>>Putting another transmitter on a cell tower has to be
>>infinitely cheaper than burying thousands of miles of cable
>or
>>fiber optics.
>>
>>The only reason the current companies haven't exploited
>>wireless is because they've spent billions upgrading their
>>current lines. They have to show it was worthwhile until
>they
>>can perfect the interactive tv services they've been
>promising
>>for years.
>
>im sure if a company like comcast thought it was profitable to
>provide wireless on a wide scale they would be working on it.

Like I mentioned, those companies are about providing service over their private networks. Their goal is to make that private network as valuable as profitable as possible.


Also the cable business is more protected right now. The cable businesses largely don't compete against each other bc building competing networks would be prohibitively expensive and the industry has consolidated to the point the remaining companies are largely similar. COX cable is the only local alternative to Comcast but their prices and services are largely similar. The only time my cable company has changed in the last 20+ years has been when a smaller one was bought up by the larger ones.


A satellite and DSL combo is the only real competition but it's severly hampered by accessibility issues (satellite isn't an optin if you don't have a southern exposure and DSL services have limited range).

Company's in high barrier to entry industries usually avoid competing in low barrier markets.