Adelphia Cable

[tampa8]

http://www.leesburg2day.com/current.cfm?catid=28&newsid=6967

I'm sure some of you already knew this was happening, it is new to me. I haven't had time to digest exactly the impact. If the only cable provider for a community is no longer considered a monopoly because of satellite, then didn't Charlie have somewhat of an arguement saying he would not be a monoply because of cable?

[Geronimo]

Well I think the argument was---at least partially---that there are areas with no cable. That means going from 2 to 1 DBS providers eliminated competition.


But this would seem to mean that there is ALWAYS competition and that, therefore cable regulation is kaput.

[Jacob S]

They do not consider c-band competition I suppose because it is not the small dish. When Cablevision and the company that goes to 105.5 comes in, then they will not be able to say that it will be a monopoly anymore.

[Nick]

The only reason Adelphia wanted to be free of rate regulation within their franchise is to be free to increase subscription rates without being restrained by franchise authority.

As far as their claim that there is effective competition from DBS, this is humorous, if not downright ironic in view of cable's argument in the E*/D* merger case that a combined DBS company would constitute a monopoly.

This local decision will become legal precedent and doesn't bode well for cable subs everwhere, and ultimately, for DBS subs.

[Brett]

Originally posted by Nick

As far as their claim that there is effective competition from DBS, this is humorous, if not downright ironic in view of cable's argument in the E*/D* merger case that a combined DBS company would constitute a monopoly.


An E*/D* merger would constitute a monopoly in the DBS and satellite market segment. Cable competes with satellite but that doesnt mean one satellite company should have a monopoly in the satellite market. Satellite company's services reach the entire country. Also, for most the reduction of 3 services down to 2, or in non cabled areas 2 to 1, is a reduction of competition.

[Brett]

Originally posted by Nick


This local decision will become legal precedent and doesn't bode well for cable subs everwhere, and ultimately, for DBS subs.

I think its only fair.

DirecTV chooses not to sell locals unless your purchase their $33 package. Why should Comcast[or given cable company] be forced to sell a small locals package (basically the basic package that is regulated by the franchise) when DirecTV can charge whatever they want? The cable companies should be able to charge what they want and package the way the want - the same way DirecTV and Echostar are able to. The local channels though should be in that basic service.

What should be more scrutinely looked at is cable internet rates.
Since satellite internet has little marketshare (and not fastly growing).