Looks like there may finally be an alternative to "franchised" cable television in Connecticut. AT&T is planning to construct its own network using IPTV, and in a draft decision, the state DPUC favored this alternative. A final decision will be made in June.http://wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=4867965 (news brief) http://www.rep-am.com/story.php?id=6532 (full article)Gotta love competition! Hopefully, this will bring down prices and open the door for other carriers to come in, like Verizon, which offers cable in the Hudson Valley. And hopefully AT&T's venture will not be a failure like SNET's "Americast" did in the mid 90s. Only a handful of towns got the service, which only lasted a few years before being discontinued.If this receives final favorable approval, I wonder how the channel line-up would be implemented in the state. Since they're not being franchised, I assume they would have to use at least three different zones, where New York, Rhode Island, and Massachussetts stations respectively, would likely be offered along with those from Connecticut. This is definitely new for the state, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
cable tv choice in CT?
- Thread starter oldschooltv
- Start date
K
KML0224
Guest
I'll be all for it...IF it means a lower cable bill. Comcast sucks my wallet dry in New Britain (I don't have permission to get a dish where I live).LOOKS LIKE IT'S A GO (pending appeals or legal haggling by the cable companies)! ;Dhttp://www.rep-am.com/story.php?id=8063
The hate ads are because AT&T is not applying for franchise rights. COX's hate ads say without AT&T having a franchise they can pick and choose who can get their new service and they're saying AT&T will only allow their rich & wealth customers to get it. And they say this will cause cable rates to go up for everyone.
But that's silly for COX to say. Obviously AT&T will let as many people subscribe as possible. Subscribers means MONEY. For COX to say that AT&T will only allow the wealthy to get the service is totally ridiculous. Sounds to me like COX had a real hard time coming up with negative points to use against AT&T. So they had to really stretch to come up with something. Unfortunately what they came up with is the most Ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.MarcB said:
Ridiculous? Hardly. The fact of the matter is that neighborhoods and communities which fall under the low end of socio-economic designations tend to be money-losing propositions for companies such as cable-television providers. As anyone in the collections business will tell you, a much higher than average number of people who live in these areas will default on their bills. Considering the costs of maintaining networks, along with costs for installation, hardware, and service, cable companies quite often lose money on these people.If you've noticed, the vast majority of areas in which companies such as AT&T and Verizon have begun their video service roll outs have been in middle or upper-middle class neighborhoods.
So let me get this straight. COX feels the need to run hate ads to catch the attention of viewers in poor neighbothoods who won't be able to subscribe to the service anyway? So how is this benefitting COX? It would seem to me that the people in weathy neighborhoods would welcome the additional choice. People in these weathy neighborhoods arn't going to care that AT&T Cable is not available in poor neighborhoods. Do you or I particulary care if AT&T Cable is not available in Harlem or Compton? I don't think so. All we care about is what's available at Our House! So my question is...... Who are the viewers that COX is targeting with these ads and how exactly do they think these hate ads are going to benefit them? The whole thing still sounds ridiculous to me!
It is a rediculous argument. So let's think about it. Even "if" AT&T will pick and choose their customers, at least someone will be benefiting. If this could happen, then people who fall outside of AT&T's intended area will suffer now? It's not like service levels to the low-income inner city Hartford resident would drop, only that they'll be stuck with what everyone already has right now! On that premise, then everyone is suffering now, but fewer people will be suffering later. At least someone will be benefiting, and that sounds like progress to me!On a side note, I find it hard to believe AT&T would pick and choose their customers, because it's all bull! See article: http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6262097.html When SNET unveiled it's failed "Americast" cable service in the mid 90s, some of the first communities they began in were West Haven, Stratford, Milford, Danbury, Bridgeport, North Haven, Waterbury, Hartford, Bristol, New Britain, Norwalk, Meriden, and East Haven... hmmm, those aren't wealthy communities by any means. So I find it hard to believe that AT&T would cherrypick their communities. And even if they did, at least there will be more choice available to the public than there is now. And it could only snowball from there. Let's not kid ourselves, all it comes down to is that the big cable companies are afraid of losing customers and revenue.
I've seen the commercials in question, and let me first tell you that they are hardly "hate ads." Not even close. The commercials in question reference the issue of "fair competition." Cox (and other cable operators nationally) take umbrage at the telephone companies attempts to circumvent local franchising authorites by means of a national law. The telephone companies are using their enormous wealth to lobby Congress to nullify the local franchise requirements so that they can enter the cable business without having to play by the existing rules. Telcos don't want the local cities and towns to have any say in the matter (a practice that's been in place since the advent of cable television).In the commercial in question, the cable company is not asking anyone to stop or block the competition; instead, they are asking for a "level playing field." They want any new competitor (such as AT&T or Verizon) to be held to the same standards and same set of regulations by which they've had to abide to this day. One of those regulations is that the cable company provide service to the entire community (or the vast majority of the community) in which it has been granted a franchise. And of course, there are several other regulations/requirements as well.Personally, I don't understand why the telcos need to do this; with all of the money that these huge national corporations have at their disposal, why don't they stop wasting time dancing with the politicians in Washington and instead just apply for the franchises and start rebuilding their networks? They could have been signing up subscribers by now!Skynet74 said:
- Status