SBJ.net Poll

Should AT&T and other companies looking to enter Springfield’s cable television market be given special consideration in an effort to encourage competition? Why or why not?

For poll results, click here.

What Readers Think

Yes

I voted to give other cable providers special consideration to encourage competition. I based this vote on two considerations: 1) Mediacom annually increases its charges in excess of the cost of living and does not provide content and high-definition as other cable providers around the country, and 2) I (recently) stood in line for 30 minutes to return a (Mediacom) cable box and I was the second one in the door. (Mediacom has) a monopoly and it shows with basically mediocre and behind-the-times signal and poor service. I hope competition will bring Springfield cable into the 21st century.

—Bill Hart, Husch & Eppenberger LLC

I think competition should be encouraged between providers because of the benefits to the consumer. A larger selection of options between the competing companies (would) attract new customers. … Currently, I use Mediacom, not only for the service, but they have what I need and want and are the only company for those services. Competition for this market would be good, and may be available at competitive prices. Look at Microsoft – no competition, market cornered and can charge whatever they want. Bill Gates is the richest man 11 years running because no one else can compete.

Life should be about options.

—Richard Ford, Redneck Computers

No

I don’t feel that other competitors should be given an unfair advantage to compete in this market. If government does feel that the competition is healthy, then what will become of the franchise agreement made between the existing cable company and the city? I would then refuse to pay the city the $200,000 per year and pull the government and local information channels from the community to free up more bandwidth to replace with more profitable viewing interests. You can then forget cable in the classroom for the public schools and universities, and only the wealthy neighborhoods will be provided with Mediacom services.

No one will benefit from this proposal. The customer will not see a decrease in rates for the services because the costs have been cut as much as possible. For each channel carried by the provider, the company must agree to pay each network $X to carry this service. Want to know why rates increase each year? Think of ESPN, Viacom and the other big boys. ... And with bringing in other competition, if there would be a negative effect on Mediacom, the result would probably be laying off Springfield employees to cut costs.

If this truly were a money-making market for TV services, don’t you think that City Utilities would have done this years ago?

We all saw how well AT&T’s last venture into cable TV went – poor services and plunging stocks. They pulled out nearly as quick as they jumped into it.

—Kelly Robertson, OnMedia

Current Question

What local industry has the most expansion opportunities in China, and why?

Vote at sbj.net/poll.[[In-content Ad]]