AR
Premium,ExMod 2001-04
join:2000-09-21
Toronto, ON
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Educate me
I've always thought that incumbents (esp. telcos) would not like to encourage Wi-Fi as it'd be a threat to their broadband and even wireless business.
So what's ATT's strategic objective out of this? Capturing market share?
--
Exercise and Diet journal. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Well, they: prevent an Earthlink or someone else from winning the contract, use the fact that existing AT&T DSL customers get fairly inexpensive Wi-Fi as a market differentiator, and market the AT&T brand to free users stopping by.
I have to think they aren't entirely sold that this is a serious money-maker or marketing opportunity or there would be broader effort... |
|
AR
Premium,ExMod 2001-04
join:2000-09-21
Toronto, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Since it is paid service and not free, it could be also they see it as a potential emerging market and they're getting into it just because they can????
--
Exercise and Diet journal. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| I don't know. I think their primary interest here is to set up a few test Wi-Fi networks and see from first-hand data if there's decent ROI there.
Probably based on the convincing board-room lecture of some up and coming middle-manager who thinks there's a .4% chance Earthlink is a threat to the empire. |
|
Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| reply to Karl Bode
Call me a cynic, but based on the track record of every single other citywide Wi-Fi announcement, and that of SBC, my guess is that SBC...er...AT&T plans on sticking to its usual modus operandi, and using the contract to lock out competition. I doubt that they will ever actually build it. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Yeah, but just targeting St. Louis and Napa, California is half-assed. When AT&T has a real mind to lock out competition, they bring out the lobbyists on a broader scale and fire up the mammoth PR machine.
This strikes me as just a casual sniff of a potentially competitive market that they probably figure they'll dominate via HSDPA or WiMax anyway.... |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to AR
said by AR  :So what's ATT's strategic objective out of this? Capturing market share? Simple: This move is to BLOCK competition. If they own the city-wide Wi-Fi Franchise, nobody else can come in and out compete them.
So they can either get ppl on the WiFi or on broadband DSL. Either way, they win, and competition is nipped in the bud.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Yep. Charter is no competition at all.
It's funny, really. AT&T finally starts to "get it" and the same people who whine about them not deploying {fill in technology du jour} whine when they do. How is this an exclusive franchise?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to Karl Bode
They already do $1.95/mo WiFi for DSL customers through their Freedomlink service, so this is not that much of a stretch, actually. Someone is definitely testing the waters.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs:  | reply to AR
They also are not likely to offer equal speeds. The DSL will be faster.
--
Retaking our country one election at a time. |
|
Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :Yeah, but just targeting St. Louis and Napa, California is half-assed. When AT&T has a real mind to lock out competition, they bring out the lobbyists on a broader scale and fire up the mammoth PR machine. I have little doubt that their lobbyists are hard at work as we speak. And you can be sure that many of those seemingly grassroots "reform" TV commercials and websites are in fact wolves in sheep's clothing.
This strikes me as just a casual sniff of a potentially competitive market that they probably figure they'll dominate via HSDPA or WiMax anyway.... It's far from casual. It's just one level of a multilevel plan of attack. If they went after every Wi-Fi Internet franchise all at once, even the village idiot would be able to connect the dots. But if they limit themselves to putting up strategic roadblocks that serve to prevent any single entity to gain a regional toehold on the market, then they have accomplished their goal without raising any red flags.
As you pointed out, the window of opportunity for Wi-Fi in this application is closing rapidly. The smart players aren't making large capital investments in a soon-to-be obsolete technology. But they are counting on municipalities to grandfather-in incumbent Wi-Fi franchisees into any new technology deployments, rather than go through the process all over again every time a new wireless standard comes along. |
|
Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :AT&T finally starts to "get it"... Don't believe for a minute that the new AT&T "gets it". As an Ameritech customer yourself, surely you must remember that Ameritech's own DSL program never amounted to anything more than that trial market in Ann Arbor, MI.
And when SBC bought Ameritech, their strategy was to kill off the DSL business by charging DSL carriers retail rates for a local loop. They darn near succeeded!
If it wasn't for cable, we'd be back to using POTS modems, and SBC/AT&T would be putting back those old line conditioning filters, hoping to kill that off as well. |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| reply to Time4aNAP
said by Time4aNAP :The smart players aren't making large capital investments in a soon-to-be obsolete technology. I hardly think that WiFi is going to be obsolete soon...
--
A is A |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to Time4aNAP
There is no "new". It's the same old SBC.
They can't control WiFi like they do copper pairs since there it nothing to own.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| reply to John Galt
said by John Galt :I hardly think that WiFi is going to be obsolete soon... As a metropolitan WISP technology? We'll have to see how WiMAX and other 802.16 standards fare in real life. But as it stands in Chicago, it's Canopy® ~6 to Wi-Fi 0. Wi-Fi MANs have been announced with much ballyhoo, but not one has become operational. Heck, the ad hoc WLANs put up by hobbyists have carried more packets than any franchise operation has! |
|
Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| reply to RadioDoc
Re: New-Old Name, Same SBC
said by RadioDoc :There is no "new". It's the same old SBC. Ain't that the truth! As hated as the pre-divestiture AT&T was, SBC makes that group look like saints. Hence my remark distinguishing between the two.
They can't control WiFi like they do copper pairs since there it nothing to own. There's the franchise. Even if they never send a single packet of their own, that franchise gives them the legal right to sue every mom & pop WISP out of existence. It's destructive, it's spiteful, it's bad PR, and it's what SBC does best. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to RadioDoc
Re: Educate me
said by RadioDoc :Yep. Charter is no competition at all. It maintains the status quo however and prevents a third operator from coming in and competing... In this way they can maintain pricing as is. In my area, you basically have two broadband options. Cox Cable HSI, or at&t DSL. Technically these two services are in competition but the pricing tiers and the levels of service you can get are fairly similar. If a major third party (ie a Citywide Wi-Fi network for example) came into being it could upset this balance and cause prices to drop or service options to improve. This would be negative to the profit margin and in at&t's eyes a bad thing.
Really they kill two birds with one stone. They get to "test" a new service AND block a competitor from entering the market... To them it would appear to be a slam-dunk. From a consumer standpoint, I'd rather see a 3rd competitor come onto the scene.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to RadioDoc
They can't control WiFi like they do copper pairs since there it nothing to own. Ah, but if they have a city-wide franchise can't they effectively control Wi-Fi to the area because of the spectrum? You couldn't have another operator using the same frequencies because they would interfere with each other and effectively jam the service.
So by becoming the "official" provider with the city license you in effect control that spectrum and block a competitor from using it.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | So I'll ask again: Is it an exclusive franchise?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
2 edits | reply to Time4aNAP
i think they will build "something" in st. louis. but let's look at how they selected this location to try it out:
a contract renewal with hundreds of AT&T employees based in st. louis was pending. at&t used the threat of moving these jobs to texas (or elsewhere) to push this slimey deal through without real competition. for a history lesson, SBC moved its headquarters from St. Louis to San Antonio when St. Louis didn't bend over enough and supply adequate lube. point being that ATT/SBC has screwed this area in the past and would do it again. a believable threat that the city leaders decided to respond to.
did AT&T/SBC have any employees in the Napa area to threaten? maybe we can connect the dots. |
|
