fonzbear2000
Premium
join:2005-08-09
Saint Paul, MN
| you would be happy about this.....
and wouldn't be critisizing it if you lived in an area where nothing else was available
--
NEVER pay full price: »home.comcast.net/~fonzbear2000/f···000.html |
|
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
 ·WildBlue
| said by fonzbear2000  :and wouldn't be critisizing it if you lived in an area where nothing else was available What he said. ^^^^ Plus who would not want a symmetrical connection?
--
Wildblue Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows MCE SP2 |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to fonzbear2000
said by fonzbear2000 :and wouldn't be critisizing it if you lived in an area where nothing else was available I wouldn't be holding out hope for BPL. All of the trials except perhaps one or two have been in suburban areas with other access available. BPL has distance limitations that are worse than DSL. The economics for pulling BPL into areas that haven't been wired with cable and DSL aren't good. |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to fonzbear2000
said by fonzbear2000 :and wouldn't be critisizing it if you lived in an area where nothing else was available Well if you are in area that is not being served by any broadband, I wouldn't count on BPL either. There would be no economic incentive for it either.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
 ·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
 ·AT&T Midwest
·HughesNet Satellit..
| reply to rf_engineer
The economics are only good if the customer base is informed properly. Of course nothing sells if it isn't properly advertised.
In places where BPL could be deployed that Cable and/or DSL haven't been installed, properly advertised, would be a very lucrative decision. This would also force Cable and DSL companies in the area to expand their coverage in the name of competitiveness. |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by ctceo :The economics are only good if the customer base is informed properly. Of course nothing sells if it isn't properly advertised In places where BPL could be deployed that Cable and/or DSL haven't been installed, properly advertised, would be a very lucrative decision. This would also force Cable and DSL companies in the area to expand their coverage in the name of competitiveness. Customer penetration isn't the issue. If there was money to be had in these areas, cable and DSL would be there already. This is especially true for cable as they can also sell TV service and they have much higher penetration rates with TV service than broadband. Telcos already have copper pairs to every home in these areas. Broadband companies aren't stupid; they have whole departments that look at business development and would be in these areas in a heartbeat if it was profitable.
Think about this logically for a second. Why would cable and DSL chase a competitor into an area just to expand their coverage area when it wasn't worth it to go into the area in the first place? It's even less enticing with a competitor in the area as the already meager customer base is divided and because of competition prices are driven down making it less economically viable than before.
BPL in rural areas is wishful thinking. BPL in rural areas encouraging competition is delusional thinking. |
|
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| I disagree.
Why would the telcos chase a competitor into an area they weren't in before? Because they risk losing all relationship with that customer. The telcos don't show much interest in spending money where they have captive customers and no competitors. The incumbents have shown, however, that they are very interested in making sure that there are no competitors providing service, even if they don't want to provide service themselves. Take the response to threats of municipal operations, for example. Why do incumbents spend money to fight municipal build out in areas where they haven't built out themselves?
If bpl comes into an area the telco suddenly faces the prospect of losing future opportunity for a broadband customer and ALSO faces the possibility the customer will move to voip services and they will lose ALL relationship with that customer(even providing local voice service). I would bet you they would be in the area, the next day, spending the money needed to maintain that relationship. They dread losing control of households. Once a household has a non-telco broadband provider they often transition other services away from the telcos as well. |
|
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
·magicjack.com
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
·AT&T Midwest
·HughesNet Satellit..
| Agreed. At&t has recently seen a HUGE hit in loss of customers where I live to other Cell providers, Cable providers, and even Satellite providers. In the last 3 weeks we have had 5 At&t representatives at our door, asking what type of service we use for TV, Data, and Voice. I did a study, and contacted a few friends, and in seems that At&t has taken a 23% loss in clients in my zip code alone over the last year due in part to Comcasts, DTV's & Dish Networks Advertisement campaigns on local TV, in their total Telephone+Data markets to other competitors. At first they tried to lobby the Cell providers by Township to get their proposition for cell tower construction denied by ...ahem... swaying the vested parties interest by whatever means, The ones that succeed they continue to trail into appeals to slow down their deployment as best they can hoping for a favorable outcome in the end.
It seems to me that it is in a companies best interest to get the first foothold in the area, and maintain that relationship as long as possible. Obviously BPL is no exception other than the fact that they have higher legal, R&D costs, and such, which has caused their slower deployment. The minute somebodies bottom line was threatened, the opposing community swung into action to prevent it's deployment as best they can. Even if that means using old or outdated issues with the technology to prevent future deployments. |
|
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT | reply to Siryak
At home, I don't want a symmetrical connection. If they have bandwidth, I want them to provide the majority of it to me in the downstream direction. I download FAR more than I upload in my personal use of the Internet.
Ed Hare |
|
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| reply to rf_engineer
BPL in rural areas is wishful thinking. BPL in rural areas encouraging competition is delusional thinking. One company, IBEC, is focusing on rural-community deployments, primarily through RUS loans. They have a number "in the queue," so it appears that they can make a go of it in that niche.
The Arkansas BPL deployment being done by Entergy is on a rural line. There is rumor that some of this equipment is Ambient, but the only company listed by Entergy in their BPL-database entry is Corinex, so it appears from the public record to me that they intend to go with Corinex, if they decide to go with BPL at all.
Ed Hare |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to asdfdfdfdf
said by asdfdfdfdf :
I disagree.
Why would the telcos chase a competitor into an area they weren't in before? Because they risk losing all relationship with that customer. The telcos don't show much interest in spending money where they have captive customers and no competitors. The incumbents have shown, however, that they are very interested in making sure that there are no competitors providing service, even if they don't want to provide service themselves. Take the response to threats of municipal operations, for example. Why do incumbents spend money to fight municipal build out in areas where they haven't built out themselves?
If bpl comes into an area the telco suddenly faces the prospect of losing future opportunity for a broadband customer and ALSO faces the possibility the customer will move to voip services and they will lose ALL relationship with that customer(even providing local voice service). I would bet you they would be in the area, the next day, spending the money needed to maintain that relationship. They dread losing control of households. Once a household has a non-telco broadband provider they often transition other services away from the telcos as well.
This is true to an extent, but there's some point at which the cost to maintain the relationship and the resulting time for return on investment exceeds reasonable limits. Arguably, areas that would make sense for a competitor to go into are areas that would make sense for a telco to protect its turf. But, the economics of BPL aren't better than these competitor technologies like cable or wireless, so BPL is not likely to trigger an avalanche of competition. Cable and wireless undoubtedly have already picked the low-hanging fruit. |
|
