Ramon F Herrera wrote:
On Jun 12, 8:38 pm, TheLetterK <n...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [ Ramon F Herrera ] on Monday 11 June 2007 19:03 \__
· Hardware changes coming to new set-top cable boxes
· FCC chairman: We need an *open* cable box market
· Cable industry feels consumers won't benefit from the change
WASHINGTON (AP) -- It has been 11 years since Congress voted to break
the cable television industry's stranglehold on set-top boxes -- the
devices that consumers need to receive digital programming and change
channels.
So why are you still paying $5 or more a month for that thing on top
of your TV?
When Congress rewrote the nation's communications laws in 1996, it
envisioned a thriving retail market where subscribers could actually
buy their own boxes rather than make monthly payments to the cable
company in perpetuity.
Things haven't quite worked out that way. The retail market for the
boxes has failed to materialize, and the cable industry has filed
numerous appeals and continued to press a furious lobbying and public
relations campaign to make sure it never does, foes say.
Come July 1, the gloves come off. After two years of deadline
extensions, that's when the Federal Communications Commission will
require cable companies to make hardware changes in all new set-top
boxes that it hopes will lead to a competitive market.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/06/11/bye.cable.box.ap/index.html
http://tinyurl.com/23jwdd
Very true (the subject line). Here in the UK, the broadband indutry has
recently come under fire for relying on high exit barriers and making any
switch very hard. I can recall similar experiences and tactics being used by
ISPs when I was a child. Regulation is required to resolve this because the
customer -- not the vendor -- must always be in control. AOL is probably a
good example here, but it's more of an American classic.
The customer is always in control--for example, they could choose not to
buy the service from the beginning. Or drop the service once any
contracts they have entered into have been fulfilled. No one is putting
a gun to people's head and saying "you will buy cable!"
You are talking about *competitive* markets.
I'm talking about all markets.
When there is a
[quasi]monopoly situation, it is the duty of governments to intervene.
No, it isn't. The government should never involve itself in these sort
of things. The government can never know the most optimal condition for
the market to be in, and it will *never* react appropriately to changes
in the market--if it decides to get involved.
Despite the several attempts (in 1996 and 200) of congress,
competition in the cable TV market has failed to materialize.
Because there is almost no consumer demand for it. The only people who
care are the small portion of the population who give a damn about doing
things like recording shows on dual-tuner boxes and storing them on
their computer. Not many people even know they can do it, much less want
to actually do this.
If governments followed your rather anti-consumer approach, they would
allow Coca-Cola and Pepsi to merge. Hey! You can always drink water,
can't you?
If they failed to deliver a product that consumers wanted, at a price
consumers were willing to pay, then it would leave open room for another
company to step in and provide it. Even monopolies have to appease the
customer. Otherwise they leave themselves open to competition, and their
monopoly collapses.
|
|
