how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to calvoiper
Re: Period? It not that Verizon refuse to compete with SBC. Verizon has to get the new bundling plans approved by each state's PUC before they can offer it. Example: Here in Texas SBC came out with a plan that bundled local call, local toll calls, long distance, and other calling features this past spring. About 2 month after that, Verizon started offering the "Freedom" package in Texas. At some point the "Freedom" package will be "nation". Just give Verizon time. | |
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | said by JeremyRM:
It not that Verizon refuse to compete with SBC. Verizon has to get the new bundling plans approved by each state's PUC before they can offer it. ....
This misses the point entirely and is total hogwash besides.
The point is that VZ won't compete "out of territory"--yes, it's in Texas--in old GTE territory. Ivan won't take on Big Ed--it's part of a "wink, wink" strategy to avoid the biggies competing with each other. (VZ promised to compete as part of one of its merger authorizations, but has not complied with its promise. Of course, the FCC doesn't seem to care.) VZ wants to keep its own monopoly status "in territory", so it doesn't challenge SBC, Bell South, or Qwest on their own turf--that way they don't challenge VZ either.
On the claim that these new pricing plans need to be individually approved, almost every state has eliminated the old extensive process of "prior approval". If there is any way the new plan can be considered a price decrease, it is automatically allowed to go into effect in most states.
It's not any state regulatory environment that's stopping the Baby Bells from competing against each other--it's only their reluctance to compete with a true peer that's holding them back
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
