dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
185
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Duh moment for cable operators...

Of course it doesn't make sense. If you cannot light up a nationwide network in short order, you'll be hard pressed to make a competitive mobile play that only works in a couple big metro areas. The MetroPCS/Cricket already has the limited-coverage, low-end market covered so there are no unturned stones there.

While a slower pace might be possible by creating a competitive fixed-wireless data plan in a few metro areas and using the commensurate cash flow to fund growth with goal of reaching critical mass and then going nationwide mobile, this is wrong for cable operators. Cable's HFC plant doesn't have the coverage problems of classic telco copper and they'd only be competing with themselves. They could spawn the plan in markets they don't currently serve but their cable brethren would surely do everything in their power to sabotage it and possibly reciprocate. While good for the consumer, reciprocating would lower margins and jeopardize their planned expansion.

If offered, would a competitive ComCast fixed-wireless product sell in markets not served by ComCast? By competitive, I mean fast (25/10, 50/25), low latency, unlimited or generous caps for the same price as DSL / cable HSI offerings? Over this link they could also offer VOIP services and possibly even leverage their content provider contracts to offer video.

Works for me but I'm looking at it from a consumer perspective and really hoping wireless ends up providing the potential competition we all deserve for our last-mile HSI connections.

JigglyWiggly
join:2009-07-12
Pleasanton, CA

JigglyWiggly

Member

Well I have Comcast and ATT, so meh.
mogamer
join:2011-04-20
Royal Oak, MI

mogamer to rradina

Member

to rradina
said by rradina:

Of course it doesn't make sense. If you cannot light up a nationwide network in short order, you'll be hard pressed to make a competitive mobile play that only works in a couple big metro areas. The MetroPCS/Cricket already has the limited-coverage, low-end market covered so there are no unturned stones there.

While a slower pace might be possible by creating a competitive fixed-wireless data plan in a few metro areas and using the commensurate cash flow to fund growth with goal of reaching critical mass and then going nationwide mobile, this is wrong for cable operators. Cable's HFC plant doesn't have the coverage problems of classic telco copper and they'd only be competing with themselves. They could spawn the plan in markets they don't currently serve but their cable brethren would surely do everything in their power to sabotage it and possibly reciprocate. While good for the consumer, reciprocating would lower margins and jeopardize their planned expansion.

If offered, would a competitive ComCast fixed-wireless product sell in markets not served by ComCast? By competitive, I mean fast (25/10, 50/25), low latency, unlimited or generous caps for the same price as DSL / cable HSI offerings? Over this link they could also offer VOIP services and possibly even leverage their content provider contracts to offer video.

Works for me but I'm looking at it from a consumer perspective and really hoping wireless ends up providing the potential competition we all deserve for our last-mile HSI connections.

The cabelcos aren't interested in "fixed 4G LTE" and they certainly aren't interested in competiting with one another. They are just looking at another revenue stream. Just like Verizion isn't going to set up "fixed 4G LTE" against any major competition, but against the foolish telecos who bought Verizions rural systems.

Verizion is pretty smart. While ATT is trying to grow by eliminating competition all while getting massive heat for it, Verizion is actually going after market share with partners. The right pricing and packages will really hurt Sprint and the third tier wireless providers.