🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Btv4vt.Kt5@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard) writes:
>1.  The existing cable companies had the advantage of being able to install
>    their plant under situations where they and their investors believed
>    that an exclusive right existed.

Because the investors believed they had exclusive rights we should continue to
give them exclusive rights?

>2.  Cablevision, Inc., has a lot of stock held by a couple of program
>    providers.  Would those providers be willing to offer their programs
>    to the competing cable system?

Why should the provider care? The competing cable system is another revenue
source. If you, Cable Movies Inc., have a contract with all the cable companies
in an area to provide your service, you still have as much market penetration
and have as many subscribers as before.

>5.  Costs go up for BOTH because the existing plant base of one company is
>    now supported by fewer subscribers.  The plant base is a constant.
>    Another way to look at it is that the whole subscriber base now has to
>    support TWO plant bases, TWO head end sites, TWO bureaucracies (and
>    Cablevision has a pretty sad one... their computers won't even let
>    their people calculate prorated bills based on cutoff days).

You should look at it this way. There are actually two entities here:
The owner of the cable plant, and the programming provider. Only the
cable plant could be considered a monopoly. Under the system I envision,
Cable Plant Inc. is a separate company, which is required by law to charge
all competing programming providers the same rates for usage of the
cable system, and to provide equal and timely service and upgrade of the
plant for all buyers. It is the programming providers that are competing on
price, # of channels, whether or not they scramble everything, etc.
-- 
				James Buster
			     bitbug@netcom.com