🚀 go-pugleaf

grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:

>In article <Bu08EC.1AD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>(stuff deleted)...

>>In article <1992Sep3.040116.15218@news2.cis.umn.edu> grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:
>>>In article <BtyytA.DLs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>>
>>>Better yet, how about encouraging like minded subscribers to petition
>>>your local government to allow competition in the cable tv marketplace.
>>>Maybe then. you will actually see cable companies that must take
>>>customer preferences into account in their programming and rates.
>>
>>As I said, no real alternative. ESPECIALLY in the short term.
>>
>If you don't encourage competition in the short run, you'll never
>see competition in the long run.  You can't complain that you are
>feeling the effects of a lack of competition (high prices) if you
>don't allow competition in the first place.

On the local level, competition on a home by home basis has nothing
to do with getting the government to allow it.  It just isn't 
technically possible or economically feasible right now.

A cable company invests a lot of money to lay cable in a particular
area.  They make that investment because they know that approximately
60% of the area will buy their service.  Why should a second cable
company invest the same money, for only a portion of that market
when they can just get their own exlusive franchise?  Its only 
worth it, if at all, in highly populated areas.

It isn't that the local municipalities want to protect the cable
companies and not allow competition.  What they are not allowing is
the running of multiple sets of wires.  If all the cable services
could *share* a wire, like the long distance telephone companies
do, then that would be a different story.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services