Re: Finally! The cable monopoly might fall (OT for a couple of newsgroups)
From: DCT Dictator (dctdictator_at_aol.com)
Date: 04/26/04
- Next message: PopRivet: "SpywareGuard Threat sites??"
- Previous message: Jacquie MacKinnon: "virus problem"
- Maybe in reply to: Big Mac: "Finally! The cable monopoly might fall (OT for a couple of newsgroups)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:28:55 -0700
Big Mac <no-email-in-usenet@zzz.org> wrote:
>DCT Dictator <dctdictator@aol.com> wrote:
>>Yep. Uh huh.
>>A court ruling that could have forced cable companies to offer
>>customers a choice of Internet service providers has been suspended
>>while regulators and cable companies appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
>>http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5189485.html?tag=nefd.top
>
>Of course the monopolistic cable companies were going to appeal. They
>might actually have had to bring their gouging prices down to a decent
>cost vs profit level. How much $$ did it cost them to get into the
>Internet business after already having cables and digital equipment in
>place? They don't want to give up the gravy boat!
>
Internet over the TV cable came first, and it was the only thing
'digital' on the coax. It cost big bucks to upgrade measly TV
delivery systems to the data driven structure there is today.
Once that was in place, what was needed was more services to sell to
recover that cost - Internet subs alone cannot pay the bills of
maintaining the system. Digital Cable, VOD, High Def, VOIP, they all
came after cable modems. Most all driven by competition - some
monopoly, huh?
-- moblog at http://dctdctator.textamerica.com/
- Next message: PopRivet: "SpywareGuard Threat sites??"
- Previous message: Jacquie MacKinnon: "virus problem"
- Maybe in reply to: Big Mac: "Finally! The cable monopoly might fall (OT for a couple of newsgroups)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
