dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
429
share rss forum feed


JasonOD

@comcast.net

Are you guys crazy?!?

Genachowski has allowed (by not getting in the way of) the biggest and fastest LTE deployment the world has yet seen, and yes the somewhat painful but very necessary beginning of sunsetting obsolete DSL which of course will benefit those offering superior docsis 3.0 technologies.

If you were to let consumers drive the bus so to speak, with a heavy handed FCC piling rules and regulations on top of carriers, we'd all be the worse for it.



What

@clearwire-wmx.net

short memory?
You mean 700Hz auction that need to maintain naked DSL, open to 3rd carrier, unlimited data and fiber build out?
Where are those now? FCC has failed to keep the market competitive. US broadband dropped the competitiveness ALL OVER in term of speed, availability and affordable price!



JasonOD

@comcast.net

Disagree. Carriers, like any other company, need the flexibility to dynamically do what they do best (make a profit) to fulfill the needs of the marketplace. Otherwise you're tying their hands, slowing down progress, all while making it more expensive. The FCC recognizes this.

Naked DSL?? Come on, only a sliver of the market actually asked for it. Fiber? Unlimited data? Those are mutually exclusive, and as google is about to find out (like VZ before them), fiber is too expensive.


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

said by JasonOD :

Disagree. Carriers, like any other company, need the flexibility to dynamically do what they do best (make a profit) to fulfill the needs of the marketplace. Otherwise you're tying their hands, slowing down progress, all while making it more expensive. The FCC recognizes this.

Naked DSL?? Come on, only a sliver of the market actually asked for it. Fiber? Unlimited data? Those are mutually exclusive, and as google is about to find out (like VZ before them), fiber is too expensive.

Why do you zealots keep trolling these threads with unsubstantiated claims and/or outright lies?

xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to JasonOD

Right, fiber is too expensive. That is why I have it, have had it for several years, and will continue to have it for several more. For this priviladge I pay about $1560 a year, never call customer support, and have all the original equipment except that expensive little box on the back of my house that was installed wrong.
The carrier that installed it was given substantial tax breaks, rights of way, and told they don't have to lease the lines. They also had been told they could exclude unprofitable neighborhoods. I doubt those words where used, but that is what they did.
Now, the CEO over there doesn't see long term investment as viable and doesn't want to mess up the short term by spending money on the last mile part of he install. He wants to skip all that and give everyone metered access, at a higher cost, to a network that won't cost as much to build out. You see, why pay for two separate networks when you can have only one, and that one also happens to be able to charge a premium.
Who knows, he might be right, I do believe Wireless is the future. Unobstructed, always on, super highspeed data that can be accessed anywhere at anytime from a single device. I also think we will get there about the time my tablet stops being a bedside toy and can replace my six (soon to be eight) core desktop with it's high end graphics card.
Say in about 10 to 12 years, that was how long it took them to get smart phones and tablets right.
--
I voted for Snoopy!


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to sonicmerlin

Are you asking both sides that question? Because I'd suggest that there are a lot of opinions thrown around on this site with little substantiation.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to xrobertcmx

said by xrobertcmx:

The carrier that installed it was given substantial tax breaks, rights of way, and told they don't have to lease the lines.

Seems like you're playing both sides of the argument. You appear to be disagreeing with the comment that fiber is too expensive, yet you highlight mechanisms that can be used as carrots on sticks to help reduce costs. VZ stopped focusing on FiOS so that it could reallocate resources to the LTE build. Lets wait for the LTE build to be done before continuously whining about the FiOS build temporarily being halted.

gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
reply to JasonOD

Your right Jason. Most on this site would prefer that they have everything for near free. But heaven forbid if they actually had to pay for a fiber build out to their home.. They wouldn't. Those same people have no problem trying to get the rest of us to pay for it with our tax money. MY MONEY.

The FCC is not put in charge of giving money away.. That is exactly what most are asking for in here. "The FCC didn't do their jobs" = "give me free stuff"

The FCC serves almost no point. But what they do (regulate the radio spectrum) they do pretty well. Because that is truly their task in life. Regardless of previous overzealous congressional laws. They, the FCC, has no right to get involved in a LOT of what they are doing.

They mess up, more than they fix.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net


xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to openbox9

The bit about it being o expensive was sarcasm. I believe and sadly hope that Verizon, at&t, and company will be forced to continue the build. I have 30/30 internet, no one else offers that. Not here, and no, LTE is not the solution. A big radio sitting outside my window does not do it for me, nor do caps, overages, and higher bills.
--
I voted for Snoopy!


xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to gunther_01

No, we are not trying to get you to pay for it. You already did, but it was never delivered.
I have Fiber, and can say I never want to go back, and I pay for it. I could go with Comcast, get the $79 triple play, slower Internet, lower quality TV picture, and cable card woes. Or I could go with...oh, that's right we have no competition. Here at least I have some choice and Verizon and Comcast almost compete. By that I mean they both increase prices by the same amount. Outside of deployed areas there isn't much.
In return for the ten's and hundreds of millions of dollars that they get in tax breaks, concetions, right of ways, and whatever else, I expect a modern and functional network. ADSL is not that.
--
I voted for Snoopy!


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to xrobertcmx

The whole post seemed sarcastic, that's why I was trying to decipher. As for "forcing", don't count on it. Encouraging/Enticing, yes, forcing, no. Wireless is an option for a lot of people. Not everyone, but many. Technologies should not be discounted as we try to expand coverage and connectivity.


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

said by openbox9:

The whole post seemed sarcastic, that's why I was trying to decipher. As for "forcing", don't count on it. Encouraging/Enticing, yes, forcing, no. Wireless is an option for a lot of people. Not everyone, but many. Technologies should not be discounted as we try to expand coverage and connectivity.

severely capped wireless is not a serious option.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Please don't read more into my posts than I actually type.