# Cincinnati's Time Warner Cable Says Screw You To It's Customers!



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

After ruining the finales for Grey's Anatomy, ER, C.S.I. and any other show that was airing on Thursday night at 9:48pm (and up to an hour or more afterwards), Time Warner Cincinnati sent an email to its customers recommending that they watch the finales online! Of course, ER is not available online! And no one that I know wants to watch TV on their computer! Especially the finales!

As an extra "screw you", Time Warner _reminded _customers that credits are only issued when an outage lasts longer than 24 hours!

Great job Time Warner! Keep up the good work. A perfect example of a monopoly at work.

I will make sure you know how my transition to satellite goes! And if that transition goes well, I will do everything I can to convince as many people to switch. Screw you Time Warner!

For more on this, check out "Time Warner Cable Ruins Big Finales For Cincinnati!"


----------



## mick66 (Oct 15, 2004)

dolfer said:


> For more on this, check out URL=http://dolfzone.blogspot.com/2007/05/time-warner-cable-ruins-big-finales-for.html]"Time Warner Cable Ruins Big Finales For Cincinnati!"[/URL]


More? It's your friggin' blog with the same rant only it's missing the part about the TW e-mail so it's actually less.

You also left out the bit about TW trying to get the go ahead from the networks involved to re-air the episodes. I don't get where that can be misconstrued into TW not giving a crap.

No credit for outages less than 24 hours is a "screw you"? would a little cash make you all better? I didn't think so.

BTW - this doesn't seem to be a TiVo topic, so maybe it should have been posted in the happy hour forum.


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

Time Warner stock holder, huh?

We have all been subjected to TW's pathetic (and incessant) satellite bashing commercials which tout digital cable's _superior_ reliability. Sorry, but they set themselves up for this. They deserve no sympathy. The least they could do is give their customers a one day credit as a show of good faith.

Your last name isn't Warner is it?


----------



## lcann44 (Apr 15, 2007)

Yeah, this is nothing but sour grapes. Look, it's too bad that something happened to the digital cable on Thursday night but it wasn't like they did it on purpose the way your thread makes it sound. It was an equipment failure. Sh*t happens.

Also you would have done yourself a favor by giving the link to the Enquier's story instead of a link to some blog.


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

It's just sour grapes because it didn't happen to you! As I said, TW has an incessant negative ad campaign against satellite constantly bashing satellite TV's poor reliability. They deserve as much negative publicity as possible for this failure.

Glitch Leaves TV Fans In The Dark -- The Cincinnati Enquirer


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

Yeah.. it's not like your paying EXTRA for digital.. thus entitled to a failover system or some sort of backup incase of equipment failure.

Crap happens.. and when it does.. it is best NOT to plan for failures and have any contingency plans. And when you charge money for a service.. it is best to offer less then perfection. Any buisness major knows this stuff.

What's you problem.. so they choose to not offer Tv to their customers for over an hour.. and ya have the nerve to blame them? Switch to another provider if ya must.. maybe to one of those fancy companies with their fancy backups in place, etc.


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

More from The Cincinnati Enquirer... Customers Angry About Outage


----------



## lcann44 (Apr 15, 2007)

dolfer said:


> It's just sour grapes because it didn't happen to you! As I said, TW has an incessant negative ad campaign against satellite constantly bashing satellite TV's poor reliability. They deserve as much negative publicity as possible for this failure.
> 
> Glitch Leaves TV Fans In The Dark -- The Cincinnati Enquirer


Hey, I understand why your upset but the point is that these things are going to happen from time to time. Let's say you have D* and a huge thunderstorm comes in during that same period. You would have lost recording there too. I'm not trying to make excuses for TW or any cable company but it's impossible to have everything work 100% of the time.

Technology is good, not perfect. However I would have been much more sympathetic if they had done something lame like did some kind of update or something right at that time, but that's not the case. You don't want to watch it on the computer? Amazon Unbox may have it and there are "other" sources to get it as well.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

dolfer said:


> Time Warner stock holder, huh?
> 
> We have all been subjected to TW's pathetic (and incessant) satellite bashing commercials which tout digital cable's _superior_ reliability. Sorry, but they set themselves up for this. They deserve no sympathy. The least they could do is give their customers a one day credit as a show of good faith.
> 
> Your last name isn't Warner is it?


Actually, the points made were valid.

This is a forum for TiVo discussion, not a free-for-all where anything is discussed.

It should have been done in a different forum.

As for them not giving a refund for the time missed if it's under 24 hours, I say figure out what percentage of your TV usage that day was lost, and deduct that amount from your bill.

If they complain, demand to talk to a supervisor, and tell them you're not backing down.

Ask them if they want to lose out on a portion of the bill this time, or if they want to lose you as a customer for good.

I also think them suggesting you watch the episodes online is poppycock. Not everyone has that good a computer or internet connection.

It's like telling someone to fly to another country to watch the episodes when they air there.

Bah!

They're pathetic.

I did notice tho', that some people were able to watch the shows on TVs that only had an analog cable feed going directly into the cable-ready tuner.

Funny that this worked, when TW is elsewhere shutting down their analog service, so that such a feed gets virtually nothing.

Maybe they'll rethink that move.

Nah.

Not likely.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

dolfer said:


> Glitch Leaves TV Fans In The Dark -- The Cincinnati Enquirer


It would have been nice if your original post had included the above link instead of the one to your blog's rant.

Have you ever had satellite TV service? Don't expect it to be 100% free from human errors and/or other glitches. Even a freak rain can ruin a program at any time with no recourse whatsoever!


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

TiVo Troll said:


> It would have been nice if your original post had included the above link instead of the one to your blog's rant.
> 
> Have you ever had satellite TV service? Don't expect it to be 100% free from human errors and/or other glitches. Even a freak rain can ruin a program at any time with no recourse whatsoever!


Most _real_ news lacks the necessary venom and hatred that a story like this demands!  However, I did make sure to include links to real news as well...


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

gastrof said:


> I did notice tho', that some people were able to watch the shows on TVs that only had an analog cable feed going directly into the cable-ready tuner.
> 
> Funny that this worked, when TW is elsewhere shutting down their analog service, so that such a feed gets virtually nothing.
> 
> ...


Great point about the dismantling of analog service!

The way I will make it valid for this forum is that *Tivo* users like myself (who happen to use Time Warner digital cable) would be wise to make a backup recording of important shows via analog cable or OTA on a VCR (or second Tivo).


----------



## rdrrepair (Nov 24, 2006)

dolfer said:


> Time Warner stock holder, huh?
> 
> Blah, Blah, Blah...
> 
> Your last name isn't Warner is it?


I've seen on this site people offering to send programs that were lost to other members for free. Maybe tone it down 1 or 2 notches and say something along the lines of. Hey, I got screwed by TW in Cincinnati and (post the link) does anyone have a copy of the following programs? Boy, this sucks! During the finales no less!

I would bet, if you followed that course, you would get some people PM'ing or offering to send you a DVD copy.

To jump on Mick66 and lcann44 for your misfortune serves no purpose but to burn yourself out. Relax a little. I've had stuff like this happen before. Ranting a little is healthy, exploding on people is destructive and will earn little sympathy from others.

Do you need a copy of these programs? Would you like to ask for a little help instead?


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

dolfer said:


> ...The way I will make it valid for this forum is that *Tivo* users like myself (who happen to use Time Warner digital cable) would be wise to make a backup recording of important shows via analog cable or OTA on a VCR (or second Tivo).


Oh, second TiVo, for sure!

What's a "vicker", anyway?


----------



## matthewwhite (Dec 27, 2003)

I've got time warner Cincinnati and didn't miss a show on my series 3 or series 2 tivos.

2 weeks ago nbc's bizzare time schedule made my tivos miss the er wedding and the office. I got the office online but couldn't find er anywhere.

I used a cable box for a long time and I'm much more happy with the cable cards than having to deal with IR blasters. I also love being able to record 2 digital selections at the same time.


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

gastrof said:


> What's a "vicker", anyway?


At first I thought you were busting out a Smiths' reference ["vicar"] on me! But I get it now


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

rdrrepair said:


> To jump on Mick66 and lcann44 for your misfortune serves no purpose but to burn yourself out. Relax a little. I've had stuff like this happen before. Ranting a little is healthy, exploding on people is destructive and will earn little sympathy from others.
> 
> Do you need a copy of these programs? Would you like to ask for a little help instead?


I don't think I jumped on either. Just trading a few playful jabs. Not meant to be mean spirited... I am pissed at TW, not those guys 

I think my profile pic (in which I look rather cranky) incorrectly imparts a "nasty" tone to my posts. Maybe someday I will update it...

Glad to know that people around here help each other out like that. I will be hanging at a friend's house later this week who has both shows queued up.


----------



## mick66 (Oct 15, 2004)

Can you say "torrent"?

The fact that people can get so upset because they missed a freakin' TV show baffles me.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Some people evidently just like to whine. Anyone who thinks that cable companies warrant 24x7 perfection is smokin' dope. Calibrate your expectations a bit, eh?


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

bicker said:


> Some people evidently just like to whine. Anyone who thinks that cable companies warrant 24x7 perfection is smokin' dope. Calibrate your expectations a bit, eh?


Actually, for what TW charges, I *do* expect perfection.

TW can go out in the middle of the night, on Saturday afternoons, during Oprah or Ellen... But how about not blacking out in the middle of the Thursday night prime time lineup? Particularly during the finales.


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

mick66 said:


> Can you say "torrent"?
> 
> The fact that people can get so upset because they missed a freakin' TV show baffles me.


I am not upset that I missed a show. I am upset that a service that I pay for failed at a critical time.

Of course I can download the shows, buy them on iTunes, or watch them on the Internet, but that's not the point.

At the very least, TW should have issued some kind of credit as a show of good faith.

Looks like there are no future Ralph Naders around here, are there?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

TW charges about what everyone else charges -- because that's what the service they provide, at the service level they provide it, is worth. "Perfection" would cost a lot more. I think a lot of people horribly underestimate the value of the services they consume, in a vain attempt to justify their unrighteous indignation.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dolfer said:


> Looks like there are no future Ralph Naders around here, are there?


Ever since "he made George W. Bush the president" in 2000, even those who would take on his perspective wouldn't admit to it any longer.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

TW says that they have better reliability than the satellites, not that they're perfect.

Sucks that it happened at a bad time, but there are far more appropriate ways to deal with it than spamming the wrong forum with your righteous indignation.

Your chances of this happening when the signal has to travel a couple of thousand miles through space where something as simple as rain or snow can block the signal are MUCH greater than a hardwired solution...

TW would definitely be the "lesser of the evils".


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

dolfer said:


> Looks like there are no future Ralph Naders around here, are there?


Not surprising actually; there's only one in the whole world; and as *bicker* alluded to, the appeal of Nader's zealousness brought about some unintended and unexpected consequences!


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

bicker said:


> TW charges about what everyone else charges -- because that's what the service they provide, at the service level they provide it, is worth. "Perfection" would cost a lot more. I think a lot of people horribly underestimate the value of the services they consume, in a vain attempt to justify their unrighteous indignation.


Thanks for the Econ 101 lesson, but TW charges as much as they want because they have a *monopoly*. There is no cable competition in Ohio. Hopefully that will change.

There is upcoming legislation that could open the doors for cable competition. Also, groups like TV4US are pushing for competition as well.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

TW has no monopoly. You choose to mislabel it such because either you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond your own personal situation, or because you're ignorant of the reality of the subscription television industry. As long as someone in your municipality can receive DirecTV or Dish Network, then there is no monopoly.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

dolfer said:


> Actually, for what TW charges, I *do* expect perfection.
> 
> TW can go out in the middle of the night, on Saturday afternoons, during Oprah or Ellen... But how about not blacking out in the middle of the Thursday night prime time lineup? Particularly during the finales.


 

You think they chose to have an outtage during prime time?

Your sense of entitlement is amazing.

You do realize that if they go out durring Oprah they would be in deeper crap then they are with you 

There is no good time to have an outtage, and companies do thier best not to, but stuff happens, who do I get to ***** at when I lose my DTV signal to the daily downpour here in Houston?

Between torrents, iTunes, and the network websites themselves it's not hard to catch a missed show.


----------



## cooper243 (Dec 11, 2006)

OP, bitter, party of one, your table is ready! Seriously, it does suck this happened at such a critical time, but stuff happens. I am sure that some of the people with Time Warner has at least one tv that gets the channels the old fashioned way, over the air. Could you tivo the shows with a s2 or s3, no, but they could at least watch them. The revenge that you and others can do is switch to another cable company if possible or get rid of cable and get either dish or directv. This will hurt them more than a blog.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> TW has no monopoly. You choose to mislabel it such because either you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond your own personal situation, or because you're ignorant of the reality of the subscription television industry. As long as someone in your municipality can receive DirecTV or Dish Network, then there is no monopoly.


TW has a monopoly for Dolfer on cable service and you can never get around that fact no matter how you word things otherwise.


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

bicker said:


> TW has no monopoly. You choose to mislabel it such because either you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond your own personal situation, or because you're ignorant of the reality of the subscription television industry. As long as someone in your municipality can receive DirecTV or Dish Network, then there is no monopoly.


You can try to spin it any way you want, but TW has a *monopoly* on _cable_ service in Cincinnati. I can't get cable through any other provider. Seems like a monopoly to me...


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

cooper243 said:


> ...The revenge that you and others can do is switch to another cable company if possible or get rid of cable and get either dish or directv. This will hurt them more than a blog.


TW is the only game in town in Cincinnati. As I said in the post above, they have a cable monopoly where I live. You are quite lucky if you have multiple cable providers to choose from! I am confident that the prices are lower too!


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

dolfer said:


> You can try to spin it any way you want, but TW has a *monopoly* on _cable_ service in Cincinnati. I can't get cable through any other provider. Seems like a monopoly to me...


Be a good consumer, vote with your money.
There's nothing stopping you from leaving TW and going OTA, Dish, or DirecTV

As slimy and holier then thou as the cable companies are, you CAN leave them.

And if you feel this thoroughly wronged, get involved with your city council and work on making competition for them when their contract is up for renewal with the city. You can make a difference, and you can change it, but it requires being part of the solution.

And there's *never* a good time for a service outage, do you think they planned this outage just to upset their consumers? what do you expect of them, to ask "hey, we need to have an unplanned outage, what would be good for folks?"

Diane


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> TW has a monopoly for Dolfer on cable service and you can never get around that fact no matter how you word things otherwise.


Your denial cannot overrule reality, Zeo.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dolfer said:


> You can try to spin it any way you want, but TW has a *monopoly* on _cable_ service in Cincinnati. I can't get cable through any other provider. Seems like a monopoly to me...


There is no such thing as a "monopoly on 'cable' service". The service offering is subscription television. You *choose* to subscribe to cable instead of using other offerings, and therefore limit your choices among the available competitors.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

dolfer said:


> Actually, for what TW charges, I *do* expect perfection.


Then I suspect that you'll be disappointed with satellite.



> Thanks for the Econ 101 lesson, but TW charges as much as they want because they have a *monopoly*. There is no cable competition in Ohio.


Maybe not in your part of Ohio. Most areas of Columbus have at least two carriers available.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Your denial cannot overrule reality, Zeo.


so the reality is that Dolfer can pick another cable company ? oops, that is not the reality. Hmm, seems like my statement was reality, so where does that leave your statement


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dianebrat said:


> Be a good consumer, vote with your money.
> There's nothing stopping you from leaving TW and going OTA, Dish, or DirecTV
> 
> As slimy and holier then thou as the cable companies are, you CAN leave them.
> ...


Good suggestions on what to do about cable if you are dissatisfied. 
However Staellite is not a good option for many as the Sat braodcasters have a total lock on how you access adn use their service, including the DVR. This forum is of course full of people who prefer a third party DVR solution.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Good suggestions on what to do about cable if you are dissatisfied.
> However Staellite is not a good option for many as the Sat braodcasters have a total lock on how you access adn use their service, including the DVR. This forum is of course full of people who prefer a third party DVR solution.


It's still a choice, you weigh the pros and cons of each and make an iformed choice based on the factors you find important.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Langree said:


> It's still a choice, you weigh the pros and cons of each and make an iformed choice based on the factors you find important.


Yes, and as I said it is not a good *option* for many, especially those that want to use a third party DVR


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

bicker said:


> There is no such thing as a "monopoly on 'cable' service".


Of course there is. I can only get cable TV through *one* company. Therefore, there is a monopoly on cable service.

What reason could you possibly have to not want competition?

Competition usually means more choice and lower prices.

I am sure prices are lower in areas that have multiple providers.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Hmmm.. I'm using a Tivo with DirecTV. Granted, it's not HD, but it's also not white noise either.

One can always experience rain fade with satellite, but it's pretty rare. We had more dropouts with cable than with satellite, which is one of the many reasons we don't use TWC anymore.

Usually, in this situation, your local channels get permission to rerun the episodes. It takes a day or two.

Of course, we want more competition. But saying there is no competition for cable isn't 100% accurate. There are other content providers out there.

Technically, Verizon has a monopoly on fiber service to the house. Yet they do not seem to be enjoying all the advantages that a monopoly typically has. Now their monopoly with copper-based phone service is more like the typical monopoly, but even there they compete with ISPs and VoIP.

Just because you have a monopoly doesn't mean you can relax. Especially when it comes to technology.

[Edited to add the last two paragprahs which magically disappeared when performing the original post]


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

dolfer said:


> Of course there is. I can only get cable TV through *one* company. Therefore, there is a monopoly on cable service.


I can only buy a new Ford truck from a Ford dealer too - that doesn't mean that they have a monopoly on Ford trucks...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

GoHokies! said:


> I can only buy a new Ford truck from a Ford dealer too - that doesn't mean that they have a monopoly on Ford trucks...


in your area you can also go to a Chevy, Toyota, Isuzu etc.. dealers and there are only business district restrictions on a new dealer opening up. Your analogy just does not work for the case of a cable service


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Good suggestions on what to do about cable if you are dissatisfied.
> However Satellite is not a good option for many as the Sat broadcasters have a total lock on how you access and use their service, including the DVR. This forum is of course full of people who prefer a third party DVR solution.


Of course S2 TiVo's can easily be used to control Sat STB's. So it's not difficult to sub to Sat and still use TiVo if both services are important to a viewer. I'd be tempted to use an S2 along with a Sat hi-def DVR, much as I currently do with Comcast cable.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Seems like we have a lot of these threads that turn into a discussion about cable/satellite and if there is any/enough competition in the industry, so as always I think I will add my 2 cents in. 

First I agree with bicker and others about the fact that what we should be talking isnt cable TV but actually video content delivery. There are actually quit a few ways you can get video content depending on where you live: 

Free Over The Air (OTA) broadcast TV
Free To Air (FTA) Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) TV
Free and/or subscription C-band satellite TV
Subscription Analog and/or Digital Cable TV 
Subscription Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) TV
Subscription FIOS TV
Direct video rental by DVD, VHS, and/or digital download
Direct video purchase by DVD, VHS, and/or digital download
Free and/or Subscription Internet Protocol Television (IPTV)

So I do not think that anyone can say there is an actual monopoly in video content delivery. Of course the problem is most people can not get the actual video content they want from very many of the above sources and generally feel they are locked into one or two sources which gives them the appearance of a monopoly. 

However I do believe that for the average consumer of video there still is insufficient competition. The cable industry in general has very low customer satisfaction ratings which would normally indicate an industry that is failing financially however they are not which points to an industry that does not have to be concerned with its customers satisfaction, which I primarily believe is because of in adequate competition. 

Thanks,


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> However I do believe that for the average consumer of video there still is insufficient competition. The cable industry in general has very low customer satisfaction ratings which would normally indicate an industry that is failing financially however they are not which points to an industry that does not have to be concerned with its customers satisfaction, which I primarily believe is because of in adequate competition.
> 
> Thanks,


yes - both Sat and cable skate by on very little competition wile pointing to each other as signs it is not a monopoly. To an extent they do make each other improve. DVRs that actually work are a result of the two types being choices. Dish and Direct also compete with each other but seem ready to just merge if allowed to. Most consumers do not understand they can spend some bucks on OTA or the like and avoid the whole thng.

my own litmus test is can I buy a box of my choice for access and doing other forms of in home entertainmnet and use *that one box* with any of these media services? The answer of course is NO and till such time as that is the case all of these services will make consumers feel locked in and just put up with whatever service they get. That is no free market that is for sure.

also I will reiterate my distinct point that Dolfer can not take his TiVo DVRs and go to another cable service. He is stuck with one. If he goes DBS then he can kudge up his TiVos and sort of make them work, with of course a dual tuner model S2 loosing a tuner so that is not exactly his prefferred *option* and he is better off to deal with bad service instead or wait for FIOS or IPTV to become prevelant.

Not one of these companies are going to open up their access of course as they do not want customers being able to easily switch. Only regulation that is actually enforced instead of waived off will ever make that an eventuality


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

ZeoTivo:

I also find the "box" issue significant. There will be many unhappy people as the industry transitions from analog to digital and as they individually transition from SD to HD. My 2 TiVos record OTA 90% of the time - look what happens to me in the spring of 2009. Honestly I am saving to transition to HD in the Fall of 2008 so I won't feel to bad about having to buy new DVRs - its looking like a dish HD DVR and either a TiVo Series 3 or an HD Media PC. 

Thanks,


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

GoHokies! said:


> I can only buy a new Ford truck from a Ford dealer too - that doesn't mean that they have a monopoly on Ford trucks...


Correction. You can buy a new Ford truck from MANY different Ford dealer*s* who _compete_ for your business by offering the best mix of service and price. If you could only buy a Ford truck from *one* dealer then your analogy would be correct.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> I also find the "box" issue significant. There will be many unhappy people as the industry transitions from analog to digital and as they individually transition from SD to HD. My 2 TiVos record OTA 90% of the time - look what happens to me in the spring of 2009. Honestly I am saving to transition to HD in the Fall of 2008 so I won't feel to bad about having to buy new DVRs - its looking like a dish HD DVR and either a TiVo Series 3 or an HD Media PC.


Hopefully as the digital deadline approaches TiVo will enable S2 control of OTA STB's.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> ZeoTivo:
> 
> I also find the "box" issue significant. There will be many unhappy people as the industry transitions from analog to digital and as they individually transition from SD to HD. My 2 TiVos record OTA 90% of the time - look what happens to me in the spring of 2009. Honestly I am saving to transition to HD in the Fall of 2008 so I won't feel to bad about having to buy new DVRs - its looking like a dish HD DVR and either a TiVo Series 3 or an HD Media PC.
> 
> Thanks,


you raise a good point. I can see the "one box" changing as technologies change. SD to HD, analog to digital, etc.. but it still wouldbe optimal for competition if the various boxes had the ability to connect to the various media service providers and Dolfer could consider calling DIsh tomorrow but not have to worry about swapping out the DVRs and so forth and just get the sat dish itself installed.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so the reality is that Dolfer can pick another cable company ?


That isn't what I was referring to, and you know it. Let's try sticking with some measure of intellectual integrity okay?  The reality is that there is no monopoly. Again: What Dolfer can and cannot _personally _do affects that *NOT ONE BIT*.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Good suggestions on what to do about cable if you are dissatisfied.
> However Staellite is not a good option for many as the Sat braodcasters have a total lock on how you access adn use their service, including the DVR.


This is really the main point. Is the competition better or worse? Here you're clearly indicating one way that the competition in this (non-monopoly) market is worse. I'm sure if you go to a DBS forum, you can probably find some ways that they're better. I think, personally, for me, the cable company is better, but I acknowledge that some may find the DBS providers better. As Langree said:


Langree said:


> It's still a choice, you weigh the pros and cons of each and make an iformed choice based on the factors you find important.





ZeoTiVo said:


> This forum is of course full of people who prefer a third party DVR solution.


And that's really the quandary.... this forum is full of such folks, but the general public isn't, and the general public isn't willing to reward any service providers for serving such a solution.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dolfer said:


> Of course there is.


Again, your denial of reality doesn't affect reality. The market is subscription television -- if you don't believe that JUST ASK THE JUDGE. Your own preference to define the market more narrowly is without merit. You don't get to make up your own rules -- you're just not that important. None of us are. Get used to it.



dolfer said:


> What reason could you possibly have to not want competition?


What the *#[email protected] are you talking about? Who they heck are you talking to? I've said nothing at all that could even be misconstrued about not wanting competition. Are you simply replying without reading what I'm writing?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> I can only buy a new Ford truck from a Ford dealer too - that doesn't mean that they have a monopoly on Ford trucks...


Precisely, but even more specifically, I can only buy the TiVo operating system for my DVR from TiVo. TiVo does not have a monopoly, even though they're the only source for one specific implementation of a service. A monopoly only exists where there is only one source for ALL implementations of a service within a jurisdiction.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> my own litmus test is can I buy a box of my choice for access and doing other forms of in home entertainmnet and use *that one box* with any of these media services?


And as long as you use that as your own personal litmus test, that's fine. As soon as you start trying to apply your own personal litmus test to defend accusations against others, that's where your logic fails. We live in a society of laws, and the law defines the consensus of what we, as a people, believe. Within the confines of the law, each of us can define our own beliefs and values, and living in accordance with *any *of the belief systems that can be defined within the confines of the law are *equally *righteous. The fact that both cable companies and satellite companies prefer to offer their advanced services only if you pay them a lot more money is a valid and righteous perspective, anywhere inside the confines of the written law.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> That isn't what I was referring to, and you know it. Let's try sticking with some measure of intellectual integrity okay?  The reality is that there is no monopoly. Again: What Dolfer can and cannot _personally _do affects that *NOT ONE BIT*.


sorry but dolfer was in fact referring to his cable company and I clearly said a cable service monopoly. So in reality you changed the scope of the debate and then try and accuse someone else of lack of intelluctual integrity for changing the scope


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> The fact that both cable companies and satellite companies prefer to offer their advanced services only if you pay them a lot more money is a valid and righteous perspective, anywhere inside the confines of the written law.


 again you change the scope. How in the world does using my desired"one box" to use either cable or sat or IPTV or FIOS or whatever have an impact on what the service charges or some "more advanced box" they might offer, except for truly being competitive at last, that is


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

ZeoTiVo said:


> sorry but dolfer was in fact referring to his cable company and I clearly said a cable service monopoly. So in reality you changed the scope of the debate and then try and accuse someone else of lack of intelluctual integrity for changing the scope


Right on!


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

bicker said:


> Precisely, but even more specifically, I can only buy the TiVo operating system for my DVR from TiVo. TiVo does not have a monopoly, even though they're the only source for one specific implementation of a service. A monopoly only exists where there is only one source for ALL implementations of a service within a jurisdiction.


If you do a simple search you can find all kinds of groups and economists (who know much more than you and me) who do consider the situation a monopoly.

Here's one of many...



> Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, state that the primary reason that cable rates have skyrocketed in recent years is that cable companies are taking advantage of their monopoly power. The groups say that exorbitant cable rate hikes are largely due to the lack of direct competition that exists for the vast majority of cable companies nationwide.


 Read entire article.


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> I can only buy a new Ford truck from a Ford dealer too - that doesn't mean that they have a monopoly on Ford trucks...


It isn't the _brand _that is being monopolized, it's the _product_. If Ford was the only manufacturer of trucks, your analogy would be valid. Sure, there are other vehicles that can be used to haul cargo. But someone looking for the benefits that a truck offers would be forced to buy from the sole source...Ford.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Martin Tupper said:


> It isn't the _brand _that is being monopolized, it's the _product_. If Ford was the only manufacturer of trucks, your analogy would be valid. Sure, there are other vehicles that can be used to haul cargo. But someone looking for the benefits that a truck offers would be forced to buy from the sole source...Ford.


OK, OK, my analogy sucked, I get it.

The point I was trying to make was that complaining that I can only get one type of TV service (or particular brand of truck) doesn't mean that you can't get your subscription TV (or truck) from another source (used market, Chevy dealer, Dodge dealer, etc).

I understand that it wasn't perfect.

Dolfer, I wouldn't necessarily use consumer croups advocating change as an authorative definition of a monopoly. I'm sure a better one exists and someone will eventually post it.

The bottom line is that you're expecting perfection where perfection can't be achieved. Is it annoying that it happned at a bad time? Absolutely. Would TW have been better off issuing you a $5 credit for your troubles? Sure. Sometimes, that's just how the cookie crumbles. It certainly doesn't have anything to to with Tivo and should be discussed somewhere else.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

GoHokies! said:


> OK, OK, my analogy sucked, I get it.
> 
> The point I was trying to make was that complaining that I can only get one type of TV service (or particular brand of truck) doesn't mean that you can't get your subscription TV (or truck) from another source (used market, Chevy dealer, Dodge dealer, etc). .


 yes, but what if Toyota said sorry, we area closed system and you have to use our gas to run the truck. That is right, Toyota sales would dry up because I could go to Ford and get a truck that used regular gasoline from anywhere. Toyota would have to show some very large benefit to offset using only their gasoline. Now what if Toyota was the only truck company allowed to be used where I live.

However Satellite companies did not show any benefit, they got the waiver to be closed off simply because competition would hurt them. So we as consumers are left holding the *option* of having to rework how we run a DVR and which DVR we can use simply to change our tv subscription service. If I wnated to use the Comcast TiVo DVR then I would have to move as I have no option for Comcast where I live. 
Sure some of this is related to infrastructure costs and how cable technology works but the cable companies had better take notice of things like Amazon unbox to a TiVo and OTA and iTunes as they do indeed give me a different option and once they get to the right tipping point then many people will be wondering why they are paying cable and DBS providers money just so those companies can dictate what the consumer can use in their house.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> sorry but dolfer was in fact referring to his cable company and I clearly said a cable service monopoly. So in reality you changed the scope of the debate and then try and accuse someone else of lack of intelluctual integrity for changing the scope


The word "monopoly" implies something specific. You can choose to misuse words to make your assertions sound more important than they really are, but be prepared to be corrected each time.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dolfer said:


> If you do a simple search you can find all kinds of groups and economists (who know much more than you and me) who do consider the situation a monopoly.


And indeed they'd be wrong. This isn't something people can define for themselves. This is something that must be, and is, defined for a community. You don't like the definition -- we get that. Tough luck.


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

bicker said:


> This is something that must be, and is, defined for a community. You don't like the definition -- we get that. Tough luck.


 This is perhaps the only thing that you have said that I agree with... However, it's not "tough luck". Hopefully, people in Ohio will be smart enough to vote for those who support cable competition.

After posting this, and getting into this "monopoly" debate, I stumbled upon TV4US .

Here are some interesting facts...

"According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study, cable companies charge 15 to 41 percent less for the exact same programming in areas where they face competition. Ohio needs to join other states in supporting a competitive cable market."

"State legislatures in Indiana, Michigan and California have made TV competition the law. Wisconsin and Illinois are considering doing the same."

Trying to define monopoly no longer interests me. You are not changing my mind. And I am not changing yours. The point is moot.

What I do think is important is the idea of *cable competition*. And unless you work for a cable company, or own their stock, I don't see how that can be a bad thing.


----------



## Natron (Dec 14, 2002)

bicker said:


> The word "monopoly" implies something specific. You can choose to misuse words to make your assertions sound more important than they really are, but be prepared to be corrected each time.


http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 
2 : exclusive possession or control 
3 : a commodity controlled by one party 
4 : one that has a monopoly

Bicker,
The OP asserted that TW cable is a monopoly in Cincinnati. Since Cincinnati only has one cable company therefore definition #3 fits. You may disagree with this interpretation, but claiming misuse or denying reality is off base, wrong and hyperbolic.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Natron said:


> http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly
> 1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
> 2 : exclusive possession or control
> 3 : a commodity controlled by one party
> ...


and since the exclusive service is given by legal privilege it fits #1 as well, for cable service that is.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Well, if the commodity is "TV programming", then they don't have a monopoly. It's an oligopoly, which is a little better. Most people can get VoIP, high-speed internet access, and TV programming without having a connection to their local cable company. Like I do. People generally don't care HOW they get the services, as long as they get them in some way. 

But of course, your definition does fit as well for some people. Some people do not have access to the other competitive services, and so their local cable company has a monopoly on all of those services. 

Of course, if you were really that upset about it, you could always move. There is no TV programming or high-speed Internet access mononpoly where I live. There's even a house for sale down the road!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dolfer said:


> This is perhaps the only thing that you have said that I agree with... However, it's not "tough luck". Hopefully, people in Ohio will be smart enough to vote for those who support cable competition.


That's a completely different issue. What is worrisome is that folks like wewantchoiceohio.com don't make it clear what they mean by (in your words) "vote for those who support cable competition". The laws don't necessarily prohibit competition today. I do believe that some municipal administrators put up unnecessary roadblocks in the way of companies wishing to build a physical plant to support providing competitive services. That should stop. What would be unacceptable is the state imposing unfair rules on legacy providers. If that is what wewantchoiceohio.com tries, I hope that they get beaten down very soundly.



dolfer said:


> What I do think is important is the idea of *cable competition*. And unless you work for a cable company, or own their stock, I don't see how that can be a bad thing.


Fairness is *always *important, even when the folks being protected are folks other than one's self. A myopic consumer-only view is not a constructive view, no more than a myopic business-only view. That's why I advocate fairness to BOTH sides.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Natron said:


> The OP asserted that TW cable is a monopoly in Cincinnati. Since Cincinnati only has one cable company therefore definition #3 fits.


No it doesn't. That's the point. The commodity is subscription television, and it is NOT controlled by one party, not in Ohio nor anywhere else in the country.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> and since the exclusive service is given by legal privilege it fits #1 as well, for cable service that is.


Again, you're wrong. The service is subscription television, so again there is no exclusivity involved.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> Well, if the commodity is "TV programming", then they don't have a monopoly.


You understand. At least someone does. 



BobCamp1 said:


> People generally don't care HOW they get the services, as long as they get them in some way.


And more importantly, when discussing a legal concept like monopoly, the law explicitly doesn't care HOW the service is delivered.



BobCamp1 said:


> But of course, your definition does fit as well for some people. Some people do not have access to the other competitive services, and so their local cable company has a monopoly on all of those services.


No. Rather, those people simply don't have access to competitive services. That doesn't make the remaining supplier a monopoly.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Again, you're wrong. The service is subscription television, so again there is no exclusivity involved.


oh right, we are supposed to only be talking about subscription TV since mentioning that the cable service is of only one choice does not fit Bicker's reality


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

Another company can overbuild TW if they choose to. You just want TW to have to open their plant to competitors.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

No, because the courts have held that subscription television is the commodity, not cable television. When individuals disagree about something material, the courts resolve the dispute.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

I was curious about what happened with the cable in Cinci so I decided to read this thread. I totally did not expect a lecture on the use of the word monopoly. Time Warner does have a monopoly on cable service in Ohio. There are other options for video delivery, and that is why the court has decided that a monopoly doesn't exist in the legal sense. That doesn't change the fact that for cable television in Ohio, Time Warner has a monopoly. It's not illegal, but it is a monopoly. If you want the OP to look elsewhere other than cable and are trying to make sure that he knows there are other options then I applaud you. If you just want to defend the word monopoly and constantly redefine other people's ideas, I really do not know what to say to you.

Also while TV4US sounds good in theory. They would pretty well dismantle any public access television. Also, it is deceptive, pretending to be a grassroots movement while backed by At&T as well as other telecommunication companies.


----------



## Joey Bagadonuts (Mar 13, 2006)

realityboy said:


> I was curious about what happened with the cable in Cinci so I decided to read this thread. I totally did not expect a lecture on the use of the word monopoly. Time Warner does have a monopoly on cable service in Ohio. There are other options for video delivery, and that is why the court has decided that a monopoly doesn't exist in the legal sense. That doesn't change the fact that for cable television in Ohio, Time Warner has a monopoly. It's not illegal, but it is a monopoly. If you want the OP to look elsewhere other than cable and are trying to make sure that he knows there are other options then I applaud you. If you just want to defend the word monopoly and constantly redefine other people's ideas, I really do not know what to say to you.
> 
> Also while TV4US sounds good in theory. They would pretty well dismantle any public access television. Also, it is deceptive, pretending to be a grassroots movement while backed by At&T as well as other telecommunication companies.


Wow, finally a voice of reason. Thanks for the breath of fresh air, realityboy. "TW has a monopoly in Cinncinatti". "No they don't". "Yes they do". "No they don't". "Yes they do". Geeez. For a while there, I thought I was standing on the playground at an elementary school. What's next, "My dad can beat up your dad"?

Perhaps by *legal definition*, TW has no monopoly in Cincinnati. However, in the *real* world, which is where we spend the majority of our lives, Time Warner does indeed monopolize the cable service in Cincinnati. Simply put, the OP wants cable service and is unhappy with his current provider, Time Warner. However, because Time Warner is the only cable provider in the OP's area, in order to keep his cable service, he has no alternative to Time Warner. Hence, Time Warner has monopolized his options. Yes, Judge Judy will over rule my argument but, as I said, in the real world, that doesn't do anything for the OP and his lack of cable TV options, does it?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

realityboy said:


> There are other options for video delivery, and that is why the court has decided that a monopoly doesn't exist in the legal sense. That doesn't change the fact that for cable television in Ohio, Time Warner has a monopoly.


Holy crap. I cannot believe you typed that!

*Yes *it does "change the fact" -- it establishes the fact that Time Warner does not have a monopoly. You don't like your choices -- we get that. However you don't get to determine what is and is not a monopoly. That right is reserved to the government.

I'll try to say it clearer: Stop trying to make your concerns sound more important than they really are by abusing the language. Express sadness and disappointment, if you wish, but not outrage against legitimate companies offering legitimate services in a legitimate way. Outrage is not justified.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smark said:


> Another company can overbuild TW if they choose to. You just want TW to have to open their plant to competitors.


I am not sure if anopther can overbuild TW if they choose to. Many municipalities do limit competition specifically because they want to protect a cable companies investing in building out an infrastructure.(ETA from the cable company's perspective - the municipality also has its own agenda of course) There are the financial realities that would have to be dealt with in allowing more than one cable service to compete within a cable infrastructure. I just think the old approach of letting individual municipalities dictate terms does not allow for technological advances and of course as noted has been shown to result in higher rates and poorer service for consumers.
there is the movement to take it to a state level but I have not researched to know if that is working any better or not.


----------



## Joey Bagadonuts (Mar 13, 2006)

bicker said:


> I'll try to say it clearer: Stop trying to make your concerns sound more important than they really are by abusing the language. Express sadness and disappointment, if you wish, but not outrage against legitimate companies offering legitimate services in a legitimate way. Outrage is not justified.


Bicker, I have to disagree with your statement, "outrage is not justified". Perhaps in this case, for you the outrage wasn't justified but outrage is relative, or rather, what we choose to become outraged over is relative. Would I be outraged if I lost my cable service during the season finale' of ER? Nope. Would I have been outraged if I had lost my cable service when the final episode of West Wing was aired? Absolutely. Do I realize things sometimes don't go as planned and sometimes technology fails? Sure. But that wouldn't dampen my outrage over not being able to see an episode I had been anticipating for several months.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

bicker said:


> ...The laws don't necessarily prohibit competition today. I do believe that some municipal administrators put up unnecessary roadblocks in the way of companies wishing to build a physical plant to support providing competitive services. That should stop.


No kidding! Verizon FIOS isn't offering TV service yet in my area. It has absolutely nothing to do with Time Warner or federal laws.

When Time Warner was allowed to run its cable to houses, the town let them do it as long as Time Warner agreed to pay for the new town center building. Now that Verizon also wants to provide TV service, the town is trying to get Verizon to pay for another one of their projects. Verizon is refusing, so we don't have TV service.

Satellite bypasses this entire scheme. Which is why towns HATE satellite. They and HOAs started to ban satellite. The federal government had to step in to provide protection to satellite owners. Even then, some towns and HOAs are still kicking people out or making life difficult (even if you bring up the fact that they are wrong, they find something else to use).

If you want to blame somebody for the few choices in TV service, start with your LOCAL representatives, THEN work your way to your local cable company.


----------



## Natron (Dec 14, 2002)

bicker
1: to engage in a petulant or petty quarrel <bickering over money>
2 a: to move with a rapidly repeated noise <a bickering stream> b: quiver, flicker

I misread your handle as biker. Now I see why rational discussion is highly unlikely.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

I admitt I tend to agree with Bicker here. If a company tries to steal away the average customer of another company, then those companies are in competition and a monopoly does not exist. That is most certainly happening between the cable and satellite companies; therefore they're in the same marketing niche.

Artificially drawing lines like "cable company" leads to ridiculous conclusions, like Verizon FIOS and AT&T U-verse (sp?) are not in competition with Comcast because they aren't cable companies. It's the market niche that really matters: are they going after the same customers.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

natron said:


> bicker
> 1: to engage in a petulant or petty quarrel <bickering over money>...


To Thine Own Self Be True

Yet here, Laertes! Aboard, aboard for shame!
The wind sits in the shoulder of your sail,
And you are stay'd for.
There ... my blessing with thee!
And these few precepts in thy memory
Look thou character. Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportion'd thought his act.
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar.
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch'd, unfledgd comrade. Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel but, being in,
Bear't that th' opposed may beware of thee.
Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice;
Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgement.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man;
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are of a most select and generous chief in that.
Neither a borrower, nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell; my blessing season this in thee!

-- William Shakespeare


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CrispyCritter said:


> I admitt I tend to agree with Bicker here. If a company tries to steal away the average customer of another company, then those companies are in competition and a monopoly does not exist. That is most certainly happening between the cable and satellite companies; therefore they're in the same marketing niche.
> 
> Artificially drawing lines like "cable company" leads to ridiculous conclusions, like Verizon FIOS and AT&T U-verse (sp?) are not in competition with Comcast because they aren't cable companies. It's the market niche that really matters: are they going after the same customers.


the points made here though are that it is not simply a matter of just getting the new service turned on but having to switch out equipment inside the house such as DVRs etc.. It cuts down on the ease and thus willingness to move between cable and Sat. 
Also in areas that do not have choices other than one cable and also sat (since it is almost everywhere) the cable rates are not as good as in areas that have two cable companies and also sat companies. Be interesting to see what FIOS adds to that.

no one is saying Bicker is wrong about what the courts decree a monopoly or how he is using the word monopoly. Bicker also agrees that municipalities have too much leverage in media services that needs public right of ways.

So no one is completely wrong here which is why it just keeps going round and round. be nice to be able to change the record though.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the points made here though are that it is not simply a matter of just getting the new service turned on but having to switch out equipment inside the house such as DVRs etc.. It cuts down on the ease and thus willingness to move between cable and Sat.


I don't understand your point here. It is just as expensive to switch between two cable companies (where there is competition) as it is between a cable company and a satellite company. All the cable companies use proprietary DVRs, just as the satellite companies do. There are plenty of instances in the S3 forum of people changing cable companies because one cable company doesn't support the S3 as well as another. I see no important distinction between the cable companies and the satellite companies here. The cable companies are trying hard to lock you into their hardware as they switch over to digital.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CrispyCritter said:


> I don't understand your point here. It is just as expensive to switch between two cable companies (where there is competition) as it is between a cable company and a satellite company. All the cable companies use proprietary DVRs, just as the satellite companies do. There are plenty of instances in the S3 forum of people changing cable companies because one cable company doesn't support the S3 as well as another. I see no important distinction between the cable companies and the satellite companies here. The cable companies are trying hard to lock you into their hardware as they switch over to digital.


oh sorry, did not mean to imply it is one way. Cable companies as well want to keep it hard for someone to switch. No evil hoarded by one side , just regular business in a free market.

My point along this line has just been one of desiring the FCC to make open access apply to *all* services and allow for devices with something like a cable card that is the main thing you get from the service and thus TiVo could actually contemplate a box that would do HD for any service out there. Other devices could be made that are ready to hook up to anything. Then the customer can make a switch and all that changes is the access cards they need and maybe something connected to the *outside* of the house to get the service to the house.

Sure the consumer might opt instead to get a device direct from the service and that should also be a choice and then let the lockdown begin so long as it is a choice of the consumer and not something that happens becasue there is no choice.


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> I admitt I tend to agree with Bicker here. If a company tries to steal away the average customer of another company, then those companies are in competition and a monopoly does not exist. That is most certainly happening between the cable and satellite companies; therefore they're in the same marketing niche.
> 
> Artificially drawing lines like "cable company" leads to ridiculous conclusions, like Verizon FIOS and AT&T U-verse (sp?) are not in competition with Comcast because they aren't cable companies. It's the market niche that really matters: are they going after the same customers.


The thing is that many consumers do not have a clear view of the southern sky required for satellite, and geography/topography make it difficult to get programming OTA. If there is only one company in your community with a franchise agreement allowing them to connect a wire (be it coax, fiber, or whatever) to your house in order to provide television programming, then they have a monopoly. It isn't a monopoly on the programming, it's a monopoly on the delivery mechanism.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Martin Tupper said:


> The thing is that many consumers do not have a clear view of the southern sky required for satellite, and geography/topography make it difficult to get programming OTA. If there is only one company in your community with a franchise agreement allowing them to connect a wire (be it coax, fiber, or whatever) to your house in order to provide television programming, then they have a monopoly. It isn't a monopoly on the programming, it's a monopoly on the delivery mechanism.


Again, how is this any different from the situation you have with two cable companies competing in an area? If you live in an apartment building, you will NOT (in general) have a choice of the two companies - the building as a whole will go with one or the other company. There will always be people whose situation requires them to go with one company or another; that doesn't mean a monopoly exists.

And a monopoly on the delivery mechanism is nonsense. People don't buy delivery mechanisms, they buy products. Do you deny that cable and satellite are competing for customers for their products?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CrispyCritter said:


> And a monopoly on the delivery mechanism is nonsense.


 Not to someone who can only get one type of delivery and then only one choice on that delivery. Plus you still completely ignore the other side of this equation - the media subscription company is creating a wall to getting other services by making it DVR and so forth depenedant. It creates a type of non competiton while pointing to the fact that there are competitors so there is no need for any more regulation.

Right now I can get TWC or two sat companies. Sure that is competition and yes indeed the courts and the FCC say that therefor their is no monopoly, but the cable company knows how far it can go until they get people to the tipping point of getting a dish installed and adding wiring inside the house and switching out the DVRs and Set top boxes. And then you have reception problems or maybe had to limit how many TVs you actively use, etc.. but for sat customers the only way to get a similar media subscripotion is to pay the cable company for a digital tier and maybe signal strength is not enough etc.. plus whole new STBs and DVRs etc..

you simply can not ignore the delivery mechanism, especially when one or more of them is regualeted by local municipalities. The delivery mechansim factors very much into how easy it is to move from one media service to another and it is not easy and is a barrier to movement .


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

ZeoTiVo said:


> you simply can not ignore the delivery mechanism, especially when one or more of them is regualeted by local municipalities. The delivery mechansim factors very much into how easy it is to move from one media service to another and it is not easy and is a barrier to movement .


I agree it's a barrier to movement, but I don't see any reason why that makes it a monopoly. The cell phone companies have erected large barriers to movement with phones that can't be used for other companies. Would you therefore claim each and every cell phone company is a monopoly?

I agree that the more choices we have, the better. Therefore, we need to encourage more competition. Verizon had to sue my county before it was allowed to compete with Comcast; the status quo with local franchise authorities having complete power has its problems!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CrispyCritter said:


> I agree it's a barrier to movement, but I don't see any reason why that makes it a monopoly. The cell phone companies have erected large barriers to movement with phones that can't be used for other companies. Would you therefore claim each and every cell phone company is a monopoly?
> 
> I agree that the more choices we have, the better. Therefore, we need to encourage more competition. Verizon had to sue my county before it was allowed to compete with Comcast; the status quo with local franchise authorities having complete power has its problems!


well again the word monopoly - it was used at first by me to describe "cable service monopoly" but of course we have seen many different defintions emerge. I am not so much tied to the word monopoly as the idea of being truly competitive for my consumer dollars
how about anti-competitive practices then. That is the meaning I am using but sure others will not read it exactly the same way. So anyhow the cable company and sat companies have a lot of anti-competitive practices. Why? because they legally can and of course either use the practices or get run over. cell phone companies do the same thing. The govt stepped in and at least on phone numbers said that *all* the phone companies had to setup systems to allow the numbers to transfer. That way they all feel the pain and all still compete on the same field.

That same type of *all of them* approach needs to happen in the media subscription business so that consumers can choose who they subscribe to based on the services and not so much the delivery mechanism the subscriber has in the house already


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> Again, how is this any different from the situation you have with two cable companies competing in an area? If you live in an apartment building, you will NOT (in general) have a choice of the two companies - the building as a whole will go with one or the other company. There will always be people whose situation requires them to go with one company or another; that doesn't mean a monopoly exists.


Totally different.

If there are two cable companies competing for business, the owner of the building can choose which cable service to connect to his property. And his tenants can petition him to change providers.



CrispyCritter said:


> And a monopoly on the delivery mechanism is nonsense. People don't buy delivery mechanisms, they buy products. Do you deny that cable and satellite are competing for customers for their products?


They aren't competing for customers who don't have a clear view of the southern sky. Those folks cannot use satellite systems. There only option is a wired connection to their property. If their municipality only allows a single franchise to provide that wired connection, its a monopoly.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I am not sure if anopther can overbuild TW if they choose to. Many municipalities do limit competition specifically because they want to protect a cable companies investing in building out an infrastructure.(ETA from the cable company's perspective - the municipality also has its own agenda of course)


Here's where I'll join your brigade, Zeo. Fight against municipalities precluding competitors from overbuilding existing MSOs, and I'll be there right by your side. Every competitor willing to build a network in a town satisfying specific technical requirements should be allowed to do so. :up: That is if you _really_ want competition, instead of just petty retribution against cable companies who you feel animosity towards.



ZeoTiVo said:


> I just think the old approach of letting individual municipalities dictate terms does not allow for technological advances and of course as noted has been shown to result in higher rates and poorer service for consumers.


I'm fully in favor of states precluding municipalities in this regard.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Joey Bagadonuts said:


> Bicker, I have to disagree with your statement, "outrage is not justified". Perhaps in this case, for you the outrage wasn't justified but outrage is relative, or rather, what we choose to become outraged over is relative.


My point was the distinction between "upset" defined as what one person feels, which is something that is always self-justifiable, versus "outrage" implying righteous indignation at an entity that _has done something wrong_ -- since they haven't done anything wrong, outrage is inappropriate. Let's not get lost in the words -- the distinction I'm drawing is between whether the feelings should be inwardly focused versus outwardly focused.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> The federal government had to step in to provide protection to satellite owners.


And provide protection to satellite companies!



BobCamp1 said:


> If you want to blame somebody for the few choices in TV service, start with your LOCAL representatives, THEN work your way to your local cable company.


 :up:


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Natron said:


> bicker ...


Thanks for your -- uh -- "contribution" -- 

:down: :down: :down:


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> It cuts down on the ease and thus willingness to move between cable and Sat.


Blame that on satellite, then. They've totally closed their systems to customer-purchased CE. Why this focus on cable, when they're actually allowing it!?!?!? Your advocacy is totally misdirected.



ZeoTiVo said:


> no one is saying Bicker is wrong about what the courts decree a monopoly or how he is using the word monopoly. Bicker also agrees that municipalities have too much leverage in media services that needs public right of ways.


Just to be clear (and since it is good to take EVERY opportunity for us to agree with each other, whenever posssible) ITA. :up:


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> Do you deny that cable and satellite are competing for customers for their products?


And that's really what's important. Competition isn't about whether YOU personally have choice, but rather whether THEY (the suppliers) have someone else going after their customers.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> how about anti-competitive practices then.


Better, but still off-the-mark because all they're doing is offering what they believe will secure their revenue stream -- that's what they're supposed to do, so again you have a situation where THEY ARE DOING WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO and you're trying to make it SOUND like something WRONG, rather than just something you don't like.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> instead of just petty retribution against cable companies who you feel animosity towards.


will you stop showing your blind side of deciding things are an attack against cable companies. This is why readers wonder if you are a direct rep of the cable companies.

I do not want "retribution" against cable companies, petty or otherwise. If you misread that in my prior posts then you did not understand where I was coming from. I want open competition among all providers and see the paradox that it will take regulation to make that happen so that the providers are on a level playing field and the consumers do not have to make painful choices. my posts have always been about that, whether that was clear or not to the reader.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Better, but still off-the-mark because all they're doing is offering what they believe will secure their revenue stream -- that's what they're supposed to do, so again you have a situation where THEY ARE DOING WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO and you're trying to make it SOUND like something WRONG, rather than just something you don't like.


you missed the part  where I said
"So anyhow the cable company and sat companies have a lot of anti-competitive practices. Why? because they legally can and of course either use the practices or get run over."


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Martin Tupper said:


> Totally different.
> 
> If there are two cable companies competing for business, the owner of the building can choose which cable service to connect to his property. And his tenants can petition him to change providers.


Umm..., that's still a monopoly according to my definition. You personally still only have one choice for a TV service provider (assuming you can't get satellite). Here, my definiton of a monopoly is MORE strict than yours.

What if the tenants voted for a system that you hated? Or, given the current state of affairs, your landlord simply ignored the tenants and just chose the cable company that gave him the biggest kickback?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> Umm..., that's still a monopoly according to my definition. You personally still only have one choice for a TV service provider (assuming you can't get satellite). Here, my definiton of a monopoly is MORE strict than yours.
> 
> What if the tenants voted for a system that you hated? Or, given the current state of affairs, your landlord simply ignored the tenants and just chose the cable company that gave him the biggest kickback?


uummm.. this is a totally different aspect of the whole thing. It is kind of a side issue about what rights tennants have in an apt. complex.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> will you stop showing your blind side of deciding things are an attack against cable companies. ...my posts have always been about that, whether that was clear or not to the reader.





ZeoTiVo said:


> you missed the part  where I said "So anyhow the cable company and sat companies have a lot of anti-competitive practices. Why? because they legally can and of course either use the practices or get run over."


In both cases, the problem is that you're criticizing a company for doing what they're supposed to do, or labeling their legitimate and smart practices as "anti-" anything. It's like the pro-choicers calling the pro-lifers "anti-choice" or the pro-lifers calling the pro-choicers "anti-life".

If you don't like the law, the complain about the law. Say what you mean.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> What if the tenants voted for a system that you hated? Or, given the current state of affairs, your landlord simply ignored the tenants and just chose the cable company that gave him the biggest kickback?


Perfectly legal, legitimate, righteous, appropriate, etc. You have to be accountable for the ramifications of your own decision where to live, regardless of whether or not you feel you have substantial control over those ramifications or your choice. Too often people in our society look to lay blame instead of exhibiting mature responsibility.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> In both cases, the problem is that you're criticizing a company for doing what they're supposed to do, or labeling their legitimate and smart practices as "anti-" anything. It's like the pro-choicers calling the pro-lifers "anti-choice" or the pro-lifers calling the pro-choicers "anti-life".
> 
> If you don't like the law, the complain about the law. Say what you mean.


oh man, that us why I was saying monopoly at first - to take into account that the companies were just acting in their best interests. anyhow if you want to keep arguing over senatics and other such stuff tehn there will be no real debate of the actual problems. No biggie to me as you consistently come down on the side of tthe cable companies and clearly have your own agenda as well that you will not back off of.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

As far as I can see, you advocate for everything to be maniacally pro-viewer, and that's not realistic, nor fair.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> As far as I can see, you advocate for everything to be maniacally pro-viewer, and that's not realistic, nor fair.


Just doing what a viewer is supposed to be doing. Why is that not fair


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Just because a viewer is "supposed to be doing" it doesn't make it fair. Fairness grants both sides the deference to engage the system as they see fit, within the confines of the law. It respects any adversarial positions, grudgingly perhaps, rather than denigrates them.

And regardless of how unfair such a perspective is, it is also unrealistic.


----------



## Joey Bagadonuts (Mar 13, 2006)

bicker said:


> Just because a viewer is "supposed to be doing" it doesn't make it fair. Fairness grants both sides the deference to engage the system as they see fit, within the confines of the law. It respects any adversarial positions, grudgingly perhaps, rather than denigrates them.
> 
> And regardless of how unfair such a perspective is, it is also unrealistic.


What's so unfair about wanting an option when choosing cable service? Especially when it's apparently been proven that competition translates to lower prices for the cable customer.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Just because a viewer is "supposed to be doing" it doesn't make it fair. Fairness grants both sides the deference to engage the system as they see fit, within the confines of the law. It respects any adversarial positions, grudgingly perhaps, rather than denigrates them.
> 
> And regardless of how unfair such a perspective is, it is also unrealistic.


ok Got it
Cable company does anything - that is always fair and what they are supposed to be doing
anyone else complains about it - unfair and unrealistic


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Joey Bagadonuts said:


> What's so unfair about wanting an option when choosing cable service?


You can want all you want. No one is saying you cannot want.

Just in case you were confused about what I said earlier: What is unfair is imposing rules on companies requiring them to sub-optimize their profitability.



Joey Bagadonuts said:


> Especially when it's apparently been proven that competition translates to lower prices for the cable customer.


Well, we've had FIOS television service here in Burlington for a year, and RCN was here for a few years, and we haven't seen a big difference. The reality is that the cable company and two satellite providers provided each other enough competition to drive the kind of competitive offerings that a reasonable person can expect to come from this marketplace. You can "want" more, but that doesn't mean that it will be worth it for suppliers to provide more.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> ok Got it Cable company does anything - that is always fair and what they are supposed to be doing anyone else complains about it - unfair and unrealistic


What the heck are you talking about? You're comparing imposing unfair rules on cable companies to your right to complain. That's so vacuous of a comparison as to defy logic!

A logical comparison to imposing the kind of unfair rules on cable companies that we've been talking about would be forcing individual consumers to patronize only one of the competitive suppliers. THAT would be unfair to consumers.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> What is unfair is imposing rules on companies requiring them to sub-optimize their profitability.


Companies are required to follow rules like paying taxes just as everyone is, even though they sub-optimize profit. Folks complain when specific companies are exempted from following rules.

Such as the 1996 Telecom Act that stated that third party boxes would have equal access to video distribution networks.

Is it fair to expect equal treatment under the law for small and large business alike?

As a businessman, I had no problem with rules. If my competitor had the same rules, it was just a cost of doing business and didn't matter. It's like racing cars in particular classes. You can only use tires so large, the fuel can only have certain ingredients, etc etc. There is no game without the rules.

But we are being told that rules are bad if they sub-optimize the score.

So, this philisophical position is pretty vacuous, and cannot be used to support an argument for stating that monopolies such as Time Warner's Cable should be exempt from rules.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Companies are required to follow rules like paying taxes just as everyone is, even though they sub-optimize profit.


Yes, but such rules are applied fairly. They don't single-out companies that have invested a lot of money and tell them they have to pay the costs for others to play the game, for example. That's the point -- there is a difference between fair rules and unfair rules. The rules in place now are just barely fair. The rules some people in these forums advocate are grossly unfair.



Justin Thyme said:


> Folks complain when specific companies are exempted from following rules.


Yes. Indeed. I believe every rule applicable to cable companies should be applied to satellite companies as well, or the rule should not be applied at all.


----------



## Joey Bagadonuts (Mar 13, 2006)

AT&T is venturing into not just the pay TV venue, but the DVR venue as well. This could be good news for cable subscribers but bad news for TiVo customers.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...,77416.story?coll=la-headlines-business-enter


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> Yes, but such rules are applied fairly. They don't single-out companies that have invested a lot of money and tell them they have to pay the costs for others to play the game, for example. That's the point -- there is a difference between fair rules and unfair rules. The rules in place now are just barely fair.


Now you say rules are ok if they are applied fairly.

Before you said rules were unfair that sub-optimize profit.

Which is it?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I was talking about the rules *we've been talking about*.  Rules like forcing legacy suppliers to host competitors on their network. Unfair!

Since this topic has clearly gotten so confusing that even you cannot keep track of what we're talking about, why don't you actually spell out what you mean instead of talking in euphemisms? What changes would you make? Be explicit so you cannot try to hide behind feigned confusion later.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

You made a blanket statement about rules being unfair to corporations if they sub-optimize their profit. 

This would be the basis for a statement that you do not support any rules for Time Warner's monopoly in Cincinnati in specific because they are unfair to all companies in general.

It appears what you are trying to say now is that sub-optimization of corporate profit is only unfair in particular circumstances, though you have not stated how the Time Warner's monopoly in Cincinnati qualifies for this special case.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

You interpret a statement made in context out of context. Take responsibility for your own actions, Justin.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Yes, but such rules are applied fairly. They don't single-out companies that have invested a lot of money and tell them they have to pay the costs for others to play the game, for example. That's the point -- there is a difference between fair rules and unfair rules.


show any one place where anyone stated that a company had to pay the costs for others to play the game? The context of statements about cable competition is that there are financial realities o be taken into account. The idea is not that Zeo cable can just start sending signals on any cable plant it wants. the context is that Zeo cable can not be prevented from paying fair carriage to avoid any artificial roadblocks in infrastructure that another cable company or municipality might throw in the way simply because they were there first or the municipality tries in order to get better sweetheart deals over consumer interests.

Just another example of you changing the context around to suit your needs


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> You interpret a statement made in context out of context. Take responsibility for your own actions, Justin.


If it is an error then you are free to explain yourself. It was a simple statement. Is it fair or unfair to make rules that suboptimize a company's profit?

You have attempted to establish a philosophical basis for your stand. It appears to be inconsistent and really just a cover for an ad hoc defence of corporate thugs.

Perhaps it is because you have no philosophical basis for your stand. If you cannot be botherred to explain yourself, then no one will have the benefit of understanding how their assessment is incorrect.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> show any one place where anyone stated that a company had to pay the costs for others to play the game?


First answer my question about what you actually are suggesting, explicitly, without equivocation or innuendo or surreptitious evasion of concrete examples of what you're advocating. Until you do so, that is the only reasonable conclusion regarding what you're suggesting that I can draw.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Just another example of you changing the context around to suit your needs


Just another example of you using a personal attack to avoid responsibility for what you're writing.  Both you and Justin want everything your way. Tough.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Is it fair or unfair to make rules that suboptimize a company's profit?


It is unfair to make rules targeted to undercut a specific company's profit.



Justin Thyme said:


> You have attempted to establish a philosophical basis for your stand. It appears to be inconsistent and really just a cover for an ad hoc defence of corporate thugs. Perhaps it is because you have no philosophical basis for your stand. If you cannot be botherred to explain yourself, then no one will have the benefit of understanding how their assessment is incorrect.


Nice bit of self-serving rhetoric. If you cannot be bothered to read what I write in context, it isn't my job to teach you reading comprehension.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Just another example of you using a personal attack to avoid responsibility for what you're writing.  Both you and Justin want everything your way. Tough.


I have made repeated posts with suggestions but you choose to never reply directly but instead change the context around to suit your needs. It has become painfully obvious to all that you do not intend to have a legitimate debate but will spin your agenda any way you can, have fun with that


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

bicker said:


> Just another example of you using a personal attack to avoid responsibility for what you're writing.


What personal attacks?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> It is unfair to make rules targeted to undercut a specific company's profit.


Thank you for the clarification. This is different than what you said before.

I don't think that anyone specifically wants to punish Time Warner specifically.

Getting back to the subject of this thread, at first glance the complaint of the Original Post is like- ok S** happens- tough break, deal with it. But let's step back and look at it. Is being painted into a corner with video providers a fact of technology we just have to get used to? It isn't.

These vertical monopolies keep their monopolies by locking out competition. They:
1) bundle their content products to close their customers to competition. 
2) lock their customers into particular hardware than cannot access competitor services.

Regarding #2, The earlier Ford metaphor was incomplete. It is a little like Texaco forcing everyone to buy Texaco cars.

Regarding #1, with Tivo, we can access multiple providers. I can have both satellite and cable feeding my Dual tuner S2. With unbundling, Tivo could easily provide a feature to buy HBO from Time Warner when it is cheaper, or from DirecTv when the bandwidth on the High Def movies you care about are displayed at full High resolution data rates.

And of course during outages, Tivo could drop the channel from Cable and pick it up from satellite, thus solving the OP's problem.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

As far as there being rules which are unfair to corporations if they sub-optimize their profit, of course it's unfair! Just ask the stock holders if they want to make a lot of money or an insane amount of money.

Sometimes though, you just have to bite the bullet and play by the rules, no matter how unfair you think they are. At the end of the day, the company is still profitable and the stock holders are still making money. Unlike some other companies I know of....

See this link here for a bunch of stories on oligopolies (which is really what your local cable company is in):

http://www.oligopolywatch.com/stories/2004/04/07/television.html


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Sure. Competition is unfair when you are the entrenched business. 

FCC comissioner Kevin Martin favours mandating a la carte pricing. It's good for parents, and it's good for competition, so it should be easy for Congress to get bipartisan support on this. In addition, there should be no switching penalties or limits. Consumers should not have to pay a $25 channel disconnet/reconnect fee for such electronic changes and should be able to watch a month of a channel for the same price a consumer would pay for a year of such programming. 

To fascilitate electronic competition, Congress must mandate that MSOs provide a uniform internet protocol interface for switching programming so that computers like Tivos and Vista MCEs can dynamically choose between content providers based on customer preferences.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Martin Tupper said:


> What personal attacks?


You didn't think those were personal attacks?!?!?!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> FCC comissioner Kevin Martin favours mandating a la carte pricing.


The commissioner has a lot of personal ideas that he won't have success getting through.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Currently, cable or satellite companies lose very few customers when they have egregious service outages as in the case of this thread. The reason why is that companies such as Time Warner in Cincinatti intentionally make it very difficult for the customer to switch. 

Automated switching of a la carte stations would fix that. The original poster loses ESPN or whatever station it was. If there was a la carte pricing and the instantaneous ability for devices to switch his channel provider, then he would have no problem. It isn't fanciful. If he had Dish or DirecTv, his Vista MCE or Tivo could simply detect the service outage, then via the internet cancel ESPN from Time Warner, and start up ESPN from DirecTv. Simple. Naturally, any such measure will prohibit switching fees and will require prorating of the monthly fee so they only pay for the days they actually used the channel.

This is a la carte pricing on steroids because of the provision for automated switching, but regarding a la carte in particular, not much can really be said regarding the practicalities of implementing because it would go into legislation and this would necessarily go into the prohibitted discussion of politics. 

Perhaps I can outline in general terms why I differ on whether Martin could be sucessful with a la carte. Multiple points of view from opposites on the legislative spectrum support the move. For very different reasons, the holders of these views will come to concensus on a comprehensive federal prohibition of product tying in video services distribution.

One point of view is that there is a culture war in America, and the bundling forces content into people's homes that they don't want. Martin mostly is expressing this viewpoint. Personally I think he is a political hack and deserves to be thrown out, but he's got 2 years to try and do something useful while he still has the power to do it.

The benefits of the consumerist point of view I have already outlined. Dynamic choices from multiple providers based on quality or price force providers to compete on price and quality. It also allows small providers an equal chance of providing content. 

If you can find it in Swivel search, you can compete head to head with the big boys.


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

Just a quick update... Directv took out ads on Cincinnati radio slamming Time Warner for the aforementioned outage. 

I only caught a bit of it. But it was something like, What were you doing on Thursday night? If you were a Time Warner digital cable subscriber you were missing the season finales of Grey's Anatomy and CSI... 

I thought it was pretty funny (and opportunistic) of Directv. Well done.


----------



## riddick21 (Dec 12, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> oh right, we are supposed to only be talking about subscription TV since mentioning that the cable service is of only one choice does not fit Bicker's reality


There is a limit to how specific you can get when dealing with monopolies. As you get more specific every company has a monopoly on their product because every company makes different products to stand out from competitors. Its like saying "Apple has a monopoly on iPods." This is not a monopoly because an iPod is a product the category of the product is MP3 player and in this category there is plenty of competition. Cable is a method of delivery for TV service. Delivering "24", "Grey's Anatomy", "House", "Late Night with Conan", etc to your home is the product (service). There is more than one delivery method so cable does not have a monopoly. They do however have an oligopoly where there are only few competitors in the market.

Just because you cant use your TiVo with satellite does not mean that they are not competition to cable service. Because ultimately you have the choice to choose what provider gives to the features you desire. Being able to use your own DVR is a feature the cable company offers that satellite company does not. The way you define monopoly Verizon would have a monopoly on fiber optic TV. Sure if you choose to abuse the word monopoly *everything* can technically be considered a monopoly but legally you can't get this specific.

Oligopolies are very close to monopolies so you will see some of the effects of monopolies in a market where there is little competition like the subscription television market but you can't classify it as a Monopoly unless they have the power to keep other competition out. The existence of satellite (and soon verizon fios) shows that cable does not force competition out of the market.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

There are laws against vertical integration where a supplier has market power to set prices and discourage competition. 

As noted, the acceptable limits is a matter of degree. One classic case is International Salt vs. the U.S. The case concerned a salt dispensing machine that used salt tablets. Customers of the machine could not buy the patented machine- they were required to lease it. If they leased it, as part of their agreement, they were required to buy only salt tablets manufactured by the company.

Sound familiar?

Now vertical tying is everyone's favorite business model. Give away/ lease the machine, lock them in with service commitments, then soak them with service fees. The key is that the scheme aggressively blocks access to the device by competitors. Its what Apple did against RealNetworks with IPod- It's what cell phone companies do with cell phones.

Hey- what's wrong with that? Ok- Free country. Say Ford owned Standard Oil and built a car that required a patented formulation of fuel only available from Ford/Standard oil. You are free to buy a chevie and buy your oil at Mobile, so it is not a horizontal monopoly. 

Does that make it legal?


----------



## riddick21 (Dec 12, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> There are laws against vertical integration where a supplier has market power to set prices and discourage competition.
> 
> As noted, the acceptable limits is a matter of degree. One classic case is International Salt vs. the U.S. The case concerned a salt dispensing machine that used salt tablets. Customers of the machine could not buy the patented machine- they were required to lease it. If they leased it, as part of their agreement, they were required to buy only salt tablets manufactured by the company.
> 
> ...


Your example of cell phones, itunes, and cars/oil still leaves customer choice intact. They can choose to go with another provider. Does it suck that companies lock their systems up? yes. Is it illegal or immoral? No. Itunes and iPod is a locked system but both are Apple products and they have a right to do what they can to maximize their profits when it comes to their products. This only becomes a problem when they use their power and influence to dictate what other companies can do with their own products. There's nothing wrong with a company trying to squeeze every penny they can out of you as long as you still have a choice to not buy what ever their peddling. This is what gives them incentive to innovate.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

My example of salt supplier was a matter of free choice as well. No one was forcing consumers to lease the salt dispensing machine from International Salt.

Yet their vertical integration was ruled monopolistic, and illegal.

Sorry.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

riddick21 said:


> There's nothing wrong with a company trying to squeeze every penny they can out of you as long as you still have a choice to not buy what ever their peddling. This is what gives them incentive to innovate.


 :up:


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> There are laws against vertical integration where a supplier has market power to set prices and discourage competition.
> 
> As noted, the acceptable limits is a matter of degree. One classic case is International Salt vs. the U.S. The case concerned a salt dispensing machine that used salt tablets. Customers of the machine could not buy the patented machine- they were required to lease it. If they leased it, as part of their agreement, they were required to buy only salt tablets manufactured by the company.
> 
> ...


If all of these other examples you mention are illegal, then why do they exist? Were there any unique circumstances with the salt supplier that made them illegal? (It's an honest question).

Also, if disbanding the vertical integration would disrupt the technological advance (and it almost always does), should it be disbanded anyway? I think it varies, based on how bad the situation is in that particular market. Very few people are complaining about the standard DVR offering, so for now I think this market is OK as is.

Finally, your example of cell phone providers goes against your point. All the standards involved are open standards, yet when you go buy a phone with a particular provider you only have a few choices, and they have all been officially blessed and supported by the provider. So here's a market where all the standards are open (something you are striving for in the DVR market), and yet the very thing you want to avoid is still present.

Not to mention that the government didn't want the landline companies to own all of the wireless business. There were regulations in place (remember A side and B side, and the PCS auction) to prevent this, but look at the wireless market today. It's Sprint, AT&T, Verizon Wireless, and the lone exception of T-Mobile. Oops.

No matter how hard the government tries to prevent monopolies and oligopolies, there are many other factors that drive the markets towards them anyway.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

riddick21 said:


> There is a limit to how specific you can get when dealing with monopolies. As you get more specific every company has a monopoly on their product because every company makes different products to stand out from competitors. .


 I have understood that and even mentioned it in some post before this. And actually it is not the cable companies that are the problem here. I am sure they would be up for being able to compete in each other's backyard. The problem is in the franchising and how it has created oppurtunities for corruption.
The problem for consumers is having to live with franchising and its resultant limited choices. It is actaully elected officials that need to be scrutinized for creating these vertical monopolies.


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

No one cares that DirecTV did the ole flippity-floo on Time Warner??? I thought it was pretty funny considering the "attack ads" that TW have been airing for the past couple years... 

As for the debate over the definition of monopoly, I think it's a moot point. You can debate it to death and most people won't change their stance. 

Whether it's a monopoly or not, I don't really care. I just want more than one choice for cable tv service. I know there are plenty of cities that have that luxury and I want it too! Without having to move!


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> If all of these other examples you mention are illegal, then why do they exist?


Is your point that you are doubting that these practices could be ruled illegal in an anti-trust case, or are you concluding that because anti trust cases haven't been brought in the last 6 years that they are in fact legal?


BobCamp1 said:


> Were there any unique circumstances with the salt supplier that made them illegal? (It's an honest question).


As I understand it, it is the nature of every anti-trust case that they are judged on the particulars. There wasn't anything overtly unusual, and because of its implications for a wide number of situations, this is a prominent ruling in antitrust caselaw. You can read the WikiP article about it that also links to the ruling, but the skinny is as I said- Company builds a device, patents it, attempts to block customers from buying a competitor's razor blade that it compatible with their razor blade handle.



BobCamp1 said:


> Also, if disbanding the vertical integration would disrupt the technological advance (and it almost always does), should it be disbanded anyway?


It is generally recognized that vertically integrated markets stifle innovation, not promote it. Ma Bell was not incapable of building a radio phone like the Carterfone. But they didn't, and when an small business innovator did, the monopoly attempted to shut him out from connecting to their network. 


BobCamp1 said:


> Very few people are complaining about the standard DVR offering, so for now I think this market is OK as is.


If the sqeaky wheel is the proper metric for wise governance- that nothing should be done if only a few people are complaining- then Carterfone wouldn't have happenned, and there would have been none of the innovation in telecommunications that we have seen in the last 40 years. 


BobCamp1 said:


> Finally, your example of cell phone providers goes against your point. All the standards involved are open standards, yet when you go buy a phone with a particular provider you only have a few choices, and they have all been officially blessed and supported by the provider. So here's a market where all the standards are open (something you are striving for in the DVR market), and yet the very thing you want to avoid is still present.


You must have me confused with someone else. I advocate that the cableco and satco companies be brought into compliance with the 1996 Telecom law that they have been playing games with for the last decade. I could care less if it is an open standard. Third parties need to be allowed to attach their devices to these wireless and video distribution networks. Only then will you see real innovation. By the way, last March Skype appealed to the FCC to apply the Carterfone regulations to the wireless industry and allow their equipment to be used by their customers to attach to their networks.

You mean- You mean- Customers would really want a cell phone that could also place a call or do some texting, but be using the internet and not their cell provider's service? Jeez- I wonder why Verizon didn't come up with that innovation.

What a shock.


----------

