JohnDrenZ
Premium
join:2000-04-03
Phoenix, AZ | Didn't We Hear This Before
I could have sworn the people of PA, heard this one before!! |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
| Cherry-pick away!
It's known as "Business Strategy 101." Build to the most profitable areas first. Nothing wrong with that.
Just like cable, over the years they'll keep expanding into new areas to continue gathering market share.
And haven't we seen recently what the anti-"redlining" lobby has done for housing loans? A bunch of sub-prime borrowers (and the idiot lenders lending to them) destroying the housing market. Obviously broadband and TV aren't on that kind of importance level, but so-called "redlining" and "cherry-picking" aren't necessarily as evil as their opponents make them out to be. |
|
MemphisPCGuy
Senior Systems Engineer
Premium
join:2004-05-09
Memphis, TN
 ·Comcast
| Risk vs Reward
If the incentives and tax reductions are given based on the actual "cherry-picked" number of households it would be fine, but promising 600,000 house holds by a given date and then actually delivering a percentage of those at a much later date should not be tolerated. How about promising late and delivery early for once. |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
1 edit | reply to Alpine
Re: Cherry-pick away!
"Necessarily," nice disclaimer there but effectively you said nothing but advocation of greed. |
|
BigPete82
@qwest.net
| said by gaforces  :"Necessarily," nice disclaimer there but effectively you said nothing but advocating greed. Advocating greed? What makes it greedy for a company to not want to deploy services to an area that will give it little or no return on investment? TV and Internet are not a right. Typical product of the entitlement society... |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Not a new age
"But this is a new age, and the baby bells have lobbied the FCC and State lawmakers to gut the local franchise system, legalizing cherry picking in most suburban markets."
Actually, it has been the situation for decades that companies can decide the jurisdictions in which they will seek TV franchises. None of the recent FCC changes or state laws legalize cherry picking or prevent a jurisdiction from including terms preventing cherry picking in their franchise agreement. |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| reply to Alpine
Re: Cherry-pick away!
Good point. What's the logic in demanding that Verizon lay fiber in parts of the city where most people won't even sign up? Some neighborhoods simply won't have enough uptake to make FiOS profitable. so Verizon must make the money back elsewhere by charging higher prices.
The main result of these absurd anti-redlining statutes is that Verizon deploys FiOS slower and in fewer cities than it otherwise would.
But for idiotic city council members forcing Verizon to jump through hoops just to provide a service that people desire, I bet FiOS would now be available in many more cities. Even if Verizon skips your neighborhood at first, moving a couple miles to a home wired for Fiber is much easier than relocating cities. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to SD6
Re: Not a new age
None of the recent FCC changes or state laws legalize cherry picking or prevent a jurisdiction from including terms preventing cherry picking in their franchise agreement. Are you suggesting that a town in Wisconsin, under say...Wisconsin's new franchise "reform" law, can force an incumbent ISP to deploy to areas with poor ROI? I'd be curious to see some sourcing for that claim.... |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | reply to BigPete82
Re: Cherry-pick away!
I'll answer your questions with my own since it's obvious you dont want to see my answers.
Why cant Verizon be happy with 20% profits instead of 50+%. |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
| reply to gaforces
said by gaforces :"Necessarily," nice disclaimer there but effectively you said nothing but advocation of greed. Since when are TV and internet providers charities? They're in it for the money, pure and simple. Is that some sort of surprise in a capitalist society? |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to gaforces
Why can't Verizon be happy with 10% profits instead of 20%?
Why even 20%? How about 10%?
While we're at it, why 10%? How about 5%?
Wait a second. Why should an evil company like Verizon make ANY profit? They should serve the public good and simply break even!
That's a slippery slope you're heading down....
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
BigPete82
@qwest.net
| reply to gaforces
said by gaforces :I'll answer your questions with my own since it's obvious you dont want to see my answers. Why cant Verizon be happy with 20% profits instead of 50+%. I don't think you even know what you are talking about. Verizon's profit margins are 6.5%
»finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=VZ
Let the big kids have a real discussion, mmmm k? |
|
beerbum
Premium
join:2000-05-06
Reading, PA
clubs:
| reply to JohnDrenZ
Re: Didn't We Hear This Before
said by JohnDrenZ :I could have sworn the people of PA, heard this one before!! you mean the promise to have 80% of the state wired for T1 internet speeds? .. wasn't the promise to have been done by 2000 or was it 1996? I forget..
--
a mind is a terrible thing...
|
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: Not a new age
said by Karl Bode :None of the recent FCC changes or state laws legalize cherry picking or prevent a jurisdiction from including terms preventing cherry picking in their franchise agreement. Are you suggesting that a town in Wisconsin, under say...Wisconsin's new franchise "reform" law, can force an incumbent ISP to deploy to areas with poor ROI? I'd be curious to see some sourcing for that claim.... I assume the reference to an "incumbent ISP" is a slip. As to a company seeking a CATV franchise from a Wisconsin town, I believe the town can include provisions in the franchise agreement forcing the company to provide service to all areas. You are the one making the allegation that the Wisconsin law changed things, so maybe you have a specific provision of the law in mind that you can point to? |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
1 edit | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :None of the recent FCC changes or state laws legalize cherry picking or prevent a jurisdiction from including terms preventing cherry picking in their franchise agreement. Are you suggesting that a town in Wisconsin, under say...Wisconsin's new franchise "reform" law, can force an incumbent ISP to deploy to areas with poor ROI? I'd be curious to see some sourcing for that claim.... No, however the city/town/etc. can include provisions (such as NYC and Philly did) that say the provider must provide coverage to all areas within a geographic region. If these provisions are very limiting, and include many areas that the provider wont make a profit on, then the provider likely will simply pass over that given city/town/etc. Realistically however, the carriers (in this case Verizon) realized that the potential revenues from a very large city such as NYC or Philly would allow them to eventually serve most portions of the metro, even if some areas were a wash (or worse, a loss).
The issue that comes up is when providers such as ATT are battling small towns (like they did in Illinois) who are demanding universal coverage. In cases like that, the carrier cant count on economies of scale to keep their profits where they need to be. The end result? Absurd rules passed by mindless local governments prevent any citizens from receiving new services. As I have said many, many times before some citizens receiving better service is better than no citizens getting it.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | No, however the city/town/etc. can include provisions (such as NYC and Philly did) that say the provider must provide coverage to all areas within a geographic region. If these provisions are very limiting, and include many areas that the provider wont make a profit on, then the provider likely will simply pass over that given city/town/etc. Realistically however, the carriers (in this case Verizon) realized that the potential revenues from a very large city such as NYC or Philly would allow them to eventually serve most portions of the metro, even if some areas were a wash (or worse, a loss). That clarifies things, thanks. But my understanding of the new franchise rules indicates that State law trumps local jurisdiction in most markets...and that if AT&T signs a State wide franchise they no longer need to be concerned with negotiating with smaller municipalities....in many cases those municipalities not only lose negotiation rights, but they even lose eminent domain rights.... |
|
SHABAZZ
join:2008-07-13
Seattle, WA | reply to Alpine
Re: Cherry-pick away!
Actually mortgage backed securities caused the housing problem. There have always been prime and subprime mortgages. This is just the first time they were bundled and flipped. |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: Not a new age
said by Karl Bode :That clarifies things, thanks. But my understanding of the new franchise rules indicates that State law trumps local jurisdiction in most markets...and that if AT&T signs a State wide franchise they no longer need to be concerned with negotiating with smaller municipalities....in many cases those municipalities not only lose negotiation rights, but they even lose eminent domain rights.... The state law does trump much local jurisdiction, and does make it so that they don't have to be concerned with negotiating with small municipalities. But AFAIK none of them (other than possibly NJ) permits service to be denied to areas of low ROI. I did hear about the eminent domain issue in IL or WI - that's a rare bird that I am not familiar with. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| The state law does trump much local jurisdiction, and does make it so that they don't have to be concerned with negotiating with small municipalities. But AFAIK none of them (other than possibly NJ) permits service to be denied to areas of low ROI. Do the State laws allow a town, in a state covered by a state-level franchise argeement, to force an ISP to deploy broadband service to an entire town? |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| reply to gaforces
Re: Cherry-pick away!
Less profit usually means less investment. Verizon reinvests a substantial portion of its income in network buildout, so 20% profit means less buildout. Plus it's not like FiOS is even profitable in the first place -- over $1000 per home with no guarantee the owners will even sign up is a pretty big bet to make.
Plus, the more profit FiOS makes, the more comfort shareholders will have with even more investment in fiber. |
|
