Well, this should end up being interesting for me, considering I work for a company that does contract work for both Charter and Cox.
I have clients in the former Time Warner service area under Charter; their techs continue to get tripped up because they think they're going into a Charter service area and bring the wrong equipment with them. What should've been a 1 hour install took all day. I suspect similar issues will happen with those formerly with Cox.
Clearly the current government isn't interested in enforcing the antitrust laws.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 17, 2025, 03:59:10 PMClearly the current government isn't interested in enforcing the antitrust laws.
Most of the markets that these two were in only had one or the other; they weren't competing. So the only cable Internet I can get in Las Vegas will be called Spectrum instead of Cox. Ho hum.
Right. Most cable companies aren't competing with one another AND are competing with other entertainment and ISP providers. So there really aren't antitrust issues involved.
The younger crowd has clearly moved on. "Hey grampa, what was cable/satellite TV like?"
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on May 18, 2025, 10:43:27 AMThe younger crowd has clearly moved on. "Hey grampa, what was cable/satellite TV like?"
My kids think I'm old fashioned with my YTTV subscription. 😂😂😂
Cable companies, all of them, are evil. Why? History.
Where did cable come from. From rural America. CATV. Charging rural people for something that city people got for free and which can, and should, be free to all people. These companies were started with the basic premise "what is the absolute least service we can provide, and still get paid". That was 70 years ago, and a lot has changed, but the basic credo of cable companies, do as little as possible, remains. Very different mindset from most any other industry, including those that drove them out of actual video service, DBS and later streaming, and those that will, eventually, defeat them as ISPs.
Cable is evil.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 18, 2025, 01:28:44 PMCharging rural people for something that city people got for free and which can, and should, be free to all people.
Stop being a rural person then. It's simple economics that it's more expensive to deliver pretty much any kind of service to a rural area (low population spread out over a large area) than an urban one (large population in a smaller area).
You have the freedom to choose a rural lifestyle, but complaining about the foreseeable consequences is just whining.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 18, 2025, 01:28:44 PMCharging rural people for something that city people got for free and which can, and should, be free to all people.
Go live in a city then. I did so in 2012, and I never looked back.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 18, 2025, 01:28:44 PMCable companies, all of them, are evil. Why? History.
Where did cable come from. From rural America. CATV. Charging rural people for something that city people got for free and which can, and should, be free to all people. These companies were started with the basic premise "what is the absolute least service we can provide, and still get paid". That was 70 years ago, and a lot has changed, but the basic credo of cable companies, do as little as possible, remains. Very different mindset from most any other industry, including those that drove them out of actual video service, DBS and later streaming, and those that will, eventually, defeat them as ISPs.
Cable is evil.
What an absurd take. Evil? They provide a fee-based service for locations who could not receive broadcast TV signals. If that's your definition of evil...
What exactly is your solution to provide broadcast television to rural locations?
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 18, 2025, 01:43:15 PMStop being a rural person then. It's simple economics that it's more expensive to deliver pretty much any kind of service to a rural area (low population spread out over a large area) than an urban one (large population in a smaller area).
You have the freedom to choose a rural lifestyle, but complaining about the foreseeable consequences is just whining.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 18, 2025, 02:03:59 PMGo live in a city then. I did so in 2012, and I never looked back.
Yep and yep.
Quote from: JREwing78 on May 17, 2025, 03:36:18 PMI have clients in the former Time Warner service area under Charter; their techs continue to get tripped up because they think they're going into a Charter service area and bring the wrong equipment with them. What should've been a 1 hour install took all day. I suspect similar issues will happen with those formerly with Cox.
My first work with Time Warner was in Kansas City and Lincoln (NE), before Charter acquired them. We still have an office in Lincoln, although we shut down the KC operation about half a year ago. A number of years ago, we also launched an office for Time Warner in Dallas, but it only lasted a couple of years. Still today, we sometimes send techs out from the Lincoln office into smaller-town Charter markets that used to be something other than TWC. Not only is the equipment different, but so are the work order codes.
I'm still kind of biting my nails about what this will mean for my job. It's not all we do, but cable has been our company's bread and butter—especially Cox.
From my own limited perspective, Charter is a dinosaur. Some of the ways they do business seem not just quaint but antiquated. Hopefully Cox's influence will change that for the better, rather than Charter's influence changing it for the worse.
The government needs to bring an antitrust suit.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 18, 2025, 05:36:59 PMThe government needs to bring an antitrust suit.
Why? How is competitiveness hampered by this?
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2025, 05:11:52 PMI'm still kind of biting my nails about what this will mean for my job. It's not all we do, but cable has been our company's bread and butter—especially Cox.
Here's hoping that there being more Cox now means you'll have more jobs, rather than less.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 18, 2025, 01:43:15 PMQuote from: SP Cook on May 18, 2025, 01:28:44 PMCharging rural people for something that city people got for free and which can, and should, be free to all people.
Stop being a rural person then. It's simple economics that it's more expensive to deliver pretty much any kind of service to a rural area (low population spread out over a large area) than an urban one (large population in a smaller area).
You have the freedom to choose a rural lifestyle, but complaining about the foreseeable consequences is just whining.
Out west, if you live out in the middle of nowhere, many of these big-city stations are still available to most rural towns via translator stations over rabbit ears.
Most of them will try to place the antennas for these stations where they can cover the most area. But if you live in a real rural area bunkered by hills and valleys that block the signal or if you can't get ALL the regional stations,then you will probably have to resort to cable or satellite.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 02:06:44 PMWhat exactly is your solution to provide broadcast television to rural locations?
At the time, simple. Build more broadcast stations and repeaters, such that OTA television is available to everyone. There is NO technical reason that there are any dead spots in OTA television at all. And, before you play the cost card, no, OTA television stations were a license to print money and made more than enough to cover their whole market, which, I would remind you, the airwaves belong to the public and are leased to broadcasters to serve the public interest as a public trustee. (FCC code)
Today? Also simple. If you have cable, or any alternative (DBS, linear streaming like FUBO, YouTube TV, etc.) you pay a "retransmission consent" fee to the networks and to the local stations, which remain mega profitable. The Supreme Court (Fortnightly case) said this was wrong, but Big Media got Congress to change the law. Repeal this, local TV=free.
Any station uncomfortable with this can sign the license on the back and send it to me. This is how TV worked for the first 40 year. Local TV=free.
Cable is evil. It will always do the least possible. Which is why it will lose the ISP wars just as it lost the linear video wars,first to "death from above" the mega-superior DBS, and then to streaming.
What they really need to do is bring back analog TV.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 18, 2025, 08:20:53 PMCapitalism is evil. It will always do the least possible.
FTFY
Quote from: SP Cook on May 18, 2025, 08:20:53 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 02:06:44 PMWhat exactly is your solution to provide broadcast television to rural locations?
At the time, simple. Build more broadcast stations and repeaters, such that OTA television is available to everyone. There is NO technical reason that there are any dead spots in OTA television at all. And, before you play the cost card, no, OTA television stations were a license to print money and made more than enough to cover their whole market, which, I would remind you, the airwaves belong to the public and are leased to broadcasters to serve the public interest as a public trustee. (FCC code)
Today? Also simple. If you have cable, or any alternative (DBS, linear streaming like FUBO, YouTube TV, etc.) you pay a "retransmission consent" fee to the networks and to the local stations, which remain mega profitable. The Supreme Court (Fortnightly case) said this was wrong, but Big Media got Congress to change the law. Repeal this, local TV=free.
I don't think any of this is reasonable honestly. And as Scott said, if you want to live in the country, there are trade offs.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 18, 2025, 08:20:53 PMCable is evil.
And you really sound like a whack-job when you say this.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 08:32:48 PMI don't think any of this is reasonable honestly. And as Scott said, if you want to live in the country, there are trade offs.
This is why they need to bring back analog TV: because analog had better signals, which didn't break up like digital.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 18, 2025, 08:34:30 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 08:32:48 PMI don't think any of this is reasonable honestly. And as Scott said, if you want to live in the country, there are trade offs.
This is why they need to bring back analog TV: because analog had better signals, which didn't break up like digital.
And the rotary phone too.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 08:36:05 PMQuote from: bandit957 on May 18, 2025, 08:34:30 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 08:32:48 PMI don't think any of this is reasonable honestly. And as Scott said, if you want to live in the country, there are trade offs.
This is why they need to bring back analog TV: because analog had better signals, which didn't break up like digital.
And the rotary phone too.
From now on I'm gonna need everyone to send their posts, along with a self-addressed stamped envelope, to my P.O. Box.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 18, 2025, 08:40:05 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 08:36:05 PMQuote from: bandit957 on May 18, 2025, 08:34:30 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 08:32:48 PMI don't think any of this is reasonable honestly. And as Scott said, if you want to live in the country, there are trade offs.
This is why they need to bring back analog TV: because analog had better signals, which didn't break up like digital.
And the rotary phone too.
From now on I'm gonna need everyone to send their posts, along with a self-addressed stamped envelope, to my P.O. Box.
Pony Express: when it absolutely, positively needs to be there by horse and rider.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21490.0
(AARoads topics in 1864)
If we had this thread in 1983, people would be talking about how great videodiscs are.
If the federal government won't file an antitrust suit, the states should.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 18, 2025, 08:59:15 PMIf the federal government won't file an antitrust suit, the states should.
Again, why? How is this anti-competitive?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 09:01:15 PMQuote from: bandit957 on May 18, 2025, 08:59:15 PMIf the federal government won't file an antitrust suit, the states should.
Again, why? How is this anti-competitive?
There would be too many places where the merged company would be the only option. Speaking of 1983, the Bell System comes to mind.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 18, 2025, 09:05:27 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 09:01:15 PMQuote from: bandit957 on May 18, 2025, 08:59:15 PMIf the federal government won't file an antitrust suit, the states should.
Again, why? How is this anti-competitive?
There would be too many places where the merged company would be the only option. Speaking of 1983, the Bell System comes to mind.
My understanding is that their overlap is limited, but I guess we will see. I also think that the industry needs to be defined as more than simply cable services. Are they the only ISP option in those areas as well?
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 18, 2025, 07:56:28 PMHere's hoping that there being more Cox now means you'll have more jobs, rather than less.
As a contracting company, it's not about total number of jobs. It's about whether the MSO wants to keep doing business with us at all. Right now, we're in one Charter market and one Cox market. If the new merged MSO decides to re-analyze how they work with vendors, then who knows what might happen. Again, though, this is just me shooting in the dark: I haven't spoken to anyone at work yet, because I didn't find out till this week-end.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 18, 2025, 08:59:15 PMIf the federal government won't file an antitrust suit, the states should.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 09:01:15 PMAgain, why? How is this anti-competitive?
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 18, 2025, 09:05:27 PMThere would be too many places where the merged company would be the only option.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 09:13:04 PMMy understanding is that their overlap is limited,
This.
I'm not very familiar with regions I haven't dealt with directly, but my understanding is that Charter and Cox aren't generally in direct competition with each other in very many places. They might do work in the same area, but not the same type of work. For example, Cox had been doing some fiber work in the Kansas City area, but KC wasn't actually a Cox cable market.
It's like if In-N-Out merged with Culver's.
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2025, 10:50:55 PMAs a contracting company, it's not about total number of jobs. It's about whether the MSO wants to keep doing business with us at all. Right now, we're in one Charter market and one Cox market. If the new merged MSO decides to re-analyze how they work with vendors, then who knows what might happen. Again, though, this is just me shooting in the dark: I haven't spoken to anyone at work yet, because I didn't find out till this week-end.
I would think that you'd be in a pretty good situation, then, since you have an established relationship with both companies and therefore probably have a better view of the big picture than either of the companies that are actually merging.
But I understand the anxiety, because you can never underestimate management's capacity to do stupid, short-sighted things.
(Also, I'm sure you've said what MSO stands for at some point, but I couldn't remember so I looked it up and Google tells me it's the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra. I had no idea they even did cable.)
Management Services Organization
Quote from: bandit957 on May 18, 2025, 08:54:33 PMIf we had this thread in 1983, people would be talking about how great videodiscs are.
Betamax is clearly the wave of the future.
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2025, 10:50:55 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on May 18, 2025, 07:56:28 PMHere's hoping that there being more Cox now means you'll have more jobs, rather than less.
As a contracting company, it's not about total number of jobs. It's about whether the MSO wants to keep doing business with us at all. Right now, we're in one Charter market and one Cox market. If the new merged MSO decides to re-analyze how they work with vendors, then who knows what might happen. Again, though, this is just me shooting in the dark: I haven't spoken to anyone at work yet, because I didn't find out till this week-end.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 18, 2025, 08:59:15 PMIf the federal government won't file an antitrust suit, the states should.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 09:01:15 PMAgain, why? How is this anti-competitive?
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 18, 2025, 09:05:27 PMThere would be too many places where the merged company would be the only option.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 09:13:04 PMMy understanding is that their overlap is limited,
This.
I'm not very familiar with regions I haven't dealt with directly, but my understanding is that Charter and Cox aren't generally in direct competition with each other in very many places. They might do work in the same area, but not the same type of work. For example, Cox had been doing some fiber work in the Kansas City area, but KC wasn't actually a Cox cable market.
It's like if In-N-Out merged with Culver's.
And a way any geographic overlap can work is by selling off some operations to another carrier.
But IMO the issue is less "cable television" but "high speed internet." As long as there are other options for those servies in the area, I can't see why this is much of a problem.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 18, 2025, 11:54:13 PMI would think that you'd be in a pretty good situation, then, since you have an established relationship with both companies and therefore probably have a better view of the big picture than either of the companies that are actually merging.
Oh, for sure. Except that a zillion other companies just like ours are also in that same situation, doing business with both Charter and Cox. It's not just us.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 18, 2025, 11:54:13 PMAlso, I'm sure you've said what MSO stands for at some point, but I couldn't remember so I looked it up and Google tells me it's the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra. I had no idea they even did cable.
Multiple Systems Operator. Charter and Cox are both MSOs. Technically, any provider that operates in more than one area is an MSO, because each area is its own 'system'. But I don't know if anyone really uses the term in that strict sense. Typically, when someone says 'MSO', they mean something like Charter or Cox or DirecTV or Comcast or Cable One or Verizon (Fios) or Frontier or... You get the idea.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 18, 2025, 08:20:53 PMOTA television
Quote from: bandit957 on May 18, 2025, 08:22:49 PManalog TV
I've been thinking about this. There are things that digital cable does that OTA/broadcast TV cannot do. For example, pay-per-view and video-on-demand both require that your request can be sent back upstream from your home to the headend. Any sort of interactive service does as well. Some or all of these may be doable by coordinating your TV service with your internet connection's upstream frequency bands, but they are impossible to accomplish with downstream signal only. Now, you might not care about PPV or VOD or interactive TV, but that doesn't mean other people don't care about them.
Is there even anything useful still on TV?
'Sesame Street' is unwatchable now. If 'Sesame Street' was still as good as it was in the '70s, it would be useful for today's kiddos.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 19, 2025, 09:34:07 AMIs there even anything useful still on TV?
'Sesame Street' is unwatchable now. If 'Sesame Street' was still as good as it was in the '70s, it would be useful for today's kiddos.
There's a thread about this exact question.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33573.0
The consensus is sports only.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 18, 2025, 08:22:49 PMWhat they really need to do is bring back analog TV.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 19, 2025, 09:34:07 AMIs there even anything useful still on TV?
There must be, if you want it so badly.
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2025, 09:54:58 AMQuote from: bandit957 on May 18, 2025, 08:22:49 PMWhat they really need to do is bring back analog TV.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 19, 2025, 09:34:07 AMIs there even anything useful still on TV?
There must be, if you want it so badly.
I think Bandit is one of those guys who looks fondly upon the past, and for whatever reason, wants to roll the clock back.
Honestly, the only things my family watches on live TV anymore are tornado warning updates and the Super Bowl, and the latter is usually at someone else's house. We used to watch the Olympics on TV, but now we just use Peacock for that.
To be fair, there's also the issue of bigger companies having more power/influence over the market, so mergers can be an issue even if they don't reduce competition per se. There's a reason why Bell was broken up, after all.
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2025, 09:23:51 AMQuote from: SP Cook on May 18, 2025, 08:20:53 PMOTA television
Quote from: bandit957 on May 18, 2025, 08:22:49 PManalog TV
I've been thinking about this. There are things that digital cable does that OTA/broadcast TV cannot do. For example, pay-per-view and video-on-demand both require that your request can be sent back upstream from your home to the headend. Any sort of interactive service does as well. Some or all of these may be doable by coordinating your TV service with your internet connection's upstream frequency bands, but they are impossible to accomplish with downstream signal only. Now, you might not care about PPV or VOD or interactive TV, but that doesn't mean other people don't care about them.
ATSC 3.0 is supposed to do that (by leveraging internet for the uplink), though it personally seems like a gimmick to me (mostly - I do like that it would allow for weather preemption to be more targeted). I don't like that ATSC 3.0 will allow OTA streams to be put behind DRM; sure, it allows PPV, but it also allows the OTA networks to go subscription-only and for broadcast corporations to take control of the "user experience".
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2025, 09:23:51 AMSome or all of these may be doable by coordinating your TV service with your internet connection's upstream frequency bands
Quote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 12:57:39 PMATSC 3.0 is supposed to do that (by leveraging internet for the uplink)
I'm not familiar with it. Is it different than what I said?
Quote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 12:57:39 PMTo be fair, there's also the issue of bigger companies having more power/influence over the market, so mergers can be an issue even if they don't reduce competition per se. There's a reason why Bell was broken up, after all.
It wasn't broken up because it was deemed too big. It was broken up because it controlled all long-distance, most local and all of the equipment that attached with the system. There was little to no room for competition in any of those areas.
Antitrust is about anti competitive behavior - not just size.
For some reason, our local phone system (which was known for wiretapping public figures and journalists) said the AT&T ruling didn't apply to it, so we were stuck with AT&T thereafter.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 19, 2025, 02:21:23 PMFor some reason, our local phone system (which was known for wiretapping public figures and journalists) said the AT&T ruling didn't apply to it, so we were stuck with AT&T thereafter.
Cincinnati Bell? Yeah, it was one of the exceptions to the ruling, I think because it was one of the few only partially owned by AT&T at the time.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2025, 02:19:32 PMQuote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 12:57:39 PMTo be fair, there's also the issue of bigger companies having more power/influence over the market, so mergers can be an issue even if they don't reduce competition per se. There's a reason why Bell was broken up, after all.
It wasn't broken up because it was deemed too big. It was broken up because it controlled all long-distance, most local and all of the equipment that attached with the system. There was little to no room for competition in any of those areas.
Antitrust is about anti competitive behavior - not just size.
And letting the cable companies get to that point is a good idea? I remember the fights over net neutrality. I remember how cable companies sued cities that tried to set up their own broadband internet. They are absolutely moving to control everything. Honestly, given how cable and streaming compete, there's a case to be made that maybe cable companies shouldn't be ISPs, as they have an inherent market interest in the streaming companies not doing well.
Quote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 09:02:44 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2025, 02:19:32 PMQuote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 12:57:39 PMTo be fair, there's also the issue of bigger companies having more power/influence over the market, so mergers can be an issue even if they don't reduce competition per se. There's a reason why Bell was broken up, after all.
It wasn't broken up because it was deemed too big. It was broken up because it controlled all long-distance, most local and all of the equipment that attached with the system. There was little to no room for competition in any of those areas.
Antitrust is about anti competitive behavior - not just size.
And letting the cable companies get to that point is a good idea? I remember the fights over net neutrality. I remember how cable companies sued cities that tried to set up their own broadband internet. They are absolutely moving to control everything. Honestly, given how cable and streaming compete, there's a case to be made that maybe cable companies shouldn't be ISPs, as they have an inherent market interest in the streaming companies not doing well.
Anti-competitive behavior is what's illegal. Merely getting to that point isn't. And there are multiple options in most communities for ISPs.
Quote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 09:02:44 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2025, 02:19:32 PMAntitrust is about anti competitive behavior - not just size.
And letting the cable companies get to that point is a good idea?
Even if it isn't, that doesn't make it an antitrust law violation.
(speaking as a retired antitrust lawyer, though I never had anything to do with cable companies)
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2025, 09:10:01 PMQuote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 09:02:44 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2025, 02:19:32 PMQuote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 12:57:39 PMTo be fair, there's also the issue of bigger companies having more power/influence over the market, so mergers can be an issue even if they don't reduce competition per se. There's a reason why Bell was broken up, after all.
It wasn't broken up because it was deemed too big. It was broken up because it controlled all long-distance, most local and all of the equipment that attached with the system. There was little to no room for competition in any of those areas.
Antitrust is about anti competitive behavior - not just size.
And letting the cable companies get to that point is a good idea? I remember the fights over net neutrality. I remember how cable companies sued cities that tried to set up their own broadband internet. They are absolutely moving to control everything. Honestly, given how cable and streaming compete, there's a case to be made that maybe cable companies shouldn't be ISPs, as they have an inherent market interest in the streaming companies not doing well.
Anti-competitive behavior is what's illegal. Merely getting to that point isn't. And there are multiple options in most communities for ISPs.
Any for-profit corporation that gets to that point is going to be that way, however. They're legally obligated to maximize short-term gains to their shareholders. Quite frankly, the interpretation of anti-trust law that anything goes as long as consumer prices aren't affected that we've used since Reagan needs to die.
Quote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 09:44:48 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2025, 09:10:01 PMQuote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 09:02:44 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2025, 02:19:32 PMQuote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 12:57:39 PMTo be fair, there's also the issue of bigger companies having more power/influence over the market, so mergers can be an issue even if they don't reduce competition per se. There's a reason why Bell was broken up, after all.
It wasn't broken up because it was deemed too big. It was broken up because it controlled all long-distance, most local and all of the equipment that attached with the system. There was little to no room for competition in any of those areas.
Antitrust is about anti competitive behavior - not just size.
And letting the cable companies get to that point is a good idea? I remember the fights over net neutrality. I remember how cable companies sued cities that tried to set up their own broadband internet. They are absolutely moving to control everything. Honestly, given how cable and streaming compete, there's a case to be made that maybe cable companies shouldn't be ISPs, as they have an inherent market interest in the streaming companies not doing well.
Anti-competitive behavior is what's illegal. Merely getting to that point isn't. And there are multiple options in most communities for ISPs.
Any for-profit corporation that gets to that point is going to be that way, however. They're legally obligated to maximize short-term gains to their shareholders. Quite frankly, the interpretation of anti-trust law that anything goes as long as consumer prices aren't affected that we've used since Reagan needs to die.
You seem to be against something simply because it is large. If consumer prices aren't affected, and legitimate options are still available, I don't understand how simply a corporation getting larger is an anti-trust issue.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 20, 2025, 09:07:16 AMIf consumer prices aren't affected, ...
If anything, I suspect prices in current Cox markets might actually go
down because of the merger.
Quote from: kphoger on May 20, 2025, 09:12:32 AMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 20, 2025, 09:07:16 AMIf consumer prices aren't affected, ...
If anything, I suspect prices in current Cox markets might actually go down because of the merger.
Why would they?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2025, 09:10:01 PM. And there are multiple options in most communities for ISPs.
I don't know what is your experience location-wise, what I see locally are patches of competition in a sea of cable connections. Competition exists on paper, starlink and 5G are listed on FCC site as options. Price wise, once the cable company senses there is a viable alternative - prices drop like a rock on that street. Otherwise it's "another $5 increase"
Quote from: kphoger on May 20, 2025, 09:12:32 AMIf anything, I suspect prices in current Cox markets might actually go down because of the merger.
Quote from: kalvado on May 20, 2025, 09:22:46 AMWhy would they?
Charter's president/CEO has stated, "The first goal in operational integration will be to ensure that Spectrum customers and employees have the same experience between different footprints." This means they'll work at making pricing and packaging uniform across the enterprise. And Charter's Spectrum product bundles are generally known for being relatively inexpensive compared to their competition—notably Cox product bundles. It may not happen that current Cox customers will see their bills drop, but I wouldn't be surprised if new customers in current Cox markets are offered lower-priced packages when signing up for Spectrum after the merger than they otherwise would have when signing up for Cox.
Quote from: kphoger on May 20, 2025, 09:43:34 AMQuote from: kphoger on May 20, 2025, 09:12:32 AMIf anything, I suspect prices in current Cox markets might actually go down because of the merger.
Quote from: kalvado on May 20, 2025, 09:22:46 AMWhy would they?
Charter's president/CEO has stated, "The first goal in operational integration will be to ensure that Spectrum customers and employees have the same experience between different footprints." This means they'll work at making pricing and packaging uniform across the enterprise. And Charter's Spectrum product bundles are generally known for being relatively inexpensive compared to their competition—notably Cox product bundles. It may not happen that current Cox customers will see their bills drop, but I wouldn't be surprised if new customers in current Cox markets are offered lower-priced packages when signing up for Spectrum after the merger than they otherwise would have when signing up for Cox.
I am not sure what cox pricing is, but looks like $50 monthly is their baseline. ..
Quote from: kalvado on May 20, 2025, 10:00:28 AMI am not sure what cox pricing is, but looks like $50 monthly is their baseline. ..
Correct. Our family currently has Cox service with internet only. Our speed package is a grandfathered one (no longer available) at 250/20 Mbps down/up, and we rent a modem/router combo gateway. The base package rate for our internet is $70 per month. (Huh, interesting, I see now that we've had a campaign on our account since August to make the modem rental free. I also see now that we might be able to save money by switching to the lowest-priced currently offered package and still end up with faster speeds. I'll have to look into that.)
When I look at Charter packages in Lincoln (NE), their base package is only $30 per month. When I compare packages for 500 Mbps down, it's $80 with Cox compared to $50 with Charter.
Quote from: kphoger on May 20, 2025, 10:32:34 AMQuote from: kalvado on May 20, 2025, 10:00:28 AMI am not sure what cox pricing is, but looks like $50 monthly is their baseline. ..
Correct. Our family currently has Cox service with internet only. Our speed package is a grandfathered one (no longer available) at 250/20 Mbps down/up, and we rent a modem/router combo gateway. The base package rate for our internet is $70 per month. (Huh, interesting, I see now that we've had a campaign on our account since August to make the modem rental free. I also see now that we might be able to save money by switching to the lowest-priced currently offered package and still end up with faster speeds. I'll have to look into that.)
When I look at Charter packages in Lincoln (NE), their base package is only $30 per month. When I compare packages for 500 Mbps down, it's $80 with Cox compared to $50 with Charter.
Well, we have $83 for 400/10 DOCSIS from Spectrum in a no-competition area... Good news is that modem is included, modem with router and wifi would be extra. So when you say prices would be set by Charter....
Quote from: kphoger on May 20, 2025, 10:32:34 AMI also see now that we might be able to save money by switching to the lowest-priced currently offered package and still end up with faster speeds. I'll have to look into that.
Scratch that. I just attempted to do a service change on my own account, and the base rate for 300 Mbps populates at $70 per month. The $50 rate must only be for new customers or something.
Quote from: kalvado on May 20, 2025, 10:42:11 AMWell, we have $83 for 400/10 DOCSIS from Spectrum in a no-competition area... Good news is that modem is included, modem with router and wifi would be extra. So when you say prices would be set by Charter....
The next step up from 300 with Cox is 500, and that runs $90 per month, and the gateway rental would be $15 on top. But anyway, Charter's multi-service bundles are also considered to be more competitive than Cox's.
Quote from: kalvado on May 20, 2025, 09:29:55 AMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2025, 09:10:01 PM. And there are multiple options in most communities for ISPs.
I don't know what is your experience location-wise, what I see locally are patches of competition in a sea of cable connections. Competition exists on paper, starlink and 5G are listed on FCC site as options. Price wise, once the cable company senses there is a viable alternative - prices drop like a rock on that street. Otherwise it's "another $5 increase"
I have three legitimate options here. Mine is through the local cable company however. MediaCom. It's fine.
I signed up for Cox so long ago that I ended up somehow owning my own modem. The tech who came out to my house when we moved thought that was pretty cool, and he geeked out a little bit over my Latvian router too.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 20, 2025, 09:07:16 AMQuote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 09:44:48 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2025, 09:10:01 PMQuote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 09:02:44 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2025, 02:19:32 PMQuote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 12:57:39 PMTo be fair, there's also the issue of bigger companies having more power/influence over the market, so mergers can be an issue even if they don't reduce competition per se. There's a reason why Bell was broken up, after all.
It wasn't broken up because it was deemed too big. It was broken up because it controlled all long-distance, most local and all of the equipment that attached with the system. There was little to no room for competition in any of those areas.
Antitrust is about anti competitive behavior - not just size.
And letting the cable companies get to that point is a good idea? I remember the fights over net neutrality. I remember how cable companies sued cities that tried to set up their own broadband internet. They are absolutely moving to control everything. Honestly, given how cable and streaming compete, there's a case to be made that maybe cable companies shouldn't be ISPs, as they have an inherent market interest in the streaming companies not doing well.
Anti-competitive behavior is what's illegal. Merely getting to that point isn't. And there are multiple options in most communities for ISPs.
Any for-profit corporation that gets to that point is going to be that way, however. They're legally obligated to maximize short-term gains to their shareholders. Quite frankly, the interpretation of anti-trust law that anything goes as long as consumer prices aren't affected that we've used since Reagan needs to die.
You seem to be against something simply because it is large. If consumer prices aren't affected, and legitimate options are still available, I don't understand how simply a corporation getting larger is an anti-trust issue.
Around where I am, there are two options for proper broadband: Spectrum and Verizon FiOS. And Verizon FiOS isn't available across a majority of the metro area (pretty much just Colonie, Guilderland, and maybe Bethlehem and Niskayuna). Parts of Saratoga County have Greenlight, it's a bit of a crapshoot. From what I've heard, Spectrum is actually decent in the areas that have FiOS or Greenlight coverage, but total garbage in the rest of the area.
And lets not even get started on satellite. I won't touch anything Musk-related with a 10 mile pole, and HughesNet and 5G hotspots hardly count as broadband. I'm pretty sure they're only considered "broadband competition" so that the government can pretend that the broadband market isn't a patchwork of local monopolies and duopolies. And given that ISPs tend not to publish maps of their coverage (Greenlight used to but stopped for some reason), that only serves to obscure things further (you have to manually plug addresses into their sites to get quotes and/or click on locations in the FCC broadband map, which was thankfully still up last I checked).
And, like I said, I reject the Reagan interpretation of anti-trust where consumer prices are the only measurement that matters. I would say that we need to go back to the older interpretation where many other factors were considered, including level of service provided, employment conditions, lobbying power, etc. Big business is the biggest driver on things like enshitification, deregulation, the erosion of good jobs, environmental issues, etc.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 20, 2025, 12:41:15 PMI signed up for Cox so long ago that I ended up somehow owning my own modem. The tech who came out to my house when we moved thought that was pretty cool, and he geeked out a little bit over my Latvian router too.
Those modems were only ever for purchase, not rental. When it comes to internet-only modems (as opposed to eMTAs), except for as part of government assistance programs, it's only modem/router combo gateways that have been available for rental. I'm surprised your tech didn't know that.
Quote from: vdeane on May 20, 2025, 12:51:29 PMAnd, like I said, I reject the Reagan interpretation of anti-trust where consumer prices are the only measurement that matters. I would say that we need to go back to the older interpretation where many other factors were considered, including level of service provided, employment conditions, lobbying power, etc. Big business is the biggest driver on things like enshitification, deregulation, the erosion of good jobs, environmental issues, etc.
First, I think you have a poor understanding of anti-trust law. At no point have "level of service provided, employment conditions, lobbying power, etc." been used as evidence of violation of that law. (Other laws yes...but not antitrust laws.)
Second, "enshitification," "the erosion of good jobs," and "environmental issues" existed long prior to Reagan.
Quote from: vdeane on May 20, 2025, 12:51:29 PMFrom what I've heard, Spectrum is actually decent in the areas that have FiOS or Greenlight coverage, but total garbage in the rest of the area.
Do those non-FiOS areas tend to be older, poorer, more centrally located, etc? It's easier to upgrade the plant or build out new plant in newer and less densely populated areas, and there's generally more financial incentive to do so in those areas too.
Quote from: vdeane on May 20, 2025, 12:51:29 PM5G hotspots hardly count as broadband.
They are seemingly not that bad, although would have their issues. My strong impression is that a few years back there was a top brass administrative decision to push for wide range 5G instead of fiber deployment. Honestly speaking, it can make sense as a policy, especially for suburban areas. Building up utilities is expensive, base stations would be cheaper.
Quote from: kphoger on May 20, 2025, 02:06:04 PMQuote from: vdeane on May 20, 2025, 12:51:29 PMFrom what I've heard, Spectrum is actually decent in the areas that have FiOS or Greenlight coverage, but total garbage in the rest of the area.
Do those non-FiOS areas tend to be older, poorer, more centrally located, etc? It's easier to upgrade the plant or build out new plant in newer and less densely populated areas, and there's generally more financial incentive to do so in those areas too.
Our suburb was on a map for a small-ish fiber provider (Greenlight
@vdeane mentioned) . They were building up until credit rate became too high. I believe our street was marked as a 1Q25 deployment date in original planning. Area around the town hall got their service, with town hall getting a
bribe free service (first connection in town) for swiftly processed permits.
area isn't very old, median household income is a bit over 100k, mostly single-family or duplexes. Same provider started the area deployment in a bit closer suburb with $130k household. verizon fios didn't have any plans for our neck of the woods.
To me, it's just common sense that, if one provider has good service in an area, then another provider is likely to have good service in the same area. Not because of competition, but simply because the physical network is in better condition. Newer mainlines, more likely to have underground utilities, newer-constructed houses with lines in better condition, etc, etc, etc.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 20, 2025, 01:34:24 PMQuote from: vdeane on May 20, 2025, 12:51:29 PMAnd, like I said, I reject the Reagan interpretation of anti-trust where consumer prices are the only measurement that matters. I would say that we need to go back to the older interpretation where many other factors were considered, including level of service provided, employment conditions, lobbying power, etc. Big business is the biggest driver on things like enshitification, deregulation, the erosion of good jobs, environmental issues, etc.
First, I think you have a poor understanding of anti-trust law. At no point have "level of service provided, employment conditions, lobbying power, etc." been used as evidence of violation of that law. (Other laws yes...but not antitrust laws.)
Second, "enshitification," "the erosion of good jobs," and "environmental issues" existed long prior to Reagan.
The point was that we used to consider a lot of factors in anti-trust enforcement and Reagan reduced it down to just "cost to consumers" (incidentally, I REALLY hate the word "consumers"; it reduces citizens down to an economic calculation).
Quote from: kphoger on May 20, 2025, 02:06:04 PMQuote from: vdeane on May 20, 2025, 12:51:29 PMFrom what I've heard, Spectrum is actually decent in the areas that have FiOS or Greenlight coverage, but total garbage in the rest of the area.
Do those non-FiOS areas tend to be older, poorer, more centrally located, etc? It's easier to upgrade the plant or build out new plant in newer and less densely populated areas, and there's generally more financial incentive to do so in those areas too.
The Clifton Park/Halfmoon/Malta area that was left wide open for Greenlight to move into isn't... but the City of Albany (the most notorious area without fiber) is all of those. The same thing happened around Rochester... back when Greenlight had their maps (Verizon FiOS never existed there, but Frontier has been building fiber in some areas, so some addresses in the area actually have a whopping three choices), the east side (wealthier/white collar) suburbs were well covered, some inroads were being made in the west side (blue collar/less wealthy) suburbs, and aside from some of the better neighborhoods at the edges, the city was avoided except for some newer apartments downtown.
Oddly enough, Buffalo was the opposite, with the city being the first area to get Greenlight. I don't remember what the Binghamton map looked like.
Quote from: vdeane on May 20, 2025, 09:28:11 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 20, 2025, 01:34:24 PMQuote from: vdeane on May 20, 2025, 12:51:29 PMAnd, like I said, I reject the Reagan interpretation of anti-trust where consumer prices are the only measurement that matters. I would say that we need to go back to the older interpretation where many other factors were considered, including level of service provided, employment conditions, lobbying power, etc. Big business is the biggest driver on things like enshitification, deregulation, the erosion of good jobs, environmental issues, etc.
First, I think you have a poor understanding of anti-trust law. At no point have "level of service provided, employment conditions, lobbying power, etc." been used as evidence of violation of that law. (Other laws yes...but not antitrust laws.)
Second, "enshitification," "the erosion of good jobs," and "environmental issues" existed long prior to Reagan.
The point was that we used to consider a lot of factors in anti-trust enforcement and Reagan reduced it down to just "cost to consumers"
Where are you getting this? The same source that gave you the information that "employment conditions" were a factor previously? Because I don't think "cost to consumers" has ever been the sole point of evidence.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 20, 2025, 09:57:36 PMQuote from: vdeane on May 20, 2025, 09:28:11 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on May 20, 2025, 01:34:24 PMQuote from: vdeane on May 20, 2025, 12:51:29 PMAnd, like I said, I reject the Reagan interpretation of anti-trust where consumer prices are the only measurement that matters. I would say that we need to go back to the older interpretation where many other factors were considered, including level of service provided, employment conditions, lobbying power, etc. Big business is the biggest driver on things like enshitification, deregulation, the erosion of good jobs, environmental issues, etc.
First, I think you have a poor understanding of anti-trust law. At no point have "level of service provided, employment conditions, lobbying power, etc." been used as evidence of violation of that law. (Other laws yes...but not antitrust laws.)
Second, "enshitification," "the erosion of good jobs," and "environmental issues" existed long prior to Reagan.
The point was that we used to consider a lot of factors in anti-trust enforcement and Reagan reduced it down to just "cost to consumers"
Where are you getting this? The same source that gave you the information that "employment conditions" were a factor previously? Because I don't think "cost to consumers" has ever been the sole point of evidence.
My list wasn't a specific list because I didn't look this up for you; it's an amalgamation of knowledge I've seen over the years, and quite frankly, I don't remember an original source (and it not helped by my at least trying to keep this argument from going too political). Might have been Second Thought. Might have been Media Roots. Might have been some random article somewhere. That said, doing some quick Googling and it's tied to the Chicago School policy of anti-trust enforcement, implemented on this country with the backing of business lobbyists against the wishes of the American people. It's got to go.
https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/what-made-chicago-school-so-influential-antitrust-policy
https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/chicago-school-economists-got-it-wrong-strong-antitrust-policy-boosts-the-economy
That said, it does appear on reading the second link that Powell might have been a bigger problem than Reagan.
Quote from: vdeane on May 20, 2025, 10:44:55 PMhttps://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/chicago-school-economists-got-it-wrong-strong-antitrust-policy-boosts-the-economy (https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/chicago-school-economists-got-it-wrong-strong-antitrust-policy-boosts-the-economy)
This link really clarifies what you are trying to say. Thank you.
The owner and president of my company are back in the office today, so I went over and chatted with them today. Here are some interesting insights they had about the merger:
1. It's a good thing in general.
2. The telecom world is a different world than it was back during the Comcast acquisition. With streaming having skyrocketed since then, it's hard to make the case that a cable monopoly can even exist anymore. At this point, an ISP is an ISP. For that reason, nobody seems to think (as I can confirm from the article's I've read) that it's going to be difficult at all to clear the remaining legal hurdles.
3. They don't expect us to see any changes trickle down to us IRL for a year. These things take time to sort out, on multiple levels.
4. This is a good time to be in the decal printing business.
5. Our liaisons over at Cox are probably more worried about their jobs right now than we are.
One thing I mentioned that they hadn't thought of is that Charter takes pride in having US-based customer service operations. We outsourced our dispatch operations (which in the cable world is a cross between order entry and troubleshooting) to an India-based company several years ago; that was the best thing to happen to my work life (I used to be a dispatcher, and it was non-stop stress), but dealing with the language barrier has been a constant frustration for the field techs. My company's Cox techs aren't even allowed by Cox to contact their in-house dispatch, but our Charter techs only go through Charter's in-house dispatch. So, if you're a Cox customer and have been frustrated dealing with outsourced foreign customer service reps, then that might eventually change.