Re: [Nolug] Cable companies

>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.

MMM! A collectively exhaustive win win situation for cox and JP haters.
;-)

----- Original Message -----
From: <johns@sstar.com>
To: <nolug@joeykelly.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 6:55 PM
Subject: [Nolug] Cable companies

>
> Hi Ron.
>
> > Why does everyone rag on Cox?
>
> Everyone, everywhere rags on their local cable company. :-)
>
> > 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]
>
> John
>
>
> John Souvestre - Southern Star - 504-888-3348 - http://www.sstar.com
> ___________________
> Nolug mailing list
> nolug@nolug.org
>

___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/15/02