how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
Re: Ethernet over copper said by MyDogHsFleas:Hey, their strategy may fail miserably. We'll see. All I am trying to do is to counterbalance the knee-jerk reaction I see here: "AT&T sucks! They are stupid! They will have to rip everything out and start over again with fiber!" AT&T actually does have a strategy and a plan for the future. I think a big part of what is trying to be shown here is how competition fails when competition does not exist. When AT&T and Verizon directly compete with one another, then we can all see who will come out on top. But as long as there is this "I don't invade your areas, you don't invade mine" pact there will not be any true competition, not in this corporate-dominated age.
--
- "Techie" Jim | | |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by jimbo2150:I think a big part of what is trying to be shown here is how competition fails when competition does not exist. When AT&T and Verizon directly compete with one another, then we can all see who will come out on top. But as long as there is this "I don't invade your areas, you don't invade mine" pact there will not be any true competition, not in this corporate-dominated age. This is a load of crap.
First, there is no "pact". AT&T and Verizon have historical DSL/landline territories that they have their hands full trying to build out with their advanced triple-play offerings. Verizon is building out in a very few AT&T terrories now. As their buildouts mature, expect to see more and more direct competition.
Second, there is a HUGE amount of competition from cable. In my town, there are constant TV ads and billboards on the highways from AT&T and Time Warner Cable, each directly attacking the other. There are salespeople knocking on doors. There are special switchover incentives.
Third, what do you mean "corporate dominated age"? The whole idea of corporate capitalism is competition! What would you rather have.... government dominated? Yeah, that'll really add to competition and provide better service. That usually works out well, doesn't it? | |
| said by MyDogHsFleas:This is a load of crap. First, there is no "pact". AT&T and Verizon have historical DSL/landline territories that they have their hands full trying to build out with their advanced triple-play offerings. That's a load of crap. Sure decades ago they had their hands tied when they were smaller and small companies spread across the country. Now, some of the largest national corps in the country and only today I have heard of only one area they recently are competing in. They have had DECADES to start competing with each other in many areas. They don't because to these corps 'competition' is as taboo a term as 'regulation'.
said by MyDogHsFleas:Second, there is a HUGE amount of competition from cable. In my town, ... I always stop reading when I hear "my town". Bull! Your town does not span the entire country and competition is not anywhere near the level they are in the few areas (mainly only in larger cities though).
said by MyDogHsFleas:Third, what do you mean "corporate dominated age"? The whole idea of corporate capitalism is competition! What would you rather have.... government dominated? Yeah, that'll really add to competition and provide better service. That usually works out well, doesn't it? Bull. See my first response above for the explanation. I want to see REAL competition. Not a couple or one company dominating the majority of the market. Here there is two companies AT&T or local cable co. Just a couple of miles away there is one: cable (no DSL). Why can't we have the best of both worlds I always say. Use Utopia as a base. Let munies or gov build out the last mile fiber then PROVIDE NO ACTUAL SERVICE. Let any company offer service to any customer over the network at a fair price. Letting the current cos. charge massive fees to provide service is not competitive. Letting them stomp out any small business that tries to offer service to the point where most do not want to is not competitive. I am not against capitalism. I am against greedy corporatism. Having a choice is what matters, without which the consumer no longer has any control of the market.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Your bias against telcos warps your judgement. I'm not saying that telcos are angels, but they are not demons either. They are what they are, and it's useful to see them for what they are, not make them whipping boys for your favorite cause.
Just to address your points:
1) No there is no non-compete pact. But you have to realize that it's extremely expensive to overlay someone else's terrority with brand new physical copper/fiber, and you'll get a limited return. As I said in my original post, the telcos have plenty of places to spend capital to get customers to buy more services without expanding out of their historical areas.
What are you going to do? Force them by regulation to build competing physical plants? That's not a good idea.
2) A huge majority (almost 90%) of the landline installs also offer DSL. An even huger majority (96%+) of the cable TV installs offer HSI. So it's highly likely that anyone in a population area with cable and landline available also has a competitive choice on broadband.
3) Your idea of "competition" is one that says that you use taxes to pay for the vast majority of the capital cost of entry to the market, then make that market available to all.
Do you really think this is an efficient way to get goods and services to the public? Do you really think the government will do this in a fair and innovative way? I don't. Every congressperson will be lobbying for the infrastructure funds to be localized to his/her district's benefit. It'll be massive waste, kickbacks, and fraud. | |
| said by MyDogHsFleas:Your bias against telcos warps your judgement. I'm not saying that telcos are angels, but they are not demons either. They are what they are, and it's useful to see them for what they are, not make them whipping boys for your favorite cause. I am not biased solely toward telcos. The cable cos are in the same boat. We were simply discussing telcos at the time.
One phone company per area, one cable co per area. That does not sound like competition.
Cable and phone companies attempting to block potential competitors using caps, preventing or limiting access to such services. Does not sound like fair competition.
said by MyDogHsFleas:1) No there is no non-compete pact. But you have to realize that it's extremely expensive to overlay someone else's terrority with brand new physical copper/fiber, and you'll get a limited return. As I said in my original post, the telcos have plenty of places to spend capital to get customers to buy more services without expanding out of their historical areas. I know that there is no actual pact (that would be illegal), but noone will even try to put in physical equipment not just because of it's cost (or it would already be happening) but also because they know that incumbents would easily lower prices and destroy their business before they could even get going. In a sense that pact silently exists.
What are you going to do? Force them by regulation to build competing physical plants? That's not a good idea. Read the last part of my last post. What would you do? Leave everything as is: incumbents preventing decent competition over their own network so in turn no or little competition should exist?
said by MyDogHsFleas:2) A huge majority (almost 90%) of the landline installs also offer DSL. An even huger majority (96%+) of the cable TV installs offer HSI. So it's highly likely that anyone in a population area with cable and landline available also has a competitive choice on broadband. Ok, not even going to go into stats. Too many issues with them. I never believe statistics, especially not ones from the companies trying to protect their profits.
said by MyDogHsFleas:3) Your idea of "competition" is one that says that you use taxes to pay for the vast majority of the capital cost of entry to the market, then make that market available to all. Do you really think this is an efficient way to get goods and services to the public? Do you really think the government will do this in a fair and innovative way? I don't. Every congressperson will be lobbying for the infrastructure funds to be localized to his/her district's benefit. It'll be massive waste, kickbacks, and fraud. Why not? Use part taxes (part investment -- I'm sure many businesses and residents across the country would be willing to throw in a few bucks to get access to a selection of companies providing internet access) to pay for last-mile connections to everyone which can be paid back gradually (and eventually profit from) through a fairly set wholesale of bandwidth to any company who wishes to provide service. The gov. does not actually produce any competition. It eliminates individual companies preventing access to specific ports/services/etc. It could quickly settle the whole 'caps' and 'network neutrality' issue through direct competition instead of eventual legislation. It could easily be set up as a variable-rate pricing if deemed necessary. It would solve the already occurring 'digital divide'. It also preserves capitalism but takes out the issues of having a one or a few or no companies providing last-mile access through restricted and solely owned equipment.
Also, what do you mean fair and innovative? Fiber is innovative. Fair? Like if I want to start a business now I couldn't because I know they would easily put me out if I tried to build out my own. If I tried to resell their bandwidth over their equipment they set their prices just high enough that I cannot compete with their pricing. Many consumers have one, maybe two and some no choices of broadband. That is fair competition?
Sorry, but I would take my suggestion over leaving everything 'as is'.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| OK I see. When I give you actual statistics proving competition is widespread you just ignore them, or denigrate them by saying "well that's not REAL competition" (whatever that means). BTW my stats are from the FCC, you can look it up.
You are simply on an agenda. You want the network taken away from the corporations and you want the government to fund and run it (up to the last mile at least). You want to define the word "competition" to mean your idea of how things should be run. This is simply Brave New World newspeak.
I prefer to see things as they really are before deciding what the solution should be, rather than deciding on the solution first then setting my fact filters accordingly. | |
|
