| Mouthpiece for his clients? ...must be a lawyer. |
|
 Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Doesn't really surprise me.. I wonder how much at&t is paying this moron to lie for them. |
|
| reply to Joey1973
Re: Mouthpiece for his clients? no, a former congressman. just shows that money trumps all, especially with that kind of creature. |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Long ago past subsidies irrelevant quote:
Unmentioned of course is that AT&T has been paid countless taxpayer billions to install and maintain these lines
Someone ALWAYS brings up that AT&T and its progeny after the breakup were subsidized by the government. Not entirely true, because it wasn't subsidies but regulated rates and ROI they are referring to - not the same thing at all.
All of which is sort of irrelevant to present day reality - a deregulated environment where there are not guaranteed prices or rates of return.
And moving away from old copper networks to wireless networks is nothing different than when society moved on from horses to automobiles - technological progress. Those demanding that old copper be maintained or replaced with fiber are refusing to recognize that technology is moving on and that businesses can't continue to expend scarce resources(investment $$$$) on a more costly and increasingly irrelevant technology(last mile landlines). Like Asia(where wireless is THE future), the US has to let go of the past and move on to the future of communications.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. |
|
| Um, Asia has significant wired services (Korea, Japan). Some of it much better than ours.
LTE is not going to match cable's performance in the foreseeable future, so how is it the future if the performance is the same as what its replacing (DSL)? And I'm not even talking about the new problems that come with wireless (interference, etc). How does LTE handle wireless congestion? I certainly don't think it will do as good of a job as a wired facility, but I am not a network engineer, so I don't really know.
One more point is that AT&T (and other cell providers) are aggressive cappers, saying that caps are needed to reduce congestion. LTE is going to be the same story I think. |
|
|
|
| reply to nasadude
Re: Mouthpiece for his clients? And, if you'd checked, also a lawyer (as are most Congressmen/women). Which means: it's not the truth that matters, only what your client says is true. |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| reply to nasadude
Actually he's both. Not all that unusual in the house or senate to at least have studied law, have a degree or be a member of the bar practicing or not. Even those who came from the business world usually have more than basic business law on their resume, not a bad thing for those intending to write laws, or at least understand their consequences, intended or not... unfortunately common sense and judgment is lacking or quickly forgotten by some. |
|
 linicxCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2002-12-03
United State
 ·CenturyLink
| Why do we even talk about deregulation? It is a waste of time as AT&T and the other service provider giants only play by their own rules. Whining to FCC does nothing except get their name in trade magazines and forums.
Factually the territory phone, cable and Internet providers use was divvied up years ago when telco and cable pulled out of small and medium markets from coast to coast.
What is left is a cacophony of noisy whiners and 150,000,000 homes in rural America with very poor service. "The highest quality we can give you is 1.5/.500." Translation: We don't care about you or your poor service. We care about the money we will make by providing 100Gbps to London and Paris. We are very happy to help our partners, and pray for the day we no longer have to be bothered by insignificant customers like you and everyone else who lives in rural America.
Learn your lessons well now. AT&T was whining about the same thing in 1997. Only then it was about not wanting to sharing local rural phone lines with other long distance carriers like Sprint. In one town they shut Sprint out for a year. I lived it. After that Sprint became a cell phone provider.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to TechnoGeek
Re: Long ago past subsidies irrelevant said by TechnoGeek:Um, Asia has significant wired services (Korea, Japan). Some of it much better than ours.
LTE is not going to match cable's performance in the foreseeable future, so how is it the future if the performance is the same as what its replacing (DSL)? And I'm not even talking about the new problems that come with wireless (interference, etc). How does LTE handle wireless congestion? I certainly don't think it will do as good of a job as a wired facility, but I am not a network engineer, so I don't really know.
One more point is that AT&T (and other cell providers) are aggressive cappers, saying that caps are needed to reduce congestion. LTE is going to be the same story I think.
If consumers are willing to pay for "significant wired services", including those that are "better than ours", then someone will install them.
If they aren't, it won't happen.
Verizon has demonstrated the willingness to take the risk on FTTH, and has spent huge sums chasing it. But the majority of customers aren't buying it.
With fixed-LTE looming, wired providers are foolish to risk capital on products they have to price at $70+/month, when the subscribers are looking for a $30-40 product.
While it is difficult for wireless to beat wired for performance, when you consider the cost to deploy (and therefore monthly pricing), and when you consider the ongoing maintenance requirements for wired, add in consumer choice (to do without wired), and wireless rules the day. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by elray:While it is difficult for wireless to beat wired for performance, when you consider the cost to deploy (and therefore monthly pricing), and when you consider the ongoing maintenance requirements for wired, add in consumer choice (to do without wired), and wireless rules the day.
It is impossible for wireless to beat fiber to the premises for performance just as it is impossible for fiber to beat the mobility of wireless. Unless we want to become a third world country both will be needed in the future and fiber is the logical replacement for the public switched telephone network. Long term maintenance costs are much lower for fiber than for copper and probably even lower than for wireless. In a country that put man on the moon and built the interstate highway system saying that fiber to the premises is too costly shows a lack of will. |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
·Comcast
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| Get rid of basic service I think the phone companies should be allowed to ditch basic telephone service (local only calling, long distance extra) and offer more modern plans that allow for unlimited flat rate local and long distance calling. The cost of voice traffic these days is so cheap that it is no longer necessary to charge for long distance. And people who have metered long distance are probably paying more than if they move to a flat rate plan. |
|
| reply to TechnoGeek
Re: Long ago past subsidies irrelevant Past subsidies were intended to pay for upgraded lines, which now always means fiber-optic technology to homes & businesses, not the barf-bag setup of fiber to the ditch that AT&T uses now. Boucher is like any other thieving, lying plutocrat: GIMME!, then shut your eyes, 'til I finally retire with my loot! But in the meantime, a pox on you bubba; you shoulda knowed what would happen down there in the Old Dominion when you voted for me. |
|
linicxCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2002-12-03
United State | reply to IowaCowboy
Re: Get rid of basic service This is not a new idea. We've had this for years. I live in an area area as rural as Iowa.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside |
|
| Political-Corporate Bribery at its best why is this guy not in federal prison? |
|
 a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cingular Wireless
| reply to elray
Re: Long ago past subsidies irrelevant said by elray:said by TechnoGeek:Um, Asia has significant wired services (Korea, Japan). Some of it much better than ours.
LTE is not going to match cable's performance in the foreseeable future, so how is it the future if the performance is the same as what its replacing (DSL)? And I'm not even talking about the new problems that come with wireless (interference, etc). How does LTE handle wireless congestion? I certainly don't think it will do as good of a job as a wired facility, but I am not a network engineer, so I don't really know.
One more point is that AT&T (and other cell providers) are aggressive cappers, saying that caps are needed to reduce congestion. LTE is going to be the same story I think.
If consumers are willing to pay for "significant wired services", including those that are "better than ours", then someone will install them. If they aren't, it won't happen. ... Hard to create a wired fiber network from scratch if incumbents are willing to go to great lengths to sue you down to the ground before you even start, don't you think?
--
Physics: Will you break the laws of physics, or will the laws of physics break you?
If physicists stand on each other's shoulders, computer scientists stand on each other's toes, and computer programmers dig each other's graves. |
|
| reply to elray
"If consumers are willing to pay for "significant wired services", including those that are "better than ours", then someone will install them."
DEFINITELY. I will pay $50 for symmetrical 100 Mbps with no caps as in South Korea and Japan.
Spare me the population density argument and explain why NYC does not have it. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to Sammer
said by Sammer:said by elray:While it is difficult for wireless to beat wired for performance, when you consider the cost to deploy (and therefore monthly pricing), and when you consider the ongoing maintenance requirements for wired, add in consumer choice (to do without wired), and wireless rules the day.
It is impossible for wireless to beat fiber to the premises for performance just as it is impossible for fiber to beat the mobility of wireless. Unless we want to become a third world country both will be needed in the future and fiber is the logical replacement for the public switched telephone network. Long term maintenance costs are much lower for fiber than for copper and probably even lower than for wireless. In a country that put man on the moon and built the interstate highway system saying that fiber to the premises is too costly shows a lack of will. The "logical" replacement for the PSTN is wireless. People have already voted so with their wallets.
There may be no means to match fiber's performance, but no one actually NEEDS fiber performance, they only want it - and the majority aren't willing to pay for it when it is so offered.
Installing FTTH isn't going to grow the economy, or prevent us from becoming a third-rate nation; we're already well on our way, given our spending/borrowing habits, welfare state, open borders, socialized medicine, and general lack of morality.
It is indeed, too costly. Consumers are saying "No, thank you."
When Dane Jasper of Sonic, Google, Surewest, and others figure a way to deliver FTTH at DSL prices to everyone, they will. But please don't project your own personal desire for a luxury service and expect the rest of us to subsidize it. |
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | reply to elray
If consumers are willing to pay for "significant wired services", including those that are "better than ours", then someone will install them.
Wireless is *not* the future; wireless has numerous problems wired networks do not have and never will. Wireless cannot match the performance of wired networks, side by side. Wireless, even the mythical "fixed-LTE", will never be the preferred option when a wired connection is available. They want to drive people to the inferior experience at significantly higher costs (more profit for them) by making sure you have no fallback. If you think wireless is so great, tether your house to your cellphone and use NOTHING ELSE for a month -- you'll scream uncle in under a week. Your speed will be randomly unpredictable and slow, with much higher latency, and your bill will be insane.
Yes, the old twisted copper pair PSTN wired network has been a dead horse for decades. One simply cannot get the speeds needed for modern networking over the distances needed -- hence the Uverse "VRAD every half mile" deployment plan... that only works in high density areas, which is why they are so hot on dropping their "old" POTS network / low density, rural areas. They're the incumbant require by law to maintain that infrastructure right now. They would VERY much like to abandon that "cost center" for the much more profitable (in every way) high density areas. Mark my words, they take away that law and vast portions of the country will be left out in the cold with no landline services and slow, spotty cell coverage, if any at all. (and they *still* fight tooth and nail to keep anyone else from filling the void.) |
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | reply to WernerSchutz
*cough*unions*cough*
(also, politics, land owners, etc.) |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to a333
You mean suing to prevent potentially unfair competition from a government entity? |
|
