Slashdot Mirror
Power Companies Offering Cable (TV, Net) Service
MankyD writes "CNN is running an interesting story about a power company offering cheap cable and broadband internet to its customers. What's even better is that they aren't looking to make a profit, just break even on the venture. They estimate that they've saved their customers $32 million. Furthermore, it's available in a rural area where the telecomms don't offer service anyways."
That sounds like a good deal to me, actually, if you have some sort of broadband connection.
Also, in many markets, even if you only have one cable company (like in my area), you still have the option of going to DirecTV or another satellite TV provider. I decided to completely avoid my cable company, I get both TiVo and satellite for $45 a month. My DSL line costs me about $50 a month. I'm actually paying more than you, although I suspect I have more channels, more features (see below), etc. (No HBO, though.) I believe I can also get some sort of cable internet now, but I'm more likely to switch DSL providers to get a better deal there.
Anyway, my point is that there is some competition, even though there might be somewhat more competition in some places. "Gouging" seems like an excessive characterization considering what you are paying.
I should also note that I can record two channels at once and watch recorded material at the same time with "DirecTiVo" and I get local channels too, but that's fairly old news. I doubt I'd even be interested in a second cable company unless they could match those features.
Well, despite being marked as flamebait I'm going to bite and take your message as sarcasm instead.
The simple fact is that in some cases natural monopolies will occur. Electric service is the classic example of this. My dad worked for a local power company for years. Trust me, the idea is NOT for them to be a non-profit. They are allowed to make a modest profit-- and they DO! It's not Microsoft or Enron style profit, but it's a good clean simple profit that keeps the shareholders happy.
A utility is in the business of providing a service for a reasonable price. If they don't have a reaosonable price, people start voting politicians out. Politicians don't like that, so they make sure the rates are reasonable. And you know what.. it has worked JUST FINE for around a hundred years! At least, until the politicians started deciding to deregulate-- which combined with some other bad decisions allowed Enron to happen.
Think about our phone systems. Great, we now have all these baby bells that have remerged into 2 or 3 big ass companies. None of them are in the business of providing services for a modest profit, they are in the business of gouging their consumers (note: not customers) for as much money as they can! It was mentioned on Slashdot not even a month ago that with the advent of digital telphone switching and IP telephony it has become a LOT cheaper to operate a telecommunications company.
So why are we still paying high prices? Yes, they are lower than years past, but given the decrease in maintenance costs they should be about 10 times lower than they are now. Well, we're still being gouged because we are willing to pay it. We pay what the MARKET WILL BEAR. Telephone service is another natural monopoly. It's easier to just have one company handle it and to simply keep a leash around their neck. This is what AT&T was-- a GOVERNMENT GRANTED monopoly whose rates WERE determined by the government. The government COULD have chosen to simply regulate the shit out of AT&T. What exactly was so bad about them? They spent that money keeping people like Dennis Ritchie, Keith Thompson, and Brian Kerningham working! Working on things that (go figure) actually paved the way for IP telephony and other modern telephone systems as well as helped the entire computing community. Specifically BECAUSE AT&T didn't want to sell it because they had the telephone monopoly, they gave it away.
Shit, they were already on track to turning the telephone system into an entirely digital one. Why? Simple, because their rates were regulated and thus if they could provide the same service for less money then they'd make KILLER profits-- at least until the regulators caught up with them.
So someone please remind me why we're supposed to deregulate everything and allow the next Enron to happen? Why can't we simply learn from history. And just so you all know.. I consider myself to be a conservative. Not the religious zombie head-up-ass conservative that is so prevalent in politics these days. But hmm.. if we think about it.. isn't it actually the democrats that wanted the deregulation? AFAIK, Clinton was praised for his great energy policy which eventually led to Enron. And Reagan didn't make many friends keeping IBM together.. but look where we are today! IBM evolved into a company that makes a killing AND helps the computing community! Isn't that what business is SUPPOSED to be about?
-Dave