While I am pretty sure the situation I am about to describe is not the legal definition of “monopoly”, seems wrong to me.
In fact it appears to be down right un-American.
I have two choices when it come to cable TV, either a certain “TW Cable” - or none at all. How is that positive for me as a consumer or the marketplace ? The cable company knows this, and they have used this power to pretty much screw most people I know, me included. Can something be done about this ? Why would this not be considered a monopoly ?
Now wait, I know I know . . . get a dish. Well there are lots of negatives to that too, but my real question dish aside is why aren’t there competing cable companies in my area ? Wouldn’t it feasibly be better for the consumer, bringing down prices and improving service ? Just wondered if this is a legal issue or just a nationwide middle finger from the cable companies.
“And we are the sum of these parts : broken promises and hearts.” - Molly’s Yes, “Scars”
There’s little cable competition for the same reason why, until very recently, there was no competition in chooing a power company.
In order to supply cable, you have to make a big infrastructure investment (running the cables to the customers). Once one cable company becomes established, it’s very expensive for another to get started in the same area. Most likely, it would put one or the other out of business. So a fledgling cable company has to go to a cableless area to get started.
If cable companies were forced to share infrastructure, you’d have more competition and the price would drop. The main difference between cable and other public monopolies was that cable was basically unregulated and could set its prices without getting approval.
“What we have here is failure to communicate.” – Strother Martin, anticipating the Internet.
The cable TV service is provided over a privately owned cable network, so competing cable companies cannot access your home. Legislation in effect “nationalizing” the cable network would be required to open it up.
It could be argued that the taxpayers, governments, and property owners granted major concessions to the cable companies to enable them to install their networks throughout communities and therefore the network isn’t private property in the usual sense but you can bet the owners of the cable networks would fight to protect their very valuable property.
Legislation forced the telephone companies, and natural gas pipeline and provider companies, to open up their physical networks to competitors in many parts of the continent so the “monopoly” argument may affect cable TV in the future. It’s overdue.
Theoretically your rights as a consumer are protected in these situations by a regulating agency. The power company can’t jack up the price any time they feel like it; they have to have approval from the regulators. I presume something similar exists for cable companies, but I must confess I’m not at all sure.
Unfortunately the usual method of learning enough about an industry to qualify to act as a regulator is to work in that industry. So there’s a lot of opportunity for an “good old boy” network to develop, defeating the supposed independence that is intended to protect the consumer.
he sleeps on that pile/of newspapers/in the corner/and when he
takes off his/shoes you cannot/smell his breath
“king nicky”, archyology
Don Marquis