Well....
....they first have to be deemed a monopoly by the courts. The I'vegotwinners Clause only works in the I'vegotwinners house.
The government made a deal with service providers that if they laid down the infrastructure they could control the market. That is slowly changing, and it drastically changed with DirectTV and Dish Network. Then it finally changed changed with the internet, as I no longer need cable TV to get TV, and it's going to change again as MetroNet allows me to have more internet options.
you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. (so exactly why are you chiming in when i have said nothing remotely credibly arguable, and you have zero knowledge of the subject).
it isn't that the courts don't recognize the monopoly, it's that the govt exempts and doesn't enforce it.
it would be impossible not to see the over the top monopoly abuse here, even for the courts.
even for you.
so why does the govt allow the blatant over the top monopoly abuse that costs the subscriber huge bucks every month?
plain and simple, because the cable companies and network conglomerates literally pay the politicians and regulators the big bucks to allow it. (DUH).
BIG BUCKS!!!!
and no such deal as you referenced was ever made between the infrastructure providers and the govt, so you're just making stuff up now. (question is, why are you making stuff up).
when cable first started in earnest, and for decades after, it was regulated down to the price and customer service standards.
as to your statement "with internet your not needing cable tv to get tv", (i'll assume you mean pay tv), you just don't get it, do you.
the cable company literally IS the internet company, and everything is coming in on one wire..
it's just a matter of how things are parsed out on your bill, (or between your cable internet bill and your streaming bill), and Comcast and many other "cable companies" cable service, like UVerse, is an IP technology today.
when cable started you didn't pay anything for the channels.
you just paid for the line, just as now with the internet you are paying the cable company for the connection only. (HBO became the exception when it came along, because it wasn't ad supported).
when Metro hits your neighborhood, yes, you will have a third option for wired internet besides cable and the phone company.
is that a good thing? would 10 options for wired internet be a good thing?
it will give you another option, but competing unregulated providers is a totally asinine way to do wired internet, and significantly less cost efficient with each competitor added..
reality is, you would be far better off with one monopoly wired internet option that was heavily regulated, including price, for the same reason you are far better off with one regulated water/sewer company and one natural gas provider and one electric company.
the bulk of the cost of providing wired internet is the wired infrastructure itself and maintenance of, and every time another provider hits your area, you divide the number of households paying for that infrastructure and maintenance of.
we would all be much better off with one correctly regulated, including price regulation, monopoly wired internet provider.
much of the rest of the world has faster internet for less than we pay in the US, because they treat it as a utility. (as it obviously is and should be treated here).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
strange how whenever i post anything Wall St would object to, no matter how blatantly obvious and unarguable by anyone sane, how the white corpuscles come out of the woodwork here to fend me off, even when they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and i have said nothing credibly arguable or even controversial..