Cable monopolies are not government-created. They are government-backed in limited circumstances. In most of California, for example, there is hefty competition for cable/satellite services and high-speed internet, despite cable television monopolies.
>Notice that they charge ever higher and higher fees, in part because the municipalities are on the take here and get a cut of the fees, but also because the demand is inelastic. If you live in Austin and you want cable, they have your business.
Notice that every year, content companies demand more and more money to carry their channels. ESPN alone probably accounts for 5% of most cable bills. Maintenance of hundreds or thousands of miles of cable is also very expensive. Upgrading all of that cable infrastructure is even more expensive.
>So, there's no reason to spend the money to have enough technicians to ensure they are able to do a good job and a timely one.
More money spent on technicians = more money paid by consumers. Yet you complain about higher fees. At some point, you must recognize that there is cost to pay for all of the services you demand. Technicians do not work for free.
>But you don't hear this issue at election time. Why do people not hold their city council peeps accountable for imposing this overpriced monopoly on them?
My guess is that most don't realize it is a government created monopoly, and the ones who do, many think that there would be no cable if the city hadn't given those rights away as an incentive to install all the cable. (not the case... places where this doesn't happen, still get cable because it isn't that expensive to put in the cable.)
Simple solution: don't subscribe to cable. Cable is not a right. It's a choice that is not forced upon you. Alternatively, subscribe to satellite, use the free OTA signals, or learn to live without live TV.
> More money spent on technicians = more money paid by consumers
Entirely wrong. This story is littered with false economies. E.g.: Rather than giving him good tools, they wasted the technician's time. And another technician's time. And more later, to get the helpful tech back his tool. And let's not forget that the whole error was caused by a poorly trained tech who ruined the tool. And that's before we get to the large amount of customer time wasted.
Of course, when you're a vastly profitable monopoly, who gives a fuck? There's little reward for internal efficiency, and there's definitely no reward for caring about the customer's time.
And yes, it's a monopoly. Per the GAO, only 4% of cable marketplaces in the US have effective competition:
In most of California, for example, there is hefty competition for cable/satellite services and high-speed Internet, despite cable television monopolies.
Even if that was true, it would only show limited competition between two government maintained monopolies that happen to imping on each other through historical circumstances (we know that there's no real price competition - what we see is the song-and-dance customer competition characteristic of duopolies). The relative phone and the cable monopolies are maintain through the state granting right-of-ways to a limited number of companies.
Your use of "government-backed" in supposed contrast to "government-created" is just verbal slight of hand, a pedantic distinction that does not make a difference (a maneuver that seems sadly popular here). The enterprises (cable and phone for that matter) palpably extract a surplus from their positions in the cat bird seat.
(sure, I'm using "monopoly" in the sense of rent-extractor and "duopoly" in the rent of market position. The overall situation should be clear enough).
> In most of California, for example, there is hefty competition for cable/satellite services and high-speed internet, despite cable television monopolies.
Are you kidding me? I currently live in LA and used to live in SD and my choices were either TWC or... DSL. Previously Cox and... that's pretty much it.
Which is hilarious considering my parent's choices in San Bernardino are: Fios, Time Warner Cable, and of course DSL.
>Notice that they charge ever higher and higher fees, in part because the municipalities are on the take here and get a cut of the fees, but also because the demand is inelastic. If you live in Austin and you want cable, they have your business.
Notice that every year, content companies demand more and more money to carry their channels. ESPN alone probably accounts for 5% of most cable bills. Maintenance of hundreds or thousands of miles of cable is also very expensive. Upgrading all of that cable infrastructure is even more expensive.
>So, there's no reason to spend the money to have enough technicians to ensure they are able to do a good job and a timely one.
More money spent on technicians = more money paid by consumers. Yet you complain about higher fees. At some point, you must recognize that there is cost to pay for all of the services you demand. Technicians do not work for free.
>But you don't hear this issue at election time. Why do people not hold their city council peeps accountable for imposing this overpriced monopoly on them? My guess is that most don't realize it is a government created monopoly, and the ones who do, many think that there would be no cable if the city hadn't given those rights away as an incentive to install all the cable. (not the case... places where this doesn't happen, still get cable because it isn't that expensive to put in the cable.)
Simple solution: don't subscribe to cable. Cable is not a right. It's a choice that is not forced upon you. Alternatively, subscribe to satellite, use the free OTA signals, or learn to live without live TV.