View Single Post
Old
09-27-2010, 05:56 PM
  #72
DubiDubiDoo
Registered User
 
DubiDubiDoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Garden City, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,927
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DubiDubiDoo
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugs View Post
"Local cable companies?" This isn't Mayberry Cable, this is Cablevision. One of the largest cable companies in the country.

Cablevision offers phone service, right? Would it be alright if Verizon charged unreasonably high fees for Cablevision customers to call anyone on Verizon's local and wireless phone networks? No. That's anti-competitive and the government wouldn't allow it.
Come on now, I know what your saying, but your skewing my words. The fact of the matter is Cablevision has a pool of possible customers that is only so big, they cant offer cable in all 50 states. Verizon and Direct TV and the likes can. No ones calling it Mayberry cable, but when Cablevision has 3.5 million subscribers and direct tv has 18+ million subscribers your talking about a big difference in revenue streams and market penetration.

Your phone example a totally diffrent animal though. Tax dollars bore a gigantic portion of the expense to wire this country for telephone service. Phone companies said okay to that so they wouldnt have to bear the expense, but they had to agree to play by the rules established for that right to use those lines. now years later phone service is taken for granted, but that industry was subsidized by the government for years.
Similar things went on in the television and cable sector, but the cable companies bore the investment. That is exactly why the terrestrial loophole was put in place. To protect these companies and their investment in local infrastructure. Read the details of the terrestrial loophole, and then explain to why when it was put in place it was to allow for fair competition, but now its not fair.

DubiDubiDoo is offline   Reply With Quote