Re:A step in the wrong direction (Score 1)

I own a small start-up cable company providing programming as well as Internet. What many of you don't understand is that it's very expensive to put in head-end units which are all the electronics required to support Internet and Video not to mention the tools (meters, spectrum analyzers, etc...) to balance and monitor a head-end and the recurring fees of discounted programming and the SLAs associated with DS3 or Ethernet over Fiber. Singing an exclusive contract with a property owner (10 years is typical) generally is a good indicator you'll recoup your investment. This FCC laws just allows bigger incumbents (Comcast, Cox, Charter, etc...) to continue to be monopolies. Smaller cable companies, such as mine which I will keep anonymous, provide better service. For example, we provide IP cameras for the pool area and lobby area. (side note: we don't do this for playgrounds because petafiles can use this for their own disgusting habits). By allowing exclusive contracts to continue, smaller cable companies can get in and provide the better services. We typically present a survey to all the residents asking what they want and from that we create custom line up for a particular property. If done correctly, smaller cable companies can deliver far superior services. Also, having a head-end on site vs. a single head-end with miles of cable on telephone poles provides superior picture quality among other things. The FCC simple doesn't get it. This proposed changed will only be of benefit to big companies wanting to compete with big companies and they already do today without this law. Comcast and Charter routinely buy customers from one another. I've already had Comcast approach my company wanting to buy a couple of our contracts. In some cases, I know of small cable companies actually just reselling/re-branding Comcast services as a means to cut down on infrastructure costs.