Firefox Founders: "We want to make money..." 10180

I still don't think that it's as simple as you believe it is. Take the upcoming bill before Congress that will allow cable television companies to offer telephone service. (Currently they're not allowed to under the 1992 cable act.) Financially this will be a huge plus to companies like Comcast (CMCSA) who is the nations largest cable provider.

So already there are issues with how this works.

In some areas of the country Comcast is the only available cable company. Effectively they are the local cable monopoly and have 100% of the local marketshare. Can Comcast offer service here at below cost? In other parts of the country Time-Warner or Adelphia is the local cable provider. Here Comcast has 0% of the marketshare. Can Comcast offer service here at below cost? Complicate both of these cases by throwing in long-term and short-term service. By long-term I basically mean continued service and short-term is "for the first 6 months" where they try and get new subscribers.

But that's just cable service. In theory Comcast has 0% of the telephone market share. Should they, or shouldn't they be allowed to offer phone service "below cost" even in places where they have 100% of the cable market share. So does the 50% market share threshold apply to 50% of any market the company competes in or just an existing market.

Mind you that if this were somehow written in law, companies would find could either form new sub-corporations for each market-product or define these markets so narrowly that it appears as if it's a new market altogether. (Ex. "Microsoft announced today that it will begin selling WinXP to users in South Dakota with Intel 4.2Ghz processors and 200-Gig SATA hard drives. "We think this 'new market' creates an exciting opportunity for us." said a Msft spokesman...." - You get the idea.)