Re: Comcast merger FAQs

[Dave Faneuf <tklaundry@juno.com>]

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:01:09 -0500 (EST) Garrett Wollman
<wollman@lcs.mit.edu> writes:
> <<On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:06:54 -0500, Dave Faneuf 
> <tklaundry@juno.com> said:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> It's a monopoly either way, if the city is giving exclusive rights 
> to
> one cable company.  One of the big selling points (at least among 
> the
> D.C. think-tank crowd) to the Telecom Act was that it broke down the
> barriers preventing multiple cable companies from serving the same
> community.  It is as a result of the Telecom Act that I have a 
> choice
> of two cable companies and three local telephone companies at my 
> home
> in Framingham.
> -GAWollman

I would probably say Framingham is the exception, not the rule.   While
it becomes a monopoly when a municipality grants exclusive rights to a
single company if a municpality can negotiate with more than one company
for those exclusive rights then the monopoly is eased somewhat and better
deals can be struck.  In my community there is no alternative, it's
ATT/Comcast period.    Prior to the mergers there were a number of
different companies in the area that were involved in talks, they are now
all under the ATT banner.
df