apok86
join:2006-09-09
Minneapolis, MN | pathetic move by TDS This might be one of the few instances when I feel a telecom did the wrong thing by offering FTTH. If TDS actually cared about being providing faster and better service to their customers they would be wiring cities that don't have a FTTH alternative.
After fighting, delaying and losing FTTH all in an attempt to maintain their monopoly, TDS has developed a new strategy. Undercut muni FTTH till it fails. They can subsidize FTTH in monticello with money from the rest of their network. As soon as muni fiber fails they can shut down or raise price of their own fiber network.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Monticello MN population 10,000 (very rural) is such as lucrative market that TDS is a visionary by offering FTTH. That must be why verizon wires only rural cities and sells off urban and suburban ones.
If I were a resident of Monticello I would stick with muni fiber. If they don't the real joke will be on them once the project fails and they are stuck with the bonds from the failed fiber project and increased rates from TDS. The only way this project cost tax payers money is if it fails. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| All true.
However what speeds/prices does Monticello's own fiber project offer?
That's the thing when you're competing against a telco; if they're laying fiber and you want to lay fiber to compete, you're playing with fire as far as speed competition goes. Cable can mostly only compete on price when things come down to the wire, assuming you're in an area wired with fiber. Case in point: Cox in Lafayette tops out at 50/5 internet. The only way they're competing is by upgrading areas to D3 that aren't wired for LUSFiber yet. |
|
| Great points. Fair competition benefits the consumer.
FYI: I don't think the city is providing promised services yet.
Discuss Further: »monticellofiber.net |
|
