Re: [Nolug] Cable companies

Heh. I'm a Cox user, but my hatred has only recently started due to these
network issues.

But it seems that it's quite posh to hate :)

ml

On Sunday 15 December 2002 19:55, David wrote:
> >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

-- 
Vorbis: Open, Free Audio :: http://www.vorbis.com
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org