I didn't say that. I was saying that there are legitimate technical and cost reasons for this situation, and that bureaucratic micromanaging will probably do more harm than good. The FCC has a legitimate and critical "traffic cop" role in sorting out the electromagnetic frequencies, and in many areas other than simple commercial use. It shouldn't be up to them how companies manage the frequencies they have been legitimately assigned, or, within reason, how they're used. I'm not sure they should even have a role at all in hard-wired communication systems. There may be monopoly issues in cable and fiber, but that's another part of government.

History of cell phones:

Anything to do with broadcasting and sending a radio or television message out over the airwaves comes under Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation. A cell phone is a type of two-way radio. In 1947, AT&T proposed that the FCC allocate a large number of radio-spectrum frequencies so that widespread mobile telephone service would become feasible and AT&T would have a incentive to research the new technology. We can partially blame the FCC for the gap between the initial concept of cellular service and its availability to the public. The FCC decided to limit the amount of frequencies available in 1947, the limits made only twenty-three phone conversations possible simultaneously in the same service area - not a market incentive for research.

The FCC reconsidered its position in 1968, stating "if the technology to build a better mobile service works, we will increase the frequencies allocation, freeing the airwaves for more mobile phones." AT&T and Bell Labs proposed a cellular system to the FCC of many small, low-powered, broadcast towers, each covering a 'cell' a few miles in radius and collectively covering a larger area. Each tower would use only a few of the total frequencies allocated to the system. As the phones traveled across the area, calls would be passed from tower to tower.

My cable service delivers hundreds of channels for every possible taste, DVR capability, on-demand access to hundreds of movies, TV shows and special events (only some of which cost extra) and high-resolution (if I had such a set). The same company also offers me high-speed internet and online telephone services if I wanted them (I don't.)

If I wanted, I could get similar services from satellite over a completely different technology.

I remember when I had a choice of a dozen channels, and there was no way at all to see movies in your own home. I call this progress.

And while you're indignantly lecturing me on injecting economic ideology into this discussion, I might point out that my first contribution to this thread was a simple link to a technological source.

It was preceded by two posts by you and Robert commiserating on how the profit motive and greed are wrecking things, and followed by a post by you on how the government should force the cable companies to do what you want.