Slashdot Log In
Cablecos, Telcos Working To Strengthen the Duopoly
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Jul 13, 2008 02:36 PM
from the let's-you-and-hiim-collude dept.
from the let's-you-and-hiim-collude dept.
The LA Times is running a piece on cooperation among cable companies and telcos. No, not cablecos cooperating with telcos; rather, both industries working on industry-wide initiatives aimed at getting a leg up on the other. AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest have been working on a site, Moveroo.com, aimed at easing the pain of people moving within the US — by making it easier for them to hook up with the incumbent telco at their destination, for instance. Odd that there is no mention of which cable services might be available where they are heading. The cablecos are cooperating on a more ambitious initiative to standardize targeted advertising nationwide, using data gathered from the set-top boxes used by Time Warner, Cox, Comcast, Cablevision, Charter, and Bright House Networks. The article quotes a spokesman from a utility consumers' action group: " [The spokesman] said these moves by the telecom and cable industries may be good for the respective businesses, but they almost surely won't be good for consumers. 'All they're doing is creating obstacles to each other's industry from gaining an advantage,' he said. 'That's not competition.' Well, it is. But not the kind that benefits customers."
Related Stories
[+]
Test Selling "Last Mile" Fiber to Homeowners Under Way in Canada 196 comments
Ars Technica is covering an interesting pilot program taking place in Ottawa, CA. 400 homes are being outfitted with fiber optic cables; however, the "last mile" of fiber is going to be sold outright to the homeowners rather than providing internet at a monthly fee. "In the future, it could become commonplace for homes to come with 'tails.' These customer-owned, fiber-optic connections would link them to a network peering point. Without the expense of rolling out last mile infrastructure to every home, many more ISPs could afford to serve a given neighborhood by running wiring to the peering point, leading to more competition and lower prices. Perhaps best of all, the growth of customer-owned fiber could make debates over 'open access' and network neutrality moot, as robust telecom competition should prevent the worst of the monopolistic behavior exhibited by telco and cable incumbents."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Ok -the sky is falling. So WHAT? (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that the government has been bought and paid for by large corporate donors and there is no other game in town, and given that boycotting is impractical (and would make no difference) --you expect us to do WHAT exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless.
Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
" [The spokesman] said these moves by the telecom and cable industries may be good for the respective businesses, but they almost surely won't be good for consumers. 'All they're doing is creating obstacles to each other's industry from gaining an advantage,' he said. 'That's not competition.' Well, it is. But not the kind that benefits customers."
People have been saying this all along. There is no move by either company that is aimed at achieving anything other than coin for the shareholder. Their level of collusion with the **AA et al is debated, but seems inevitable. We are seeing the beginnings of the next level of content cartel being born. Each is seeking to be the biggest triple or quadruple-play content provider. The rumors that they want to charge you for access to various content on the Internet is not so far fetched as you might at first think. The large ISPs finally figured out that they now own the distribution channel for content in the foreseeable future and want to own it the way that the **AA have previously done.
No, I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat, this is a logical conclusion. Without control of distribution there is no big bucks to be made, no expensive houses, cars, coke parties. Yes, $45 for your standard package, with tiered charges for extra 'Internet channels' like YouTube or Google or MP3World etc.
What they are fighting about now is how to legally divide up the Internet content and not be taken to court. Comcast just lost one of the test battles.
If remuneration for good services rendered were their goal, there would be no court cases. There would be no throttling of traffic. There would be no hints of collusion with the **AA. There would be no one questioning what ISPs should monitor and what they should not.
In an ideal world, a massive boycott of commercial content would put everything in perspective for them. Unfortunately that won't happen. We are all the poorer for it.
What can be done? support independent content makers now. Encourage more bands to use the pay what you like model. Eventually the message that if people won't even pirate your content, you are not worth supporting will become an industry insiders golden rule.
It's time that such a message was sent to those spending money in Washington. Sad that it will never get there.
Re: (Score:2)
twitter, please stop doing things like these [slashdot.org]. Why do you insist on crapflooding Slashdot this way?
Re: (Score:2)
Note that "owned by Verizon" apparently means "20.5% owned by Verizon" [nytimes.com]
Note also that the TELUS mobile Web service in question is WAP-based [telusmobility.com], so it's not direct access to the "real Internet"; a lot of sites might be unavailable because they don't offer WAP [wikipedia.org] or because any Web-to-WAP gatewaying TELUS might be using can't handle them.
(BTW, is there any evidence that anybody named "Dylan Patten" has ever written anything, or is writing anything, for Time Magazine? And has he actually talked to the sources that
I'd say informal price collusion also. (Score:5, Informative)
I've been pricing packages for phone/television/internet lately, and have found that the local Verizon and BrightHouse offerings all happen to offer a minimal price of $100/month plus equipment rental and misc fees moving the realistic cost to $130/month, and a demand for long-term contracts with heavy penalties for ending the contract.
I was pricing these because we had work crews installing the FIOS lines around the neighborhood, and wanted to see how I could use that fact to negotiate a better price with either the cable company or the new Verizon FIOS. But I was surprised at how strictly each company matched eachother's offerings without offering any cheaper options for those interested in the cheapest option. I was interested in FIOS speeds a little, but I discovered that they would be cutting the independently-powered copper and replacing it with an 8-hour battery on the wall of the house. But... if they do that, and then a hurricane comes, then the landline is nothing more than a glorified cellphone with an 8-hour battery... most hurricane power outages last much longer than that, and there is a need to call city lines for messages on drinking water and the like that just aren't available from radio.
In any case, I don't understand the rationale of Verizon here - they're spending all this money rolling out the fiber for FIOS, but they aren't using the opportunity to compete other than offering faster, but still traffic-shaped internet. The end result is just two cables running to neighborhoods, each privately owned and vulnerable in the same ways, but not really distinguishing themselves.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
I was interested in FIOS speeds a little, but I discovered that they would be cutting the independently-powered copper and replacing it with an 8-hour battery on the wall of the house.
Verizon removes the copper because they are required to provide other carriers access to their copper but not to their fiber. And, they lock you into their higher-priced service. If you want traditional services down the road, Verizon will charge you to reinstall the copper (if they will do it at all).
Re: (Score:2)
It takes no power to keep the routers and modems running aside from when they are being used for a phone call? It might take more power, but they aren't shutting down when they aren't being used.
Big Cable is Wathing You (Score:5, Interesting)
The cable company doesn't need to know that the screen is blanked, the audio is off, and you've left for the weekend -- meantime, your STB is religiously searching out reruns of Speed Racer or maybe the original Star Trek. If one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they'll ignore it. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they'll ignore both of them. And three people do it, they may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day? And friends they may thinks it's a movement.
Well, Arlo, what if millions -- yes, millions -- of people sold their non-watching cable time to run up the viewership for worthy programs like My Little Pony? Easy enough to coordinate over the internet, after all. Either the producers go into panic mode changing their programming or else they give up on spying on their "customers." Either way, it's all good.
Duopoly is going to suffer. (Score:3, Insightful)
They are both going to have severe pain over the next two to three years. A lot of folks are going to be more worried about food than cable.
Duopoly? (Score:2)
I have a cell phone. Ha, ha!
And the cableco can have my rabbit ears when they pry them out of my cold, dead fingers.
P.S. Please don't tell either of them about my power company's fiber/wireless network.
Re: (Score:2)
So, April 2009 and the digital conversion?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, April 2009 and the digital conversion?
February 2009? Whatever. I'm there already. Rabbit ears and a converter box work just fine.
I have a cabin way out in the woods. A homemade Gray-Hoverman [digitalhome.ca] works great there.
Meh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Back to the topic at hand, I firmly believe these industries need to be nationalized. Or at least something along the line of utility companies. The fact of the matter is they exist to serve the citizens (or at least should due to public easements and what have you), but their commitment is to making that dollar... I don't see how that is ever going to change. But I do see how I never have to worry about gas or electric company trying to pull some underhanded move or using my payments to fund lobbyists to further their agenda. Nah when the power company wants to raise rates it's done in a public forum and it has to be okay'd by whatever governmental committee is in charge of that. Which obviously isn't a perfect system but it works and you don't see massive consumer unrest towards entities with such oversight.
Parent
Re:Meh... (Score:4, Insightful)
their agenda. Nah when the power company wants to raise rates it's done in a public forum and it has to be okay'd by whatever governmental committee is in charge of that. Which obviously isn't a perfect system but it works and you don't see massive consumer unrest towards entities with such oversight.
The electric company never uses your paymenys to fund lobbyists? What are you smoking? The electric companies are the telcos' and cable companies' wet dream. What do you think Enron was? That's right it was primarily an electricity and gas company.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you smoking? The electric companies are the telcos' and cable companies' wet dream. What do you think Enron was? That's right it was primarily an electricity and gas company.
Enron was a product of a partially (and terribly flawed) deregulated electric market. Their antics would not have been possible in the fully regulated markets in most US states.
Re:Meh... (Score:4, Interesting)
Increased regulation and nationalization will (like always) only make problems worse, not better. For more examples of failed nationalized industries and government economic plans leading to mass death and starvation, see the Soviet Union from 1928-1958 (Stalin's reign). For examples of what happens as a result of government control of capitalist economies, see the "Great Depression." No, the GD was not caused by the failure of the free market but by the failure of government. (Surprise! - that's never happened before...) If you don't agree, take an introductory macroeconomics/finance class at your local university that isn't taught by a Marxist, or just read Free to Choose by Milton Friedman.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Naaa free market only works in fairy tales.
Im no fan of the government by any means, but you need to regulate markets where competition isn't high enough to do it for you.
If theres 500 alternatives for internet service it wouldn't need to be regulation, we'd get good service and pricing from the companies trying to cut each others throats to make sure we sign up with them and not somebody else.
But theres basically two options now, and those two options discovered the can both make WAY more money by cooperat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Meh... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Second, the prices consumers see will obviously be lower if an industry is subsidized/owned by the government because money is coercively taken from one group of people (taxpayers) and given to another group (the providers of the service/utility). That's the thing about government-provided services. They're great at concealing costs because everyon
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's worked out pretty well in the field of telecomms. The competition in the mobile phone industry or ADSL service, for instance, is fairly vibrant. (Proviso: ADSL service is only really competitive in the profitable urban areas. But still.)
I agree that the energy privatisation hasn't brought us much obvious benefit. And the public transport privatisation in Melbourne was a complete waste of time and effort...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with your view is that someone has to decide what "too far" means. Who should decide? You? A bureaucrat or politician in Washington? Who are you to tell these people that they should spend their hard-earned money on something other than receiving text messages? It obviously doesn't bother them enough to cause them to switch. Who
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In reality, liberals are just arrogant people who think they know how to spend your money better than you do. That's not to say that they aren't well-meaning, they're just hopelessly misguided.
Man, you hit the nail on the head. Every government advocate suffers from the same problem. They all believe that if only we could get really smart people in control (liberals), everything would be great. Some people never learn from history, which is why it is, as they say, destined to repeat itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, WTF? My comment is not a troll! Usually these comments of mine will be moded "overrated" or "redundant", but troll! That takes some real guts. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you can't read the whole discussion unless you read at -1.
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me where a "free" market exists in the land of internet and telephone service? You can "choose" to either buy from the telco monopoly, or the cable monopoly... Your only other choice is to not have service... which isn't a real option in this day and age. If I can't email future employers my resume` or
And if you don't like either of these non-competitors products, you're simply out of luck. Sure, you can buy "third-party" DSL but that still requires you to have a phone-line from the telco, o
Re: (Score:2)
There doesn't have to be multiple players for a market to be free. A free market is simply one where by individuals determine unilaterally whether or not an they will exchange resources with another individual who is also free to make the same decision. That has nothing to do with whether or not a seller (or buyer) has a monopoly. It simply means that any party involved in an exchange is so by their own choosing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
'These industries'? Who do you mean? You mean Verizon, TimeWarner, Cox, Charter? Basically, the ones who lay lines through your yard.
what about the second/third tier? Skype, Vonage, Cavalier?
Do we also include other comm companies/technologies, such as Trillian, Pigeon, AOL IM, etc?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
'These industries'? Who do you mean? You mean Verizon, TimeWarner, Cox, Charter? Basically, the ones who lay lines through your yard.
what about the second/third tier? Skype, Vonage, Cavalier?
No, I think the the GP was pretty clear the ones why lay lines through your yard.
There can be 100 "Skypes" or "Voganges". there cannot (for practical and economic reasons) be 100 different lines into my house.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I firmly believe these industries need to be nationalized.
I'm not so sure this would be such a great thing. Though, after FISA, it is pretty much the same thing. The Feds and the Telcos colluding.
Localized, yes. Nationalized, no.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
not now, i'm watching american idol
Re: (Score:2)
Did comcast ever improve? They did about 4 years later after the news reported on it a bunch, but it was such a slow move to correct it because they weren't losing any customers. People hated the service, but didn't want to leave
Re: (Score:2)
We switched from comcast to Earthlink then Qwest for internet a few years back. And a few months back we switched to DirecTv for our tv service.
We're saving a bit of money compared to what we were paying and the service is a lot better.
Sure the DSL isn't as fast as the cable modem was at peak, but when the cable modem was out 3 to 4 hours a day most days, it's a serious step up to have the current connection always there.
It was kind of surreal to be told by comcast that they couldn't do any better, but that
Re:Meh... (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously, you don't pay for electricity in Houston, Texas.
No sir I live in the Treasure Valley [wikipedia.org] here in south western Idaho. Where we primarily rely on hydro (with some coal), which depending on what side of the salmon debate your on has been pretty good to us. Some of the lowest per capita carbon emissions of the top 100 metro areas in the states and fairly cheap power to boot. And every year when they request a rate adjustment is splashed all over the front pages and up for discussion. Exactly the kind of thing needed for services such as communications and internet. Seeing as how our whole economy is getting wrapped up and around such services it isn't prudent to let private corporations have such leverage...
Parent
Idaho? Metro? (Score:2)
Idaho population ~ 1,466,465
Kansas City Metropolitan Area (ranked 29th Us Metro)
~ 1,985,429
Treasure Valley ID ~587,689 (ranked 86th)
I say approximately, because these are probably 2006 figures and people die and are born every minute.
So yes in the top 100, but you're also talking about 1/3 of the entire state's population and rather small in comparison to Houston or Dallas-Ft. Worth. You could triple your state's population and still not equal the population of either one of those metros.
Not exactly
Re: (Score:2)
furthermore, to get back on topic. I think it is a very bad idea to let the government in to this debacle. Commit any unforgivable sin that the PTB dislike and your punishment is to be banned forever from the internet. At least with private corps you have a chance to fight. It may not be much of a chance, but also, probably you only have to worry about pissing off the cablecos and the RIAA and gang.
If the feds get into it, well who knows what could happen. Government interference. Just say no.
Wow, I can't b
Re: (Score:2)
The government is already into it with the award of the bid for service. Why else do you think you don't have 2 or more cable providers in the same city. 2 or more phone providers in the same city as well. If the government weren't in it granting monopoly, then yes, I would agree with you...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GWB Style Competition. (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone posting or moderating on this thread should be aware that Erris, myCopyWrong, willeyhill, westbake and Odder are the same person [slashdot.org].
twitter sockpuppets can be recognized from the shilling and the fact that 11 out of 12 post at -1 for trolling.
I had hoped that twitter wouldn't use his latest account [slashdot.org] for astroturfing, but I was obviously wrong.
Also watch out for these [slashdot.org].
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
no, nitwit, the industry is colluding to eliminate competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
granted, that most industries try to do this, but collusion is illegal.
The FTC under the current administration hasn't been enforcing many regulations.