If you're older than fifty years old you will remember that A T & T was forced to split because they were the sole provider of telephone service.
They were forced to share the use of the hardware, wire, poles and switching networks with other companies who were able to buy the right of usage at wholesale prices and market it back to the consumer. They had no investment in the infrastructure.
Why isn't Comcast forced to share?
It would actually be simpler with Present technology.
We're being robbed and the government is looking the other way.
Way to go FCC.
There is only one over-priced cable company available in my area (family-owned Service Electric Broadband)> They are not open after 5pm and until noon on Saturday, BUT that is not for technical support. You have to take off from work to speak to anyone, and even then sometimes they cannot answer your simple question. They have a take-it-or-leave-it attitude because they know consumers have no other options for cable here. We need Cablevision or Verizon or ANYONE to compete with this horrendous company!!
Cable Companies are monopolies, Local municipalities and their elected officials are enamored by campaign contributions and God knows what else from cable companies who have been blessed with the franchise. This is just another selling out of the tax payers by elected officials. And people want to know how Trump was elected. It's because the status quo sucks and is self serving and corrupt. Unfortunately, Trump may be the mildest of the electeds to come out of populism going forward. The system is a mess and people will do anything to get rid of it.
It's terrible, they get to treat you like crap. I literally read told by customer relations to go find another company! Wtf! They know they have the monopoly so they don't have to help you. If they had viable competition I would leave, but the truth is I can't.. And not all markets have viable competition. The telephone company here only has DSL. I don't watch TV, so I tried to downgrade my account to internet only. I researched the plans in my area online and the plan offered online was $30 cheaper than the online offer. They told me that was an online only offer and the only way to downgrade is to call a rep..
Sure there are multiple ways to get internet in some areas and there are multiple Cable providers. But these cable providers rarely cross territory making each section their own monopoly.
Now you may say well go dish based internet. A friend of mine tried this to get out of TWC. They were told by the dish internet company that since they had an option available through cable they were not allowed to have it. Also if you live in an apartment you may not be allowed to mount a dish anywhere.
As for DSL, unless the only thing you are doing is sending text only emails then this is just plain not viable. My parents are stuck with this and if you want to attach a picture to your email... Have fun, it will upload to the email for 5+ minutes and then cancel due to taking too long.
The definition of Monopoly is "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service." So technically they aren't due to multiple within the industry. But that industry covers vast areas with many differences within these areas.
So on a more local level they are most definitely a monopoly due to lack of options within your locality.
This day of age, almost everyone needs to connect to the internet. Whether it's for school, work, or personal use, it is basically a necessity. Cable companies aka ISPS (Internet Service Providers) rack up extremely high prices for their services, especially if you live in a small community. If you want cheaper internet, you are forced into buying other services from them. Something needs to be done about this corrupt business.
In some areas, yes, they definitely are. I know because I moved from an area where they weren't to one where it most certainly is. It's also too far to pick up broadcast stations on tv, the only satellite internet available is really slow and spends more time down than not, and the only DSL is from a tiny local company offering super-slow speeds as their best package and who, when told no one answered their 800 number which was plastered all over their website, responded with "we have an 800 number? What is it?"
So. Since I need working internet (I'm a web designer), and would prefer to be able to watch the local news, I'm now paying twice as much as I used to, for slower internet, and more still for a handful of "broadcast" tv stations that have been cropped. I was told that if I wanted to see the whole picture, I had to upgrade. When I pointed out that even antenna provided the whole picture (if only I wasn't in a valley!) I was told antennas were outlawed years ago. I sincerely hope that was just a product of hiring idiots to answer the phone rather than a company line, because otherwise, they're not only the only game in town, they're liars as well.
I just received notice that my cable for TV & Internet is going up from $129.95 to $160.52 per month. Charter internet is frequently interrupted and there's rarely anything good on free tv. What used to be commercial free is now mostly commercials. I'm ready to pull the plug and pick up a book.
DSL or satellite do not compare to the speed of cable so they are not true competition. If they allowed more cable companies to share the poles, people would not notice that much more wire. That was the excuse the city gave when they originally limited it to one company. Parts of Europe do it. The profit potential is so big, companies would gladly risk the investment, improve service and reduce cost. It does not change because the city council is unsophisticated, corrupt or both.
The reason is in not true is because it is a comparison of apples to oranges. Although you can get somewhat comparable television service from satellite television providers, you CANNOT get comparable internet service from either satellite providers OR the phone companies. The DSL service offered by cable's so-called competitors by it's very nature about one-sixth OR less the speed of internet cable. In my area there is only one cable provider, with NO direct cable competition. Lastly my personal rub is that I live in an apartment complex that does not allow any type of satellite fixtures to be installed, leaving my cable provider wIth what in effect becomes an absolute television monopoly, and my only other choice for internet service is the sub-standard speed of telephone DSL. In closing, I'm trapped into accepting the ever-increasing charges of a mini-monopoly cable provider. WHERE THE HELL IS THE DIRECT COMPETITION THAT A SO-CALLED FREE MARKET ECONOMY SHOULD BE PROVIDING ?
There is no monopoly service that cable companies can be accused of. If you just want cheaper or more video, there are at least two other options in satellite TV companies. If you want different Internet, your local phone company should be able to help you out. You don't have to do business with the cable company if you don't want, therefore, it is not a monopoly.
The fact that you mentioned multiple cable companies alone answers this question (a monopoly constitutes ONE provider). However, some cable/ phone companies have monopolies over certain areas. I remember that I was forced to buy from one provider when I lived in my last apartment. Apparently they had a contract with the university that I lived close to.
In todays environment, everything is moving towards IP and people have a slew of choices now that they didn't enjoy before. Phone, Cable and Dish give more than one service these days and they overlap....You don't like getting video from your cable company, call up Dish....You don't like getting internet from your cable company, call the phone company. This notion of one pipe shared by multiple cable operators would be great until you consider that only one of them actually paid for the construction of that pipe and is responsible for it's maintenance. Other cable companies don't come in to put their own cable because then neither one would make money to see a return on their investment. How many businesses do you know that take 15 to 20 years to recoup costs per subscriber have to put up with this sort of grief?