CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
|reply to 25139889 |
said by 25139889:Sorry, but if it REALLY didn't matter you would have simply answered that Verizon owns them. When VZ owns them and 'calls their shots' (after all, the current VZ CEO used to be the VZW CEO!!) you have to admit that they are only separate companies for legal and financial convenience.
that doesn't matter. CellCo Partnership is its owns company.
FWIW, I agree that it would be in Verizon's best interests (considering their Wall St. pleasing mentality) to separate the companies much further than they currently are. The proper way to do that would be to spin off POTS as a separate company and let it go bankrupt but I suspect that there are regulatory issues that prevent that from happening.
The reason this shouldn't happen is that tens of millions of people and small businesses still rely on POTS and killing it off prematurely for the sake of Wall St. is not in the customers' best interests. Do you propose that the shareholders' interests takes precedence over the tens of millions of customers?
You know, I just realized who NWOhio is. "hottboiinnc". What happened bro, was that handle too immature sounding for you?
|reply to CXM_Splicer |
Part of the problem I see is that our legal, political, and regulatory framework has made further investments in wireline unappealing to Verizon. From a strictly business point of view I can't blame them a bit for wanting to get out of the wireline business.
How does POTS compete on a level playing field against unregulated services? These competing services can charge whatever they want without needing PSC approval. They don't have to meet any sort of reliability metrics. They can cherry pick the most profitable customers, whereas POTS has to be available almost everywhere, to everyone, for the same price.
Additionally, few people around here like to talk about this, but I couldn't help but take note of the fact that Verizon's decision to halt FIOS expansion occurred around the same time Uncle Sam started talking about a "National Broadband Plan". Why would any for-profit company invest their own capital into a venture when Uncle Sam is making rumblings about throwing taxpayer dollars at the problem?
If you were a Verizon board member, would you be more inclined to support investment into wireless or wireline? One competes on a level playing field rather than a slanted one, isn't nearly as regulated by the Government, and you don't have to worry about being forced to share it with free loading CLECs.
a333A hot cup of integrals pleaseReviews:
Rego Park, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
I never quite understood why CLEC's should be the subject of that much objection... they are essentially a source of easy money for the incumbents. While Verizon earns less from a CLEC customer as opposed to one of their own customers, they get to completely eliminate the costs associated with marketing and customer service (two of the biggest costs associated with running any ISP). They get to use the existing technicians who are out installing and maintaining stuff on their own network anyway, to service CLEC customers. Given these facts, I would suspect that Verizon makes the same net PROFIT, at the end of the day, from a CLEC subscriber as it does from a regular sub, and that's all that really counts...
Physics: Will you break the laws of physics, or will the laws of physics break you?
If physicists stand on each other's shoulders, computer scientists stand on each other's toes, and computer programmers dig each other's graves.
|reply to Crookshanks |
It's not the legal, political and regulatory framework that's made wireline unappealing; It's technology! Now that we can get the same quality of services wirelessly, the competitive landscape is shifting rapidly. Truth be told, Verizon has significantly more wireless assets than Comcast does and, as we (the consumers) demand more and more service be delivered wirelessly, ALL telco and cable companies will have excess infrastructure unused. We all overbuilt in the 90's anyway.
Any by the way, Uncle Sam's National Broadband Plan isn't much different than the Universal Service Fund. The government has been insisting that the service providers build out to unprofitable rural areas for years, by passing the costs through to us (the USF charge at the bottom of your phone bill.) I'm sure the providers at this point are waiting to hear who is going to be responsible for paying the costs. No one in their right mind wants to set themselves up for unprofitable business.
After twelve years in the broadband industry in a number of business and legal capacities, I actually think this jopint venture could be one of the most consumer-friendly projects we've seen in a long time. Take off your conspiracy coat for a minute and look at the bright side. At this point, the only way to save money is to "bundle," but it's not possible for everyone since Comcast doesn't have a decent wireless option, and Verizon doesn't have a meaningful video plan. Personally, I have Verizon wireless today, Comcast broadband (which was the highest speed at my house), DirecTV, and a commercial grade VoIP phone system. When the JV is launched, there should be some promotions that benefit me nicely, and maybe you too!
Were you a cheerleader in HS? How you can root for such a travesty is completely illogical. When Verizon purposely self-implodes their wireline business, and the cable companies have no wireline competitors, you actually think prices will DROP and stay low ?! Come on now.
Nobody is talking conspiracy. this is all straight forward and obvious The writing is on the wall, people here are either refusing to read it, or are illiterate.
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
|reply to Crookshanks |
I agree that Verizon being regulated while other POTS providers aren't would tend to discourage further investment in copper but I don't think it is enough of a force to cause the change that is occurring. There have been changes to the regulations as a result of the increased competition that I really don't think it's an issue. The real issue, as techlawgrrl says, is technology. The wireless is so low overhead and high revenue that they just want to cut copper completely as a 'loss'.
The problem as I see it is the shift away from the concept of utilities and towards cut-throat business. Many will argue that the reason utilities are regulated in the first place is because they are monopolies. While this is true, it is not the only reason... they also provide a necessary service. Somehow, the concept of communication being necessary got lost in the fray. Other companies providing dialtone (or wireless for that matter) should be regulated for standards of quality (ummm, sorry techlawgrrl, wireless quality sucks... it is no where near what POTS was), customer service, 'Mean Time to Repair', etc.
Ultimately Verizon should continue to maintain copper, funded by wireless, until a viable replacement is found. FIOS would have worked but they stopped the rollout in favor of wireless and cable bundles. Wireless IMO is not reliable enough (right now) to completely replace all landlines and satisfy the regulatory requirements that should be imposed.
|reply to techlawgrrl |
"Bundling" is not the only way to save nor is it the most effective way to save. The best way for consumers to save is through competition. Comcast can bundle all they want but they'll have no incentive to give you a lower price. VZW may give you a few dollars off for bundling with Comcast but all you'll be doing is supporting their plot to kill all competition.
Want real savings? Move to an area where FiOS competes directly with cable for phone/Internet/TV. You will constantly get attractive offers to switch back to the other company. Also, both companies have incentive to improve their networks and offer better service.
Think the Verizon/Cable consortium will have any incentive to improve their network or offer better rates?
Simply put, the Verizon/Cable deal is bad for consumers. It will leave us with high rates for what will end up as a second rate network. FTTH is the network of the future. If competition is allowed to be killed and Verizon has no incentive to build it, anyone in a non-FiOS area will be left behind with what will be inferior broadband and higher prices.
Oh my God, another down to Earth person on this website ! Nicely said.
People need to realize whats at stake. They can inexplicably hate unions all they want, but this deal is absolutely terrible for competition. The only way Verizon will ever expand FioS is to block this deal.
If any of these anti-union, anti-competition people read my last statement, they will reply with the same ole "Verizon stopped their buildout over a year ago" , Yea and? This plan was likely in the works longer than that !
The cable spectrum deal is bad for competition, bad for workers, and absolutely devastating for the other RBOC's, and smaller telephone companies. How this deal is getting approved at all by the DOJ, is a joke.