awluck
join:2000-05-24
Duluth, GA
1 edit | (Before I get started, that parking lot around the building is 70 feet wide, and there is a wide buffer on all sides between parking lot and street. Also, I'm guessing that "tunneling" might have been my hearing what he didn't say, and that buried service by whatever means is more likely what was meant. It is a phone pole-less piece of property, like the residential subdivision I live in. MediaOne/ATTCable/Comcast didn't have any problem coming in and replacing every linear foot of buried service where I live about six years ago, and they didn't surcharge the customers bills.)
I'm not challenging the numbers, I just don't understand the philosophy. It appears unstructured, at best. Capitalism is based on creating a business case and taking a risk. The more intelligently assessed the business case, the more definable the risk. If Comcast thinks that it shouldn't be out any money from the get-go, then fine.
But I find it fascinating that Comcast would prefer no regulation of its business practices, keep its franchise monopoly, have the ability to set rates at its own discretion, and yet not actually take any risk to offer a service which would not add significantly to its infrastructure costs. Business traffic would, for the most part, be high when residential traffic is relatively low. The approach of putting a standing offer in congregated environments (twenty-plus entities in one building), as opposed to the same twenty entities along a quarter mile of street front, just seems like it would make sense.
Of course, for whatever reason it may be that the cable companies aren't interested in actually competing with the telcos for business services. Put up an offer, pick low hanging fruit, and find the idiots who would drop large coin to get a non-competitively priced service. Sounds like a huge winner to me.
--
.sig under development |
·
