calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Cod
Re: Propoganda.. by both sides
Two points:
First, while Verizon is apparently wiring some less affluent ares, is this perhaps only because they are required to do so? Since this discussion is about the elimination of agreements which require "build-out", it seems reasonable to ask if the requirement is the reason for their "good behavior" so far.
Second, this discussion is about what will be POSSIBLE in the future. While past activities may give some indication of what a corporation will do in the future, many believe that corporations sometimes change their approach. Accordingly, a theory that VZ might cater only to the rich (or build to them first) in the future merits discussion.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| reply to G_Poobah
said by G_Poobah  :Kink? Cherry picking? What the hell are you talking about.. The kink he is talking about is the obvious one in your conspiracy theory that Verizon FIOS only caters to the rich. Completely false.
Every point you try to bring up is nothing more than pure speculation and anti-telco opinions on your behalf. Never factual, as usual. |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to achuchma
Kink? Cherry picking? What the hell are you talking about..
Cherry picking means that they can wire up part of a town, and not the other part. What they are wiring up now for FIOS TV is between verizon and the town verizon signed with. If the franchise agreement says 'you can wire up this neighborhood first, and the others next year', well that's the agreement the TOWN reached. The problem occurs when you remove the elected town officials from the picture.
Verizon, once they don't have to deal with town governments, is obviously going to wire up area's that they get the greatest return from. And that's going to be the area's where they think they will get the highest number of customers. And THAT's going to tend to be the affluent towns. There's no point in arguing that I'm wrong, because the SHAREHOLDERS will demand that verizon get the best returns, and the scenario I described is the winning capitalist technique. Why in the hell would verizon spend millions wiring up parts of a town where only 1% of the people would sign up? That would be a poor business decision.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. |
|
