Slashdot Mirror
FCC To End Exclusive Cable For Apartments
spiffyman writes "The New York Times is reporting that on Wednesday the FCC will end exclusive contracts to provide cable service to apartment buildings. Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin is quoted as saying that cable prices have risen 'about 93 percent in the last 10 years' and that the FCC hopes to see more competition out of this move. This is a step in the right direction. In my apartment, for example, I have (dead) outlets for one cable company but am forced to go with the higher-priced firm. Moves like this will help those who live in areas where competition — even minimal competition — exists. The article also discusses the impact this may have on low- to middle-income families, who disproportionately live in apartment complexes."
Across the road is the company I've wanted. They have excellent packages at good prices, but the one for my block has poorer packages and a poor reputation for service. I'm hoping this means both can compete, along with AT&T, for my block of flats, which should give me better options and service. Though I still smell a fish. There's been competition between cable and satellite for years, but prices are still rather steep.
Cable is such a swindle I haven't give it much thought. The FCC screws up often enough, it's about time they did something right.
ISR TV watches you, &c. &c. &c.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But there are a few problems:
1: Areas where these limitations are in effect typically have low competition anyway, due to the stranglehold the dominant company has in the area.
2: Getting landlords and property managers to figure out how to work out the details between different cable/satellite/phone companies will be a comedy of errors at best.
3: Landlords/property managers will come up with (or be told by the existing contracted company) bull such as "You're not allowed to do that because they have to run more wires through the wall" or "You can't do that because you'd have to mount an ugly satellite dish on the exterior of the building" (even if not true).
It's a step in the right direction, though I think they should simply ban the bundling of these services to your rental agreement entirely. Having a choice is one thing, but getting the money back (because you're opting out of the bundled service) is another. How will you know that the $50 you get back on rent every month is accurate?
the next logical step would be the Internet providers...
That's another way of saying cable rate increases have been 100% higher than for other goods and services in the economy.
They didn't make it sound bad enough. Especially since the cost of telecommunications services has actually gone down over that period.
Just don't compare it to salaries, or the illusion of "bargain" will vanish very quickly.
Why anyone with low income would waste it on cable (not to mention the time wasted watching it) is beyond me.
The article also discusses the impact this may have on low- to middle-income families, who disproportionately live in apartment complexes."
Now I hate cable monopolies as much as the next guy (have Comcast because I practically live in a forest that prevents view of satellites). But come on - you don't *need* cable. If people are paying the cable bill over, say, rent, groceries, or health insurance, there's a clear imbalance of priorities here.
I think you missed the point completely.
Internet != basic need. Kids who are hungry, or cold in the winter without appropriate clothing, but who's parents pay for high speed internets rather than a coat are the issue. Not poor people having internet.
...a vast 500 channel waste-land. The best choice with Cable TV is to cancel it altogether.
Comcast and Time Warner might be patting each other on the back so that they don't step on each other's toes, but Verizon will fuck up the cable companies friendly agreement and provide cheaper cable through their fiber pipes. I've got no idea if *this* specifically is what the story intends to make happen... but never underestimate the ability for competition to regulate and improve the state of the art of content delivery.
Surely, if Verizon doesn't do it, then Google will. They are all competing for the same market, at this point.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
The FCC should look to end exclusive cable contracts for cities.
This is leftover from the early cable days. In the early days, this was required to get any provider to cover the expense of building a market. The risk was way too high of stringing an infrastructure expecting at least 50% market penetration and having a competitor aim at the same market and also requiring over 50% to break even on buildout, so they underpriced to gain market share, but now need 80% market penetration to break even. This left the first in the market bankrupt and unable to recover costs and pay the loan as they now have 10% of the market.
These exclusive contracts should have an expiration date. Some don't. Those that don't are very hard to get the company to release. Independant homeowners with the option of satelite is the wedge that is breaking up some of these exclusive markets. They have shouted contract violation by permitting residents to use satelite, but the satelite industry has fought back and won.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1023/p04s01-ussc.html
The cable industry is fighting back and convincing cities they are losing tax revenue, so please tax the competition to even back up the playing field. And the fight continues.
http://www.stopsatellitetax.com/
The truth shall set you free!
Yes, you wanted to (well, as much as anyone "wants" to pay anything, for anything, anyway). After all, they didn't call up your work and hold your check hostage unless you paid them $115/mo, nor were they withholding your food, water, air, or even your shelter, if you quit paying. The service was self-evidently worth at least that $115/mo. to you or you wouldn't have been paying it, TV or no TV.
/need/ TV, so it was and is a luxury... a luxury you were willing to spend at least $115/mo. on.
After all, TVs aren't like food, water and shelter, or even like phone service or a car with gas, insurance and maintenance. It's arguable people need those, tho plenty of folks do get by without the latter set anyway. I've yet to see anyone demonstrate they
Note that I haven't had TV in years, so it's certainly doable. Computers took up the time I used to spend watching TV. I "didn't want" to pay the $1100+ I just paid for the pair of dual-core Opteron 290 upgrades I have coming in this morning, either, but it turns out I wanted them more than the money, and more than other stuff I would have otherwise purchased with that money, after all! =8^) It would appear you likewise wanted the service more than that $115/mo, or anything else you could have done with that money, too, so yes, you wanted it, were willing to pay for it, and thru negligence if nothing else, put yourself in a situation where you WOULD be paying for it! All they did is see a mark more than willing to pay that price, and take advantage of that fact.
Duncan
Duncan
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master,
and if you use the program, he is your master."
R Stallman
Growing up as one of those low-income kids with cable, I agree that many families had different priorities than more affluent families. I always thought that this was one contributing factor that continued the cycle of poverty. However, I would not be too harsh on those families and paint everyone with the same brush.
Since many low-income families typically work more to support the family (especially in a single parent household), cable is seen as a necessity to babysit children while the parent(s) are at work. As mentioned previously, cable has entertainment value that is seen as necessary for an already stressed life.
Also, even in elementary school, kids are group-oriented and clothing choices are just one way to exclude others from a group. Perhaps the coatless child had a winter coat that was dirty and full of holes. Despite the cold weather, some kids would rather be cold than be laughed at. Also, the child may have removed the coat after he left his house. In the winter I had to wear an ugly used woolen cap on my head at the insistence of my grandma. But as soon as I was out of sight, I removed it because I didn't want to be laughed at. Social pressure and fear of embarrassment can be very powerful to young children.
Unfortunately, many families are unaware of the numerous organizations that will provide free clothing for children upon request. Another factor is that some low-income parents did not start off poor. Loss of job, high medical expenses, etc. can cause families to become poor. Some people are too proud to admit they need help. They don't realize that this pride impacts the welfare of their children, but people are not always rational and are sometimes blind to issues right in front of their face.
So don't be quick to judge disadvantaged families. A more helpful approach would be to have the schools work with local charity organizations to anonymously provide coats to children for free as needed. I'm sure there are other ways to be helpful without being condescending. Sometimes pride is the only thing a person has.
Sorry for my rant but I've encountered too many people (even friends) of the opinion that the poor (whether on or off welfare) were lazy, stupid and lacked drive. While this may be true for some, most families were decent hard-working individuals caught up in a bad situation and just trying to make ends meet. I always took the opportunity to inform others that the situation was not always so simple. Instead of criticizing those in need and learning to understand the motives behind people's actions, the needs of others can be tended to more effectively.