A cable alternative to Metrocast??

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

For reasons I increasingly don't understand, our government(s) have decided it makes sense to award exclusive licences to cable companies in each town.

It's simple, there is not enough business for multiple competitive operators to offer service.

That's why you have a 3rd-tier operator (Metrocast) in the first place.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

It's simple, there is not enough business for multiple competitive operators to offer service.

That's why you have a 3rd-tier operator (Metrocast) in the first place.

So why not let the market determine this rather than a government bureaucracy?

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

So why not let the market determine this rather than a government bureaucracy?

The market *has* determined it. It's basic math, subscriber density relative to build out and operation costs. The reason an MSO wants an exclusive license is to ensure that they don't invest in infrastructure and then have another MSO come along and overbuild the system, causing both to lose out long term. There is already competition, to a degree, with satellite TV.

In areas like the lakes region you have a LOT of seasonal subscribers and a lot of basic-tier only subscribers. The seasonal ones aren't that profitable, and the majority of the basic-tier pricing is heavily regulated. They make most of their money on PPV, premium channels and additional services.

I've worked a lot with MSO's and have sat on the telecom board in a previous smaller town that I lived in. You need a very dense city with a population of about 100,000+ people before multiple operators becomes feasible.

[Merrymeeting]

Interestingly, this whole topic was the subject on the Diane Rehm show today on NHPR. http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/20...-for-consumers