The cable franchise agreements are exclusive. That's why you don't see two companies offering cable service. If they weren't you other companies would compete.
Regarding wireless, you don't seem to understand how the industry is structured. While it's true there are many brand names on the shelf in walmart, there are only 3 actual providers in a given metro region. Virgin, for instance, uses Sprints network, which is a combination of deals done with the owners of spectrum across the country.
> The cable franchise agreements are exclusive. That's why you don't see two companies offering cable service. If they weren't you other companies would compete.
Nope.[1] Exclusive franchise agreements are illegal under federal law since 1996. There is no competition because the business proposition sucks. The only sensible play in most places is to try and target a niche market of wealthy neighborhoods that'll pay for the triple play. That is prohibited under most franchise agreements.
Four nationwide competitors isn't a monopoly any more than Pepsi and Coke are, who own almost all soft drink brands.
OK, it was legal prior to 1996 (was it the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992?), and majority of cable systems were established in the 20-30 years prior to 1996. So if a cable company was granted a monopoly by the government, and if it is able to keep competitors out because they enjoy monopolistic market share, isn't the critique fair?
If I want build a network in Comcast territory, there are very "new" customers. I have to go through an extremely expensive build out, and convince customers to switch. Meanwhile, Comcast can undercut me on price because they have already have infrastructure paid for. They can offer $1 internet to people trying to leave until I run out of money.
So yes, you are right that providers aren't currently monopolies, but they exist in markets distorted by being monopolies in the past.
edit: note that the Comcast/Time Warner mega providers grew themselves by buying up all the small ex-monopolies across the country - they didn't build out against them.
Some municipalities limit the structure of the entity offering the service however (eg. cannot be substantially and exclusively owned by the ratepayers, or their agent(s)), however the FCC seems to be working on getting those restrictions thrown out.
"... cannot be substantially and exclusively owned by the ratepayers ..."
Does that sentence mean that it's illegal for a municipality to form co-ops, and then for example lay their own fiber and then share the costs equally?
> The cable franchise agreements are exclusive. That's why you don't see two companies offering cable service.
You and others keep writing that when it is demonstrably false. Witnesseth:
Wide Open West - A cable overbuilder that serves Detroit, Columbus, Cleveland, and portions of Chicago right alongside the "incumbent" cable company.
Wave Broadband - Its coverage area overlaps with Comcast in some (high net worth) areas of Seattle.
RCN - An overbuilder--the first one, actually--that serves New York City, Boston, Washington D.C., and Philadelphia.
You don't see many overbuilders because building a physical plant network is VERY EXPENSIVE. Verizon's former CEO lost his job to a board that saw how expensive the FiOS buildout was--even though it will return its costs 10 times through not having to maintain the old fiber--and how it dragged on quarterly earnings reports. Instead of spending all of this money, companies retreat to where they don't have to compete so they can soak as much cash as possible out of their existing assets.
Instead of arguing about what the franchise agreements must or must not say based on what you imagine must or must not happen in each case, why not read the franchise agreements? Would appear to be the simpler, more accurate approach.
Regarding wireless, you don't seem to understand how the industry is structured. While it's true there are many brand names on the shelf in walmart, there are only 3 actual providers in a given metro region. Virgin, for instance, uses Sprints network, which is a combination of deals done with the owners of spectrum across the country.