Bay 12 Games Forum

Finally... => Life Advice => Topic started by: JoshuaFH on February 19, 2009, 10:16:49 pm

Title: To charter or not to charter? That... is the question!
Post by: JoshuaFH on February 19, 2009, 10:16:49 pm
My mom has been "playing chicken" with the Charter Company which provides us with cable television and internet, and by this I mean she is angry that the monthly cost of these services has been steadily rising and has requested to have there services removed hoping that they will "back down" and lower the price again.

She's thinking of changing internet and cable services altogether also.

I need some imput on this situation.
Title: Re: To charter or not to charter? That... is the question!
Post by: Aqizzar on February 19, 2009, 10:46:09 pm
Pfft.  Good luck on that front.  Where do you live?  Most regions of the country have two or three providers at most, and they'll be within about 10% of each other's prices.  Here in Texas, Charter is the only cable provider, so they can charge whatever they want.  I'm sure they'll tell one customer complaining about the price to pay up or pound sand if they don't like it.
Title: Re: To charter or not to charter? That... is the question!
Post by: Gunner-Chan on February 20, 2009, 12:37:17 am
Man, charter sucks. I remember when some guys installing cable at a neighbors house pretty much ran over their fence.
Title: Re: To charter or not to charter? That... is the question!
Post by: JoshuaFH on February 20, 2009, 12:38:48 am
How do you blame that on the Charter company?
Title: Re: To charter or not to charter? That... is the question!
Post by: Neonivek on February 20, 2009, 12:43:57 am
This is why the Canadian Government quite litterally makes it illegal to have a monopoly. (and probably the USA as well)

However... we do get these situations where we do get a "Virtual Monolopoly" (made up term) where a company doesn't have a monopoly but knows they can act basically as if they did have one.

Microsoft has done this quite a few times...

Mind you (hmmm what do I put here? a . or ,) that companies that act as if they have a monopoly that don't have this "Virtual Monopoly" usually have a backlash. For example EA.
Title: Re: To charter or not to charter? That... is the question!
Post by: JoshuaFH on February 20, 2009, 12:52:37 am
Yes, it is illegal in America to have a Monopoly, we can thank Ol' Teddy Roosevelt for that one IIRC.

The government is allowed to maintain state-owned monopolies though, like the water and electricity companies are govenment owned and no one is allowed to compete against them.

However, some companies use tricks with copyright laws to pretend that they have monopolies on things.
Title: Re: To charter or not to charter? That... is the question!
Post by: Neonivek on February 20, 2009, 12:55:24 am
Quote from: chaoticjosh on February 20, 2009, 12:52:37 am
Yes, it is illegal in America to have a Monopoly, we can thank Ol' Teddy Roosevelt for that one IIRC.

The government is allowed to maintain state-owned monopolies though, like the water and electricity companies are govenment owned and no one is allowed to compete against them.

However, some companies use tricks with copyright laws to pretend that they have monopolies on things.

Like Football? For example if you want a successful Football game you HAVE to be about the NFL... which only EA via Madden has?

Many games have tried and failed... I think the game that will probably get close to being successful without signing on the NFL could very well be Blood bowl... but it is targeting a specific audiance and will probably never be all that popular.
Title: Re: To charter or not to charter? That... is the question!
Post by: Gunner-Chan on February 20, 2009, 01:15:10 am
Quote from: chaoticjosh on February 20, 2009, 12:38:48 am
How do you blame that on the Charter company?

Well because they were installing charter cable I guess.
Title: Re: To charter or not to charter? That... is the question!
Post by: Yanlin on February 20, 2009, 11:32:51 am
It's illegal to have a monopoly. It's not illegal to have a monopoly if nobody is challenging it. If they are literally the only ISP around... They have a legal monopoly.
Title: Re: To charter or not to charter? That... is the question!
Post by: mainiac on February 20, 2009, 12:02:57 pm
Monopolies have always been a tricky mater when they deal with utilities because it's usually just a waste of money to have competing systems.  For instance a small town is not going to have more then one power company because one power plant is much more efficient then two.  But the towns power company is to be kept in line by the city council.  Likewise many water utilities and garbage dumps are going to be run by private companies but not entirely free from local government control.  Railroads were once in competition but became monopolistic due to the industries decline.  But looking at comunications, there have always been monopolies, right back to the telegraphs and especially the phone companies.  Bell was very shrewd in managing his technology to attract outside enterprise but still make it so everyone was dependent on him.  For a long time, he got away with it, because Bell it allowed a nationally integrated system, which was a boom.  Anti-trust suits were finally leveled when the nation was fully integrated.  Same thing with microsoft, when a monopoly helped the public, no one cared about anti-trust.  When microsoft tried to exploit their position, suddenly the justice department noticed the huge monopoly that had slipped past their radar for years.  They could have run a monopoly forever if they didn't get too greedy.  Google might be able to run a monopoly on web ads for decades, depending on how things go in the next couple years.

...wow, I got way off subject.  But yeah, competition isn't really possible yet because the US lags so much in laying down broadband.  So yeah, what they're doing is technically an illegal monopoly.  But they won't get caught for it because there's little enough cable being laid down in this country as it is.  Don't expect anti-trust suits anytime soon.
Title: Re: To charter or not to charter? That... is the question!
Post by: beorn080 on February 22, 2009, 06:49:35 pm
Its only an illegal monopoly if they are actively maintaining their unique status. If another company tried to move in and start a competing service, and they bought that company out, then it would become an illegal monopoly. For instance, if you own the only tire store in a town, that is a legal monopoly. However, if another store tries to open, and you either buy them outright or somehow force them not to open, that would be illegal. Note that its only illegal to have a monopoly on the federal level. Most states and communities allow monopolies.

Now for what you could do. You can possibly get satellite cable. I think that it isn't restricted by area's but not sure. You could get DSL if your area has such and go with internet TV. If you go the DSL route, you can get a Slingbox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingbox
and ask a good friend to hook it into their cable. That would allow you to continue watching your current cable line up while sticking it to the man. If you really have balls, you can organize a mass protest of Charter, with everyone destroying cable lines, and laying siege to their corporate castle. TO ARMS MY BRETHREN!!! DESTROY THE RULERS OF THE BROAD BAND!!!
Title: Re: To charter or not to charter? That... is the question!
Post by: Ignoro on February 22, 2009, 06:55:58 pm
Find a cheaper company? I can't tell you what companies offer what services for your area.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That spoiler never existed, by the way.