I think the economic term for this here darn situation is "competitive monopolies". You have several different products competing for the same market. In this case we have cable, DSL, satellite, and even Broadband IP (the wireless guys here in Baton Rouge and New Orleans). So it is true that Cox has a lock on cable, but it is not true that they have a lock on the market.
I read an interesting article in Network Magazine that discussed something along these lines. Essentially, the guy was saying that people that demanded free (or close to free) anywhere access to the Internet needed to face reality. Someone has to pay for the bandwidth. At 08:35 AM 4/1/2003 -0600, you wrote: >Cox is a natural monopoly by virtue of being the sole owners and operators >of the cable infrastructure of the area. However their monopoly is >currently protected by the government, and regulated. There are other >choices for internet connectivity, but none of them use cable. > >$40/month is on the average pretty much a break-even point, and they even >lose money on the heavier users. In the ISP business, it's all averaged >out. The less active users are paying for the higher usage people. I don't >think we're going to do any better until we co-op a large chunk of >unrestricted bandwidth and share it wirelessly or something. > >-Tim > > >On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 17:04, Dustin Puryear wrote: >> >>I'm not sure that I would label Cox Broadband a monopoly as they do have >>competition from DSL and satellite. Also, to be frank here, it's their >>cable. At worst you can argue a breach of contract if they are restricting >>service that you have already paid for. I would bet though that they have a >>clause in their customer service agreement or AUP about the use of >>bandwidth and privileged ports. >> >>Also, I think that it's becoming more evident every year that $40 a month >>for this kind of service is not making anyone rich. From what I've read $40 >>a month really just covers the cost of providing the service for any >>broadband provider. Anyone else have any data on this? Scott? >> >>At 09:38 AM 3/31/2003 -0600, you wrote: >> >> >On 2003.03.28 15:57 Dustin Puryear wrote: >> > > At 03:43 PM 3/28/2003 -0600, you wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > I agree. If you get a consumer service and the ISP blocks web >> serving and >> > > so forth then I don't see an issue. If you want to run a service that >> > could >> > > potentially use up the full bandwidth 24x7 then get a higher grade of >> > service. >> > > >> > >> >So just what is my $40/month Internet Service Provider selling? Potential >> >service? Very few web servers use lots of bandwith, not even active ones >> >such as the BRLUG. Email does not eat that much either, unless you are a >> >spammer but blocking incomming mail does nothing for that problem. Want >> >to charge me more because I use apt-get? The only people who actually use >> >ALL of their bandwith 24x7 are warrez losers who use bots to collect >> >movies they will never watch and software they will never run. I did not >> >see anything in my contract about blocked ports, though I've paid careful >> >attention to it's ever degenerating terms. There are lots of things $40 >> >a month can buy. >> > >> >The only reason Cox gets away with such lame pricing schemes is because >> >they have a monopoly. They do offer a "higher grade of service" for us >> >meer "consumers" over the same lines thought the same box. It costs >> >$75/month for something slower than a DSL. I doubt they will have many >> >takers and believe that they could be earning more money being less >> >greedy. Clueless, just the kind of thing you would expect from someone >> >that runs their network with Windoze. A windoze virus was the excuse they >> >used to block ports in the first place, by the way. Things are better in >> >places like Chicago where they had six broadband companies offering >> >service. Monopolies where none are needed are harmful. Unregulated >> >natural monopolies are equally harmful. >> > >> >The world is a poorer place for all the blocks and crimps Cox puts on it's >> >lines. There's content that's not being shared, money wasted on external >> >servers and time to move the information to them. We are swiftly moving >> >to a world that has universal connectivity but a limited number of >> >publishers. The situation is only required to protect current >> >publishers. It's stupid and people will find a way around it. The >> >ultimate route around Cox will obsolete Cox. >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >General mailing list >> >[email protected] >> ><http://oxygen.nocdirect.com/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net>http://o >> xygen.nocdirect.com/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >> >> >>--- >>Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Puryear Information Technology >>Windows, UNIX, and IT Consulting >><http://www.puryear-it.com>http://www.puryear-it.com >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>General mailing list >>[email protected] >><http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net>http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net --- Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Puryear Information Technology Windows, UNIX, and IT Consulting http://www.puryear-it.com
