That's because it's illegal. Your local government granted a monopoly to one of them.
I wonder....do you tell such blatant bullshit lies because you're that audacious, or because you're that stupid?
I simply note the facts, dumbass. I lived in Denver when the city council granted a monopoly to one of the cable providers. The cable companies were falling all over each other attempting to bribe the council members. One cable company actually publicly offered to give each council member a certain number of shares of company stock. They had a press conference to announce they were offering to bribe the city council!
That's how your local cable company became a government protected monopoly.
Uh, no, that's how
your cable company became a government protected monopoly.
Except, wait a second.....This just in, it's
not a local monopoly. A quick google search produces different companies who both offer cable TV services in Denver.
Moving to Denver Colorado Allconnect
Cable Denver - Cable TV Internet Phone Providers Denver CO
On top of that DirectTV and Dish Network both offer satellite service in Denver.
That may be the case now, but it wasn't the case in 1980 when they first offered cable in the city.
So you're making arguments about shit that happening 35 years ago? I knew that you were retarded, but I didn't realize you were
that slow.
So far you have posted no information to the contrary.
Here's the proof, moron:
Don t Blame Big Cable. It s Local Governments That Choke Broadband Competition WIRED
Despite public, political, and business interest in greater broadband deployment, not every American has high-speed internet access yet (let alone a choice of provider for really fast, high-capacity service). So who’s really to blame for strangling broadband competition?
While popular arguments focus on supposed “
monopolists” such as big cable companies, it’s government that’s really to blame. Companies can make life harder for their competitors, but
strangling the competition takes government.
Broadband policy discussions usually revolve around the U.S. government’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC), yet it’s really our
local governments and public utilities that impose the most significant barriers to entry.
Game of Kickbacks
Deploying broadband infrastructure isn’t as simple as merely laying wires underground: that’s the easy part. The hard part — and the reason it often doesn’t happen — is the
pre-deployment barriers, which local governments and public utilities make unnecessarily expensive and difficult.
Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned “rights of way” so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property. ISPs also need “pole attachment” contracts with public utilities so they can rent space on utility poles for above-ground wires, or in ducts and conduits for wires laid underground.
The problem? Local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost. For example, rights of way and pole attachments fees
can double the cost of network construction.
So the real bottleneck isn’t incumbent providers of broadband, but incumbent providers of rights-of-way. These incumbents — the
real monopolists — also have the final say on whether an ISP can build a network. They determine what hoops an ISP must jump through to get approval.
This reduces the number of potential competitors who can profitably deploy service — such as AT&T’s U-Verse, Google Fiber, and Verizon FiOS. The lack of competition makes it easier for local governments and utilities to charge more for rights of way and pole attachments.
It’s a vicious circle. And it’s essentially a system of forced kickbacks. Other kickbacks arguably include municipal requirements for ISPs such as building out service where it isn’t demanded,
donating equipment, and
delivering free broadband to government buildings.
