| reply to robjlevin
Re: If DirecTV can lock up NFL Sunday Ticket; turnaround fair if Verizon wins this, its great for them, but then the FCC would have to reverse its decision it had when it rejected AT&T and COX San Diego , Channel 4 and also make DIRECTV carry CSN Philadelphia as well as Mid Atlantic Sports Network on Comcast. Go get em and close this stupid loophole , whats the point of competition , when one side wins and the other loses |
|
| said by Billy Bob80:if Verizon wins this, its great for them, but then the FCC would have to reverse its decision it had when it rejected AT&T and COX San Diego , Channel 4 and also make DIRECTV carry CSN Philadelphia as well as Mid Atlantic Sports Network on Comcast. Go get em and close this stupid loophole , whats the point of competition , when one side wins and the other loses While we're at it, how about requiring Verizon to share their fiber network like they're required to do for their copper network? Fair is fair. |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
1 edit | said by fifty nine:While we're at it, how about requiring Verizon to share their fiber network like they're required to do for their copper network? Fair is fair. Telcos were required to share their fibercopper as a decent portion of it was subsidized at some point in time by the government. The recent fiber installations are privately funded so they don't carry the same open access requirements that the copper did. Any CLEC-like company is free (notwithstanding interference from the incumbant telco or cableco) to bury their own fiber just like Verizon or AT&T have done.
Edited to change fiber to copper. |
|
| said by cdru:said by fifty nine:While we're at it, how about requiring Verizon to share their fiber network like they're required to do for their copper network? Fair is fair. Telcos were required to share their fibercopper as a decent portion of it was subsidized at some point in time by the government. The recent fiber installations are privately funded so they don't carry the same open access requirements that the copper did. Any CLEC-like company is free (notwithstanding interference from the incumbant telco or cableco) to bury their own fiber just like Verizon or AT&T have done. Edited to change fiber to copper. The fiber buildout was built upon the backs of property owners, who were forced to give up easement rights for Verizon et al to run fiber.
If you think it's easy to run/bury fiber, think again. It's lots of red tape, and Verizon et al have a head start because of the taxpayer subsidized telephone industry.
Make no mistake, fiber deployment was funded by taxpayers, at the very least indirectly. They should share the network, no ifs ands or buts. |
|
cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
| said by fifty nine:The fiber buildout was built upon the backs of property owners, who were forced to give up easement rights for Verizon et al to run fiber. Baloney. Property owners in most cases didn't give up anything as the fiber was ran in existing easements. A few might have given up a few square feet of their property for a pedestal or a cabinet, but it was in an easement to begin with so there was always an expectation that something could go there. If a homeowner expected that nothing ever would happen in a utility easement, that's there fault.
If you think it's easy to run/bury fiber, think again. It's lots of red tape, and Verizon et al have a head start because of the taxpayer subsidized telephone industry. I know it's not easy. I know it's expensive and labor intensive. But there are numerous instances where private companies have done it or municipalities too...something other then giant telcos.
Make no mistake, fiber deployment was funded by taxpayers, at the very least indirectly. They should share the network, no ifs ands or buts. Please point to evidence of where FiOS (or U-Verse) is directly or indirectly paid for by government funds that came from taxpayers. |
|
| quote:
But there are numerous instances where private companies have done it or municipalities too...something other then giant telcos.
But then you come here complaining about the ability for private corporations to compete with municipal projects.
As for taxpayers indirectly funding fiber layout, a significant chunk of Verizon's profits come from its wireless division. They happened to acquire the money they used to lay out their wireless network by swindling it from the government with false promises of a nationwide fiber network. |
|
cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
| said by sonicmerlin:But then you come here complaining about the ability for private corporations to compete with municipal projects. I don't think I've ever posted a comment complaining about that. I have absolutely no problem with a municipal stepping in and providing a service that telcos or cable companies can't or won't provide as long as the business plan is economically viable and self supporting. I'm never in favor of having to pay more for water or garbage collection to subsidize my neighbor watch ESPN or checking his email across a 50mbit fiber connection.
Muni deployments such as Greenlight in Wilson, NC I have no problems with.
As for taxpayers indirectly funding fiber layout, a significant chunk of Verizon's profits come from its wireless division. They happened to acquire the money they used to lay out their wireless network by swindling it from the government with false promises of a nationwide fiber network. Again I'll repeat my request. Please point to one legitimate source that supports your claim that Verizon has swindled the government in some way to pay for FiOS. I'm not saying that they don't exist. And I'm not saying that there wasn't financial incentives in some markets for Verizon to build out in the form of tax incentives or other non-direct financial support. I'm just saying I have yet to see any evidence that shows anything other the legitimate business and government support between the two sides. |
|
| reply to fifty nine
I'll agree to Verizon sharing their fiber when the cable companies are required to share their HFC network and the satellite companies have to share their satellite capacity.
You are comparing two totally different things. Furthermore, if you look at things the way you stated then the cable companies are even worse than Verizon, because not only are they witholding content, they ALSO DO NOT SHARE THEIR NETWORK. Moreover cable essentially uses the same rights of way and easements as Verizon as both companies typically hang their wires on the same poles and bury their lines on public property, etc.
Basically your making a poor comparison. |
|
binded2
join:2009-08-11
Providence, RI | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:said by Billy Bob80:if Verizon wins this, its great for them, but then the FCC would have to reverse its decision it had when it rejected AT&T and COX San Diego , Channel 4 and also make DIRECTV carry CSN Philadelphia as well as Mid Atlantic Sports Network on Comcast. Go get em and close this stupid loophole , whats the point of competition , when one side wins and the other loses While we're at it, how about requiring Verizon to share their fiber network like they're required to do for their copper network? Fair is fair. they do share there fiber network maybe look around next time ass
»www.dslextreme.com/Services/Inte···ult.aspx
uses the verizon fiber network
also its not a bundle you can get naked fios
the router if verizon the service is fios from verzion but
from dsl extreme |
|
