Re: Comcast merger FAQs

[Dave Faneuf <tklaundry@juno.com>]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 21:52:54 -0800 (PST) Dan Billings
<billingsdan@yahoo.com> writes:
> --- Roger Kirk <rogerkirk@ttlc.net> wrote:
> > I fault not your logic, but choice of words:
> > "could result in lower costs for consumers"
> 
> Please note that I used the word "could."  You and
> Dave are obviously correct that cable rates have only
> gone in one direction -- up.  However, I still
> question the logic of blaiming the price increases on
> changes in regulations that have allowed mega mergers
> of the cable companies. 

I know in my community when the initial cable company came into town it
was a small operation, Colony Cable,(IIRC Colony may have even bought out
the original contractor, Lowell Cable TV)  they had a few contracts in
surrounding towns
and different areas of the state.  When their contract was up the city
was able to 
get them to offer different services and rates because back then there
were still
competing cable companies around in area towns.  Then came the
mergers.....today.....well, we don't have to worry about that annoying
competition and decision making any longer now do we.....take it or leave
it, there's a negotiating strategy  for you...competition promotes better
service and prices,  if a municipality has no other cable provider to
turn to when contract renewal time comes around, that my friend is a
monopoly.  So the use of the word "could" just doesn't cut it in
justifying what has happened. The word "didn't" or "won't" is certainly
much more accurate.  Look, up in the sky, an asteroid COULD hit the Earth
at 2:30....
df