Re: [Nolug] Cable companies

> Thus the sticky question of letting a for-profit company function as a
> monolopy. They don't act in the public's interest, unless it happens to
> benefit them too. Open-access would allow multiple ISP's to service cable
> customers. It would provide competition which usually helps the comsumer in
> the long run.

But then you'd have a situation like the old NOPSI, where the City
provided electricity. LP&L was/is more efficient, and that's why
N.O. eventually got out of that business.

As far as your general theme of competition on the cable wires, and
competition in the xDSL field (and where BS is charging alot for other
companies to piggy-back along the "last mile"):

I think that neither RBOCs nor cable companies should be allowed to
be ISPs. This worked *very* well for ~15 years, when independant
BBSs ans ISPs sprouted up, but had to purchase their own modem banks.
This way, the RBOCs and cable companies would not be, for example,
building the roads *and* selling the cars and gasoline.

However, I fear it's much too difficult to push an entity out of
business than prevent it it from getting in in the 1st place...

On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 18:55, johns@sstar.com wrote:
> Hi Ron.
>
> > Why does everyone rag on Cox?
>
> Everyone, everywhere rags on their local cable company. :-)

But why?? Maybe I was born with a guardian cable angel, but I've always
had very good service from them (even the time my wife nicked the cable
with hedge trimmers).

> > Remember, also, that Cox *does* have competition: xDSL!!!!
>
> [soapbox mode on!]
>
> Yes, at the "higher" level (a different type of service), they do. But there
> is no competition within the cable service. Why not? Cox manages to carry
> more than one TV network, don't they?
>
> How would you feel if tomorrow Cox told you that no longer would they be
> carrying any network other than CBS. Or, worse yet, just their own network!
> You could claim that they compete with Broadcast TV, but that is only partially
> true.
>
> Yes, some cable companies actually tried this sort of thing early on but the
> FCC forced them to allow access to at least all of the local stations.
>
> Why should it be any different for the Internet? Yes, there is a need for a
> "natural monolopy" when it comes to running the cable and phone wires, but
> that's all. The gradually growing competition between multiple local phone
> companies was something that the courts and the FCC pushed hard for. As a
> result, you can choose your ISP. You aren't limited to just BellSouth.
>
> There is no reason, technical reason that is, why there shouldn't be multiple
> ISP's allowed on the cable system. Indeed, if this were so then @Home going
> under wouldn't have been anywhere near the "event" it was. But even then,
> rather than delivering on their promise to allow open access after the initial
> contract with @Home was up, Cox took it a step further and took over the
> service themselves.
>
> A phone company posts a bond with the State to ensure that they will perform.
> Last I heard, cable companies don't. Phone companies pay for the wiring
> right-of-ways. Cox does to - but only for TV. In Jefferson Parish, for
> example, they are being sued by the parish because (among other things) they
> aren't paying for using the parish's right-of-ways to distribute phone and
> Internet services. So they are making money off the parish's resources with no
> payback to the parish.
>
> Besides the revenue, the parish realizes how many people would be upset with
> the (the Council) if Cox were to close up shop. They are under contract to
> provide TV but not phone and Internet. So what would stop them from dropping
> these services - leaving a lot of people with nowhere to turn. Some people
> here said how upset they were when @Home when under. How upset would they be
> if Cox said "no more Internet" tomorrow? What would stop them?
>
> By the way, price Cox's Internet service if you do not get TV service from
> them. Or, if you are a business, try getting Cox to run a line to your
> business for just Internet service. Cox does what is most profitable for them.
> This makes sense - for Cox, but not necessarily for you and me.
>
> Thus the sticky question of letting a for-profit company function as a
> monolopy. They don't act in the public's interest, unless it happens to
> benefit them too. Open-access would allow multiple ISP's to service cable
> customers. It would provide competition which usually helps the comsumer in
> the long run.
>
> Note: I don't blame Cox. They are acting just as a for-profit business
> should. I blame the Council for not anticipating this.
>
> > In this case, BS doesn't think
> > that my [and all the people near me] business is worth it enough to
> > build out another CO nearer to a neighborhood ...
>
> DSL is still a realatively new technology. BellSouth has been right up front
> as one of the leaders in the field, I think. ADSL service started just over 3
> years ago. New Orleans was one of the first 6 cities in BellSouth territory to
> have ADSL.
>
> It takes time and money to add ADSL equipment to the Central Offices. They
> also had to add capacity to their ATM backbone to carry the DSL traffic between
> the CO's and the ISP's. ISP's had to set up, too. Bell South is very close
> (if not there already, I'm not sure...) to having 100% of it's CO's equipped
> for ADSL.
>
> Other suppliers have tried and generally gone belly-up, with Covad being the
> big exception in this area. Even so, Covad's coverage does not include all of
> the BellSouth CO's.
>
> Yes, that still leaves some areas (about 35%) without ADSL coverage. BellSouth
> has gradually been deploying remote DSLAMs in those areas. Again, it takes
> time. The wiring in the field was not put in with ADSL in mind. Installing a
> remote DSLAM is not a trivial thing. In spite of this, there are hundreds of
> them around the state already.
>
> I just saw a report from BellSouth yesterday. It said that their overall ADSL
> coverage was 76%. Going from 0% to 76% in 3 years isn't bad. Do you know how
> long it took to implement ISDN? About 20 years. But that was before
> competition in the phone industry.
>
> Sure, BellSouth did the most profitable part first. That meant that they
> started with CO's in big cities. Then they did the rest of the CO's because
> it's cheaper to install a DSLAM inside an existing CO than to build a remote
> DSLAM (which only services a small group).
>
> Unfortuanately, the FCC has not seen fit to push for open-access in the cable
> industry. Indeed, just the opposite! Toss in some well-meaning, but totally
> misdirected legislators like Tauzin, and you might see the phone industry
> reverting to less competitive days too. I hope not, but that's what is going
> on in the FCC and Congress right now.
>
> btw - It took Cox a few years to replace cable so that they could offer
> Internet service, too. :-)
>
> I'm a one-man ISP yet I compete with BellSouth, AOL, MSN, etc for dial-in, ISDN
> and ADSL customers and I do OK. I can't compete on the cable system which my
> taxes made possible, however. Simply put, it isn't fair.
>
> [soapbox mode off]

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr.        mailto:ron.l.johnson@cox.net          |
| Jefferson, LA  USA      http://members.cox.net/ron.l.johnson  |
|                                                               |
| "My advice to you is to get married: If you find a good wife, |
| you will be happy; if not, you will become a philosopher."    |
|    Socrates                                                   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org