| Let me fix that for you... Unions, who obviously don't want the new company to fail or cut back on infrastructure investment or jobs, i.e. revenue..... |
|
 spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
 ·SureWest Internet
| Frontier "Regulators could force Verizon to sell these properties the old fashioned way -- but then Verizon could just choose to hold on to them and decide to treat them as second class markets unworthy of investment."
The second part of the sentence above, quoted from the article is exactly how Frontier already treats their subs. As unworthy of investment. Now for the $64 dollar question as to why? Lack of competition!
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer! |
|
Reviews:
 ·ooma
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| how low will Verizon go? Verizon already sold out from under 20% of their subscriber footprint in mostly rural and bad ROI areas, all the while creeping into AT&T's gilded cage,ahem i mean footprint out west and down south (Texas comes to mind as a prime example). I really don't care how many jobs verizon ultimately keeps ,but;
The most important thing is Verizon better step up it's competition and service customers properly or it won't be able to keep them, as cable won't play dumb forever, eventually they will have to give docsis 3.0 the proper investments and competitive offerings or risk anti-trust class action pretty soon.
No longer can a duopoly keep milking pitiful offerings as less for more without some consequences. After all, what do they think they are? Banks, the Auto industry, Healthcare Insurance companies?! |
|
 ArrayListnetbus developerPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | reply to battleop
Re: Let me fix that for you... yea that looks more like it. i'm sure that they would love more job security(infrastructure investment) |
|
ArrayListnetbus developerPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | after what the ceo of Verizon said the other day in the net neutrality piece its obvious what is driving this entire thing. |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | USF It makes me wonder why Verizon gets USF subsidies if the whole intent was to subsidize rural America. Perhaps the FCC should yank those subsidies from Verizon and give them to whatever company takes over the rural installations. I hate the whole idea of the Universal Slush Fund but at the very least it should go to those companies that endeavor to support the areas it was intended for.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | reply to battleop
Re: Let me fix that for you... said by battleop:Unions, who obviously don't want the new company to fail or cut back on infrastructure investment or jobs, i.e. revenue..... The parts that you struck out though go towards the jobs. If the company fails, that's definitely going to cut back on jobs. If the company doesn't maintain the network, or let it deteriorate technologically, that too can result in the loss of jobs. the union may be focused primarily on jobs/pay/benifits, but the other issues are of concern too. |
|
cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | reply to tmc8080
Re: how low will Verizon go? said by tmc8080:all the while creeping into AT&T's gilded cage,ahem i mean footprint out west and down south (Texas comes to mind as a prime example). Can you point to any significant sized areas that actually have duoploy of ILECs? I know that there have been reports of a few neighborhoods or smaller towns that might have sections serviced by both AT&T and Verizon, but statistically I don't think those service areas are even statistically and financially relevant in the big picture. |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
1 edit | Real competition would be nice This is an area where we need real change, we (the people) should force a divestiture of the last mile by requiring "last mile" providers only provide "last mile" goods and services.
Voice, video and internet services are not last mile goods or services.
|
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to n2jtx
Re: USF The USF also subsidizes high cost areas, so by whatever federal government philosophy or congressional philosophy they employ (lying, cheating, stealing), they keep it as a revenue stream. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to tmc8080
Re: how low will Verizon go? said by tmc8080:.... No longer can a duopoly keep milking pitiful offerings as less for more without some consequences. After all, what do they think they are? Banks, the Auto industry, Healthcare Insurance companies?! well, of course they will keep milking things and offer as little as they can for the highest price they can get. With little or no competition, customers must choose between something or nothing. with broadband really becoming a necessity (in my opinion), people just grit their teeth and bend over.
this will not change until there is real competition, just like health care costs won't get any better unless there is real competition. |
|
|
|
scooper
join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Embarq Now Centu..
| reply to lesopp
Re: Real competition would be nice said by lesopp:This is an area where we need real change, we (the people) should force a divestiture of the last mile by requiring "last mile" providers only provide "last mile" goods and services. Voice, video and internet services are not last mile goods or services. Say what ?!?!
That's EXACTLY what "Last Mile" services are. That and the transport medium they ride on. |
|
scooper
join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
kudos:2 | One wonders how "eager" Verizon would be.. One wonders how "eager" Verizon would be to go through these divestures WITHOUT the RMT incentive... |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to n2jtx
Re: USF The answer is to kill USF payments for POTS, and have USF only pay out for broadband with POTS reliability and availability. Voice is just data. If the telco then tries to abandon POTS, the state PUC with universal service laws will come asking questions, from pressure from politicians who are feeling heat from senior citizens in the boondocks  |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
1 edit | reply to scooper
Re: Real competition would be nice Sure they are now, but its only because they are all homogenized into service offerings by a telco and/or a cableco both with a strangle hold on your information flow, that's the point of divestiture. With access to the last mile any voice, video or internet provider can reach you with their product. Based on the Vonage model I say this spurs competition and has brought down voice prices for those willing to try the newer technologies. Or are you're saying Vonage is a last mile service? |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | reply to scooper
Re: One wonders how "eager" Verizon would be.. It's a decent question- I mean, they would still probably want to dump the rural areas, but they'd probably instead just look for the buyer willing to pay the most money. (The question is, who is that? May even be Frontier, in this case- is at&t really interested in Verizon's cast-offs? Does Qwest have the resources? And you can keep going from there- CenturyLink just finished an expensive merger...) So maybe there wouldn't be a deal after all. |
|
 alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA | reply to lesopp
Re: Real competition would be nice said by lesopp:Sure they are now, but its only because they are all homogenized into service offerings by a telco and/or a cableco both with a strangle hold on your information flow, that's the point of divestiture. With access to the last mile any voice, video or internet provider can reach you with their product. Based on the Vonage model I say this spurs competition and has brought down voice prices for those willing to try the newer technologies. Or are you're saying Vonage is a last mile service? Do you even know what you are talking about? The Telcos brought you the Last Mile, and they opened up the Internet to the world. The Telcos started with Voice, and then came Internet and Video. The Cable Companies came in later with Video, and then expanded to Internet and Voice. Both of them laid out good money to bring us these Services, and yes there was some perceived abuse. That's why back in 1986 Judge Green broke up AT&T. Competition is open, they just have to use the Infrastructure for the Last Mile that these Companies paid good money. |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Thanks for the unnecessary revisionist history lesson.
To some people, even in this day and age, the telcos bring only POTS and cable isn't available. At first the telcos didn't even see the need for, or envision profitability in, the internet. This is evident today where we see Verizon dumping rural areas because of lower profitability.
In the days before DSL, I recall setting up POPs in various BBN data centers in response to demand left unfilled by the telcos. Don't make them sound as if they have the best interest of everyone in mind, they don't. The truth is they are corporations and are required to put investor interests first and not the interests of we the people.
When you say they laid out good money are you including funds spent on bribes and lobbying? Are tax breaks factored into the "good money" equation? What about property rights being trampled upon for right-of-way easements?
It was actual antitrust abuses and not perceived abuses that lead to the 1986 divestiture, hence the phrase "revisionist history".
I am saying divest them of the last mile facilities and infrastructure in the same way AT&T was forced to split off the original 7 baby bells with a separate company for long distance. |
|
WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | reply to EPS
Re: One wonders how "eager" Verizon would be.. Most of the areas were GTE and they had a terrible reputation. The plan only works when you have areas that make a lot of money to make up for the losses in the rural areas. The reason the Bell System had good plant was the long distance profits paid for a lot of extras other phone companies could not afford. The spun off areas will never have the funds to upgrade their internet unless the Government Fed, state, or local gives / loans them the money to install fiber. It is hard to do upgrades when you can not afford to even maintain the current POTs plant. There are two reasons the customers are too far apart and the other reason is the many of the customer can not afford a lot of extras and many times even just dial tone. |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Indeed. The Bell System was deliberately set up to overprice long distance so that local service could be propped up. (I remember seeing it noted somewhere that in the decade after the breakup, long distance prices went down while local prices went up, which makes sense)
But don't forget, the sale does cover some non-rural areas as well- some of those places in Washington and Oregon that are being sold even have FiOS, I believe. (Same with the Northern New England sale, southern NH in that case) |
|
