With a few exceptions where their hand has been forced by muni or other operations (parts of North Carolina), they're primarily offering gigabit speeds to places where fiber was already in the ground and no real cost or work is involved. Read: housing developments, campus condos.
I think they'll probably hang on to these customers for a while, but by and large they're just cherry picking the places where there's minimal effort and expense involved.
They want the public to believe they're engaging in full city builds, they're just not.
Re: Re: 'Competition' means more than one viable choice
"Is that a truly honest play?"
Raising the definition of broadband from a pathetic 4 Mbps is dishonesty? I think it makes perfect sense, and it's not the FCC's fault that AT&T refuses to upgrade technology operating on roughly half of the company's network after receiving billions in subsidies to build and maintain it.
The biggest problem to me (aside from the fact this is an obvious and aggressive cash grab) remains how nobody in government gives two shits that companies like AT&T and Comcast, with an indisputable history of fraud, are metering usage with no objective third party confirming whether the meters are accurate.
Yeah we're still waiting to see how that shakes out.
The irony is ESPN's contracts with cable operators say that if ESPN creates a streaming option, that very provision in the contract restricting cable operators from taking ESPN out of the core tier evaporates.
So ESPN's stuck between a rock and a hard place: launch a streaming video option and invite more cord cutting but adapt, or fight adaptation to protect your legacy cash cow.
I think the former option is the only real path forward, but it will probably take ESPN another year to realize it.
I tend to agree. I tend toward balanced regulation and find the auto-anti-regulation position kind of a nnoying, but I agree that the government doing nothing here would probably result in the best possible outcome.
The course is set, and Internet video will have a profound and painful impact on the legacy TV cash cow. Makes more sense to keep an eye on the broadband front, where usage caps are going to be the real pain point as streaming truly starts to take off...
"An absolutely atrocious article. Sorry Karl, but you miss the boat all over the place here."
You say I miss the boat "all over the place" (atrociously, even) then proceed to really only make one point that isn't really much of a correction to anything in the actual piece: That the Canadian TV market is more vertically integrated and labors under different foreign ownership requirements than the US market.
(As an aside, neither market is really "free," especially broadband).
I certainly could have fleshed out the differences more, but there's also enough similarities over the border that a comparison is still apt, from vertical integration issues (from Comcast/NBC, to Time Warner Cable and Comcast's ownership of regional sports networks) to the relentless demonization of more flexible channel package options and pricing by an industry terrified of evolution.
Regardless, I do apologize for my atrocious story.