There are a few points that I hope slashdot posters will keep in mind (as I see that the cable company apologists are already out in force):
Cable has been built as a monopoly.
While today there is beginning to be some miniscule amount of competition between cable providers, the overwhelming majority of cable has been installed and run as a de jure monopoly (just as the telephony and electrical infrastructure was built).
The current cable plant will not support a large internet rollout without massive investment.
The classic architecture for a cable system (coax-based) is lousy for providing IP services. Basically, it's non-trivial to take something that was built for 100% push, all users getting the same content, and change that to a system that gives good upstream bandwitdth. Cable companies with older cable plants are basically screwed, and will need to spend $$$ to be able to offer broadband internet that scales beyond the first few early adopters. Companies that deploy their plant now have a huge advantage, because they can make their initial investment in hybrid fiber-coax (HFC), which does work better to provide both classic CATV and broadband internet.
Competitive infrastructure is not being built.
AFAIK, there are no serious plans by anybody to set up competing cables to the curb. Those lucky companies that are building cable plant with new HFC are those that are wiring up areas that are newly built or just never had a cable rollout yet.
Other opened monopolies are not duplicating the physical plant to create "competition".
In the two other major monopolies (telephony and electrical power) that have been opened to competition, there is no rollout of new distribution infrastructure. In the telco case, access at the central office has been mandated (leaving a single physical plant for the last mile). Also, the power companies are not planning on building competing grids, but will compete on delivering power over the existing grid. So, for telephony, the ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers) have to open up physical space and wiring in the CO, plus have interoperability for the number databases, and the incumbent power companies will need to figure out how to do something similar with shipping power around the grid.
As you can probably guess, my sympathy is not exactly with the cable companies. I have yet to see a good argument why they ought to get to keep a service monopoly on their plant while folks like the RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) and electric utilities don't. Just like Ma Bell and the public utilities, they managed to grow huge as a legally protected monopoly. Now, that "competition will make it all better!" has become the new fad, they would like to protect their little fiefdom. Of course they would.
"Big Business and State Socialism are very much alike, especially Big Business." -- G. K. Chesterton
Cable, monopoly, risk, and physical plant (Score:2)
An excellent and informative essay.
There are a few points that I hope slashdot posters will keep in mind (as I see that the cable company apologists are already out in force):
While today there is beginning to be some miniscule amount of competition between cable providers, the overwhelming majority of cable has been installed and run as a de jure monopoly (just as the telephony and electrical infrastructure was built).
The classic architecture for a cable system (coax-based) is lousy for providing IP services. Basically, it's non-trivial to take something that was built for 100% push, all users getting the same content, and change that to a system that gives good upstream bandwitdth. Cable companies with older cable plants are basically screwed, and will need to spend $$$ to be able to offer broadband internet that scales beyond the first few early adopters. Companies that deploy their plant now have a huge advantage, because they can make their initial investment in hybrid fiber-coax (HFC), which does work better to provide both classic CATV and broadband internet.
AFAIK, there are no serious plans by anybody to set up competing cables to the curb. Those lucky companies that are building cable plant with new HFC are those that are wiring up areas that are newly built or just never had a cable rollout yet.
In the two other major monopolies (telephony and electrical power) that have been opened to competition, there is no rollout of new distribution infrastructure. In the telco case, access at the central office has been mandated (leaving a single physical plant for the last mile). Also, the power companies are not planning on building competing grids, but will compete on delivering power over the existing grid. So, for telephony, the ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers) have to open up physical space and wiring in the CO, plus have interoperability for the number databases, and the incumbent power companies will need to figure out how to do something similar with shipping power around the grid.
As you can probably guess, my sympathy is not exactly with the cable companies. I have yet to see a good argument why they ought to get to keep a service monopoly on their plant while folks like the RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) and electric utilities don't. Just like Ma Bell and the public utilities, they managed to grow huge as a legally protected monopoly. Now, that "competition will make it all better!" has become the new fad, they would like to protect their little fiefdom. Of course they would.
"Big Business and State Socialism are very much alike, especially Big Business." -- G. K. Chesterton