how-to block ads
|
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Re: I say go for it
said by GOLFnSUN  :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 | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| 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. | |
sharksfan3
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Poughkeepsie, NY
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
 ·Optimum Voice
 ·Optimum Online
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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  | |
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. | |
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. | |
|
