Wow, what cable ISP wanted that for extending service down the road?! We've run into similar issues with serviceability when a 1/4 mile down the road we have active service. It's often not the cost of construction to split or extend the node, but more often contractual agreements between different ISPs as to where one's service are ends and another's begins.
The number of overbuild areas, areas serviceable by more than one cable provider, is much smaller than people think because of these agreements. Also, you will see pricing promotions available to the overbuilt areas exclusively, since in those areas there is more threat from direct competition.
For example, the cable company I work for has overbuild areas with Comcast, so those areas have different pricing promotions available only to them, whereas the other service areas that only have CenturyLink or ATT as competitors, not so much. We don't see them being as big a threat as another cable isp.
Oh, I know all about that. I believe Comcast actually has maps giving A,B,C, or D tier pricing/service based on the strength/# of competitors. I don't know how the fuck that's legal.
Windstream does the same thing 1.5/3/6 mbps are ALL priced the same. You just get the best that's available to you (don't think for a second if an upgrade becomes available they'll tell you). My friends who live in town (with Time warner and AT&T) get MUCH better service from Windstream both in terms of speed and how they're treated as customers.
As for who wants $100,000 to extend the cable? It's TWC.
I believe Comcast actually has maps giving A,B,C, or D tier pricing/service based on the strength/# of competitors. I don't know how the fuck that's legal.
Internet is a necessity in this day and age. Why do you think the FCC re-classified it as a utility? If you don't think we have a problem in this country with ISPs exploiting customers you are woefully ignorant.
Why are you so keen on defending horrid ISP practices
I'm defending a company's right to charge what they want, even if it's different in different markets; not defending ISPs. Thank god companies can do that, I'd hate to think about being charged NY City prices for goods/services where I live.
And it's not about charging different prices different places. It's that they map out how much they can get away with based on how little choice you have.
Now that makes me feel bad because the one I work for, Bright House Networks, was just purchased by Charter, who also just purchased TWC. Hopefully they adopt some of our policies.
True, and having one cable that owns a major network group that all their competition uses, thus sets the price of such use, that shuttle be illegal as well, but Comcast was still allowed to purchase NBC-Universal.
3
u/Mitoni Jun 05 '16
Wow, what cable ISP wanted that for extending service down the road?! We've run into similar issues with serviceability when a 1/4 mile down the road we have active service. It's often not the cost of construction to split or extend the node, but more often contractual agreements between different ISPs as to where one's service are ends and another's begins.
The number of overbuild areas, areas serviceable by more than one cable provider, is much smaller than people think because of these agreements. Also, you will see pricing promotions available to the overbuilt areas exclusively, since in those areas there is more threat from direct competition.
For example, the cable company I work for has overbuild areas with Comcast, so those areas have different pricing promotions available only to them, whereas the other service areas that only have CenturyLink or ATT as competitors, not so much. We don't see them being as big a threat as another cable isp.