Re: Comcast merger FAQs

[Shawn Mamros <mamros@MIT.EDU>]

>I may have misunderstood, but it was my understanding that the Telecomm Bill
>effectively
>eliminated the right to, or grant of, exclusivity from future cable service
>contract
>negotiations.

That may be true, but on the flipside, it also doesn't require (or even
provide additional incentive to) cable companies other than the pre-existing
monopoly to build out in more sparsely-populated areas.

And it's not just cable TV, either.  Phone service (either land-line or
cellular), DSL, etc... basically for all communications services where
some level of build-out is required, you're either in a densely-populated
area where there is competition, or you're "out in the sticks" and stuck
with whatever monopolies or near-monopolies were in place before the
Telecom Act abolished them, because there isn't enough economic justification
(and even less so in tough economic times such as these) for the big guys
to build out that far.

How to fix that?  Economic conservatives would probably argue for tax
incentives for companies to build out in more rural areas (that is,
assuming they could be persuaded that it's an issue worth pursuing),
but the economic liberals would decry that as corporate welfare.
Not sure what the counter-proposal would be...

-Shawn Mamros
E-mail to: mamros@mit.edu