how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
143 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | It'll definitely be interesting... Karl asks "goodbye national franchises?" We shall see. I'm all for anything that will speed up next-gen deployment, and I can't see how continuing to require local franchises will do that. I understand the "cherry-picking" concern, but disagree with it. Telcos are private businesses; they should be able to deploy to profitable areas first - that's simply Business 101 and the government should have no authority over that. They'll eventually deploy to everyone - their desire for continuous growth demands it.
I don't see this having too much of an impact on the ATT/BellSouth merger, except for some of the usual cage-rattling. The merger has a good bit of bi-partisan support, especially in the South, so it'll pass sooner rather than later.
The net-neutrality boogeyman will be interesting to watch. Though nothing has happened yet and I think it's ridiculous to legislate a so-far non-existant problem, I'm sure the Dems will do some pandering and try to force through some laws. If they even care one way or the other... It's not like the Dems understand broadband any more than the Republicans did. They just have some different lobbyists.
For me, the change is good because it was relatively moderate Dems that got them over the top. Hopefully that will balance the far-left among them. They'll lose every gain they made in many states if they veer over to high taxes and socialism.
Adam | | |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | I agree if it wasn't the telcos but in my opinion, Business 101 only works if there's true competition. We can argue all day long about cable providing TV competition to the telcos but as regulated monopolies, the telcos have a guaranteed position that will fund losses for years until they either give up their video quest (leaving the cable monopoly) or gain a foothold.
That's not business 101 at work. That's massive, government-guaranteed corporations attempting to extend their reach.
The same thing goes for the cable folks. In areas under served by DSL, they are the only broadband choice. To allow them to exploit that monopoly based on the data's purpose goes against everything Business 101 believes.
If we had true competition, Business 101 would say net-neutrality is unnecessary government oversight. Since we don't have true competition, I don't think Business 101 applies. | |
DolganPremium
join:2005-10-01
Sun Prairie, WI Reviews:
 ·Charter
| reply to Alpine
Thinking that the Telcos will "eventually bring fiber to everyone" is only a pipe dream. Verizon will not be deploying FIOS to huge swaths of the ex-GTE footprint due to the lack of potential subscribers and profitibilty. They are now deploying ADSL2 and more ADSL in the upper midwest states of OH, IN. IL, WI, and MI--do you really think that they will upgrade to FIOS in areas where they are currently deploying this technology?
How much fiber are companies such as TDS Telecom, Century Tel, and Frontier Comm deploying? These are now the major Telcos in rural America as the RBOCs keep spinning off{trying to anyway} their rural customers. Furthermore, many of these rural areas are not served by Cable Co HSI and do not even have the option for any broadband other than Sattelite. The Cable Cos are only upgrading their speed tiers in competitive/profitable markets, just like the Telcos.
The change in control of the House {and possibly the Senate} will do nothing to either speed up or slow down deployments of next gen networks. The major players will continue deploying at the rate which they can justify to their stockholders with good return on investments. The Telecomm and Cable companies are more concerned about the bottom line versus customer service, quality of service, and product offerings than ever before. | |
| reply to Alpine
said by Alpine:Karl asks "goodbye national franchises?" We shall see. I'm all for anything that will speed up next-gen deployment, and I can't see how continuing to require local franchises will do that. I understand the "cherry-picking" concern, but disagree with it. Telcos are private businesses; they should be able to deploy to profitable areas first - that's simply Business 101 and the government should have no authority over that. They'll eventually deploy to everyone - their desire for continuous growth demands it. As it stands now, they are largely able to deploy to the most profitable areas first. Verizon has generally decided to do the suburbs of large cities first and there is nothing preventing that. It's just that if and when they decide to go into a county, city, village or town, they must have permission to leave any parts of the county, city, village or town unconnected. That's not the part that slows things down, it's the negotiation of the franchise agreement with hundreds of different locals officials that slows things down. | |
|
