dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
18
share rss forum feed
« Verizon needs to change
This is a sub-selection from FiOS deployment....


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39
reply to IPPlanMan

Re: FiOS deployment....

Yeah, outside of fulfilling city franchise obligations already signed (DC, NYC, Philly), FiOS expansion really is done. And I think a lot of those cities where they promised 100% coverage aren't going to be anywhere close. THe big money is simply in wireless. Fixed is profitable, just not profitable enough.

josephf

join:2009-04-26
Reviews:
·VoicePulse
Is there any basis to force Verizon to install FiOS in towns they don't already have a signed FiOS franchise in? It seems they made a business decision not to, and as much as any of us don't like that why should Verizon be forced to install new high speed wiring any more than Frontier, CenturyLink, Embarq and every other American telephone company should be forced to do so throughout their territory?


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

2 recommendations

reply to Karl Bode
If ILEC copper sharing requirements can be lifted in exchange for FTTP builds, expansion could be restarted, and many other telcos would be interested in such changes. How can Verizon be expected to maintain both a copper and fiber infrastructure for the rest of eternity? Copper is dead, let it die and let the ILECs bring real broadband, and competition to the cable industry.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39
reply to josephf
That's a different argument and discussion (how do we get people wired) than what's happening here. In this case we're talking about regulated POTS infrastructure that has been heavily subsidized and is facing potential disruption, and what to do about it.

josephf

join:2009-04-26
Reviews:
·VoicePulse
There I agree the ILECs should be forced to maintain their legacy POTS/PSTN infrastracture. They were granted a monopoly for over a century, allowing them to tear up streets and install wiring above public property -- and allowing no other telecom firm to duplicate their franchise. In return they promised to service the entire geographic region. If a natural or other disaster interrupts that service they must be required to repair it to the equivalent of the guaranteed service they offered prior.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
quote:
There I agree the ILECs should be forced to maintain their legacy POTS/PSTN infrastracture
Maintaining a network of useless, unprofitable wires, great idea.
Expand your moderator at work

josephf

join:2009-04-26
reply to ITALIAN926

Re: FiOS deployment....

They can replace it with fiber and get rid of the copper so long they agree to service the same region and customers with the new wiring under the regulated tariffed rates and service guarantees.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
reply to josephf
companies were given the option to rebuild out in a network as an overbuilder. Companies just didn't. If they did you would have more options. It's the fact that its not very ROI friendly.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath

1 recommendation

reply to josephf
that will never happen. It's easier to spin the services off and let a new company manage that. And it will be something at VZ and AT&T will most likely consider. Why maintain a network that you don't want and be forced to do it? Sprint was able to spin off their ILEC business and create Embarq and it worked fine. It's time to let VZ and AT&T and any other to do the same if they wish.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath

1 recommendation

reply to ITALIAN926
I agree. But a lot of the issues with expanding would be a VZ issue. Especially since AT&T is willing and openly sharing their U-Verse network to ISPs. It's a hassle to find out the correct department that you need since they have no real name listed or web site but it is an option. VZ gives the information but refuses to even provide that information to you; unless forced.
Expand your moderator at work


whiteshp

join:2002-03-05
Xenia, OH

1 recommendation

reply to Karl Bode

Re: FiOS deployment....

Of course. They allowed a wired monopoly to buy out it's emerging competitor "wireless". Now there is no incentive for companies holding both pink slips to keep the two companies competing against each other. Rather they want kill off reliable regulated wire so unreliable unregulated wireless can gouge and oversell bandwidth while giving the finger to regulators. Congress is happy to play along as long as a "pay to play" % of the gouging profits is promised BACK as political "donations" (often securing local state and federal elections budgets) to keep two faced politicians telling us these terrible laws are so good the consumer.

This is why the consumer's well being has almost NO voice in congress any more.
--
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the corporations discover that money can elect representatives to vote themselves a monopoly, buy media to blame 'The Godless' and forced price inflation on the public.


whiteshp

join:2002-03-05
Xenia, OH

1 recommendation

reply to ITALIAN926
That argument is flawed. It is profitable. It's why they took the business in the first place. Problem is they were allowed to buy their wireless competitor and now do not want the two competing when wireless only would force higher payments.

Nemesis158

join:2012-09-15
Spokane, WA
reply to ITALIAN926
The problem you face here is that there isnt enough regulatory willpower and backbone in our government to force larger ILECs to actually build out fiber when cutting out the copper. I would love to get rid of the phone lines if it meant i could get fiber to my home. Unfortunately these ILECs (namely Verizon and AT&T) don't want to spend the money to install the infrastructure and would rather shut down the copper and defer everything to wireless, where their profit margins are much higher.