 kdandaoc
join:2003-10-13
608052427 | Competition..... Not sticking up for Cox, but the telcos engage in this activity all of the time, whats the diff?
Steaven Seagal/Starr Jones in 2008 | |
|  | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | Re: Competition..... where? | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Competition..... said by bogey780  :where? Qwest is doing the same thing in Arizona as well. They have communities where you can only get their service just like COX.
Always funny when the pot calls the kettle black. Like it was said, phone does it too. | |
| | | cableguy619
join:2003-06-24
Chula Vista, CA | here in california.... | |
| | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | Re: Competition..... I hadn't seen any triple play lock-outs from Bell. Didn't know they did it anywhere. | |
| | | | | | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by kdandaoc :Not sticking up for Cox, but the telcos engage in this activity all of the time, whats the diff? Steaven Seagal/Starr Jones in 2008 Cox getting what it deserves, but a few mitigating factors might justify reducing the fine.
1st, the local government of Peoria set up the whole exclusive deal rules that the developer used with Cox.
2nd, Cox paid out $1m to settle with a small phone company.
3rd, Cox wiped the deal out when challenged by the commission.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | 
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse Connect
·Teliax VOIP
 ·Speed Factory
| Re: Competition..... said by Tsume :Why aren't apartment complexes getting sued for signing deals only allowing one cable company there? Because unlike the developer deals, deals with apartment complexes don't infringe upon the rights of the owners of complexes. They do affect the tenants, of course, but the interests of the owner trump those of the tenants.
My friend is stuck with Adelphia and would love COX, but the managers say they're stuck in a contract with Adelphia. Should be ILLEGAL. That won't happen even in the absence of an exclusive contract since Adelphia and Cox don't compete. Of course, it could be worse -- even Adelphia is better than the utter crap spewed from leaky micro-headends that some apartment complexes (fewer and fewer these days, thankfully) pass off as "cable".
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA | And they are also fined all of the time, too. So, what is your point, really? | |
| | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| just a shady business deal sounds like nothing more than a greedy developer cutting a deal with a (by definition) greedy cable company.
Unfortunately, they apparently tried to do this somewhere actual competition exists, where CLECs still roam the earth.
In 85% of the country, there wouldn't have been anyone to complain, because homeowners wouldn't have had a choice anyway. | |
| | | | | 
Shrapnel64
Premium
join:2001-01-24
Hayes, VA
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cox HSI
| Re: Should be more! Make it really hurt for the company so that the rates can go up another 30% in 2 years. I don't like the way that sounds.
If they are punished for doing something like that, and are charged an astronomical fee (just to be made an example of to other companies), then it's just going to be passed on to the consumer. Where does that make any sense? | |
| | | |
|
|
Cox Anti-Competitive Deals Questioned
Should be more!