openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to antdude
Re: Dang phone companies. Not 50, but I bet it'll likely be another couple of years before the FiOS deployments begin again. |
|
 antdudeA Ninja AntPremium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:4
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by openbox9:Not 50, but I bet it'll likely be another couple of years before the FiOS deployments begin again.
Two years isn't bad.  However, the question is when I will be able to get mine.  |
|
|
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to openbox9
I'm not sure. They clearly want everyone on capped and metered and very lucrative LTE.
FIOS could be done, period. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | I disagree. Major CAPEX is going to the LTE build, which is going to be done soon. Then what? My guess is a return to FTTH. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to KrK
said by KrK:I'm not sure. They clearly want everyone on capped and metered and very lucrative LTE.
FIOS could be done, period.
Nonsense. None of them want capped services. They'd much rather sell you a higher priced "unlimited" tier to overcome your meter anxiety.
But a few people ruin that option, just because they can, and the majority isn't willing to pay the price necessary to provide fiber. So you get LTE and caps. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | LOL
Caps and metering are not to "curb abuse" they are to further monetize and extract revenue from existing user base. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by KrK:LOL
Caps and metering are not to "curb abuse" they are to further monetize and extract revenue from existing user base.
You're simply wrong. "Unlimited" offerings are the preferred marketing norm. Anything that will guarantee 24 months of contracted rents at their highest minimum level is the measure that all major "greedy" companies pursue. Companies do not want volatile revenue. Growth, of course, but NOT at the risk of alienating customers, especially Mom.
The glitch here, is that a few select users have taken upon themselves to push the boundaries of what "unlimited" is actually meant to provide, spoiling it for everyone else. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | 
Yeah, that's what it is.
Obviously must be, they prefer to give everyone unlimited, and forgo all the additional revenue. The fact is they could just throttle so called "abusers" if your theory was right.
They don't. It isn't.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by KrK:
Yeah, that's what it is.
Obviously must be, they prefer to give everyone unlimited, and forgo all the additional revenue. The fact is they could just throttle so called "abusers" if your theory was right.
They don't. It isn't.
No, they prefer to sell "unlimited" at a much higher price to one and all, who in turn, use next-to-nothing (i.e. 2GB and less today), but pay the extra rent every month for 2 years. When *every* subscriber is paying an extra $15/month to prevent overages, your ARPU goes sky-high.
But that strategy failed when a few select abusers decided to prove to the world that they could, indeed, download "unlimited" amounts, and when the iPhones started using tremendous amounts of cloud-access bandwidth. Network management, caps and throttling were the result. |
|
