brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | FCC leave them alone
Just let the merger happen no problems asked. |
|
Topmounter
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO
 ·Cox HSI
| My comment from the Morning Broadband Bytes thread:
Net neutrality should only apply in non-competitive markets.
I'd rather see cable, telco and wireless compete instead of having the government telling them what service they can and cannot offer. |
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA
| IS it just me or....
Does it look as though if the FCC were to accept these "concessions" then AT&T would effectively get its nationwide TV franchise? (ok.. just 22 states) In the letter it talks about their commitment to provide this service and would if the merger was approved.
This is a backdoor tactic to get around local franchises. FCC beware.... |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
 ·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | ...where are the telco fanboys? oh, I hear them coming...
this news is just more of the same bullshit "concessions" from AT&T and gang. they are being stubborn and greedy, surprise surprise. they want it all by their rules and, oh by the way, fukc the consumer. hope the FCC has it in them to force REAL concessions and not the current joke. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ |  About time this merger should be approved
The Dem foot dragging should end and this merger should be voted on - either up or down. |
|
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
| reply to Topmounter
Re: FCC leave them alone
said by Topmounter  :Net neutrality should only apply in non-competitive markets. Because there are so many more 'competitive' markets than essentially non-compete? Choice of broadband in the US usually means you have it or you don't. True competition in alot of markets is usually a smokescreen, with every party involved clouding the data.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with what service can be offered. It is about the ability to prioritize traffic at the expensive of everything else. And no matter what spin the telecom giants want to put on it, it's always bad for the consumer and competition. |
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Tipped By Corona?
Just copy the news releases from AT&T's website, why don't ya'. |
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | reply to brianiscool
Re: FCC leave them alone
Why, so the consumer can get raped some more? |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| Docsis 3.0 will run wild over YOU AT&T!!
AT&T will roll over and die versus docsis 3.0 capable
service areas. There is nothing really new besides some business ethernet contract savings and tariff adjustments to customers who really should be looking elsewhere for business data anyway. The service commitments for DSL @ 200-768kbits is totally lame for 2007, Maybe 1995 would have impressed many, but today?!? Might as well bond a few 56k modems together over plain old copper.. that's how backdated this offer looks.
The rollout of fiber is much too weak to be considered anything but laughable. No provisions or technical clarity on how they intent to connect apartment buildings or areas where construction will be more complex than a basic residential install.
Competition from cable: a fully implemented docsis 2.0 (widely and cheaply available cable mso equipment) network of hubs would trounce anything intended to be deployed by at&t, which we all know that customers will vote with their feet and switch! Docsis 3.0 would be able to go HEAD TO HEAD with fttc/fttp in areas where AT&T would attempt to deploy a network-- but I suspect AT&T will be a weasel and bring the network to places where there IS NO CABLE MSO to compare services for a large portion of the construction so they don't have to increase speeds, and lower prices and offer much more cost effective VOIP instead of POTS service as part of the bundles.
As we've discussed here numerous times, the building of AT&T's network is neither robust enough nor fast enough to satisfy the demands of high speed video, data, or able to compete in the marketplace, while potentially locking out a valuable commodity: network rights of way which could be deployed by a 3rd competitor who REALLY would deploy a future proofed network.
AT&T doesn't have to merge to deploy the network in its current areas, so why should they be rewarded for petty commitments after they just gobbled up SBC!? Wouldn't the fcc/doj want to see some results on that merger first, before DOUBLING DOWN the number of customers they will be poised to disappoint?!? And in areas where they compete on their own terms-- literally handing customers over to the competition: CABLE
?????????????????????????????????? |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to Topmounter
Re: FCC leave them alone
What exactly is a 'competitive' market? Is that a market where the FCC has determined the zip code (even if it's only 1 house) has broadband, when 99.99% of the people can't get it? Is that the market where you can get raped by comcast, or you can get raped by verizon? Does a competitive market include satellite, with 100MB download caps, and 1000ms latency? Is the dial-up market 'competitive'?
Net Neutrality has NOTHING TO DO with competition. Net Neutrality forces the companies to provide US (the customer) with what we are paying for. If I'm buying an 'internet connection', I expect it to work as the entire internet does, BEST EFFORT. If my provider can't provide me with the latency, or bandwidth I want, then I change providers. What my provider CANNOT do, is create a '2-tier' internet, where some web sites are served faster than others. What my provider CANNOT do is throttle my bittorrent traffic. If my provider sells me 10MB/1MB, I expect to be able to use that pipe in any manner I SEE FIT. That is what net neutrality is all about.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: About time this merger should be approved
Yep. The concessions are fine, and several of them have absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the deal nor antitrust concerns. Many of them are just extortion from competitors and the Democrats - bribes for allowing this through.
People whining about the as-yet vaporware "net-neutrality" problem, including industry "expert" Burnstein, need to realize that the FCC isn't around to impose restrictions on one company that they don't impose on anyone else. They've done it correctly here - they've agreed to 30 months of following the "net-neutrality" principles stated by the FCC in order to let Congress decide on the actual rules. Congress is supposed to make laws - not the FCC.
Let's get it through. They've already given the extortionists several cookies...
Adam |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | Just got word from DC...
That it's now "very likely" that the merger will be approved today.
Look for an announcement before too much longer...
Adam |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: About time this merger should be approved
This got nothing to do with Dem's.
Has to do with down right bullshit concessions. If you think that it's beneficial that now we have up to 6000kbps/768kbps dry pair lines only to hop down to 768kbps/768kbps. To me this is actually hurting any growth in the broadband industry itself for expansion and help the country gain better speeds.
It's not all about taking a bite out of cable, as cable would only increase there speeds where there is competition. AT&T insists on using old technology and with the merger concessions show nothing new than already exists today so I find this merger still to be rather pointless even if it's a vertical merger.
Tell me something good that will come out of this merger and then I might begin to see it in a different light but from what I see now, I won't approve it even if they offered a endless supply of Pina Colada's. |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
| Hurting growth? I can't see how $10/month DSL or $20 naked DSL will somehow hurt growth. It might hurt the growth of their competitors, but that's called "business."
The merits of the merger have absolutely zero to do with increasing speeds or which technology they use. THat's 100% up to them and the FCC has no say.
That's what so many people around here don't seem to understand. THe FCC isn't around to look at the business case for the merger. It's only there to make sure antitrust violations are addressed (which they have been with ATT selling off all BellSouth spectrum, among other things.) They don't care (or at least "shouldn't care") about the company's business strategy or the technology they use. Period.
Adam |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| I could see considering that a dry pair is only 5 dollars extra. While the 10/month cost is only for one year of service and under contract.
While the FCC has nothing to do in regards of competition the court does which is why it first much be approved by a court while FCC handles and checks for any violations.
As for hurting growth with competitors that is true, but this is cutting there lifeline and although I do agree they should all deploy there own networks this is suicide period. On top of that why does the article state the following "However, looking at the list, the promise to offer "naked" DSL (DSL without force-bundled phone service) is restricted to just 768kbps."
Meaning they are cutting there competitors speeds so it is about speed restrictions to 3rd party providers and on top of that it means they can offer 1.5mbps speeds and can consider themselves as the superior product. This is not beneficial competition this is hurtful competition or should I say murder competition to eliminate a group of companies all together where the battle will now simply be cable and telco. |
|
RodTag
join:2003-02-05
Kaufman, TX | reply to tmc8080
Re: Docsis 3.0 will run wild over YOU AT&T!!
SBC gobbled AT&T not the other way around. |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
1 edit | reply to Michieru2
Re: About time this merger should be approved
quote:
to eliminate a group of companies all together where the battle will now simply be cable and telco.
What is it now? That's the fight - cable vs telco. The sooner everyone realizes that reality, the sooner we can go forward.
I assume you're talking about "murdering" CLECs. CLECs are fine and dandy, but the bottom line is that they can't do squat by themselves. Except for the rare Covad (who I really applaud for trying to build out their own network,) CLECs are simply the dingleberries of the telco business. They use ILEC lines, they use ILEC facilities. THey can't really innovate because they don't have their own networks. They'll still be able to lease lines (especially considering the price freeze put in as a consession,) but at this point they serve very little purpose.
Adam |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC | What does this mean?
Can someone lay out the benefits of this merger without putting on their rose colored glasses first?
--
Use the OS tool for the job. |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| reply to Alpine
Re: About time this merger should be approved
Even with Covad they still require to lease the copper and the price hike is simple idiocy. I am connected through a Covad facility which goes all the way to the Atlanta, GA POP from Speakeasy.
So even Covad is affected as they use ILEC lines. CLECs are gone and now instead of having several competitors we have two and maybe even three if Covad survives. |
|
Paladin
Sage of the light
join:2001-08-17
Chester, IL | Force them to go all out with fiber
Make them do FTTP everywhere like Verizon is doing. Otherwise, any merger should be defeated. |
|
