Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cable TV Franchise Says No To DSL Ads

Posted by timothy on from the thanks-for-the-local-monopoly-fellas dept.

Sloppy writes "The Albuquerque Tribune reports that Comcast, who has cable TV franchise agreements with many city governments, refuses to run ads for competing internet service providers. I guess that's something that citizens need to remind their local governments to correct the next time the monopoly terms are negotiated .. fourteen years from now."

16 of 46 comments (clear)

  1. So what by Loosewire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I may get flamed for this but when was the last time you saw ads on linux.com advertising windows xp......

    --
    Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
    1. Re:So what by Blkdeath · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I may get flamed for this but when was the last time you saw ads on linux.com advertising windows xp......

      Try that analogy when linux.com is the homepage for 90% of the Internet users in a particular geographic area.

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    2. Re:So what by SeaEye420 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, maybe not WindowsXP specifically, but I went to verify that you were right after reading your post. Lo and behold an ad for "A free Java on Windows tutorial" courtesy of Oracle and Dell. :-P

      Also, I find it quite odd that they won't accept ads from DSL providers, but they accept money from DirecTV and Echostar?!?

      --
      Wort Wort Wort!
    3. Re:So what by FroMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just for kicks, you can check out Linux Journal for Microsoft ads. I don't know if their website has them, but the hard copy does.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
  2. They're within their rights... by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...who has cable TV franchise agreements with many city governments, refuses to run ads for competing internet service providers.... guess that's something that citizens need to remind their local governments to correct the next time the monopoly terms are negotiated .."

    Umm, that's not a monopoly action. They have the right to refuse service to anyone. Sorry but I'm not dusting off my pitchfork over this one.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:They're within their rights... by gehrehmee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure it is. They're manipulating a monoply in one field (cable TV) in an attempt to corner an independant field (broadband internet). Pretty straightforward monopoly abuse.

      --
      "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
    2. Re:They're within their rights... by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Sure it is. They're manipulating a monoply in one field (cable TV) in an attempt to corner an independant field (broadband internet). Pretty straightforward monopoly abuse. "

      No, they're refusing to let their service be used to aid their competition. I mean seriously, would you give a ride to a guy who's on his way to date your girlfriend?

      The only way this could be considered 'straightforward monopoly abuse' is if Comcast was the only way you could advertise in that area. It's not. You can advertise anywhere, cableTV is just one stop.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:They're within their rights... by gmhowell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The cable company has been given a monopoly on the use of the cable television infrastructure. In exchange for that monopoly, they have to behave to a higher standard.

      No, they're refusing to let their service be used to aid their competition

      Their competition in another market. This is precisely what MicroSoft was found guilty of (using a monopoly in one market to unduly influence another market). Nobody argued that this should be allowed. Hell, even MicroSoft didn't argue this (they argued that they didn't have the underlying monopoly).

      Comcast is not the only way you can advertise; it is likely the only way you can advertise on television. You can't exchange five newspaper ads and three radio spots for a 30 second TV ad; each of these hits different markets.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    4. Re:They're within their rights... by aronc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I mean seriously, would you give a ride to a guy who's on his way to date your girlfriend?

      If you're driving a city bus at the time, you damn well better. That's closer to the situation here. The cable companies are in control of a public trust thus have to abide by some stricter rules than some random schmoo yelling from him dorm room.

      --

      jello.
      aka aron.
  3. Yet, they fill every bit of free airtime by PotatoHead · · Score: 2

    with ads for their own add-on services.

    I have been buying DVDs and using an antenna recently for cost and value reasons. Spent a weekend house sitting for a friend. The number of self-serving Comcast ads is sickening.

    It is like listening to Clear Channel vs NPR.

    You are better off buying content on removable media you control, getting DSL and ignoring their self serving fat pipes...

    --
    Blogging because I can...
  4. Dish Networks? by snubber1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In my area, Comcast just bought out AT&T cable. AT&T was in the habit of refusing to run advertisements for dish systems on the cable channels (you'll still see those ads on the local broadcast channels). Why should they have to advertise their competitors? Adversiting is not a right, its a service. Don't like it? Start your own cable network (where I live in tacoma, they did, Click Network.)

    --
    I don't really mind double posts on //..
  5. Slashdot First? by dankow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How often do you see people on Slashdot complaining about a lack of advertising?

    --
    I am the hub of Jack's digital lifestyle.
  6. Rights, wrongs, monopolies. by fm6 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    They have the right to refuse service to anyone.
    That's incorrect. A cable system isn't a kind of publisher. They operate under a franchise from a public entity -- usually a city or county. And there are various federal rules governing what they carry. They must, for example, carry all local broadcast stations.

    Though I doubt if any of this results in rules that require them to sell ads to their competitors. And presumably dish companies can still get access by buying time from the channels themselves. God knows I see plenty of dish commercials.

    Still, the word "monopoly" is quite appropriate. Except that cable companies are actual monopolies, not potential ones. Few cable customers have a choice of providers, despite attempts to create a competitive market. If you consider how much Americans rely on their TV sets for information, you should be considered about anybody in a position to control that information.

  7. use the laws against them by zogger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    --make it a federal case, literally. Have a "minority" from the dsl service try to get the ad. If they refuse then, have the firm of dewey, cheatham and howe send them a letter. Most places will do anything to avoid getting a discrimination lawsuit. Don't emphasize the service you are trying to advertise,emphasize the person doing the asking if they refuse, then shop it to some law firms and local minority activism center. They love that stuff. Might even help if the local activism center was using this dsl service already-maybe, not sure on that one. It's a tightwire to walk though, going out of your way to FIND a lawsuit is quite risky. Weight the odds on it.

    Point two, screw 'em! Why would you want to beneift a monopoly company? If they sell ads, they "make money" off the ads. I say don't go there. Give your advertising money to talk radio instead,(especially independent, mom and pop stations, not clearchannel if possible, etc) the local alternative press newspaper, webcasters, make up a buhzillion flyers and hire some young folks to spread em out.

    Anyway, talk radio has a better cost/benefit ratio in most markets, especially target placement, study the shows, the hosts, the times. Obviously rush hour shows are usually the most expensive, but cover the widest range demographically..

  8. Comcast aren't the only ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Time Warner Cable does it too. I don't see any commercials for DSL, they also cut out the EarthLink commercials (can't tell whether those are advertising dialup or broadband) and replace them with RoadRunner commercials.

  9. Comcast does more than that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...they own the Philadelphia Flyers and 76ers, and steadfastly refuse to sell any broadcast rights to the satellite TV companies, no matter how much they offer. If you don't have Comcast cable, you ain't seeing any of those teams' home games.