dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8
share rss forum feed


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to airtouch25

Re: Net netural too I assume.

said by airtouch25:


US carriers have learned to compete by killing their competition instead of trying to innovate.

Really? You don't call Verizon FiOS or their 4G LTE broadband innovation? It cost billions, that is with a "B", of stock holders money, not government money. If you want to kill innovation make it a money losing endeavor. If someone wants the bells and whistles Verizon has use Verizon. Price controls WILL cause a shortage in the product that is controlled; that is a fact.

BTW Carlos has no problem making a cake out of the crumbs he buys.
quote:
It was a good quarter to be America Movil, the company that owns Tracfone, Net10, and Straight Talk. The company added 1.1 million subscribers in the fourth quarter, bringing it to 3.3 million for the year and 17.7 million overall. Even though it doesnt operate its own network, the company ranks as the No. 5 carrier in the country.
I call your attention the to the brilliant plan to deregulate "The Bell System". The US of A went from first for one hundred years to not first. I grow weary; oh well my Tracfone works.


airtouch25

join:2007-05-22
united state

The FiOS buildout was in response to Verizon's willingness to get into the cable TV game to compete with Comcast and to keep Dial-up /DSL users from going to another company. Years later they still have only cherry picked certain neighborhoods.... But this is a different story for a different subject. We're talking about wireless roaming rates here.

I call Verizon Wireless' bluff. Big incumbents always threaten to stop investing and stop offering new services when their usual paid lobbying doesn't work. Verizon has too much to lose by doing just that. The FCC isn't saying they can't charge for roaming. They are telling Verizon you have to stop ripping people off. There is a huge difference.



batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

said by airtouch25:

Years later they still have only cherry picked certain neighborhoods.... They are telling Verizon you have to stop ripping people off. There is a huge difference.

Just because this supposed forum keeps repeating something does not make it fact.

This is one of those cherry picked areas near beautiful Newark NJ. Notice the shiny new FiOS box on the pole. Funny how FiOS did not increase the property value.
»/r0/download/1···ed-1.jpg

How is Verizon "ripping off people"? The people are not paying Verizon anything. If they want top shelf service they can get it; from Verizon. You people keep singing the same song; it is the same tune MCI played 25 years ago.

TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
reply to batterup

VZ built its new FIOS network on the fruits of its government granted monopoly. The initial monopoly will forever hinder any true competition. The only competition it really has is from the Cable companies which themselves were built up from monopolies.



batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

said by TheGhost:

VZ built its new FIOS network on the fruits of its government granted monopoly.

Right and what did Quest build? I will say one thing; Quest's cell service is every bit as good as Google's.

You want FiOS move to Newark and you too can suckle government fruit. That is the trouble way too much suckling and not enough doing.

Listen; The Phone Company is smarter than you, I and the government. Doing stupid things at the bidding of MCI types only screws things up for a decade or so until The Phone Company comes back together leaner and meaner than before. I don't know how many decades I have left; I want Verizon 4G in my house. It is only a few miles away as is FiOS.

TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL

Hey - I am all for free market competition, but the thing is, there wasn't from the start and there never can be because of it. VZ, as well as the rest of the Bells enjoyed Monopoly status and profits. Those profits were then funneled into these new ventures. They had GUARANTEED profits to build these outside businesses. No other company (ok, maybe Google) has the assets to compete. Especially since the monopolies have shown a tendency to lower prices ONLY in the areas where a competitor may overbuild JUST to drive them out of business.



batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

said by TheGhost:

Hey - I am all for free market competition, but the thing is, there wasn't from the start and there never can be because of it. VZ, as well as the rest of the Bells enjoyed Monopoly status and profits.

Oh really? The cable companies had no problem building a network at the height of the Bell Monopoly. Some of them are doing quite well I heard. You are just having sport with me right?

TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL

No, but you proved my point. Initially, the Cable companies had MONOPOLIES as well, and engaged in various monopoly behaviors. They were able to use their TV monopolies to fund the build out of and subsidize their Phone and Internet ventures, just as the cable companies were able to leverage their phone monopolies to build out Internet and TV businesses.



batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

said by TheGhost:

No, but you proved my point. Initially, the Cable companies had MONOPOLIES as well, and engaged in various monopoly behaviors. They were able to use their TV monopolies to fund the build out of and subsidize their Phone and Internet ventures, just as the cable companies were able to leverage their phone monopolies to build out Internet and TV businesses.

Oh so anybody can be a monopoly? I'm confused.

I know what it is; your upset that your free MIC long distance isn't working like they lead you to believe.

TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL

You are definitely confused, or maybe you work for VZ/phone/cable co? Not ANYONE can be a monopoly. They were granted EXCLUSIVE rights to an area for a given service (Cable TV / Telephone). Over the years, anyone who wanted that service HAD to purchase from the MONOPOLY provider. Since you seem to need it, here are some references:
»dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly (see #6 to start)

Initially, the government sold the breakup of at&t as a way to foster competition, but you will note that with the rare exception of a few markets, you don't see VZ competing with T for telephone / TV / Internet or Comcast competing with Charter.



batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

said by TheGhost:

Initially, the government sold the breakup of at&t as a way to foster competition, but you will note that with the rare exception of a few markets, you don't see VZ competing with T for telephone / TV / Internet or Comcast competing with Charter.

Exxxxcccuuussss me; Verizon wireless competes with at&t all over the country. This is about wireless lest we forget. Remember the great cell network the Quest monopoly built.

TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL

You are right - in the wireless area, we have an OLIGOPOLY, whose members built there networks using their respective MONOPOLY profits.



batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

said by TheGhost:

You are right - in the wireless area, we have an OLIGOPOLY, whose members built there networks using their respective MONOPOLY profits.

Quest too? Listen there is no free lunch; if you want Verizon coverage get Verizon.

Actually the FCC will lose in court as they cannot mandate this.

BTW, so T-Mobil will be exempt because they were never a "monopoly"?