Re: Key Phrase
said by Metatron2008:Yeah, the plan is to slowly exit the mature wireline market, while focusing on the growth market that is wireless. This might change after wireless turns into a mature market, which will happen before the decade is out, assuming they haven't found a buyer for the remaining wireline markets by then.
Verizon isn't at&t, they have a plan for the future and don't sit around looking stupid all day.
Personally, for as much as people bash Frontier, I'm happier to be in one of their markets. They understand the wireline business and focus on it exclusively. They'd be moving faster if they had the resources VZ has, but they are making progress in the areas they serve, and many of us are happy to have them around.
Re: Key Phrase It's also a matter of architecture. If VZ went w/ active ethernet, they could have scaled out as necessary versus PON topologies which require higher distribution costs. Also ethernet would allow better diagnosis. GPON requires a truck roll to ferret things out if things go south. I see VZ trucks in my neighborhood almost as often as TWC, and nobody if getting hooked up. That ship is sailed. They are performing costly opex maintenance.
My FIOS outages have been headend bonehead failures and subtle items like poor handling of CC and new DRM restrictions. Every now and then there is some network issue is NY/VA that causes burps but to the house no problems. I live in UNY, and w cable every 3-4 years they needed to run a new cable because the contractors who come out did such a poor job of terminating and trenching the coax. Snow and water doesn't help either...I for one am glad VZ woke up. The problem is that if they want to jack my bill 30% in 1 year--I'm not in love...
Now the glory of FTTH is supposed to be much lower opex (which makes up for higher capex) and the fact the fibre should last 100 years in the ground. Frankly speaking the trenching cost is about the same for fibre and copper, and wire costs aren't that much different. In fact you cable company runs fibre just the same... They overstrand, so they can always bond a new pair if necessary. Already though they have gotten themselves into trouble with BPON and new routers already only after a few years. If they went EPON or straight ethernet that would be a different story.
If you want economics compare Uverse (incremental VDSL) to FIOS (FTTH). Obviously the smarter LONG TERM move was FTTH because AT&T has decrepit lines in much of their plant and they need those damn refrigerators all over the place. But for capex reduction, they have VZ beat, however overall FTTH should prove out better.
If AT&T is smart (they are), they use their infrastructure and use white space wireless from the refrigerator to the local houses when that comes. Problem solved. Cantennas for everyone.
As for pricing in most markets there is only 1 competitor, so it's pretty easy to price signal according to the other guy. Wireless for all it's charm doesn't have the economics to compete yet in the home.
| |said by rradina:No, but VZ's margins might be better.
If the maintenance is lower, shouldn't FIOS prices be lower than cable?
said by rradina:Similar questions are asked each time debates surrounding ever increasing bandwidth tiers are presented. Most consumers probably won't notice a tangible difference worth the premium price points.
Is the quality difference sufficient to justify higher prices? Does the average consumer notice the difference? Do they even know what the difference is? If not, why would they pay the same or more vs. a competitor?
said by rradina:When everyone can make more money, what's the motivation to reduce rates? Drive a comfortable competitor into a price war?
Whatever happened to the business with better quality and lower costs gaining market share and forcing competitors to respond or go under?
said by rradina:You don't think VZ is well on its way toward price points higher than the rest of the market? VZ has done a nice job of branding FiOS (and its wireless business) as a premium service, worth a premium price.
Why would they be content settling for their current ROI based on "...price points equivalent to the rest of the market..."?
Re: Key Phrase
said by openbox9:So do we need regulations? Seems like collusion.
When everyone can make more money, what's the motivation to reduce rates? Drive a comfortable competitor into a price war?
said by obenbox9 :How can both statements be true?
Most consumers probably won't notice a tangible difference worth the premium price points... ...VZ has done a nice job of branding FiOS (and its wireless business) as a premium service, worth a premium price...
Re: Key Phrase
said by rradina:I think collusion is too strong. As for regulation, I'm not sold on that being the answer. It can get dangerous. I'd suggest that what we need is to enable easier entry into the market by new competitors. Not risk free, but maybe subsidize some of the risk.
So do we need regulations? Seems like collusion.
said by rradina:Simple. Even though most consumers probably won't notice a difference, VZ has done a great job at branding and marketing FiOS as a premium service worth the money...and many consumers buy into that. It's not that far fetched. A lot of consumers easily succumb to good marketing efforts for strong brands. Apple is the expert in this arena. VZ is doing pretty well itself, IMO.
How can both statements be true?
Re: Key Phrase
said by rradina:I said nothing of perceived value. I said most consumers won't notice a difference in services (e.g., FiOS vs Cable vs DSL) that warrants a premium price, but that VZ has done a good job marketing FiOS such that consumers believe the service is worth a premium.
Perhaps I'm arguing over nothing but the OP claimed most won't perceive a value in a premium service and then went on to say Verizon has done a great job of marketing it as a premium service and most buy into the marketing.
| |said by rradina:Pricing is not based on what it costs to serve, it's based on what buyers are willing to pay.
Once installed, I thought FIOS was supposed to be cheaper than alternatives. If the maintenance is lower, shouldn't FIOS prices be lower than cable?