dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
653
share rss forum feed


Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT

1 recommendation

It's amazing isn't it when you do something right the first

time.

Honestly, when you look at Verizon vs. AT&T, what you see is a tale of two companies.

One, who wasn't afraid to tackle the big issues head on, and do it right the first time versus...whatever it is the other is trying to do.

It couldn't be easy for Verizon to have bitten the multi billion dollar bullet and made the decision to move ahead with Fios.
But they did. And, they did it despite enormous shareholder pressure as well. And being a public company, that certainly amounts to a whole lot of heat on upper management.

They didn't stop there either. They recognized and respected the current franchise agreements and laws that presently govern this type of thing. AND, even if there are questions and arguments as to why they should or should not apply to IPTV..they have gone ahead and done things right the first time, instead of trying to LEGAL maneuver themselves around it.

And, what is the result? Have you seen the Verizon fiber rollout map lately? Read the exciting verizon fios forum?
SEEN the kind of competition this is creating and how it's really forcing a firm response from the cable co's in the areas where they now compete?

It is tremendous and really is showing how their initiative in moving ahead right the first time is really paying off for them.

KUDOS TO VERIZON..to their management..and to their shareholders who ultimately will reap the rewards of this.

On the other hand..AT&T.

I'm sorry, but they're a disgrace of a company at this point in my view.

They are trying to cheap themselves out of the real solution to this..Sue their way into communities by ignoring the existing franchise laws that are in effect..

and generally it would appear..not succeeding very well at all.

Honestly, I think there is a real lesson in all of this..that extends out to many other things that one may encounter in life.

And that lesson is..even if it's hard..even if that road seems longer and more expensive..and even despite the criticisms of whomever...

Do it right the first time around.

Then there might not have to be a second time.
--
The life you help save just might be your own Team Discovery



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

2 edits

said by Rick:

They recognized and respected the current franchise agreements and laws that presently govern this type of thing. AND, even if there are questions and arguments as to why they should or should not apply to IPTV..they have gone ahead and done things right the first time, instead of trying to LEGAL maneuver themselves around it.
While I like Verizon and their Fios rollout, they are not in favor of local franchising. They have lobbied VERY heavily to kill it off in all the states where they do business. And they have succeeded in NJ after spending millions. The only difference they have from AT&T in this regard is that they are moving ahead while the lobbying continues. AT&T has decided to wait until the lobbying is successful and is using lawsuits in the interim. So, Verizon is spending their money to pay off the local franchise authorities for town by town approvals while AT&T fights them in court. Whose method works best can only be known in the long term. But, Verizon's method is definitely working for them in the short term.

You also have to keep in mind who the audience was for the statement that they can continue moving ahead without state or national franchise laws - Wall St and the shareholders. They are just trying to convince those who supply their funding that the money spent on Fios will still get a return on investment no matter what.

Financial analyst on issue:
When Verizon reported having achieved 10% penetration of its video markets after six months in the second quarter, research analysis firm Ovum-RHK suggested those numbers could go much higher if federal franchising becomes a reality.
The above is why the Verizon Spokesperson said this:
“Franchising is not holding us back,” said Virginia Ruesterholz, president of Verizon Telecom. “I really don’t see that as a necessity, to have nationwide relief on that.”
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page


jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17

said by FFH:

"While I like Verizon and their Fios rollout, they are not in favor of local franchising."
They may not be in favor of local franchising, but as the article said, they don't believe it is the great "barrier" as it has been described.

Whose method works best can only be known in the long term. But, Verizon's method is definitely working for them in the short term.
Verizon is going to be years ahead of AT&T on this issue. AT&T thinks that they'll get something in a federal bill, but even the latest bill in the Senate would subject AT&T to the same conditions as everyone else, so this 'shock and awe' legal approach will not work, long term.


broadbander8
Premium
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
reply to FFH

We should also keep in mind that BBR seems particularly kind when dealing with many Verizon releases. I'm not implying biased. But somebody might have a little softspot. In a hall of scourges, one must pick a head regardless.



Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT

1 recommendation

reply to FFH

said by FFH:

While I like Verizon and their Fios rollout, they are not in favor of local franchising.
Undoubtedly they don't like it. They must HATE it.
Imagine doing what they had to do and looking at they system as it now exists and realizing how many communities they would have to negotiate with.

But, the main point is this. They HAVE proceeded that way and have respected the process in the meantime. It's perfectly fine to not like something and to try to change it using whatever legal channels there may be as long as one recognizes in the meantime that the current system should be upheld and respected.

That is the difference here that I am talking about between them and AT&T as I see it.
AT&T simply doesn't acknowledge at all that there is a system that applies to them.

To me, it's as if you or I not liking a 55mph speed limit..
and just deciding it's perfectly ok for us to do 70 instead because of that.

What verizon is doing is saying they don't like the 55MPH speed limit but will abide by it WHILE proceeding with trying to change it.

There's a big and fundamental difference there in my view.

Personally, while i'm opposed to a national franchise type of law because anything the federal government gets into on that scale usually winds up screwed up..I am in favor of a statewide one. These laws shouldn't be such a burden as to stifle competition. But, on the other hand, then fair should be fair and the cable companies agreements should be modified as well to reflect that as well.

In all honesty, I'm seriously at the point of questioning whether AT&T is going to make it in the long run.
Not only are they so far behind the 8 ball, they don't even seem to be able to realize it.

I think the cable co's next move is going to be to try to mainstream voip in a big way. With their video and hsi offerings..they can package it to be essentially free if someone takes the other from them.

Comcast now, with their 99.00 digital/hsi/voip package is the future of what this is going to be all about.

How can AT&T compete with that? I really don't think they can.

It's going to be hard enough for the telcos to try to switch people over to iptv and the telco's triple play programs..never mind the one that today is perceived as being as weak as many see uverse to be.

Verizon, on the other hand, stands a real good chance of pulling it off because they have the perception in their court by many that fiber to the home is better than anything cable has to offer.

It should be interesting to watch how it all plays out.
--
The life you help save just might be your own Team Discovery

Ulmo

join:2005-09-22
Aptos, CA
reply to broadbander8

said by broadbander8:

We should also keep in mind that BBR seems particularly kind when dealing with many Verizon releases. I'm not implying biased. But somebody might have a little softspot. In a hall of scourges, one must pick a head regardless.
I think some cheerleading is appropriate here, for obvious reasons. Verizon has no pure past, I point out hurredly. Within the last decade they still were known as the worst telephone company in the country to many (NYNEX, etc.). However, they changed directions many years ago, and obviously the relative quality of their approach right now compared to other large companies in this country is something worth celebrating by itself.