aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to wifi4milez
Re: Seriously, though....
said by wifi4milez  :I am all for this fiber build but I have to question the economics of it. $1200 per person, $40 per month.....hmmm lets see now.....that means it will take 30 months to break even. This must mean that they really are going to push hard for the TV services and other "value added" services becuase clearly bandwidth alone will not cover the costs let alone make a profit. PS HURRY THE HELL UP AND GIVE ME MY FIBER!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's see...
$40/month for internet
$40/month for video
$40/month for voip/wireline
$40/month for wireless
I bet that knocks some time off the ROI, after all most of that money goes into the same pot...
--
.:|:.Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch it to be sure. .:|:. |
|
soothsayer15
join:2002-03-01
Irving, TX
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude : said by soothsayer15 : The Telco's aren't doing this because they like empty promises. FTTP is a must for their survival. If that's true, why do they need deregulation to do it? Are you saying the bells would rather wither and die than not get their monopoly on fiber? I have absolutely no sympathy for any of the ILECs. They should have been doing this a couple of years ago, before they were getting their lunch eaten by cable and VOIP. That's not the way would be monopolies play though. Instead of innovating and leading in technology, they spend their money on lobbying and FUD; how many fiber connections could have been laid with the ILEC lobbying budget? If the FCC hadn't given in the the bells lobbying, I guarantee you fiber would have been deployed, deregulation or not. The ILECs only held out this long because they were sure they could buy (thru lobbying) the deregulation they sought.
This is exactly what I am talking about, business sense. Would you spent billions of dollars deploying a network, if there was a chance you would have to share it with your competitors? Why not just paid for their advertising while they are at it. The Bells are paying it's own employees and contractors to deploy this network. I don't envision their competitors sharing the costs. This also shows what you know, lobbying does not cost BILLIONS of dollars. It is expensive, but nowhere near the cost of building a fiber network. Do you think The Bells or the Cable Companies competitors don't lobby? |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to lvas
said by lvas .. Yes of course they waited until the legal climate was right for investment - something wrong with that? as for cable and VOIP eating their lunch - boy have you got your facts wrong. VOIP is used by less than 1% of phone users nation wide - yes thats right the other 99% is still their market. as to cable - DSL is gaining ground everyday on cable and when fiber lights up SBC will be offering VIOP. so to me it looks like SBC buisness plan is right on track 
[/BQUOTE:I'm being optimistic about VOIP "eating their lunch" - I can dream, can't I? And yes, if the business plan is to get their monopoly back, I would say SBC and Verizon are right on track. Don't get me wrong, the ILECs have every right to pursue their monopoly; that doesn't mean I have to like it. The real problem is the spineless, corrupt political process that allows this sh1t to happen. It would just be nice not to be a semi-third world country when it comes to broadband. |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| reply to lvas
First: It's not my site, and Project Pronto was scrapped toward the end due to regulatory concerns. Learn to use Google. By the way, DSL is not fiber.
Second: You speak like an SBC employee. Signing a contract, and providing 18 million people with functional triple-play fiber/ADSL2+ is world's apart, captain telco.
Third: SBC, like all bells, so inflates phone bills with garbage fees and bogus "regulatory recovery" fees they should be taken behind the barn and beaten with a stick. The "Poor bell" song doesn't play here, sorry, captain telco. |
|
lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
| reply to nasadude
why should they have done it years ago? because you say so?
ha thats funny. Yes of course they waited until the legal climate was right for investment - something wrong with that? as for cable and VOIP eating their lunch - boy have you got your facts wrong. VOIP is used by less than 1% of phone users nation wide - yes thats right the other 99% is still their market. as to cable - DSL is gaining ground everyday on cable and when fiber lights up SBC will be offering VIOP. so to me it looks like SBC buisness plan is right on track |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to techguyga
I am a SBC customer (phoneline, not DSL) but I don't see em climbing that pole on my back patio and stringing fiber to it just yet....
Yes, I will have to see it to believe it.
--
And i'm right. I'm always right, but this time I'm a little more right then I usually am. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to soothsayer15
said by soothsayer15 : The Telco's aren't doing this because they like empty promises. FTTP is a must for their survival.
If that's true, why do they need deregulation to do it? Are you saying the bells would rather wither and die than not get their monopoly on fiber?
I have absolutely no sympathy for any of the ILECs. They should have been doing this a couple of years ago, before they were getting their lunch eaten by cable and VOIP. That's not the way would be monopolies play though. Instead of innovating and leading in technology, they spend their money on lobbying and FUD; how many fiber connections could have been laid with the ILEC lobbying budget? If the FCC hadn't given in the the bells lobbying, I guarantee you fiber would have been deployed, deregulation or not.
The ILECs only held out this long because they were sure they could buy (thru lobbying) the deregulation they sought. |
|
lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
| reply to Minister
First – SBC did deploy project PRONTO in most states that had a cost/ROI that made
Sense for them to do so, it was not scrapped – where do you get off spreading misinformation on your site?. On what network do you think SBC’s current 4 million DSL customers Are riding on? There are thousands of RT’s deployed in SBC territory.
Second – SBC is putting its money where its mouth is – it awarded the 1.2 billion fiber contract this week to Alcatel. Do you understand what the words “awarded contract” mean?
Third – all of your no incentive comments are typical *($&#$ from the folks that run this site. How many billions have YOU spent to bring broadband to the US? That’s right - ZERO. SBC has a duty to its stockholders and its 160,000 employees to wait until the climate is right for their investment – period |
|
P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Mineola, NY
clubs: 
| reply to Cod
remember pronto? i just qualified for dsl about two months ago. that is over 7 years after pronto started. some people in CT still cannot get dsl. broken promises. still waiting for sbc to get to CT in the speed increases to 3000/384
you also have to take into account that this will most likley cause prices to increase so they can pay for "capital improvments/expenditures".
remember PA? boy did a telco take advantage and rip them off too. remember those promises 10 years ago?
hard to trust companies that make promises and only comes through with 5% of them...but raises rates almost 50% of the time to pay for it
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. |
|
soothsayer15
join:2002-03-01
Irving, TX
| reply to Cod
said by Cod :
said by techguyga :....I'll believe it when I see it.
I sware you can't win around here. SBC customers get great & exciting news and its the same-o brain dead posts bashing the telco's (with BBR's encouragement).
Cod is right. Everyone that has a bone to pick with the Telco's or Cable Co's comes on this site to spew their slanted logic. The Telco's aren't doing this because they like empty promises. FTTP is a must for their survival. You cynics can talk you want, you have no understanding of business. Businesses aren't in business to lose money just so you can be happy. People here complain too much because FTTP is not available yesterday. There is nothing these companies can do to appease you because you need a soapbox to complain from. |
|
rkmo
@gm.com
| reply to wifi4milez
Bussineses are happy to get 15% profit on investment, which is 180 dollars per year or 15 per month. So if all other expenses are going to be less than 25 bucks per month, they should be happy as hell. But, since they are a monopoly or a part of duopoly (cable and phone duopoly), they will probably will not be satisfied with anything less than mafia type return. |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| reply to Cod
quote:
I sware you can't win around here. SBC customers get great & exciting news and its the same-o brain dead posts bashing the telco's (with BBR's encouragement).
You applaud when the job is done. You don't get credit for making yet another promise.
I don't get cookies and milk at work when I say I'm going to do something. I get rewards when I do it quickly and it matches my promise. |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25 | reply to wifi4milez
at least with that type of investment, they're good for a bunch of years (20 at least) on the fiber itself. Maybe it's worth the 30 months.......
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
tonekilla
Pipe Dreams
Premium
join:2003-07-26
Gunnison, MS
clubs:
1 edit | reply to wifi4milez
That's the whole point of the fiber. If they wanted to use bandwidth alone, they could try to expand and strenghten their copper services. The point is for video, telephone, internet, and whatever else they can think of to be delivered into your home on the same wire from the same carrier. Therefore they can start getting $200+ a month from every house in America. You know this has the corporate leaders in the ILECs just giddy. They might even get to stamp out all that pesky competition(as if they REALLY have alot of competition).
--
like it or not, we are under GOD. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez :I am all for this fiber build but I have to question the economics of it. $1200 per person, $40 per month.....hmmm lets see now.....that means it will take 30 months to break even.
Perhaps they need to go right to ludicrous speed.
--
www.swiftvets.com
9/11 was the best thing to happen to Michael Moore
Win another one for the Gipper! Bush/Cheney 2004 |
|
rjackson
Premium,Mod
join:2002-04-02
Ringgold, GA
clubs: | reply to Cod
I guess it's because all the promises made in the past about fiber and other exciting new technologies that makes people skeptical. Some places are actually walking the walk, though. |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
1 edit | reply to techguyga
I am all for this fiber build but I have to question the economics of it. $1200 per person, $40 per month.....hmmm lets see now.....that means it will take 30 months to break even. This must mean that they really are going to push hard for the TV services and other "value added" services becuase clearly bandwidth alone will not cover the costs let alone make a profit.
PS HURRY THE HELL UP AND GIVE ME MY FIBER!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| reply to techguyga
said by techguyga :....I'll believe it when I see it.
I sware you can't win around here. SBC customers get great & exciting news and its the same-o brain dead posts bashing the telco's (with BBR's encouragement). |
|
techguyga
MCSE, DCSE
Premium
join:2003-12-31
Cumming, GA | ....I'll believe it when I see it. |
|
