viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: now I understand!
said by Karl Bode  : quote:
Qwest-- No investment in future networks, more profit, activists are happy because no rich people are getting a better network than poor people; everybody's nice and equal with the same slow network.
Which activists would those be? The net neutrality activists. They want build out requirements for the telcos as they place infrastructure or provide new service (FiOS, Lightspeed, etc.) that would greatly hamper ROI. They call it 'redlining', 'cherrypicking', etc. They don't understand the business case for getting return as you go. Some of them would like to see the incumbent telcos go belly up. Just peruse this site. You'll find them. |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs: | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode : Which activists would those be? Rev. Al and Jessy. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to John T
quote:
Qwest-- No investment in future networks, more profit, activists are happy because no rich people are getting a better network than poor people; everybody's nice and equal with the same slow network.
Which activists would those be? |
|
John T
@northgrum.com
| reply to nasadude
And let's not forget:
Verizon-- tries to bring fiber to richest neighborhoods first, still not making a lot of money off of it, gets attacked by activists for not losing even more money by running fiber to poor neighborhoods (who won't subscribe in as great numbers) at the same time.
Qwest-- No investment in future networks, more profit, activists are happy because no rich people are getting a better network than poor people; everybody's nice and equal with the same slow network.
Seems to be that as long as running FTTH is causing such a big drain on Verizon's bottom line, that it's a bit of putting the cart before the horse to insist that they have to upgrade everywhere all at once, even in areas that would be even more unprofitable than their current expansions.
It's not like a company like Verizon would target rich neighborhoods first because they hate poor people. They're trying to make money. If FiOS were making money then, sure, argue for making them take on money-losing areas as well for fairness. It just seems to me that it might be a little bit too early to be insisting on that when FiOS isn't even making them money right now. |
|
