The current push to introduce "competition" by ending sole-proprietor deals for Cable companies at Apartment buildings? It's a red herring to allow the phone companies even more of a monopoly. This is the same kinda thing that's been pushed since 1996's Telecom act. Until, or unless we free the airwaves, and protect them from monopoly interests, your bills will rise, and huge conglomerates like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will continue to own far too much of your money, and provide you with far too little service in return. (BTW, for full dislosure; this has been a hobby horse for me since the early 1990's when I ran a radio station, that was run out of business by predatory business practices of a large company that's now owned by Viacom). Demonstration: it's simple math: prices have risen by about 95%. So-called competition, when introduced, lowers price by no more than 30%. And you'll find no industry with more fixed costs than cable TV. So, we're talking a net increase in price by about 66%. Dig it?
Ok, so you don't believe me. Here's how the system currently works; The landlord makes a deal with a provider to make TV available to everybody in the apartment building. They can sign a deal with anyone who provides in their area, same as you, mr. homeowner. Sometimes, to get a deal, they'll sign an exclusive contract. All the FCC is doing is taking away that last part. They can't sign that exclusive deal, any more. How is that good for consumers? Well, the thinking is "if the landlords can negotiate, and re-negotiate, the prices will go down". What it is not changing is that the landlord cuts the deal. About the only new thing is that now, somebody with the kind of investment capital to re-equip a large apartment building has the opportunity to steal a contract. It would happen like this: you have an exclusive deal with Comcast to provide Cable TV to your five apartment buildings, housing a total of 2,000 residents with cable TV. The incentive to do this is that they both put in all the hardware, and maintain it, so you don't have to deal with it. Now, along comes the FCC, saying "you can have the exclusive deal". Now, you're not going to pull up the wiring, and there are no other Cable TV providers in your area. The only TV providers you could go with are either a satellite provider, like Direct TV, or a phone company, like Verizon. If you go with satellite, we're talking about probable structural changes to all five buildings. If you go with a phone company, your apartments are already wired up. So, really, your choice is Comcast, or Verizon. Consumer groups are banking on the notion that Verizon will charge you less to provide you with both phone, and TV than having Verizon for phones and Comcast on exclusive TV.
Put in real-life terms like that, can you see why i put the 'competition' in quotes? This is of the same ilk as the telecom act of 1996 (which 'freed" phone companies to get into the TV business, and TV companies to get into the phone business). It's being called "competition" by no one except the one group who'll possibly benefit from it.
