A region: a collection of franchises in geographic proximity to each other. The set of MSOs has a 1 to many relationship with the set of regions. The particular regions serviced by an MSO, are not in geographic proximity to each other.
Perhaps an unnecessary (and clumsy) level of abstraction.
The MSOs provide distribution for a local franchise, but they do not provide network connectivity from region to region, this is the role of ATHM and RR. There was a possibility, now in the past, for other network providers to compete with ATHM and RR for servicing particular regions. Indeed, ATHM and RR competed against each other.
I thought it appropriate to emphasize that there will be no possibility of competition at the network level. The DOJ decision ensures this, since each consortium of MSOs are now united by ownership of their respective networks.
DOJ has given their approval for oligopoly control of the network level ( I assume with the understanding that their will be competition at the "eyeball" level). We can be sure the MSOs will continue to upgrade their distribution networks, as well as their respective connectivity networks, because now investment = income = profits is assured.
Soon there will be fierce competition at the level of excite and aol and whoever else is out there at the "click me" level. Isn't this what always happens in monopoly capital? i.e. Fierce competition at the brand level.
The networks are and will continue to be the cash cow for the MSOs. The networks provide the valued added "things" that the MSOs distribute. Therefore, the emphasis for ATHM investors should not be in determining who ends up owning RR, that is irrelevant. RR is of no value to AT&T, it is just a name (did someone else say brand?) so it provides no leverage (leverage for what?).
I haven't touched on @Work yet, which deserves a post of its own. |
