AT&T’s massive TV losses continue as another 900,000 customers flee.

[ncted]

Frontier Vantage? If so, I think that's just a rebranding of the U-Verse services they acquired in areas formerly served by AT&T. I guess they didn't want to license the name from AT&T, like like do with Fios from Verizon.

Well, the Frontier fiber in my area is old Verizon FiOS that Verizon abandoned and never officially launched in my market before selling to Frontier, and Frontier actually spent some money expanding it into new neighborhoods, so not sure which inherited tech it is, or if it is something else entirely. I don't know anyone who signed up for it. Either way, they stopped selling it.

 

[Don in CT]

Generally speaking, yes. That's why I said ''While the exception not the rule '. There are areas that have two cable companies, and some of them are in pretty big markets, Chicago, Dallas, San Antonio, Columbus, Philly, NYC, Boston. Hell, there's an area in Texas that has both Frontier Fios and AT&T U-Verse, or what used to be U-Verse.

I doubt they are serving the same house. They might have territories in regions but no way can you pick from 3 cable companies.

 

[EarDemon]

Yes, they service the same house. Yes, there are a some areas you can pick between two cable companies and a telco. Those three cable companies are overbuilders, their whole business model is based on directly competing with and providing an alternative to the bigger providers.

 

[Don in CT]

Yes, they service the same house. Yes, there are a some areas you can pick between two cable companies and a telco. Those three cable companies are overbuilders, their whole business model is based on directly competing with and providing an alternative to the bigger providers.

They have to be piggy backing on the network. No way would they be allowed to build out their own separate plants.

 

[EarDemon]

No they are not piggy backing on anything, they have their own lines, and their own infrastructure.

 

[Don in CT]

No they are not piggy backing on anything, they have their own lines, and their own infrastructure.

They must have special agreements with the state then. Around here that is out of the question. The cable co in the region would never allow it.

 

[slice1900]

They have to be piggy backing on the network. No way would they be allowed to build out their own separate plants.

Why do you think "they wouldn't be allowed"? Not all municipalities grant a monopoly to a single cable company, if they don't there is nothing stopping another from installing their own cable plant.

The reason it isn't done more frequently is a lot of cities will grant a monopoly to a single carrier in exchange for providing free service to schools, giving them a couple channels to carry city council meetings and that sort of thing. And of course also because the overbuilder has more competition so it is harder to make a profit.

 

[comfortably_numb]

The subdivision next to my church has Google Fiber, ATT and Comcast available

 

[Don in CT]

Why do you think "they wouldn't be allowed"? Not all municipalities grant a monopoly to a single cable company, if they don't there is nothing stopping another from installing their own cable plant.

The reason it isn't done more frequently is a lot of cities will grant a monopoly to a single carrier in exchange for providing free service to schools, giving them a couple channels to carry city council meetings and that sort of thing. And of course also because the overbuilder has more competition so it is harder to make a profit.

Around here space on the polls is highly allocated. Once a franchise is granted to an operator others don't come into their territory.

 

[raoul5788]

They have to be piggy backing on the network. No way would they be allowed to build out their own separate plants.

In my town you can subscribe to Cox cable or Frontier. Completely separate.

 

[Don in CT]

The subdivision next to my church has Google Fiber, ATT and Comcast available

ATT is not considered a cable operator but a telephone company providing TV.

 

[Don in CT]

In my town you can subscribe to Cox cable or Frontier. Completely separate.

Not the same. Cox is Cable, Frontier is phone. Would you see Cox and Comcast in the same town?

 

[comfortably_numb]

ATT is not considered a cable operator but a telephone company providing TV.

What about ATT's fiber offering? Another subdivision in the area is offering that product exclusively in an otherwise Comcast area.

 

[raoul5788]

Not the same. Cox is Cable, Frontier is phone. Would you see Cox and Comcast in the same town?

Frontier offers video services here, much like cable.

 

[Don in CT]

What about ATT's fiber offering? Another subdivision in the area is offering that product exclusively in another wise Comcast area.

ATT is providing their service via IP. Not cable. Totally difference infrastructures.

 

[Don in CT]

Frontier offers video services here, much like cable.

How is Frontier delivering service?

 

[raoul5788]

How is Frontier delivering service?

Through the old AT&T lines.

 

[Don in CT]

In Connecticut when AT&T was rolling out U-Verse they petitioned the state for a statewide franchise agreement so they could run statewide. The cable operators were running as territories. The state allowed AT&T in because they were considered a phone company providing television through IP. Cable operators baulked and wanted our of their 10 year agreements so the state agreed. We now have cable companies that don't have any regulation because they don't have to renew their agreements with towns in their service area.

 

[Don in CT]

Through the old AT&T lines.

Yes, the phone line. Not a coax cable.

 

[raoul5788]

Yes, the phone line. Not a coax cable.

Correct. So what?