said by NewMariner :

At&t didnt compete with Bellsouth. Thats why the merger went through. It didnt reduce the number of companies providing service. Comcast wants to buy out the competition. Thus, reducing the number of providers...

said by Davebo_ :

If they have money burning holes in their pockets to buy more telecom shit, why don't they take some of that coin and upgrade their network?

said by UofMiamiGrad :

Do any of the bells offer TV service to 30% of the US market? I doubt it, excluding bundled satellite service. FIOS TV only passed the 1 million mark recently. U-Verse TV is nowhere near that, only 231,000 subs. So why is Comcast crying foul over the Bells? Afraid of competition? How do they control more than 30% of the market solely as a pay TV provider, which is the issue? I hope Comcast loses in court. :D

said by openbox9 :

Did you miss yesterday's front page discussion about Comcast upgrading parts of their backbone to 100 Gbps?

said by BF69 :

Do they( the bells ) have 30% of the market or more? No. CAN they? Yes. which is the issue. So can DirectTv. They have 17 million subscribers and are adding at least 1 million a year.

said by UofMiamiGrad :

Do any of the bells offer TV service to 30% of the US market? I doubt it, excluding bundled satellite service. FIOS TV only passed the 1 million mark recently. U-Verse TV is nowhere near that, only 231,000 subs. So why is Comcast crying foul over the Bells? Afraid of competition? How do they control more than 30% of the market solely as a pay TV provider, which is the issue? I hope Comcast loses in court. :D

said by DMS1 :

such as mandating at least two cable-type carriers in cities with over 250,000 people.

said by UofMiamiGrad :

And when they pass that 30% mark, you can bet the FCC will tell them to sell assets (areas) to get below 30%. If they don't then and only then does Comcast and other MSOs have a case that the FCC rule is flawed. Until such time, Comcast can enjoy the new competition, since they seem to love it so much already.

said by odreian615 :

at&t in Canada?!

said by bogey780 :

The telcos and cablecos have a different regulatory history and evolution. So of course they're going to be different.

You can argue that we need to scrap current regulations and reinvent them... but I don't think you want to see VOIP getting treated the same as POTS. Unless you want higher bills.

said by BF69 :

How can DitrecTv sell areas? In fact how can at&t sell areas? Sell to who? verizon? No wait they'll have to sell too. Oh wait maybe to crappy TDS the only other telcom that servies my state and they don't offer TV hell they barely offer DSL. Try THINKING before posting.

said by bogey780 :

The telcos and cablecos have a different regulatory history and evolution. So of course they're going to be different.

You can argue that we need to scrap current regulations and reinvent them... but I don't think you want to see VOIP getting treated the same as POTS. Unless you want higher bills.

said by UofMiamiGrad :

The 30% rule doesn't apply to satellite, it's wireline. So what the hell does D* have to do with it?

AT&T/Verizon would have to sell their wireline assets to other wireline providers, if they ever offered TV services to 30% of US market. So Quest can't buy a AT&T/Verizon area?

Northpoint can't purchase more areas? Any wireline provider will have to offer TV if they are to survive in 10 years. How about you try thinking before posting.

Must suck to live in your area of TN, if you are broadband limited. Enjoy your limited options.

said by The Code of Federal Regulations :

§ 76.5 Definitions.

(a) Cable system or cable television system. A facility consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide cable service which includes video programming and which is provided to multiple subscribers within a community, but such term does not include:

(1) A facility that services only to retransmit the television signals of one or more television broadcast stations;

(2) A facility that serves subscribers without using any public right-of-way;

(3) A facility of a common carrier which is subject, in whole or in part, to the provisions of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, except that such facility shall be considered a cable system to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers, unless the extent of such use is solely to provide interactive on-demand services;

(4) An open video system that complies with Section 653 of the Communications Act; or

(5) Any facilities of any electric utility used solely for operating its electric utility systems.

Note to paragraph(a): The provisions of Subparts D and F of this part shall also apply to all facilities defined previously as cable systems on or before April 28, 1985, except those that serve subscribers without using any public right-of-way.

said by bogey780 :

No, they're still not treated the same. The FCC has nothing to do with state sales tax.

there are multiple choices. In Chicagoland alone Comcast has competition from WOW and RCN in various suburban and city areas. U-Verse is ramping up. Should Comcast be allowed to become so huge that they can control program origination? They're already in the shit for withholding their sports network from competitors.

As for satellite, what are their market shares? Do you even know?

said by anonomous :

this actually LIMIT competition? When a provider hits that 30%, they can't expand thus limiting options for other areas. For example IF Verizon hits the 30% mark,(IF the FCC makes the same rules apply to the bells... :uhh:... probably not now that I think about it...) in their current markets in the northeast, they can't expand and offer service to new areas, LIMITING competition in some areas. Also, once a provider hits that 30% mark, what is the point for them to improve service? There usually are just 3 choices for consumers to choose from, so those providers think "Hey! Their stuck with one of us no matter what, and can't expand our business any more. So why should we spend money to improve our service?". So once again, the FCC is just doing what is truly best for consumers!

said by bogey780 :

You didn't understand and still don't understand my argument.

And IPTV is radically different in it's nature to cable TV. What's your point?

said by anonomous :

Since when did Microsoft own ANY of Comcast :o? Plus, how would Comcast eliminate competition if they bought out other cable companies? Almost all areas serviceable by cable only have one cable company servicing the area. Plus, no matter where you are, there are two more companies offering service; Dish network and DirecTV. Some of the major metro areas like New York, Chicago & Detroit have either U-verse or FIOS. So the way I see it, even IF Comcast was stupid enough to buy the ENTIRE cable industry, there would still be competition.

said by bogey780 :

No, you've consistently shown you do not know what I am arguing in the way you address me or critique me.

'The only difference between IPTV and cable television (right now) is the transport mechanism'

Then the only difference between light and electricity is the transport mechanism. It's all energy, man!

So radically different that the end-user requires nothing more than a new gateway to compensate for the switch from circuit based telephony to packet based telephony. Yea, that's the "radically" different technology.

That's a whole lot more radical than having to install new tuners for each TV along with a whole new network topography and transport mechanism.

said by pepperxn :

I agree with the fcc on this one.

Comcast would start buying the rest of the cable companies if they could buy more. Comcast services most of the states, with around 10 million more customers than the 2nd largest cable company, Time Warner Cable. Plus, with cable, you really don't have a choice.

Could you imagine Comcast buying Time Warner Cable once it's spun off from Time Warner? Then they'll buy Cox, Charter, Cablevision, etc. They'll raise prices some more, poke more fun at the telcos.

Cable started this battle. They think they're "cool". They added VoIP to "steal" customers from telcos.

Comcast just doesn't want competition. I don't see how anyone could be on their side, you either work for them, or you have them as your cable provider. It's a monopoly that should be broken up. (note: Microsoft owns like 10% of Comcast)

said by bogey780 :

But if you're arguing IPTV is more like cable TV than VOIP is like POTS then I might as well just stop talking with you as you're just trying to bluff me on your experience.

said by pepperxn :

Comcast would buy more cable companies, and raise prices, and pretend that nothing happened. They would be servicing cable to the whole country!

said by anonomous :

Do they still own that stock? Both say 1997; that was 11 years ago. Plus, do they even have that big of an influence on the company? I mean the guide(as far as I know) on the STB isn't even from Microsoft.

said by smcallah :

Why would they need to buy more cable companies to raise prices? In most of the markets they serve, they are already the ONLY cable company. So what is the difference if they are the only cable company nationwide? They would still have competition from the same companies they compete with now.

If you follow your own logic, with them being the only cable company in markets they serve, then they could just raise prices to whatever and be done with it. But the reality of competition from Sat and telcos exists, and would still exist even if they bought every other cable company.

said by BF69 :

Then peole would switch to directTV or dish network. Perhaps uverse or FiOS if available.

Now that's just stupid. Also for someone who wants competiton why are you against competition with phone service? If the telcos are allowed to have total control prices would go up and up. I know lots of people that Verizon cell service and no landline phone at all. So I guess verizon "stole" at&t customers here too.

I would say that At&t, verizon, directTV would prefer not to have any competition either. Comcast is NOT a monopoly since they don't anywhere near 50% of the cable market.

You still haven't explained how Comcast even owning 100% of the cable market would mean higher prices? Do you have 2 or more cable companies in your area? I don't and never will and neither will 99% of America. Competition only exist where companies actually compete for customers. This doesn't happen in 99% of America with cable.

said by pepperxn :

This place is Comcast fan land.

said by Davebo_ :

Comcast et al vs Net Neutrality - You think that's a story that should be limited to potential Comcast subscribers only?

said by RadioDoc :

It's video over IP which is not sent until you 'order' it via the remote, which is the same as VoD. The only difference is that it picks up live program feeds instead of recorded feeds. It has more in common with SDV than traditional digital cable.

said by UofMiamiGrad :

Do any of the bells offer TV service to 30% of the US market? I doubt it, excluding bundled satellite service. FIOS TV only passed the 1 million mark recently. U-Verse TV is nowhere near that, only 231,000 subs. So why is Comcast crying foul over the Bells? Afraid of competition? How do they control more than 30% of the market solely as a pay TV provider, which is the issue? I hope Comcast loses in court. :D

said by bogey780 :

FiOS is functionally the same as any cable operator. Their network shares the same architecture in terms of distribution though not facilities.