rreola86
join:2005-08-01
Sanger, CA | reply to wifi4milez
Re: I say go for it
Wrong. The Cellco Partnership (dba Verizon Wireless) is jointly owned by Verizon (55%, as in THEY DO control it) and Vodafone PLC (45%). |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | reply to sharksfan3
Can't tell you.. it's on a 3 year lease.. the ford would have been the same. |
|
Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
1 edit | reply to TelecomJunky
said by TelecomJunky  :said by djrobx :Exactly. When Ma Bell was broken up there was pretty much only one way to place a phone call. That's absolutely not the case any longer. Do you really? Ok you could use cellular. Oh wait, Verizon is owned by Verizon and Cingular is owned by AT&T. Those are the same companies as your local phone. Just because you move your $50 to cells instead of local phone doesn't mean the same company isn't getting it. VoIP, although a viable alternative in the future is hampered. Can you keep your DSL and dump your local phone? Not in most areas, and even though the FCC has mandated some naked DSL, it only did so for a small 2 year period. So that leaves you with the only other option for broadband access and that's cable. There are no choices. How do you not see that? No choices???? Cummon man, get a grip. As much as you love to say it, there are no monopolies in voice, TV, or internet. In fact, there are multiple choices for each-
Voice:
1. Tmobile
2. Cricket Wireless
3. Nextel
4. Cingular
5. Verizon Wireless
6. Sprint
7. Slews of VOIP providers
8. Cable company voice offerings (aka digital voice)
Internet:
1. Clearwire Wireless »www.clearwire.com
2. Cable Internet
3. Directway
4. DSL
TV:
1. Satellite (2 providers)
2. OTA / free
3. Cable
4. Emerging IPTV offerings by telcos / Verizon FIOS
5. Emerging TV services over the internet still in their infancy
Definition of monopoly: In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods. source: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
By definition, there are no monopolies in these industries, period. |
|
dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to TelecomJunky
said by TelecomJunky :And for those who say the ATT/SBC merger lowered DSL rates, you are so wrong. Studies show the average rates has gone up not down. The 14.95/12.95 rates are only for six months, then it jumps to $30, plus additional fees. Get your facts straight. The 6 month promotion was for January. It's now 12.99 for 1.5/384 for 12 months or 17.99 for 3/512 for 12 months. The USF addition for my 14.99 Express package was only a little over a buck so it doesn't make for a major price increase.
I doubt that the merger had anything to do with these prices since SBC had been lowering them anyway. After the promo terms, most people have been able to re-rate with a new contract to the current promos. (I took the express package for 6 months in January and was already able to re-rate to the Pro package for 12 months with no hassle when the price dropped and I saw how good my line stats were) Whether this will continue or prices will go up, we will see. Still, 34.95 a month for 3/512 is cheaper than most cable providers for similar speeds ($10/month less than Insight with RR and "classic" tier cable).
I do think that if cable companies have to pay the franchise fee, the telcos should have to pay it as well in order to offer IPTV services comparable/competitive to cable. Personally, I'll stick with the analog broadcast that cable offers over the one-channel-at-a-time-on-demand that IPTV (or digital cable channels) would offer. |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| reply to TelecomJunky
said by TelecomJunky :said by djrobx :Exactly. When Ma Bell was broken up there was pretty much only one way to place a phone call. That's absolutely not the case any longer. Do you really? Ok you could use cellular. Oh wait, Verizon is owned by Verizon and Cingular is owned by AT&T. Those are the same companies as your local phone. Just because you move your $50 to cells instead of local phone doesn't mean the same company isn't getting it. VoIP, although a viable alternative in the future is hampered. Can you keep your DSL and dump your local phone? Not in most areas, and even though the FCC has mandated some naked DSL, it only did so for a small 2 year period. So that leaves you with the only other option for broadband access and that's cable. There are no choices. How do you not see that? You are incorrect. Verizon wireless is owned by Vodafone, NOT Verizon. While Verizon does own a non-controlling portion of Verizon Wireless, the two are completely independent. As for VoIP, you do not need naked DSL or even "regular" DSL to use it. The largest VoIP provider in the US is not even a telco at all, it is Time Warner; a cable company. We have more choices now than ever before. To say otherwise is silly and uninformed!
--
Now THATS superfluous!! |
|
sharksfan3
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Poughkeepsie, NY
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Optimum Voice
·Optimum Online
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :The Dodge was a bit more expensive, however I got twice the truck for about $50 more a month. If I went with the Ford, I would have saved $50 but I would not have had the nicer interior, the better rims and tires, and all around trim package. Make sure to check back in 5 years and let us know how that dodge is treating you  |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to TelecomJunky
I guess Sprint/Nextel, T-Mobile and Virgin doesn't exist? Or did you not know about the other providers?
As for VoIP, I will NEVER consider them a viable choice. Since those providers are nothing more than internet appliances and those options can't control ANY LEVEL of quality on their services, they can't be considered in the big game of things unless government cares to step in and label them a serious option and regulate packet quality for those services. Until then, they can't be put into the mix. They also have to go through one of the two main players - CABLE or DSL which are the two players in phone.
Sure, there are cell phones, but at this point and time, land lines still dominate the field and we are talking about home phone service - not mobile celluar that people somehow seem to put into the same category. (For the record, if cellular service is such an option at home, please tell me why so many of my friends that have cellular as their only home phone have to leave their lower level in their house and go up stairs to make their calls.) |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to TelecomJunky
In addition, the phone monopolies seem to ignore that Video competition already exists over the entire country and it has done next to nothing on cable tv rates. Every person already has access to 4 different TV options: cable, direcTV, dishNet, and free over the air. Yet prices remain high for cable. Bell entering the market will do nothing for prices as well.
You say six, I say half a dozen.
You are right, Dish, DirecTV, and over the air IS cheaper than cable. You also get less for less money from the other services than cable.
You look at the bottom line price, I look at what I get for the money I spend. Cable may package more together to justify charging more and people don't like that, but I do realize that I am getting ALOT more for my cable dollar than I do for my satellite dollar. Don't even try to compare over the air service - that's plain silly.
Whate Satellite has done to the landscape is offerd a service at a price level that people want over Cable TV. That's what the sat competition has done and it's a good thing. I want all the bells and whistles that cable can give like OnDemand, the analog option for extra televisions, and a very fast internet connection and will pay the price for it. Others want low budget, slower internet and just a good set of digital channels for a lower price because it fits their needs.
Viewing the landscape on price alone does tend to show the lack of knowledge in the industry. Not everyone cares about price alone. Many people still care about "value" for their dollar spent.
Look at two cars - you can compare car classes between the ford and chevy lines. One may have a lower sticker price than the other more expensive one. I bought a 2005 Dodge Ram 4x4 Quad Cab. I WAS looking at the comparable Ford F150 truck. The Dodge was a bit more expensive, however I got twice the truck for about $50 more a month. If I went with the Ford, I would have saved $50 but I would not have had the nicer interior, the better rims and tires, and all around trim package. It was the value that I went for, not price. Some, however, WOULD have went for the $50 savings and been happy.
Point made. |
|
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| reply to djrobx
said by djrobx :Exactly. When Ma Bell was broken up there was pretty much only one way to place a phone call. That's absolutely not the case any longer. Do you really? Ok you could use cellular. Oh wait, Verizon is owned by Verizon and Cingular is owned by AT&T. Those are the same companies as your local phone. Just because you move your $50 to cells instead of local phone doesn't mean the same company isn't getting it.
VoIP, although a viable alternative in the future is hampered. Can you keep your DSL and dump your local phone? Not in most areas, and even though the FCC has mandated some naked DSL, it only did so for a small 2 year period. So that leaves you with the only other option for broadband access and that's cable.
There are no choices. How do you not see that?
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com |
|
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :You're right. The real competition isn't between telcos and never has been. And whether the merger is approved or not that won't change. The real competition is now between telcos and cable companies. That will be the real battlefield. Who cares if the BS/AT&T merger is approved. Well, you should. AT&T(SBC) is already one of the 10 ten most profitable companies in the world, Verizon is not far behind. Cable monopolies aren't even in the ball park. By allowing the phone monopolies to recombine and become even larger more profitable unregulated giants, they will squash cable.
Cable has to negotiate franchise agreements with every city. They must continually renegotiate after each term. With the new proposed bills in states written by AT&T and Verizon to remove franchise agreements, they only do so for the phone monopolies. They do nothing for cable and force cable to continue the old slow method of franchise agreements.
In addition, the phone monopolies seem to ignore that Video competition already exists over the entire country and it has done next to nothing on cable tv rates. Every person already has access to 4 different TV options: cable, direcTV, dishNet, and free over the air. Yet prices remain high for cable. Bell entering the market will do nothing for prices as well.
And for those who say the ATT/SBC merger lowered DSL rates, you are so wrong. Studies show the average rates has gone up not down. The 14.95/12.95 rates are only for six months, then it jumps to $30, plus additional fees.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA | reply to JamesTree
Exactly. When Ma Bell was broken up there was pretty much only one way to place a phone call. That's absolutely not the case any longer.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to JamesTree
said by JamesTree :Is it competition for telephone service that people are worried about? Well, around here, theres BellSouth, cellular (just about any provider) or some VOIP service. Whats the difference in my only traditional land line company choice being BellSouth or my only choice being AT&T or my only choice being Verizon? There are so many more options right now for voice and data that werent available 20 years ago. You're right. The real competition isn't between telcos and never has been. And whether the merger is approved or not that won't change. The real competition is now between telcos and cable companies. That will be the real battlefield. Who cares if the BS/AT&T merger is approved.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
JamesTree
join:2005-01-20
Birmingham, AL
| reply to scooby
Is it competition for telephone service that people are worried about? Well, around here, theres BellSouth, cellular (just about any provider) or some VOIP service. Whats the difference in my only traditional land line company choice being BellSouth or my only choice being AT&T or my only choice being Verizon? There are so many more options right now for voice and data that werent available 20 years ago. I see so many posts about things regarding this being anti-competitive... Its really easy to say that. Theres already no competition for land line. What would change? Is a procalamation goin to go throughout the land stating that all must have AT&T if this goes through? Someone tell me because I must be missin somethin. |
|
