 PaulGo
join:2005-01-29
Gaithersburg, MD | It's A Business Decision It costs Verizon thousands of dollars to wire each house on a street. They need to prove it to themselves it is worth it. Verizon needs to establish the correct business model in terms of products and prices to see if they can get a profitable business model. Once they determine they can penetrate enough of the market to have a decent return on investment then they will proceed to wire additional areas. If they can't I guess they will invest in more profitable areas. |
|
1 edit | Here's a fun fact. My area is served by Comcast and only Comcast. 70% of the homes here have dishes for DirecTV and DishNetwork mounted on their roofs and have ceased all service with Comcast except for internet. Hell, some have even come together and are using WPA2 encrypted wireless to share internet among themselves evenly so they don't all have to pay Comcast individually. Now if that's not an open market to take advantage of by introducing competition, I don't know what is.
Edit: To remove any possible sense of ambiguity, when I refer to "my area", I do indeed refer to my local neighborhood. |
|
|
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | said by PapaMidnight:some have even come together and are using WPA2 encrypted wireless to share internet among themselves evenly so they don't all have to pay Comcast individually. people do that now. plus, can't the owner of that wireless router see all the traffic? it's encrypted to the router, not encrypted period. right? |
|
| reply to PaulGo
said by PaulGo:It costs Verizon thousands of dollars to wire each house on a street. They need to prove it to themselves it is worth it. Verizon needs to establish the correct business model in terms of products and prices to see if they can get a profitable business model. Once they determine they can penetrate enough of the market to have a decent return on investment then they will proceed to wire additional areas. If they can't I guess they will invest in more profitable areas. I would agree with that except that Verizon is neglecting its copper plant in many areas that it has deployed FiOS, and others that it hasn't and that it still owns.
Telephone service is a necessity. Yes, it is being replaced by cellphones for many but basic dialtone is still regulated as a necessity, meaning that the Government has taken great pains to ensure that most people have service available.
People who have FiOS may not care because they already got theirs, but the reality is that Verizon absolutely has a duty to either keep the copper plant running or upgrade it to fiber if they want to abandon the wireline business. |
|
1 edit | reply to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight:Here's a fun fact. My area is served by Comcast and only Comcast. 70% of the homes here have dishes for DirecTV and DishNetwork mounted on their roofs and have ceased all service with Comcast except for internet. Hell, some have even come together and are using WPA2 encrypted wireless to share internet among themselves evenly so they don't all have to pay Comcast individually. Now if that's not an open market to take advantage of by introducing competition, I don't know what is. Is that even allowed by Comcast ToS? That would be the equivalent of paying for one cable connection and then hooking up your neighbors. I can't imagine that Comcast or any ISP would be happy with that sort of arrangement. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to PaulGo
said by PaulGo:It costs Verizon thousands of dollars to wire each house on a street. Roughly $1,000 (in 2004) plus a little for inflation, minus a little for technological improvements and economies of scale: I've seen estimates as low as $700's and as high as $900, lately.
Now when we're talking a specific street/town/terrain/etc., costs could vary substantially.
That's not to belittle the cost, that's still a huge cost. But it's not "thousands of dollars to wire each house."
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
2 edits | reply to PapaMidnight
70% of the homes have satellite for TV? Where are you getting that number from? Do you have a source?
And yes, it's safe to say that in "some cases" there are people that share... but you make it sound like some epidemic that the news would be featuring at 5:00pm sharp "The city of Baltimore residents are banding together to share internet"...
City of Baltimore: 636,919 - Jul 2008 (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division)
Baltimore City council has even been cited that their area has low DBS penetration. (Google it) IN fact, as of 2008, only 14% of homes had DBS service... a far cry from 70% and that was when Comcast was still doing their digital transition project. I don't think DBS has jumped from 14% to 70% in just a few years...
So I'm sorry if I disagree that 70& of homes passed by cable have DBS service..
I'm not defending Comcast, but I can't say you're correct in your 70% number - at all. |
|
1 edit | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:said by PapaMidnight:Here's a fun fact. My area is served by Comcast and only Comcast. 70% of the homes here have dishes for DirecTV and DishNetwork mounted on their roofs and have ceased all service with Comcast except for internet. Hell, some have even come together and are using WPA2 encrypted wireless to share internet among themselves evenly so they don't all have to pay Comcast individually. Now if that's not an open market to take advantage of by introducing competition, I don't know what is. Is that even allowed by Comcast ToS? That would be the equivalent of paying for one cable connection and then hooking up your neighbors. I can't imagine that Comcast or any ISP would be happy with that sort of arrangement. I never said it was allowed by Comcast TOS. Hell, if one reads the Terms of Usage/Acceptable Usage Policy, it's clearly and blatantly stated as being forbidden by the usage policy. But it does point out that persons are tired of Comcast... or at bare minimal, want some competition and/or lower prices. |
|
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:70% of the homes have satellite for TV? Where are you getting that number from? Do you have a source? Uh... I live there?
said by fiberguy:And yes, it's safe to say that in "some cases" there are people that share... but you make it sound like some epidemic that the news would be featuring at 5:00pm sharp "The city of Baltimore residents are banding together to share internet"... I'm not defending Comcast, but I can't say you're correct in your 70% number - at all. Not only did I clearly state I reside in Baltimore county (completely separate from Baltimore City, I also stated I was referring to MY LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
Let's stick to the topic at hand, please, rather than try to poke weak holes in someones statement? Thank you. |
|
| reply to morbo
said by morbo:said by PapaMidnight:some have even come together and are using WPA2 encrypted wireless to share internet among themselves evenly so they don't all have to pay Comcast individually. people do that now. plus, can't the owner of that wireless router see all the traffic? it's encrypted to the router, not encrypted period. right? I know I don't partake in it, but I would hope that those that do would have honor enough not to scan each others packets. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to PapaMidnight
Okay.. you live there.. you said "area".. is that not Baltimore? You did not say "county" or "city".. your edit, however after the fact, changed to say your hood... fine. However you didn't state either at first.
And sorry.. you made a clear statement and said "fun fact"... you make a "fact" that is incorrect or ambiguous and you got challenged on it.. don't like that? Sorry - becuase it's not a fact.
And not that it matters.. but unless you went around your "hood" and counted every home, and ever dish... what ever. Doesn't matter..
Your post as you made public was not correct - at all, as written, and I challenged that "fact" you were making. I believe I was sticking to the topic at hand. The holes being poked were not weak.. and they were directed exactly at what you said.. you also had to re-clarify, or wait, you had to clarify your statement even becuase at first, it was pretty clear what you were saying - not to mention, the topic at hand is "baltimore" and not "your neighborhood"...
Make more sense now? |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight:said by morbo:said by PapaMidnight:some have even come together and are using WPA2 encrypted wireless to share internet among themselves evenly so they don't all have to pay Comcast individually. people do that now. plus, can't the owner of that wireless router see all the traffic? it's encrypted to the router, not encrypted period. right? I know I don't partake in it, but I would hope that those that do would have honor enough not to scan each others packets. Sorry, but how can "honor" come into play in a group of people who aren't honoring the TOS that says what they are doing is wrong in the first place?
Two wrongs don't make a right. $42 a month for internet service is not unreasonable.. and if people don't like that price, it doesn't give them the "right" to violate their TOS.. simply ridiculous in my, and many people's books.
It does say something about you, however, when you say you don't partake in it.. that shows integrity.
I am amazed about one thing though.. I bet there are at least a few of those who DO share their internet connection and bill that have a PDA, iPhone, BluRay player or plasma TV too, huh? Those are all high ticket items.. maybe they should make personal choices in their lives and spend their limited money (becuase it's obvious they have limited income if they can't afford $40 a month for internet like everyone else) on the things they need most.. and in the real world, PDA's, Plasmas, SUVs, BluRay players, etc. are not priorities in life... right? I also wonder how many of those people take the time to clip coupons to save about, I dunno, $40 a month on average at the grocery store each month? My guess is near none. |
|
 56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | It's not about affording it. It's about not giving it to a bandit company like Comcast. Totally different ethos.
Now, those who are "illegally" sharing their Internet connection are in a different game entirely. |
|
| reply to fiberguy
I'll accept that. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 |  |
|
