Re: [Nolug] Cable companies

jp wins, cox loses = win
cox defense wins, jp looses = win
either way, someone has to lose, unless they settle.
sorry, i neglected to mention the proverbial grain of salt involved in the
first place.
I've had bad experiences with JP but that's way off topic to NOLUG. ;-)
End of tangent...I hope
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Johnson" <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>
To: "NOLUG ML" <nolug@joeykelly.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Nolug] Cable companies

> On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 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.
> > ;-)
>
> ????? But JP is *suing* Cox. Why hate JP for that?
>
> > ----- 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
>
> --
> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
> | 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

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