Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to nasadude
Re: whiners said by nasadude:
looks like the "boohoo, I can't really afford to deploy fiber unless you grant me a monopoly" argument.
I got a suggestion for the FCC: tell them they can have exclusive use of fiber they pay for and deploy, but they have to completely give up their monopoly with the copper wires.
Anyone want to bet how this suggestion will play?
How would you like it if you paid all sorts of money out of your earning to run a fiber link from your house to the internet and your neighbor says hey I want some of that to and goes and piggy backs off you while you paid all the money to have it laid and the money for the point of presence.
Only to have him pay you pennies on the dollar to what you owe on the link. When it's your pocket it's pretty hard but when its a huge conglomerate it's fine ?
Only thing to do is either regulate them all the same or deregulate them all the same. There is no difference between Verizon and Comcast at this point except Verizon doesn't offer TV via cable/fiber yet.
--
This package does not contain a winner... |
|
| The argument is somewhat flawed.
Everybody knows that it's not economically feasible to have 3-4 different fibers being laid down throughout the country. Furthermore, fiber has so much bandwidth that one fiber strand should be enough for any given neighborhood.
Now, I don't see how forcing Verizon to rent at a fair price their fiber to others is a problem. Baby bells will do anything to keep their monopoly just because it allows them to make more money.
This is the way it should be done. We should have cities laying down fiber and then renting it to whoever wants to provide services. Same rental price for everybody, and no more bitching about how the "poor" bells have to share their friggin network.
That would bring real competition and lower prices to everybody. Oops, I forgot, nobody really wants lower prices... |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| While it would be great for it to work your way it just won't. No city will do it with tax payers money it's suicide for a politician.
It's not economically feasible how ? Your talking about a country with way more then 4 fiber cables spread over an area. Each backbone provider has many fiber runs for redundancy.
Enough bandwidth for a neighbor hood how ? With todays applications yes. But start offering 100 HDTV channels over that fiber and watch it's "bandwidth" crumble.
Why if they bought it should they have to share it, that's just plain ignorant. If you bought a car should you share it with me ? Come on buddy buy that new corvette I will be sure to come over and rent it from you for $10 a day.
As far as forcing them to share WHY ? That doesn't get the fiber laid and into my home. I have cable my cable company doesn't have to share their network with say Dish-network because they want to provide cable service. Why should they have to they own the network.
The new fiber laid would not be shared. The old network of copper and fiber would still be shared. And all the little companies can use that network. The universal funds should be used to keep that network going and that is it. The new fiber is theirs to do with as they please.
--
This package does not contain a winner... |
|
| Thanks for calling me ignorant, but that'd be nice if you could actually use examples relevant to the discussion.
There is currently no need, now or in the not too distant future, for more than one strand of fiber to each home. Even with 100 HDTV channels, there will be plently of bandwidth for everybody. I'm not very technical, but my understanding that you can gain more bandwidth from a strand by dicing the wavelength of each signal finer and finer as the need for bandwidth arises. It is not economical to have 4, 5 or 10 companies each burying their own fiber to get to your house.
To use a better example than your Corvette, what you're advocating would be the same as requiring each energy provider to build its own electrical line. Or to use your example, to ask each car manufacturer to build its own road.
The idea here is to separate the conduit from the services. Otherwise, what we create is a huge barrier to entry by requiring each service provider to also own the physical link to your house. If the bells don't have to share the fiber bandwidth, we are creating a monopoly for the next century.
Again, I'm not saying that the bells should lease the fiber below cost, let them earn a fair return on investment on their fiber, just like electric lines owners rent their lines. This is no different.
And finally, since the cable and phone companies are a de facto duopoly/monopoly in some areas, there is absolutely no reason why they should do as they please. As a consumer, I'll be footing their bill, so I want somebody to oversee them and open up the market as much as possible. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| I didn't call you ignorant I mean the idea is ignorant.
Theres only so far you can go with current technology within costs on fiber. While it's true one single strand can be used to carry a massive amount of data.
Lets say one strand can carry a gbit a sec. Now chop that down. Lets say they all swap to voip. 10 k a sec both directions for decent quality. 10 people stress out a mbit link. Now you pile on multiple users. lets say your city has 10,000 people. That line becomes quickly saturated at 1 gig bit. Fast link saturation. The numbers are not exact though we just rounding off for the lack of physical set in stone numbers.
Now it cost verizon say 10 million to run that fiber ring. Each customer pays $10 a month to use. 10 months to make the money back If it was all profit. But it's not. So lets assume they make $1 per month per user profit. 10 k a month 120 k a year. It's awhile before this pays off.
Now with the others piggy backing for low cost. You talk about allowing them to access the network for .50 profit. Takes longer for it to pay off. Simple economics.
Now a company wants to compete here it's simple. They buy a built portion of the fiber. So verizon sells them say a chunk of bandwidth. say they sell them a 100 mbit trunk. If they provide it for cost they make nothing and every one has a choice same prices.
In a perfect world yeah sure let's do it. In the corporate world this is stupid to let others in on a profit chunk like this. It's stupid if you laid out the capital. BTW the others still have the copper network we currently use.
Now let's look at cable. They don't allow anyone on their copper and they aren't regulated as hard. Why ? The excuse is well they paid for the copper and did it themselves. Well this is the same boat verizon wants. Either the fcc regulates both the same or they deregulate. It's only fair. Cable provides data tv and phone. Verizon only does data and phone.
As far as the car analogy it's right on the money. Not each car manufacturer building their own road. I got no idea where you got that idea. If i bought a portion of land to drive my car (race track) then it's my choice who I allow on the course. You can't go whipping around my track for free. You pay a fee so I can recoup some money. If you crash into a wall on my course I need to pay to fix not you. Same here on fiber. Some thing goes wrong they pay to fix not the little guy.
Ohh and the electrical companies i don't know much about but I assume they own the lines in the cities much like cable companies. If im producing power im not gonna let you come in and say hey we are sharing the cables even though your producing the power im gonna sell it cheaper so I can get your customers. It's just not gonna happen. Welcome to capitalist america.
I agree with separating the service from the conduit, thats why I love muni projects. But since the cities are far and few between doing we need to have it done. And I don't expect Verizon to pour out money and let every one make money on their fiber until it's paid off and they have paid the rest of the bills. once it does hell open it up all they want.
Yeah you will be footing the bill so will I if I had their service. I don't have their service so I am not footing the bill. If they offered it here yes I would jump to it in a second. Even if the net speed was only 10 mbit each way.
Cable companies and teclo are not monopolies any more, or so says all the people who know the facts. Theres still cell phones, satellite tv, satellite phones , and satellite broadband. While it may not be what you want, thats no reason to say they are monopolies.
--
This package does not contain a winner... |
|
| reply to Zorglub
said by Zorglub:
The argument is somewhat flawed.
Everybody knows that it's not economically feasible to have 3-4 different fibers being laid down throughout the country. Furthermore, fiber has so much bandwidth that one fiber strand should be enough for any given neighborhood.
Now, I don't see how forcing Verizon to rent at a fair price their fiber to others is a problem. Baby bells will do anything to keep their monopoly just because it allows them to make more money.
This is the way it should be done. We should have cities laying down fiber and then renting it to whoever wants to provide services. Same rental price for everybody, and no more bitching about how the "poor" bells have to share their friggin network.
That would bring real competition and lower prices to everybody. Oops, I forgot, nobody really wants lower prices...
It's YOUR argument that is flawed. "Everyone knows that it's economically unfeasible to have 3-4 fiber networks laid?" Do you know how much redundancy there is in the fiber and copper networks today? There are MANY fiber strands out there- and they're not all used at once.
How do you think businesses can purchase data and voice circuits with 100% guarantee uptime? Did you think it's because they're paying for a "REALLY reliable pair" as opposed to the "not so reliable- in fact pretty shitty pair" that other people get? Don't think so- it's because of network redundancy.
It already exists. It's not only economically feasible, it's ALREADY THERE!
Boogie |
|
| reply to Zorglub
Well put answer.
On the electrical line example, at least out here in the West, multiple providers share the same electrical line. |
|
| reply to boogie74
You don't understand. What I'm saying is that it's not economical to have multiple companies lay fiber strands in each neighborhood. Now, I don't know if a neighborhood needs 1, 2 or 10 strands to be serviced, but that's not the point. The point is that it's clearly not economical to have 10 companies each laying down fiber to each house. |
|
| said by Zorglub:
You don't understand. What I'm saying is that it's not economical to have multiple companies lay fiber strands in each neighborhood. Now, I don't know if a neighborhood needs 1, 2 or 10 strands to be serviced, but that's not the point. The point is that it's clearly not economical to have 10 companies each laying down fiber to each house.
No less economical than having 10 different companies putting peanut butter in jars. But they do- and it's not impossible for them to compete by doing it on their own.
It's a bit odd that nothing has changed since the wholesale rate structure was struck down by a federal appeals court- yet suddenly both AT&T and MCI are claiming that their profits are shrinking so much that they aren't going to even compete in the consumer markets!
So now that the Bells are announcing plans to invest in more fiber in the field, the cry is suddenly "the monopolies" are going to force anyone who wants fiber to use THEM! And they're doing it by investing in fiber! They KNOW that no one else is doing it- so they're BAD!
I just don't understand the claim that the sky is falling. Have prices gone up in phone services?
Boogie |
|
| said by boogie74:
No less economical than having 10 different companies putting peanut butter in jars. But they do- and it's not impossible for them to compete by doing it on their own.
Boogie
Actually, it is very different. The telco business is one of very high fixed costs (laying down the fiber, etc.) and of extremely low variable costs. That is clearly not the case with regular consumer products, be it peanut butter, bread or a toaster.
So, that's why we'll never see 10 different companies each laying down their own fiber/copper/coax to our house, because they would not be able to recover their upfront investment. That barrier to entry is so high that we'll never see a truely competitive market on the service side unless the conduit providers are forced to share the conduits. |
|
| said by Zorglub:
said by boogie74:
No less economical than having 10 different companies putting peanut butter in jars. But they do- and it's not impossible for them to compete by doing it on their own.
Boogie
Actually, it is very different. The telco business is one of very high fixed costs (laying down the fiber, etc.) and of extremely low variable costs. That is clearly not the case with regular consumer products, be it peanut butter, bread or a toaster.
So, that's why we'll never see 10 different companies each laying down their own fiber/copper/coax to our house, because they would not be able to recover their upfront investment. That barrier to entry is so high that we'll never see a truely competitive market on the service side unless the conduit providers are forced to share the conduits.
I can't agree with this concept. One might as well apply it to ANY business plan with high start-up costs- for example, international airlines, radio and tv stations, wireless phone providers, data storage and transport providers, etc.
The investment in 60 to 70 Boeing 747-400 jets would definitely make for a large barrier to any company wishing to sell overseas transportation. Likewise, the investment in several thousand GSM cell towers nationwide to provide a wireless service is a large investment and hence barrier. Satellite service is even MORE costly- as you must actually rocket a satellite into a geo-synchronous orbit. But companies are doing it all the time.
There is no reason why a company would be prevented from deploying fiber to the premise even if there is already a fiber drawn from somewhere else. You can't argue that it's a waste of time to do it and make it so redundant- only to claim that it's now too expensive when it's pointed out that redundancy is good and desireable.
Boogie |
|
