Comments on: TV competition could save consumers big bucks

Study says Californians could save $1 billion annually on TV service when phone companies are allowed to compete.

[zizzybaloobah]

Well DUH!

'Nuff said.

[ordaj]

Isn't this what Enron said?

Sure, sure, there'll be big savings, balh, blah, blah. Look, they want in these markets so they can make huge profits, not to save consumers money. And the telecom companies are great at getting markets configured in their favor.

These companies are terrified of free markets.

[georgev]

Can We Trust The New AT&T

The history of the telephone industry is fraught with falsehoods, slamming, stonewalling and outright fraud. I am in favor of New Competition, but the management of the New
AT&T should be required to take lie tests.

But alas they only misstate when their moths are moving.

[maxwis]

AT&T Spending Gobs On Advertsing

In the few short months since AT&T has reconstituted itself, we are bombarded with more AT&T ads on TV, radio, Internet, and print from them than even McDonald's. How are they going to pay for these massive media blitzs? Why by raising rates of course.

What the esteemed Berkeley professor did not tell you is that in order to get these sub-cable TV rates you will have to subscribe to a boatload of other AT&T products: basic phone service (for DSL), DSL, and cellular to name a few. They are not content to sell you just one service, they want the whole enchilada. Of course, once you have succumbed to their pitch, just try unbundling. Sorry, but you signed a 3 year term commitment. If still want to unbundle, after paying all the penalty fees, then everything is going to break because it is all tied together with scotch tape.

[freemarket--2008]

And the cable companies are better?

I tried to get unbundled broadband from Comcast and was told there would be an additional monthly surcharge. It was $5 more than the cost of basic cable so I ended up with the cable/broadband bundle and have to pay $60 a month for broadband access.

There is no competition for either in this area, so Comcast can do as they please.

[Hynes]

Surprise!

I can appreciate the study, but I hardly think anyone with half a brain needs to conduct one to know that competition empowers consumers.

http://channelchanger.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/04/study_competiti.html

[Razzl]

History shows otherwise

The history and structure of the telecom industry would suggest that any savings will be short.

Firstly, you have a government in the hands of pro-business anti-government radicals who don't believe in limits on big business. They don't believe in using anti-trust laws to foster competition; notice how the reconstitution of ATT is actually a violation of the original court order that busted up the bell system back in the late '70's? Sooner or later phone and cable companies will attempt to merge, and, in the present climate, nobody will stop them.

Secondly, when you look at the technical side you see a limited number of wires hanging off those telephone poles: expect it to be a zero-sum game as phone/cable/internet providers charge the opposition for access to their hardware or have to pay for their own. If your phone bill goes up to get the cable bill to go down, you haven't gotten anywhere.

Thirdly, it's axiomatic that the companies will siphon savings to the shareholders before the customers. Customers will only see price reductions if the company is making windfall profits. True price reduction is a sign that the company is bankrupt and ready to fold...