In Message-ID: virtual monopoly in the city.... >
For most subscribers, the biggest driver of these rising > cable bills is the increased cost of programming - the > result, ironically, of competition with satellite > companies, Internet TV, movie rental providers, and > Verizon Corp.'s FiOS network, analysts said. As these > services bid for programming, sports, entertainment, and > local channels demand - and receive - higher fees from > cable companies, which ultimately get passed on to > consumers.
Surprise! Same point I've been trying to make for years:
- At the retail level, competition acts to *lower* prices because the customer -- the subscriber -- only needs one supplier.
- At the wholesale level, competition acts to *increase* prices because all retailers have to buy the same products from the same monopoly suppliers.
And a monopoly it is, created and protected by the federal government. As I noted in thread "Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes [telecom]" (Oct 26 2010, 12:00 am)
- A broadcast licensee has exclusive market protection > within its DMA. >
> - A broadcast licensee (or its parent company) is > permitted to bundle broadcast programming with non- > broadcast programming. >
> - Every MVPD must deal with the licensee serving the DMA > in which said MVPD distributes the licensee's signal. >
> - If a MVPD cannot reach a retransmission-consent > agreement with a given licensee, it is prohibited from > carrying same-network programming from any other > broadcast station.
In any other business, an arrangement like this would be called a monopoly. But in the upside-down world of broadcast television, it's called "consumer protection."
If Senator Kerry really wants to do something about cable prices, he should introduce a bill to repeal the grotesquely-misnamed "Cable Television Protection and Competition Act of 1992."
Our moderator commented:
Comcrap is the most arrogant, intractable, intransigent, > and incompetent telephone service provider in the world: > I know, because I had the misfortune of paying them for > telephone service years ago. >
> Having said that, I'll also say that cable TV viewers who > don't cancel overpriced or substandard television > offerings get little sympathy from me: it's an > entertainment service, not a food or fuel monopoly, so > nobody is forced to put up with prices they find > inconvenient.
If cable TV offerings are "substandard," what do you define as "standard"?
Just tell Mayor Menino that he's a pretentious blow-hard, > and organize a boycott of Comcast: they'll get the > message. Better yet, turn it off, get a library card, and > read a book.
If Menino wants to accomplish something, instead of blaming Comcast for ever-rising prices, he should join Comcast in its retransmission-consent battles with programmers. And he should certainly join the efforts of the senior senator from his state to address the issue.
Neal McLain