Cable TV Monopolies...

[tothedj]

Recently, i posted a topic in regards to the question "Is Cable Worth Paying For?,
well the answer after reading what Comcast did against "NFL Network" is no!
Many cable television subscribers are being deprived of watching certain channels,
especially the ones that are "Sports" related.
Here where i reside, Time Warner Cable and Charter Cable refuse to pick up the
"Mid-Atlantic Sports Network" which will carry many College Basketball games
that fans of schools like UNC-Wilmington want to see, i understand in December
there will be a hearing, but that can be solved quickly if not only those two systems, but others in North Carolina would put "MASN" on.
We also have a issue with "NFL Network" which is now carrying more from their
own league.
I think if people ask for these, the cable provider should add them, if they don't
guess what happens?, they lose subscribers to those "Satellite" services!
Is that what they want?...

 

[imhomerjay]

Since your point is that people can go to satellite to get what they want, which is clearly true, wouldn't that contradict your argument of a "monopoly?" If three people want to give me MTV, there isn't a monopoly.

 

[BRNout]

Not everyone can just go to satellite whenever they want. There are hardware costs, installation costs, and issues about equipment placement that must be considered. Anyone who rents is risking a deposit by doing it. And, some buildings just aren't suited to it at all.

So, the satellite answer does not represent real competition. The new FIOS systems do, though their availability remains limited.

 

[imhomerjay]

I also know people who can't get cable due to where they live--but those exceptions do not make the satellite providers monopolies.

It's amusing to see the venom at the providers of a luxury service, as if there's a God-given right to FX or Animal Planet. Frustrating? Sure. Understandable--but there is an option if you feel you don't get your money's worth. But perhaps it's more fun to pretend there isn't.

I've had satellite, and I've had cable in the various places I've lived over the years. I have both types of companies in my stock "portfolio" (using the term loosely, I dabble in trying to invest in stocks). Last I checked, DirecTV was something like the second or third biggest TV provider--that's providing competition.

 

[Markxxx]

A lot of people in cities like NYC and Chicago, can't have satellite as the buildings are placed to close together or trees from other flats etc.

Even FiOS isn't going to be an option cause I rent and the landlord won't permit anything to be done.

And while you could try to "force" your landlord's hand all that would happen is the next time your lease came up, he would refuse to renew it.

So there aren't options for everyone but others clearly have them.

 

[BRNout]

Mark, doesn't FIOS come through the phone line? So, installation shouldn't be any more invasive than cable - at worst, a new box where the phone line comes in. I wouldn't think that installing it would cause your landlord any heartburn. Hey, I could be wrong - but I don't think it's nearly the big deal that satellite would be.

The courts just ruled that landlords cannot make special deals with the cable company that force you to use their service when an equivalent is available. I'd think that FIOS would qualify as an example of this. Dishes may not.

 

[Horns]

Be careful with FIOS, some friends of mine switched from regular cable to FIOS, then they had to move. FIOS made them pay a huge cancellation fee, just like trying to get out of a cell phone contract.

 

[JeeperOne]

Hi everyone:

Not everyone can just go to satellite whenever they want. There are hardware costs, installation costs, and issues about equipment placement that must be considered. Anyone who rents is risking a deposit by doing it. And, some buildings just aren't suited to it at all.

And some places don't even allow dishes at all.

Cheers

 

[dhett]

And some places don't even allow dishes at all.

I assume you're talking about apartment complexes, but as long as the dish is on a balcony or patio, and not attached to the building, I don't think they can prohibit them, per the FCC. You might want to have a look at the FCC regs.

I know that homeowners associations cannot prohibit TV antennas or mini satellite dishes on privately owned property, per the FCC. Of course, the HOAs won't tell you that.

 

[compubit]

With AT&T's U-verse, there's no change to the wiring coming into the building - it's fiber to their node (which they control), then copper to the house/apartment. If they need to replace the copper wiring, there should be no reason why they can't (since they provide service to the building). Once inside, they used (at least with my parents) the coax in place to connect the box (which is inside the house, generally where the computer or main TV is) for the other boxes.

With FiOS, I don't see why Verizon couldn't run fiber to the apartment building and then distribute from there - the landlord probably wouldn't even know the difference, since he probably just see the phone guys working on the lines (nothing too out of the ordinary...)

As for availability of U-Verse and FiOS, that's a different story...

 

[fortmill]

I, for one, am happy that my provider, Time Warner, is resisting NFL network and MASN's strong arm. I am not particularly interested in either channel and don't want my cable bill to go up. Those channels can be placed on TW's sports tier and people who want the channels can pay the price...

 

[BRNout]

OK, I'd be fine with that....as long as MTV, VH1 and E! can be put on an "entertainment tier" too. That way, people like me (who consider their programming to be societal vomit) don't have to pay for those channels and those who like them can have them.

Fair is fair - we all pay for a lot of crap that we don't watch.

 

[azumanga]

we all pay for a lot of crap that we don't watch.

Agreed -- though putting all the sports channels in an optional tier alone would lower cable bills. ESPN costs much more per subscriber than MTV or most other channels.

 

[vibe]

I'm a sports fan but can understand the fustration of non sports fans who have to pay for a lot of programming they never watch. But doesn't a sports fan who never watches TCM "pay" for that as well?
It's the lack of distant broadcasting stations as well as all those shopping and religipous channels and the inabiity to pick and choose a package that fits one's own interests that sucks.
Buck look at the power of cable companies, where else does one willingly buy products they don't want/need?