oneagreement
@verizon.n
| reply to packetscan
Re: What?
There should be ONE agreement per carrier who delivers last mile telecommunications services. As companies decide to get into each others market (ie telcos doing video, cablecos doing voip- Its the last mile "WIRE" that is at issue, not how many services are delivered over it.. If you want these two entities to compete: cablecos and telcos, then you'd better make it a streamlined process.. ONE (or none) franchise per provider. BUT, telcos must CHOOSE one pipeline, copper or fiber (TO THE HOME, not both), they can't be a permanent dual network, such as Verizon is now.. otherwise its like having it both ways, making dual revenue off of copper and fiber! I don't think telcos would like it if cablecos ran a separate and distinct network for just data and voice elements, which would trounce the current fiber rollout under the same terms (by reason of all that unleashed video spectrum) Albeit unnecessary as docsis 3.0 rolls out..
There needs to be an equitable balance between franchise fees and the amount of regulation on the services.. for example-- there are a load of crap taxes and fees on POTS service that need to be axed for telcos to compete..
Right now, I'd say that the taxes paid by telcos far outweighs the taxes paid by the cable companies (with last mile wires) Until this changes or becomes more equitable, video as currently delivered, is NOT profitable for telcos unless they just tell the franchise authorities to go to hell...
Personally, I think they get WAY too much from cell phone subscribers (greedy bastard$), last I heard that was 200+million of them!!!!!
Ultimately (if properly coerced, carrot and stick, like verizon's doing with fiber rollouts) when you precondition the costs saving being passed on to consumers (not a fleecing like in pennsylvania), its a win-win situation and competition can take place! |
