iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Devil's Advocate I'll bet I'm going to get a firestorm here, but
1. Embarq and CenTel merging should result in a stronger company capable of delivering better services to their subscribers, right? Or maybe making investors happy with better economies of scale. The companies didn't merge to be forced into any crazy regulations by Uncle Sam.
2. While telephone is a regulated utility, ultimately competition from cable etc. is going to drive forward progress. If you don't like the lack of DSL penetration in your area, buy a business-grade circuit and do wireless service off of it. If the service is good enough you're now in a competitive market and that's better for everyone.
3. Embarq and CenturyTel are both ILECs only. This merger, unlike the one between Sprint and Nextel, doesn't take competition out of the equation. There won't be areas where two companies who previously competed will become one.
4. Right now, CenLink can compete on three things: price, features (speed etc.) and/or reach. Since DSL can't compete against cable on speed (unless you're going up against TWC in North Carolina with 512 kbps up on their Turbo plan) the company needs to price lower, move outward or install fiber to expand. It's a public entity therefore it has to expand to serve investors. It has to compete to expand. So by that chain of reason customers will benefit, at least in the long term, since the new company has, as said before, better economies of scale for expansion.
5. Landline revenues are dropping. Embarq and CenTel know this, so they have to do something halfway decent or they'll end up with two million customers instead of seven. Agaian, in order to keep investors happy the companies have to grow somehow.
Bottom line: not sure why everyone has their panties in a wad about "big bad CenLink". Pretty surethis means good things for their customers in the long run. For all its failings, AT&T didn't come out with U-Verse until after the SBC merger. |
|
|
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | said by iansltx: For all its failings, AT&T didn't come out with U-Verse until after the SBC merger. ugh |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to iansltx
"in order to keep investors happy the companies have to grow somehow."
Correct and how do they do that? 1. Expand DSL to areas that do not have it right now. 2. Expand the fiber service+IPTV to areas that have DSL already and are profitable enough. I just hope the iptv does not compel them to start capping, well it hasn't yet so we can only hope. And if they don't have a cap it can persuade people who have cable with a cap to switch. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to morbo
I told you I was playing Ddevil's advocate 
Personally, having telco internet with above 896k up is nice...Qwest doesn't know of such a thing. |
|
| You have low standards buddy. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| CenTel and Embarq tend to be in more rural areas. Not always the case, but in those areas cable generally doesn't go. Or in some situations cable is crappy. So 768k sometimes is actually a decent option...I'd much rather have 768k DSL than satellite of any speed. heck, if DIALUP went at 256k I'd pick it over satellite |
|
| reply to me1212
The problem is that expansion isn't profitable. Doing things like behavioral ads or getting into content are profitable. Serving rural America isn't in the plans for anything but the tiniest of carriers who don't need to placate investors. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | said by Karl Bode:Serving rural America isn't in the plans for anything but the tiniest of carriers who don't need to placate investors. Weren't they going to use LTE for rural? »CenturyTel Plans To Use LTE For Rural Deployment |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | reply to Karl Bode
And had they not merged would the expansion, specifically the rural expansion have happened faster? I don't see anything unreasonable here at all. Maybe it didn't get tech media coverage because this deal didn't deserve tech media coverage. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to iansltx
said by iansltx: AT&T didn't come out with U-Verse until after the SBC merger. Two corrections here:
1. SBC, not AT&T, initiated U-verse
2. SBC had already begun the project to deploy U-verse before the AT&T merger. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | I stand corrected. Yay for the web, rights all wrongs, right? |
|
| reply to iansltx
Did you know over a year ago Japan launched a satellite internet service capable of 100+ mbit/s speeds so rural citizens could have fiber-quality speeds? |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to Karl Bode
The problem here is lack of competition (whoda thunk?). In a duopoly situation, it's easy for everyone to do behavioral advertising and lower the bar together. This tacit collusion isn't doable in highly competitive markets because one competitior will decide not to do the advertising in order to get more customers.
Also, rural customers will pay $50 for a 512k connection. Once you build out the infrastructure they're quite profitable because you are the only game in town in all likelihood. In less competitive areas they're the most loyal customers you've got.
Case in point: around here there's no DSL to speak of. The local wireless operator has let their network go to seed but where are customers going to go? WildBlue? CenturyTel serves areas like those.
Granted, the following example is a co-op, but HCTC (hctc.net), seeing that they weren't going to keep gaining landline subscribers, decided to outfit their network with digial loop carriers to enable DSL service. Now average loop lengths are 7k feet (crazy if you know the market they serve) and their DSL packages are as follows (all require home phone service):
128/64 - $17.95
512/256 - $39.95
1024/512 - $59.95
3072/768 - $69.95
$70 per month plus a landline may sound like a lot for a mere three megabits of internet connectivity, but when your alternative realistically tops out at 1.5/256 (who's going to buy 5 Mbit down, 300k up on HughesNet? Bueller? Bueller?) for the same price (HCTC worked out a nice deal with WildBlue) who ya gonna call?
Now that HCTC has DSL to these areas, they'll be able to sell as much as $100 per month in services (local + features + LD + DSL + security) to people for five years or more. How's that for ROI? Certainly better than getting a lame cut from WildBlue and watching your landline revenues go away as cellular providers build out their networks. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to sonicmerlin
I'll take U-Verse over 100 Mbit satellite.
1. Better uploads
2. Better latency
Now don't say satellite again or I'll slap you around with your choice of a dish or a WildBlue modem. Seriously, 1.5 seconds of latency = pull-your-hair-out-and-wonder-why-you-aren't-using-dialup.
Also, that's Japan. You're free to move. |
|
| reply to iansltx
in columbia,mo.ctel has its own iptv for about a year now.aka uverse. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to beaups
And had they not merged would the expansion, specifically the rural expansion have happened faster? You miss the point. The merger was an opportunity for an FCC that's been prattling on about what a priority broadband expansion is to actually do something about broadband expansion. Instead, they decided to enact wholly meaningless conditions for a former colleague who's now a lawyer at CenturyTel. That's a story. In any language.Maybe it didn't get tech media coverage because this deal didn't deserve tech media coverage. Maybe it didn't get tech media coverage because the tech media is too busy fellating Apple and trolling brand fanboys for advertising eyeballs. |
|
