 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Spot On The article is spot on.
1st, hiring former members on a Congress members staff to lobby against Net Neutrality? Yep, Verizon is guilty of it.
2nd, penetration data. They are correct here. Although I think Verizon is doing a damn good job of rolling FiOS out, they still haven't deployed DSL to their entire customer base and it's been what, 10 years? It's been so long that they've given up on it, are trying to drop entire states (Fairpoint deal), and are replacing their network with fiber.
While FiOS is a shining example of the greatest consumer internet access technology out there, they aren't rolling it out to show how technology savvy they are. They are rolling it out because they never really wanted to share their lines in the first place - the Telcom Act of 1996 only requires them to share their copper plant - they want to offer TV as a new revenue stream, and since they don't have to share the lines, they lock you in and make it all but impossible to get your copper back to switch to a CLEC for DSL or POTS.
All of that is extremely Anti-Tech, but very Pro-Business!
--
Pretty Fly for a White Guy™ |
|
|
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2
1 edit | said by Matt:All of that is extremely Anti-Tech, but very Pro-Business! They are a business. It's kind of difficult for a business to not be pro-business. I'm not sure how it's anti-tech. Verizon is currently rolling out FTTH which a lot of people around this forum believe is the second coming of Christ. Sounds fairly pro-tech to me. As for Verizon not deploying DSL to 100% of their customer base, it won't happen. Nor will you see any other telecom providing 100% coverage. Nor will you see any cableco providing 100% coverage. The economics don't support these deployment wishes, plain and simple. |
|
 Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | reply to Matt
said by Matt:All of that is extremely Anti-Tech, but very Pro-Business! Anti tech, no. Anti consumer, maybe. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to openbox9
I agree with 100% penetration. However, in my opinion all DSL deployments have quite a ways to go to reach the penetration point of maximum profit. I live in a densly populated suburban area with no DSL. Over the past five years, close to half the houses around me have installed wireless routers. I'll bet they installed the router because they subscribe to HSI from the cable company.
It's money left on the table by the DSL guys. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | No doubt that some telecoms aren't deploying DSL to every profitable location. Even though investing in certain markets may not lose money, it simply may not be enough profit for the telcom to justify the investment. The ROI doesn't need to be negative to prevent deployment, not positive enough is almost the same issue. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
Exactly.
In fact, let's take a look at *existing* FIOS deployments. Not only has it largely *not* replaced DSL (in any way, shape, or form) for most of the deployed areas, DSL was either thinly deployed or not deployed at all.
Yes, FTTH is an alternative to DSL; however, it's far more than that (and even VZ gets that). |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to openbox9
In my area I can't believe it's not a worthwhile investment. The average home price is ~$300,000 and the average income is commensurate. The disposable income is there and the WAPs are evidence of demand.
Folks in my subdivision are 19,000 feet from the CO but being a 30 year old subdivision, there have been TWO closer COs built to handle corporate office needs. Both of these COs are well under the DSL limit. I know my wires don't run to them but but the telco doesn't need exotic solutions to give us a choice. They have all the backbone they need well within the distance limitations.
The cable company is making a killing and with no competition, I guess they are entitled. |
|
