how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to rf_engineer
Re: you would be happy about this..... 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. | |
 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
 ·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Midwest
| 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. | |
| 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. | |
|
