openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to tmc8080
Re: out of the frying pan..
said by tmc8080  :from one monopoly into another.. Not really a monopoly if there are two  said by tmc8080 :we all suppose that some commitments will come for bringing 100% of these 85 markets into the U-Verse deployments too, right? What do wireless service areas have to do with wireline service areas? |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| said by openbox9 :said by tmc8080 :from one monopoly into another.. Not really a monopoly if there are two said by tmc8080 :we all suppose that some commitments will come for bringing 100% of these 85 markets into the U-Verse deployments too, right? What do wireless service areas have to do with wireline service areas? Didn't say anything about wireless.. as for the monopoly part.. that holds, but needs clarification: AT&T and Verizon are telco monopolies in their respective geographic locations which for the most part DO NOT overlap. In a sense the governement allowed many of the RBOC's to merge with the strongest Bell CORE LD companies or are a merging of massive RBOC assets in the case of Verizon (northeast//ny metro) is the *BEST* telco market to be in.. most ROI, most customers per square mile). AT&T got sloppy seconds (Bell South).
As for cable companies.. Comcast is the beohemuth to rule them all.. unfortunately with so few companies.. real competition has taken a beating.. and I see AT&T's gobbling up of more markets further proof that there will be no reversal of that pattern in the short term (outside of very competitive markets to begin with)-- though the fcc/ftc probably should step in and sttach some conditions which AT&T will thumb their nose at.. eventually leading to a breakup or re-regulation of sorts so that something positive will eventually come of all of it.. |
|
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA | reply to openbox9
so the correct term is now duopoly, not monopoly. you get all the fun of monopolies, but with twice the 'competitiors'. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to tmc8080
Well, this thread is about wireless service areas, so I assumed....
Anyway, if there's no competition now, why should the FCC/FTC attach conditions with additional mergers/buyouts? The competitive nature of the playing field isn't going to improve by attaching conditions to the buyouts. I'd much rather prefer a behemoth cable company competing against a behemoth telephone company than I would numerous little no-name companies that aren't really competing with each other now. Obviously the best consumer option is for additional competitive entries into the marketplace, but I honestly don't see that happening. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to cornelius785
There are more than two wireless service providers |
|
