Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Thank goodness congress is completely on the Lobby Dole here...
Otherwise this might be seen as a Monopoly

"As Comcast continues its attempt to purchase Time Warner Cable, another deal announced today would see the cable industry shrink even further. Charter Communications, the fourth-largest cable provider in the US, has agreed to purchase competitor Bright House Networks for $10.4 billion in cash and stock. Bright House is the sixth-largest US provider, but Charter says the merged company would become the second biggest cable operator by customer volume if the deal successfully closes..."

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/31/83190 ... -announced" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

6th largest sort of implies more than one. You don't watch TV. Why do you care?

andy7171 wrote:6th largest sort of implies more than one. You don't watch TV. Why do you care?

I'm guessing he used the internet to post this thread.

andy7171 wrote:6th largest sort of implies more than one. You don't watch TV. Why do you care?

alright mister smarty pants...

We're in the middle of this whole "net neutrality thing" right...
Where American tax payers have funded the entire infrastructure that is now being sold off to ultimately ONE company that will be allowed to do whatever they want with their freely paid for infrastructure

NOT GOOD...

andy7171 wrote:6th largest sort of implies more than one. You don't watch TV. Why do you care?

He doesn't even have TV's living near him. TVasist.

Sh!t is broke, dude.

Cluck U wrote:

andy7171 wrote:6th largest sort of implies more than one. You don't watch TV. Why do you care?

He doesn't even have TV's living near him. TVasist.

I bet he can count on one hand how many TVs have been in his house.

Ibanez wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
He doesn't even have TV's living near him. TVasist.

I bet he can count on one hand how many TVs have been in his house.

Pretty sure he lives in a flat. And calls it that.

Chizzang wrote:

andy7171 wrote:6th largest sort of implies more than one. You don't watch TV. Why do you care?

alright mister smarty pants...

We're in the middle of this whole "net neutrality thing" right...
Where American tax payers have funded the entire infrastructure that is now being sold off to ultimately ONE company that will be allowed to do whatever they want with their freely paid for infrastructure

NOT GOOD...

You could argue that this is the natural result of the "net neutrality thing". If the carriers are going to be regulated increasingly by the government in terms of how they give access to their infrastructure, then naturally competion for having that infrastructure becomes less. Why have many carriers having many infrastructures when the market for that infrastructure becomes static and under greater, and at this point uncertain, regulation. A monopoly, or close to that, tends to be the type of market that does well when you create that kind of environment. I'm not saying it's a bad thing or a good thing, per se, but economically speaking the natural result of pushing for net neutrality was always going to be a consolidation of the industry that holds the infrastructure.

GannonFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote: alright mister smarty pants...

We're in the middle of this whole "net neutrality thing" right...
Where American tax payers have funded the entire infrastructure that is now being sold off to ultimately ONE company that will be allowed to do whatever they want with their freely paid for infrastructure

NOT GOOD...

You could argue that this is the natural result of the "net neutrality thing". If the carriers are going to be regulated increasingly by the government in terms of how they give access to their infrastructure, then naturally competion for having that infrastructure becomes less. Why have many carriers having many infrastructures when the market for that infrastructure becomes static and under greater, and at this point uncertain, regulation. A monopoly, or close to that, tends to be the type of market that does well when you create that kind of environment. I'm not saying it's a bad thing or a good thing, per se, but economically speaking the natural result of pushing for net neutrality was always going to be a consolidation of the industry that holds the infrastructure.

You would only post ^ this if you didn't know ANYTHING AT ALL
(literally nothing) about how we got to where we are today



Thank you... Read an article - come again

Chizzang wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
You could argue that this is the natural result of the "net neutrality thing". If the carriers are going to be regulated increasingly by the government in terms of how they give access to their infrastructure, then naturally competion for having that infrastructure becomes less. Why have many carriers having many infrastructures when the market for that infrastructure becomes static and under greater, and at this point uncertain, regulation. A monopoly, or close to that, tends to be the type of market that does well when you create that kind of environment. I'm not saying it's a bad thing or a good thing, per se, but economically speaking the natural result of pushing for net neutrality was always going to be a consolidation of the industry that holds the infrastructure.

You would only post ^ this if you didn't know ANYTHING AT ALL
(literally nothing) about how we got to where we are today



Thank you... Read an article - come again

So you think increasing regulation, or the threat of regulation, has the opposite effect and increases competition? What books are you reading? When the cost of business and the barriers to entry increase, then you always tend towards monopoly. I'm not sure why you disagree with that, or even what your point is. In an industry that was already pretty costly and already had some high barriers to entry, those have increased. Again, what is your point?

GannonFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

You would only post ^ this if you didn't know ANYTHING AT ALL
(literally nothing) about how we got to where we are today



Thank you... Read an article - come again

So you think increasing regulation, or the threat of regulation, has the opposite effect and increases competition? What books are you reading? When the cost of business and the barriers to entry increase, then you always tend towards monopoly. I'm not sure why you disagree with that, or even what your point is. In an industry that was already pretty costly and already had some high barriers to entry, those have increased. Again, what is your point?

I think you're inventing a fine argument
were the situation starting TODAY from scratch...

But you need to go back to 1995 to start the debate properly
What's happening today with the consolidation was set-up a long time ago

The factors involved are not just one piece of legislation viola" 2014 -ta da! everything is changed now

andy7171 wrote:

Ibanez wrote: I bet he can count on one hand how many TVs have been in his house.

Pretty sure he lives in a flat. And calls it that.

I wouldn't be shocked if he does.

Ibanez wrote:

andy7171 wrote: Pretty sure he lives in a flat. And calls it that.

I wouldn't be shocked if he does.

you kids are a lot of work - you know that

Chizzang wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
So you think increasing regulation, or the threat of regulation, has the opposite effect and increases competition? What books are you reading? When the cost of business and the barriers to entry increase, then you always tend towards monopoly. I'm not sure why you disagree with that, or even what your point is. In an industry that was already pretty costly and already had some high barriers to entry, those have increased. Again, what is your point?

I think you're inventing a fine argument
were the situation starting TODAY from scratch...

But you need to go back to 1985 to start the debate properly
What's happening today with the consolidation was set-up a long time ago

The factors involved are not just one piece of legislation viola" 2014 -ta da! everything is changed now

Of course the market was pretty consolidated before this, no one would argue otherwise. But you started a thread here seemingly lamenting the push towards a monopoly in the market, you brought up the "net neutrality thing" and I simply pointed out the natural economic outcome of increasing regulation and increasing barriers to entry. How do you think net neutrality would stop or even reverse consolidation in the industry? If the person holding the infrastructure is now going to be regulated and told how to let others use that infrastructure, doesn't that make that infrastructure more of a commodity and less likely for the person holding it to increase their margins? Your reversal now to go back to 1985 is a change of discussion in light of the push now for net neutrality. If we were going to let the carriers set the rules then yes, this further consolidation would be worrisome. But now that we've decided to limit what they can do consolidation is now actually encouraged by the market pressures.

Obamacare for the internets, and Obamacare is a good thing, right?

Don't see what the big deal is.

Chizzang wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
So you think increasing regulation, or the threat of regulation, has the opposite effect and increases competition? What books are you reading? When the cost of business and the barriers to entry increase, then you always tend towards monopoly. I'm not sure why you disagree with that, or even what your point is. In an industry that was already pretty costly and already had some high barriers to entry, those have increased. Again, what is your point?

I think you're inventing a fine argument
were the situation starting TODAY from scratch...

But you need to go back to 1995 to start the debate properly
What's happening today with the consolidation was set-up a long time ago

The factors involved are not just one piece of legislation viola" 2014 -ta da! everything is changed now

We've misplaced our copies of Al Gore's How the Interwebs was Created. Give us the Reader's Digest Version.

GannonFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
I think you're inventing a fine argument
were the situation starting TODAY from scratch...

But you need to go back to 1985 to start the debate properly
What's happening today with the consolidation was set-up a long time ago

The factors involved are not just one piece of legislation viola" 2014 -ta da! everything is changed now

Of course the market was pretty consolidated before this, no one would argue otherwise. But you started a thread here seemingly lamenting the push towards a monopoly in the market, you brought up the "net neutrality thing" and I simply pointed out the natural economic outcome of increasing regulation and increasing barriers to entry. How do you think net neutrality would stop or even reverse consolidation in the industry? If the person holding the infrastructure is now going to be regulated and told how to let others use that infrastructure, doesn't that make that infrastructure more of a commodity and less likely for the person holding it to increase their margins? Your reversal now to go back to 1985 is a change of discussion in light of the push now for net neutrality. If we were going to let the carriers set the rules then yes, this further consolidation would be worrisome. But now that we've decided to limit what they can do consolidation is now actually encouraged by the market pressures.

Fair ^ but still not quite right...

Okay while our Federal government was suing Microsoft in 1995 for monopoly practices
They were suing them because Microsoft had ZERO LOBBY presence in Washington and told the Federal Government to basically fuck off... (interesting to note)

All while this was going on...
The cable industry was lobbying hard for money to build out the USA total infrastructure
at that time there were some 50 plus major cable carriers

SO between 1995 and today the US tax payer spent $50 Billion dollars to buy the worlds greatest hybrid fiber network in Earth...
What the cable companies have delivered for their FREE NETWORK was the 26th ranked QOS network
and they still get about $2 Billion a year of free money to finish the job

3 years ago
The Cable carriers decided to charge more to companies that competed against them
because there was nobody regulating their FREE network



That's a good place to start the debate

You all are dumb. There can only be on highlander.

Chizzang wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Of course the market was pretty consolidated before this, no one would argue otherwise. But you started a thread here seemingly lamenting the push towards a monopoly in the market, you brought up the "net neutrality thing" and I simply pointed out the natural economic outcome of increasing regulation and increasing barriers to entry. How do you think net neutrality would stop or even reverse consolidation in the industry? If the person holding the infrastructure is now going to be regulated and told how to let others use that infrastructure, doesn't that make that infrastructure more of a commodity and less likely for the person holding it to increase their margins? Your reversal now to go back to 1985 is a change of discussion in light of the push now for net neutrality. If we were going to let the carriers set the rules then yes, this further consolidation would be worrisome. But now that we've decided to limit what they can do consolidation is now actually encouraged by the market pressures.

Fair ^ but still not quite right...

Okay while our Federal government was suing Microsoft in 1995 for monopoly practices
They were suing them because Microsoft had ZERO LOBBY presence in Washington and told the Federal Government to basically fuck off... (interesting to note)

All while this was going on...
The cable industry was lobbying hard for money to build out the USA total infrastructure
at that time there were some 50 plus major cable carriers

SO between 1995 and today the US tax payer spent $50 Billion dollars to buy the worlds greatest hybrid fiber network in Earth...
What the cable companies have delivered for their FREE NETWORK was the 26th ranked QOS network
and they still get about $2 Billion a year of free money to finish the job

3 years ago
The Cable carriers decided to charge more to companies that competed against them
because there was nobody regulating their FREE network



That's a good place to start the debate

Hey, as long as the CEOs get their bonuses and stock options, who really gives a shit about all of this? Free market, baby!

Chizzang wrote:

Ibanez wrote: I wouldn't be shocked if he does.

you kids are a lot of work - you know that

Chizzang wrote: Fair ^ but still not quite right...

Okay while our Federal government was suing Microsoft in 1995 for monopoly practices
They were suing them because Microsoft had ZERO LOBBY presence in Washington and told the Federal Government to basically fuck off... (interesting to note)

All while this was going on...
The cable industry was lobbying hard for money to build out the USA total infrastructure
at that time there were some 50 plus major cable carriers

SO between 1995 and today the US tax payer spent $50 Billion dollars to buy the worlds greatest hybrid fiber network in Earth...
What the cable companies have delivered for their FREE NETWORK was the 26th ranked QOS network
and they still get about $2 Billion a year of free money to finish the job

3 years ago
The Cable carriers decided to charge more to companies that competed against them
because there was nobody regulating their FREE network



That's a good place to start the debate

Are these international rankings? I'm going to take a guess and say the countries above us have considerably smaller land area and populations. How much more would we have to spend to have the best QoS compared with, say, Japan or Germany?

Pwns wrote:

Chizzang wrote: Fair ^ but still not quite right...

Okay while our Federal government was suing Microsoft in 1995 for monopoly practices
They were suing them because Microsoft had ZERO LOBBY presence in Washington and told the Federal Government to basically fuck off... (interesting to note)

All while this was going on...
The cable industry was lobbying hard for money to build out the USA total infrastructure
at that time there were some 50 plus major cable carriers

SO between 1995 and today the US tax payer spent $50 Billion dollars to buy the worlds greatest hybrid fiber network in Earth...
What the cable companies have delivered for their FREE NETWORK was the 26th ranked QOS network
and they still get about $2 Billion a year of free money to finish the job

3 years ago
The Cable carriers decided to charge more to companies that competed against them
because there was nobody regulating their FREE network



That's a good place to start the debate

Are these international rankings? I'm going to take a guess and say the countries above us have considerably smaller land area and populations. How much more would we have to spend to have the best QoS compared with, say, Japan or Germany?

Oh...
your question leads to even more exposed villainy by our esteemed (highly lobbied) Cable providers
much like "The Advanced Technology Program" that spends $80 million annually of un-audited funding that goes directly to Fortune 500 companies...
because why not (they have Lobby friends in high places)

Our Broadband investment dollar ($50 Billion apparently Ain't what it used to be) went partially in the form of bonuses to executives as profit and partially to the build out...

$1 Billion dollars a state with a rolling annual extra $2 Billion just for fun...
To run fiber along existing telephone lines and trenches

seems legit

How do you know how much of the money all went to executive bonuses, Chiz?

I found this article from a few years ago that said the telecoms laid 19 million miles of cable in a year. How many miles should they have added?