherrypickers" who will pick and choose individual services from the various providers (including second-tier providers like Vonage); but in a given market, FiOS triple-play market share will approach 40%-50% in the long run (10 years).
On the other hand, VZ is only planning to pass about 47% of their households with FiOS, and VZ only has about 40M households in their service territory (out of about 110M nationwide) -- so even at 50% share of FiOS HHP in-region, that's less than 10% of the national video market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
If they want to expand, let them start overlapping each other more - especially in rural areas.
We should also:
Void all local monopoly charters. No single company deserves a monopoly on communication.
Confiscate all 'right-of-way' wires/fibre/poles to be used by any provider. The people own the land their poles are on, it's time the people took control back.
Count broadband penetration by the square mile - not the zip code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rationale
- traffic shaping
- censorship
- infrastructure weakness
- monopolization
- do you really want every other flatbed and van to have "Comcastic" written on it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reason is...
Simply put, if there isn't a rule like that in place, these corporations will take over and soon you won't have any choices, and prices will go up, not down. Look at the airline industry where it has a route and no competition, the rate is 5 times the national average for the same distance.
The cable companies have fought tooth and nail to keep other ISP's from being able to compete and lease their wires, Bell fought it too with long distance. Capping them is the only way, Corporations this size cannot be trusted to self regulate when raises and promotions are given for growth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(2) People raise a bunch of issues that go back to the monopoly power of cable providers, which just seems to ignore the central point of the post. Monopoly power in cable is local. A national cap does exactly nothing to reduce local monopoly. At best, it changes the identity of the local monopolist. Possibly it even exacerbates the problem by eliminating incentives for providers to compete through expansion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if it wernt
Cable companies began offering very high speed internet over 10 years ago. for under $50. at that time, the best speed you could get (other than cable) was a direct line from the phone company, a T1 line basically. and how much did that cost? several Hundred...
so... 3mb+ for Under $50...
or...
1.5mb for $350....
even today. cable is competing in the best way possible. if cable gets limited in anyway. you can only guess what will happen to the other guys prices...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]