
Spectrum internet is getting kicked out of New York - LopRabbit
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/27/17622846/spectrum-charter-cable-internet-new-york-kicked-out
======
chrismartin
Direct link to the (scathing!) press release:
[http://www3.dps.ny.gov/pscweb/WebFileRoom.nsf/ArticlesByCate...](http://www3.dps.ny.gov/pscweb/WebFileRoom.nsf/ArticlesByCategory/1F6E451203ADF727852582D7005F8520/%24File/pr18060.pdf?OpenElement)

As a consumer, this transition will be annoying to deal with, but as a
resident, I'm proud of my state for pushing expansion of rural broadband where
federal efforts have failed. Not sure how the transition will work though, as
Spectrum/TWC own the cable infrastructure.

Spectrum has sent a veritable tree's worth of junk mail to my house in the
past year, goading me to sign up for their television and landline phone
bundle. Spectrum, please die quickly.

~~~
bradleyjg
> I'm proud of my state for pushing expansion of rural broadband where federal
> efforts have failed.

Not me. I live in a small apartment that I pay tens of thousands of dollars a
year for. In Franklin County people can get a lot more space for a lot less
money. Why should I subsidize their broadband rather than them subsidizing my
living space?

Life is all about tradeoffs. Wanting to get all the benefits of your choices
and have other people pay to ameliorate the downsides is understandable but
unreasonable.

If we are going to subsidize broadband at all, we should do it statewide and
means test it.

~~~
chrismartin
This isn't a subsidy. It's an effort to redirect some of Charter's ~$10B
yearly profit[0] toward public benefit, in exchange for allowing further
consolidation of local monopolies (which would otherwise amplify potential for
abuse of market power).

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_Communications](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_Communications)

~~~
rayiner
What exactly is the relevance of the $10 billion number? Charter ran large
losses every quarter for more than a decade prior to the merger:
[https://ycharts.com/companies/CHTR/net_income_ttm](https://ycharts.com/companies/CHTR/net_income_ttm).
Does that affect your view that its recent profit should be "redirect[ed]
toward public benefit"? What exactly is the limit to that principle? What
other companies should have their profits "redirect[ed] toward the public
benefit?" What criteria do you use to decide?

~~~
ada1981
It's a company trying to get approval for a merger, so the state has the
leverage to get them to do things they feel would benefit the state.

Not a big deal, pretty common, and pretty common sense. These states want to
bring internet to everyone.

They are allowing concentration of power, if that power promises to help them
accomplish some of their goals.

~~~
rayiner
Your comment suggests you're thinking about the problem in moralistic/score-
keeping terms. But the question is not "does the state have leverage," but
rather "what are the economic effects of using this leverage to impose a
particular policy?" State and municipal regulators _love_ the idea of a free
lunch. "They have to get our approval, and we can extract these concessions,
and it's _free_!" But that's not how the economy works. Every policy has a
cost. State and municipal regulators not only fail to balance those costs,
they don't even realize that those costs exist.

The most damning example is, of course, the reason why we have so much market
concentration in broadband to begin with. State and municipal regulators
thought they could get universal cable coverage for their constituents, so
they gave out municipal franchise monopolies with universal-coverage
obligations. They thought they were getting a free lunch, instead they created
massive market distortion.

~~~
Dylan16807
The default option is not letting them merge. It's not a moral thing as much
as a simple economic negotiation.

Letting them merge is absolutely not a 'free lunch' situation. It's a trade.

~~~
rayiner
The fact that a regulation is easy to extract because it is imposed as part of
a merger approval has no bearing on the economic effects of that regulation
(except to the extent that the condition is directly aimed at reducing the
anti-competitive impact of the merger, _e.g._ a spin-off requirement, which is
not the case here).

To go back to OP's point: the government telling a company that the have to
service a bunch of uneconomic households is a subsidy to those households.
Either other customers' costs _will_ rise in order to pay for that service, or
capital will be diverted from upgrading or expanding service to economic
customers. There is a very large economic cost to servicing uneconomic
customers--that money has to come from _somewhere_. The idea that you can rig
the merger so that it comes out of corporate profits with no consumer impact
is nonsense.

~~~
Dylan16807
> the government telling a company that the have to service a bunch of
> uneconomic households is a subsidy to those households.

Which we have decided as a society is worth it. Everyone should be able to
communicate, and it helps those people be more productive too, helping
everyone.

> Either other customers' costs will rise in order to pay for that service, or
> capital will be diverted from upgrading or expanding service to economic
> customers.

On the other hand, having less competition for something with huge last-mile
costs can save money overall. The tricky part is keeping the downsides of low
competition in check, by forcing more responsibility on the company as it gets
more power.

> The idea that you can rig the merger so that it comes out of corporate
> profits with no consumer impact is nonsense.

If the merger let them go from negative profits to $10B, then the consumer
impact _already happened_. If none of that can be rigged into rural expansion,
then the merger shouldn't have been allowed, and they can go back to minimal
profits.

~~~
rayiner
> Which we have decided as a society is worth it. Everyone should be able to
> communicate, and it helps those people be more productive too, helping
> everyone.

Except we haven't. One of the consequences of imposing these sorts of
obligations through hidden cross subsidies is that it obscures the cost of
these outcomes. Would the public be willing to pay through taxes the $X
million it would cost to serve those uneconomic households? Probably not. But
when a regulator forces them to pay that amount indirectly, they're not in a
position to evaluate whether it is "worth it." (Which is why unelected
bureaucrats love these "free lunch" measures--it allows them to tax the public
indirectly for things the public would not willingly pay for directly.)

> On the other hand, having less competition for something with huge last-mile
> costs can save money overall. The tricky part is keeping the downsides of
> low competition in check, by forcing more responsibility on the company as
> it gets more power.

This is exactly the New Deal-era thinking that has been _resoundingly_
debunked. Regulators applied this kind of thinking to everything from
railroads to airlines. But deregulation of those things has yielded enormous
real gains. (And not just in the U.S., in many respects western Europe and
Japan have been more aggressive in deregulation than the U.S., and have seen
concomitant benefits.)

> If the merger let them go from negative profits to $10B, then the consumer
> impact already happened.

TWC and Charter did not previously compete, so it's unlikely that the swing is
due to increased pricing power. Rather, it's more likely due to (1) the fact
that TWC was already profitable; and (2) reduced expenses through the
elimination of internal redundancy.

~~~
Dylan16807
> Except we haven't.

Yes we did. Look at phone rules. We 100% decided that.

> deregulation

You don't need trains and airlines to serve every house. And the most
effective way to avoid regulation is to avoid monopolies, I'd say. Do you
think "no merger, no rules applied" would have been better?

> reduced expenses through the elimination of internal redundancy.

...I think that directly contradicts "The idea that you can rig the merger so
that it comes out of corporate profits with no consumer impact is nonsense."

~~~
rayiner
> Yes we did. Look at phone rules. We 100% decided that.

We decided, in the 1930s, to bring phone service everywhere. That has been
done and the expenses have been incurred. We never decided to take on new
expenses to extend that concept to broadband. We certainly never decided that
the way we should achieve that outcome is through wired communications, rather
than cheaper wireless communications. The FCC's attempts to do so have been
achieved by unelected bureaucrats through regulatory fiat.

> You don't need trains and airlines to serve every house.

But you do need trains and airlines to serve every region above a given size,
and that raises the same considerations about duplicated infrastructure.

> I'd say. Do you think "no merger, no rules applied" would have been better?

The merger is a red herring, since TWC and Charter did not previously compete
with each other. What I think would've been better would have been to abandon
build-out requirements, so that they (or other companies) could come in and
compete in areas that will support competition. Then, if there are areas that
we feel like aren't being sufficiently served, we can use tax dollars to close
those gaps. That allows you to serve the people who need it (and subjects
those efforts to cost-benefit analysis in terms of whether cheaper or more
expensive technology is used to achieve the result). And it prevents you from
distorting competition in areas that could reasonably support 2-3 ISPs.

> ...I think that directly contradicts "The idea that you can rig the merger
> so that it comes out of corporate profits with no consumer impact is
> nonsense."

In what way? The government can't control what the company does with the
savings it achieves from the merger.

~~~
Dylan16807
You were arguing that there is a large cost to consumers, and no possible way
to pay for the requirements without consumer impact.

Now you're explaining a way for the merger to free up huge amounts of money.

If they free up lots of money by merging, they could use some of it to fund
expansion without impacting customers.

The government can't _force_ them to use profits and expenses to cancel each
other out, but it's not exactly an esoteric behavior. Especially when the same
contract is responsible for both. The idea of it happening is definitely not
"nonsense".

------
JumpCrisscross
Spectrum is funny. They kept raising my rates, randomly, every 6 months. And
every 6 months I’d threaten to cancel.

Finally, I got irritated and penned letters to my state AG and state Senator.
Spectrum went into overdrive. Credited a year of service, wanted me to get on
a conference call with their GC, a voicemail wishing me happy birthday (super
weird).

Should have sensed their vulnerability.

~~~
antsar
Would you mind sharing more about the content/format of your letter? Verizon
has hiked my rates a few times (with no improvement in service, naturally), so
I'm wondering what to write if it happens again. Does needlessly increasing
rates violate some law/statute?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Would you mind sharing more about the content /format of your letter?_

Sure! I filed a complaint with the Bureau of Internet & Technology under New
York's Attorney General [1]. I've pasted the redacted text below.

"In 2017 I called Spectrum because the rate we were being billed ($104.99) was
higher than what we had signed up for (around $80) and more than the rate on
Spectrum's Residential Rate Card Information & Disclosure for our apartment
([https://www.spectrum.com/browse/content/ratecard.html](https://www.spectrum.com/browse/content/ratecard.html)).
I was told, on the phone, that the rate would be lowered to $89.99 per month.

On February 20th, 2018 I was charged $104.99 by Spectrum. I called and was
told that my billing information would be changed to $89.99 for future bills
(see Change of Service Confirmation, attached).

On March 2nd, 2018 we received a bill for $104.99, due March 18th, 2018. I
called (855) 243-8892, the support phone number provided on Spectrum's website
([https://www.spectrum.com/contact-us.html](https://www.spectrum.com/contact-
us.html)), and spoke with [PERSON] (employee number [ _redacted_ ]). [PERSON]
acknowledged the Change of Service Confirmation, and said a technical error
had prevented my billing information from being able to be updated. [PERSON]
discussed the matter with one of her supervisors, [SUPERVISOR], who said a
technician needed to visit my apartment to replace my modem. Until this visit
was done, the billing information could not be changed. I asked [PERSON] for
anything in writing confirming that after an in-person visit, my billing
information would be updated. [PERSON] said she was technically unable to
fulfill that request. [PERSON] then said a technical issue prevented her from
scheduling a technician visit to my apartment."

...

I then called my State Senator’s office and asked who deals with telecom
policy. Got their name and sent them a copy of the complaint along with a very
brief cover letter.

[1]
[https://formsnym.ag.ny.gov/OAGOnlineSubmissionForm/faces/OAG...](https://formsnym.ag.ny.gov/OAGOnlineSubmissionForm/faces/OAGBITHome)

------
j0e1
My spectrum bill rocketed after the 1st year and after numerous unpleasant
long calls with their representatives, I haven't been given any viable option.
They keep forcing me to take their cable connection which would 'lower' my
rates for the internet connection but I would end up paying them more than for
just an internet connection.

The saddest revelation through all this is that I couldn't find any other
provider in my area (DTLA) which can promise me 100Mbps. I'm stuck with them
and I'm not a happy customer! I so wish there were other competing ISPs in
this area..

~~~
lylecubed
At least you're getting 100Mbps. I'm one of the original TWC customers who
refuse to switch over to their new "no contract" plans because I don't want
them to jump my rates like they did yours. Their retaliation? I get 10Mbps
down, 1Mbps up. No speed upgrade for me.

Nothing else in my area gets even close to 100Mbps either. I hope NYS can work
something out or I'm going to have to move.

~~~
j0e1
> I hope NYS can work something out or I'm going to have to move.

I share your sentiments.. In my mind decent internet access is more of a right
than an accessory today. Those without it are disproportionately disadvantaged
in numerous ways. I can imagine doing something drastic, in protest, if I'm
pushed.

~~~
rayiner
If you're unhappy with your Internet, move. Whether you have good internet or
not is mostly a function of your locality. I can get gigabit through either
Verizon (fiber) or Comcast (fiber or cable). The service is second in
reliability only to the public water/sewer (it went down once because a tree
fell on the fiber).

It's not because Verizon is nicer than Spectrum. It's because my county makes
it cheap, easy, and relatively hassle free to build and maintain the
infrastructure. The love affair places like NY and CA have with regulation is
self-defeating. There is a reason why fricking Kansas City has fiber and LA
doesn't (and NYC got it a decade after backwaters in MD and VA).

------
tnuc
I live in New York and the only provider is spectrum. Yesterday I (and all my
neighbors) got a letter from Optimum, offering better prices and higher
bandwidth. After calling Optimum I got told that Optimum doesn't service my
area.

Is this a new type of turf war?

~~~
walrus01
Speaking as an ISP: I would guess more of a fuckup in a database merge for a
direct mail campaign. They know what zip codes are their turf and where they
have right-of-way, and don't want to waste money on USPS bulk mail targeting
people they can't serve. As an example Seattle is a patchwork quilt of either
Wave or Comcast cablemodem service areas, it would be pretty rare to see a
Comcast solicitation in areas where the cable plant is entirely owned by Wave.
Or vice versa.

~~~
lylecubed
You've posted about ISP related things in the past. How viable do you think it
would be to start a WISP in rural New York State? I'm mostly interested in
last mile rural stuff (I don't like cities), but from the looks of the rest of
this thread it would probably be more profitable to start a WISP in NYC
itself.

~~~
walrus01
It really depends specifically where, how much competition exists and what
type of last mile tech that competition uses. How big the market is in
population and small to medium businesses.

There are a large number of ISPs that use licensed PTP gear on rooftops in NYC
already, in combination with their fiber networks.

If you have a specific area in mind for a rural part of the state, send me an
email address and I'll contact you to see what might be possible.

~~~
lylecubed
Thanks! I'm interested in this topic, but I have no idea what I'm doing.

lylecubed AT gmail

------
maxxxxx
I used to have Time Warner with a 3mb plan for $15. After the Spectrum
takeover I can keep my plan but the next level is $70. There is nothing
cheaper. I would like to get something a little faster but I have no need for
100mb at $70 which is the only option I have. Its really annoying that there
is zero competition. Spectrum knows exactly that a lot of people will get a
connection that's way too fast for them and more expensive but they have no
choice.

And every month I get several cheerful letters about "deals" that aren't
deals. I really hate Spectrum.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _100mb at $70_

I pay $90 for 400/20 in Manhattan. $70 for 100 Mbps is insane.

~~~
maxxxxx
Is there a cheaper option for you? They can offer 10000/10009 but I don't need
it. I want something cheaper.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Is there a cheaper option for you?_

The cheapest I am offered is $14.99 for 3/1 (as well as something called 30/4
Spectrum Assist).

I suggest you check out your rate card [1]. These are the services and rates
you were legally offered, and is required to be disclosed to you under New
York law.

[1]
[https://www.spectrum.com/browse/content/ratecard.html](https://www.spectrum.com/browse/content/ratecard.html)

~~~
maxxxxx
In LA they offer only the $70 option.

~~~
CodeWriter23
It sucks but your alternative is AT&T with their 250GB bandwidth cap.

~~~
maxxxxx
I don't even have that option.

------
js2
NC rolled over for TWC against its own cities. Nice to see NY not get bought
off.

I'm fortunate that AT&T fiber has been available in my neighborhood for about
a year now ($70/mo for gigabit service). Before that I was stuck with TWC's
ever increasing prices and worsening service. Now that it's Spectrum it's
still more expensive for slower, less reliable service.

------
btown
I feel like the political implications of this aren't being discussed.

So the 60 day period after which Spectrum would cease operations seems to end
September 25, a week before online voter registration ends for the November
elections... and even independent of that, it's at a critical moment for
campaigning.

For many without a fiber connection in the NYC area, Optimum is now the only
game in town, and it has no reason _not_ to price gouge (there's no regulation
_forcing_ them to offer now-unnecessary promotional pricing to people). So
many low-income people in old housing may need to go without internet and
cable during the time immediately preceding the elections. Yes, most phones
have data plans nowadays, but quick question: how many people do you know who
would be able to print the PDF voter registration form easily from their
computer, but would have no idea how to do so from their phone, and can't
figure out how to set up a hotspot?

Imagine if New York were a swing state - it's normally not. On the one hand,
you're making it suddenly more difficult to register to vote last-minute;
that's not necessarily voter suppression, but it certainly smells like it. On
the other hand, you're suddenly raising the effective price of (for example)
Fox News/MSNBC, their online presences, access to Facebook on desktop
computers (where ads are more prevalent), and streaming access to both Alex
Jones and Bill Maher. You're cutting people off from information that
reinforces their world view, and (gasp) they may need to watch basic cable,
the most "mainstream" of mainstream media, while eating breakfast. That's
ridiculously impactful.

Perhaps some of these concerns are overblown. Perhaps Optimum will, um,
optimize for long-term goodwill and provide a reasonable upgrade path. But at
the very least, we should be discussing these implications.

~~~
astronautjones
> to both Alex Jones and Bill Maher.

what a ridiculously false equivalency

~~~
btown
Fair. I wanted to phrase my comment in a way that would be colorfully
illustrated but not single out a specific political viewpoint. However, it is
monumentally difficult to find a media personality on the left as dedicated to
discrediting scientific consensus as Alex Jones. I chose the most outspoken
left-leaning voice I could think of at the time.

Any lack of equivalency, though, should not reflect on the merit of the
underlying issue: that a decision to cut off a vital service provider is not
without political consequences.

------
snowpanda
Time Warner Cable has been awful since Spectrum got a hold of it. I didn't
have a problem for many years, now I can't even get a customer service rep on
the line. I keep getting robocalls about my "upcoming bill". Rates have gone
up. Amount of plans have decreased... The list goes on.

~~~
heywire
Here in Ohio I've had the opposite experience, with the exception of the cost
going up. I was one of the ones who would make my annual call to Time Warner
to "threaten to cancel" in exchange for another year of discounted service
(usually $40 or $45/mo for 30mbit). Spectrum doesn't play that game, so I'm
paying $65/mo, but I'm also receiving 100mbit service (where I normally see
~120mbit). I haven't had a single outage since the switch over, but that could
also be attributed to the replacement of the old cable modem for a shiny new
DOCSIS 3.0 model to support the higher speeds.

As far as robocalls, I had them before, and I still have them now. At least
once a month they call me and try to sell me on some other service of theirs.
Luckily they use the same phone number on caller ID, so I can avoid the calls.

------
bogomipz
Verizon also failed to deliver albeit at the city level in, in NYC. The city
sued by there has been no such attempt to revoke their charter as far as I
have heard:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/nyregion/ny-sues-
verizon-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/nyregion/ny-sues-verizon-
fios.html)

~~~
huebnerob
This is only happening to charter because it was a clause written into their
recent large merger with TWC. I don't think the state would have such broad
latitude to revoke any other ISPs license to operate.

Verizon was at least smarter about being technically correct, they apparently
ran fiber "past every household in the city". The joke probably being, good
fucking luck getting your building hooked up to it. If they'd even do it, it'd
probably cost you thousands

~~~
rayiner
It blows my mind that people act like Verizon is running fiber past households
then refusing to service them for funsies. Passing a household costs more than
building the final bit of fiber to the house. It makes no sense for Verizon to
pass a bunch of households then not try to recoup that money by hooking up
service. The reason for the delay is because New York (particularly New York
landlords) are a total nightmare to deal with.

------
JohnTHaller
Like many folks living in NYC, Spectrum is my only choice for broadband. The
only other option is Verizon DSL with "up to" 7Mbps. If this transition causes
issues for my internet, I'm screwed.

~~~
JshWright
At least you have that... there are many places outside the city (it's a big
state) where 7Mbps would be very welcome.

------
mikenyc
I'm in Brooklyn. This thread prompted me to check the Spectrum rates. I was on
Time Warner Cable pre-merger, and with Spectrum just called and got a 100MB
upgrade that costs me $300 less per year than I was paying. Call was easy/fast
with good service. No upgrade fees, etc. And they offered me a technician
appointment with a one-hour window within 24 hours. Just one experience, but
clearly for this NYC consumer, I seem to be benefitting from the merger.

From Spectrum's Brooklyn rate card (link below): Spectrum Internet 200/10 =
$64.99 Spectrum Internet Ultra 400/20 = $89.99 Spectrum Internet Gig = $124.99

Looks like TWC had topped out at 300MB, and they charged about $110/mo

Spectrum Brooklyn rate card:
[https://www.spectrum.com/browse/content/ratecard.html](https://www.spectrum.com/browse/content/ratecard.html)

Time Warner Cable Brooklyn rate card pre-merger:
[https://www.spectrum.com/content/dam/spectrum/residential/en...](https://www.spectrum.com/content/dam/spectrum/residential/en/pdfs/ratecards/NYC/NY_Brooklyn_7001-RC.pdf)

------
totoglazer
Fuck Spectrum. They are just awful. The jack your rates, don't follow through,
and are so awful to deal with I just am kind of resigned to it. I think Fios
may be here soon. They can't be worse, can they?

~~~
shoguning
As bad as it is, how can decreasing the number of competitors increase the
quality of options for consumers? Are they preventing other companies from
operating?

~~~
eyeinthepyramid
Since cable companies are already a monopoly, they aren't really decreasing
the number of competitors. They are just replacing the one incredibly bad ISP
with a somewhat less bad one.

~~~
lylecubed
> They are just replacing the one incredibly bad ISP with a somewhat less bad
> one.

... we hope. That certainly wasn't the case the last time (when Spectrum
bought TWC). As far as I can tell, NYS doesn't have any idea who's going to
replace Spectrum.

------
bogomipz
I am curious what happens to their assets in the state after their charter is
revoked? This would leave large swaths of that state without TV and Internet
no?

~~~
UncleEntity
> ...but the state is asking it to come up with a transition plan.

Apparently they need to come up with some orderly plan and not just give them
a nice "f-you, its been fun."

Not too sure how motivated they'll be for it to be orderly as they have zero
incentive for it to be though...

~~~
bogomipz
Well if they just abandoned it they would be leaving a lot of money on the
table. They own all that cable plant, the head ends, etc. I don't think they
can afford to do that.

~~~
jessaustin
They'll rip out anything of value, but how valuable is installed coax?
Wouldn't it be cheaper just to leave that in place?

~~~
bogomipz
Its FTTN - fiber to the node and then coax from the node to the home. Fiber
and coax running to nearly every home or neighborhood in a state is quite
valuable.

~~~
jessaustin
It's valuable to someone with the right to use it where it's already
installed. It doesn't seem like something that can be removed and reused,
however. Perhaps there will be some sort of down-to-the-wire negotiation
between Spectrum and whoever the next anointed turns out to be? "If you don't
pay us the first installment on Friday, we'll start tearing out fiber on
Monday!" This scenario illustrates the insanity of municipalities selling
franchises that include ownership of the networks. They didn't have to do
that. Since we'll never need more than fiber, they shouldn't do that ever
again.

~~~
bogomipz
I really don't think Spectrum will be the party that's negotiating from a
position of power here.

------
sjdbwixb
I had TWC/Spectrum and it was cheaper and faster then the Comcast I get now
after moving. What does the state plan on doing for all the millions of people
who only had TWC/Spectrum? Maybe they should invite more competitors in rather
than kicking them out.

~~~
reaperducer
_Maybe they should invite more competitors in rather than kicking them out._

Gotta kick one out to make room for the other. New York isn't about to let
every ISP in the nation run independent lines over all of the poles in the
state.

The good thing is that when the replacement company steps up (or wins the
bid), it will know that the state is serious about keeping obligations.

OTOH, this might be when we find out just how much collusion there is between
the big companies, if none decide to fill the gap, thus putting pressure on
the AG from the voters.

~~~
mmt
> New York isn't about to let every ISP in the nation run independent lines
> over all of the poles in the state.

Why not? I would expect the barrier to entry there to be the expense of doing
so, not regulatory refusal.

It makes sense for a regulator to require "universal" coverage and prohibit
cherry-picking only the profitable areas, which brings the cost barrier back
into focus. However, encouraging a monopology would seem to encourage a
similar result.

Has the state actually expressed or implied such a policy?

~~~
reaperducer
_Why not? I would expect the barrier to entry there to be the expense of doing
so, not regulatory refusal._

A quick GIS of telephone poles in India or Thailand will provide you an
answer.

~~~
mmt
No, it does not, unless you're asserting that India and/or Thailand have
comparable regulatory structures for utilities, other than the one detail of
which ISPs are permitted on poles.

To whit, I believe you're presenting a false dichotomy between monopoly and
completely unregulate free-for-all.

~~~
reaperducer
You're thinking about it too hard.

People don't want massive bunches of cable lines running through their
neighborhoods. Most people don't even like the few they have unless they're
underground and there aren't access pillars every hundred feet.

Voters aren't going to let regulators ugly up their neighborhoods and drive
their home values down.

~~~
mmt
> You're thinking about it too hard.

Mostly, I'm trying to determine if your assertion was a speculation based on,
say, evidence (either from NYS previous behavior or from another
jurisdiction), or strictly your intuition or guesswork.

So far, I've only seen the latter. My own intuition is this has nothing to do
with voters and everything to do with legislators and administrative
regulators, over whom voters have only a vague influence and only after deals
like this are already done.

Even so, do you even have anything to back up your claim that voters (and most
of them, at that) care about _additional_ cables on utility poles, especially
in New York State (and not just something that shows people merely prefer
underground utilities to pole-mounted, which is undisputed)?

------
bmmayer1
How is removing yet another competitor from the market a good thing for
consumers?

------
ryantheguy
I seem to have the opposite experience of people in this thread. I'm down in
southern California using Spectrum and they have by far the best rates. 100
Mbps for $40/mo. I suppose there is a lot more competition for internet out
here than average though.

~~~
mrpippy
Is that just a promotional rate though? I live in Orange County and the list
price for 100 Mbps is $65 (and my area has actual competition from FiOS). The
promo rates are good, but they'll expire after a year and unlike TWC, Spectrum
won't just renew at promo rates forever. You either have to cancel and re-sign
up, or just pay list price.

------
kolanos
I would kill for 100mbps for $80/mo. I'm paying twice that for 10mbps in rural
Nevada with a WISP.

