US Telco Support > CenturyLink > Merger question

reply to browniept

Re: Merger question

If you campers are done grinding your various axes....

This began with a couple of simple questions: Did the FCC actually put those requirements in the merger and do they expect CenturyLink to even consider meeting them?

I understand the following:

1. I don't live in a big city.
2. CenturyLink may consider itself a rural telco, but rural customers are not a priority.
3. Some alleged pundits on this board apparently feel rather strongly that people in rural areas (BTW, anyone got a good definition of rural in this context?) do not deserve broadband internet access. Were they traumitized by a cow or what?

We all know that broadband access is driven by economics. Beating the above points into the ground will not resolve them. Those of us who live in rural areas generally have good reasons for living there and accept the inherent limitations and benefits. Trying to keep up with the advances in this area should not start the feeding frenzy it invariably does on this board. We are just trying to keep an eye what may or may not be coming our way and trying to sort out viable options from vaporware. Broadband users in urban areas are always looking for the next level of speed in their areas. You guys are looking for 100 meg, we're looking for 1. Same principle, different orders of magnitude. If you hear about higher speed access coming to your area, you will invariably inquire about time frames, logistics, etc. That doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you human.

Of course the ISP's are not going to tell you their intent. There's no profit in it. But then again, where is the profit in telling someone that something is coming when it isn't? And just beacuse they put forth the effort to be frustrating does not mean one is obligated to be frustrated. Broadband will make it to most areas eventually in one way or another when someone makes it worth the effort.

I don't think anyone here has said that people in rural areas don't deserve broadband internet access.

On the other hand, if people in rural areas have "good reasons for living there and accept the inherent limitations and benefits", then why is a CenturyLink review consisting of all "Ones" sitting on the front page (and admittedly scored that way simply because DSL isn't available to them)?

Sounds to me like someone isn't accepting the limitations.
--
The goal of the broadcast engineer is to get all the meters on the transmitter to go as far to the right as possible!!

I accept the limitations. I do not accept that they have to stay that way. Or do we accept the limitations as static and the implication that those of us in rural areas are not worth bringing broadband to and never will be? That may be the company line but history would dispute it.

I'm not defending CTL, but you're free to start up your own WISP or other type of broadband company if you don't approve of their business plan.

My point is that CenturyTel is like every other company on the planet. They're in business to make money. Is that fair or right? I won't be the judge of that, but the FCC has laid out what CTL is required to do in rural areas, and in some cases, they'll do the very minimum such as HughesNet.

Good or bad you'll have to accept it, unless you do something to change the game.

I
--
The goal of the broadcast engineer is to get all the meters on the transmitter to go as far to the right as possible!!

I could have sworn I said that earlier. And you forgot to tell me to move to where the broadband is.

"Because you seem to think that I'm picking a fight with you when I'm not. No need to take your frustration out on me."

Not at all. Just trying to keep up with the progress of broadband expansion. But I've encountered people who take umbrage at that and they have standard lines. "Move to where the broadband is" is one of them.
I understand that broadband will not be on my doorstep tommorrow, but it will be at some point. That's not a complaint, just an observation, but some take it otherwise.

And I think that it's a stupid line. Rural America needs to be wired with broadband. While I don't believe that high-speed internet is a right, I do believe that it should be universally available.

The problem is expense. As we all know, it's not a cheap proposition. What I don't get are the people who attack companies like CTL for not offering it where they are, and lay into them because they wire up where the money is. Well of course they do! I don't like it, but that capitalism at it's best (or worst)!

I guess the better line is be prepared "hurry up and wait".
--
The goal of the broadcast engineer is to get all the meters on the transmitter to go as far to the right as possible!!

Exactly. I know all about 'hurry up and wait', thanks to Uncle Sam. I'm just keeping an ear out for developments and ensuring I'm ready to capitilize when they come about. Our area is becoming more desirable for broadband deployment. Some folks on this forum have hit Google Earth and come back with the observation that we are in the boonies. Not exactly, but it's not the big city either. However, since we did not have the meteoric rise in housing prices experienced elsewhere, we are recovering a little faster. Eventually even the ISP's will figure out there is money to be made here.

You know, we've been beating this dead horse for a while now and no one has addressed the original post. Is that a well kept secret or is there no one here who knows?

Yes, those are the terms of the FCC. 90% in three years. I don't know the specific penalties for not doing so, I imagine we'll be fined into oblivion.

So it's either spend money on infrastructure or give it to the FCC? That almost smacks of shrewdness on the FCC's part. An incentive to expand with at least a potential of profit, or give it to the government so it can be wasted properly. Thanks, Ring. That's some actual info that makes sense.

Ya gotta love how the FCC rolls!