chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| Telecos behind....
I bet this guy is getting $$$ from the telecos to fight their fight for them.
The requirements is actually a added value to the property. Which can be used for marketing. I will be happy buying a house that is ready for such upgrades without me having to deal with it... |
|
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| I'm sure something to that affect is behind it all. I have had several clients that are very, very large general contractors and builders and they certainly wouldn't squak over something like this. They would just lump it in to the cost of the building and make a few extra bucks on it. Every new job would just go up $5,000! 
But this, this is cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's stupid and just doesn't make any sense.
The Internet is a series of _plastic_ tubes......... hmmmmm
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. |
|
keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA | reply to chemaupr
Are the telcos really behind everything? I get tired of seeing these comments so I had to ask the question.
No, the cable company is not out to get you.
The telcos are not trying to kill you. |
|
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| give me a break. no they are not out there to kill you... and not they are not behind everything.
but they are out there trying to protect their market. that is why they sepnt millions in lobbying. that is why the spent millions in litigation with cities to slowdown the deployment of their fiber network. that is why they spent millions in marketing campains trying to educate (or mislead) consumers. |
|
keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·Teliax VOIP
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
 ·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| Of course they are out to protect there market, so is every other business.
Lobbying, that probably has to do with the laws put on them to restrict what they can and cannot do.
Millions to slowdown fiber deployments. Has this been effective? In my county, a local ISP is running fiber all over the county. Why? To directly compete with Verizon and cable companies, probably. Verizon is well aware of this since they have to have there lines on the bottom, so they have to be moved on every single pole so the ISP can attach its fiber. They have not sued yet?
Is it educate or mislead? Or is it advertising? Does everyone believe everything they read or heard?
I do not like the telco or other large monopolistic businesses but I do agree with there right to compete.
This particular thread was about contractors building houses and running extra conduit for the city network. It is fine to express your opinion but I completely disagree with the idea the telco is behind the contractors suing. There was nothing indicating they had anything to do with it. Also, go through threads and see how much telcos and cable companies are blamed for everything. |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
| reply to chemaupr
said by chemaupr  :give me a break. no they are not out there to kill you... and not they are not behind everything. but they are out there trying to protect their market. that is why they sepnt millions in lobbying. that is why the spent millions in litigation with cities to slowdown the deployment of their fiber network. that is why they spent millions in marketing campains trying to educate (or mislead) consumers. Give me a break. You say they are out there trying to protect their market. How can it be their market when they refuse to serve people where buildouts like this are occurring? As far as I am concerened, if they don't want to build because they have deemed it unprofitable, then they have forfeited all rights to fight whoever tries to provide service. This crap of figting everything just because has got to stop.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| said by ropeguru :said by chemaupr : Give me a break. How can it be their market when they refuse to serve people where buildouts like this are occurring? As far as I am concerened, if they don't want to build because they have deemed it unprofitable, then they have forfeited all rights to fight whoever tries to provide service. This crap of figting everything just because has got to stop. you probably did not understand my point. when I say "protect their market" I do not mean protect from wrong doing or bad services.... I mean to maintain control and avoid the competition. As far as the rest of your comments, I agree |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
| said by chemaupr :said by ropeguru :said by chemaupr : Give me a break. How can it be their market when they refuse to serve people where buildouts like this are occurring? As far as I am concerened, if they don't want to build because they have deemed it unprofitable, then they have forfeited all rights to fight whoever tries to provide service. This crap of figting everything just because has got to stop. you probably did not understand my point. when I say "protect their market" I do not mean protect from wrong doing or bad services.... I mean to maintain control and avoid the competition. As far as the rest of your comments, I agree I must have misunderstood. It just seems that the telcos keep saying they will not serve lots of areas because they deem it unprofitable. However, when a muni in those areas decide to step up and provide the service to their citizens, the telcos spend miliions in court and advertising trying to stop it. My point was that is they don't want to provide the service because it is unprofitable, then they give up all rights to that area. Even to "maintain control and avoid the competition."
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | said by ropeguru :My point was that is they don't want to provide the service because it is unprofitable, then they give up all rights to that area. Even to "maintain control and avoid the competition." But see the thing is at some point in the future it may become profitable to do so. But having a muni there would almost guarantee that it won't ever be, at least not until some point in the future when the muni's network begins to age.
That's why they don't want the muni, it's not scorched earth tactics as some seem to think.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. |
|
God
IN Vilseck Germany
Premium
join:2002-07-01
Colorado Springs, CO
clubs: | reply to chemaupr
This is a cheap investment into the future. Shouldnt it be that if that if you dont like the rules go build somehwere else ... i mean comone |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
| reply to Combat Chuck
said by Combat Chuck :said by ropeguru :My point was that is they don't want to provide the service because it is unprofitable, then they give up all rights to that area. Even to "maintain control and avoid the competition." But see the thing is at some point in the future it may become profitable to do so. But having a muni there would almost guarantee that it won't ever be, at least not until some point in the future when the muni's network begins to age. That's why they don't want the muni, it's not scorched earth tactics as some seem to think. Ahhh... So the citizen is supposed to suffer with no options until big bad telco thinks it is time for them to finally get around to providing something. I still say it is "scorched earth tactics" no matter how you look at it. It just only goes further to prove the mentality of big business and their childish antics. They will noever grow up and always only be thinking about the money.
It used to be this country was a country of innovation and chances on new things. Now, it is only about satifying the short term investor and no one has the ability to see long term anymore.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| said by ropeguru :Ahhh... So the citizen is supposed to suffer with no options until big bad telco thinks it is time for them to finally get around to providing something. Did I say that...no.
said by ropeguru :I still say it is "scorched earth tactics" no matter how you look at it. Just because you say it doesn't make it true.
said by ropeguru :It just only goes further to prove the mentality of big business and their childish antics. They will noever grow up and always only be thinking about the money. As opposed to your childish mentality that they should just build out without consideration of being a good steward of their investors money, because the people gots teh have their broadband.
said by ropeguru :It used to be this country was a country of innovation and chances on new things. It still is but there's a big difference between taking a chance and throwing money at something you know you can't sustain.
said by ropeguru :Now, it is only about satifying the short term investor and no one has the ability to see long term anymore. Well when it's your money on the line you can do what you please with it, including investing in a company and choosing to remove your money should said company take a loss over an extended period of time waiting on expensive capital investments to pay out.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
| said by Combat Chuck :said by ropeguru :Ahhh... So the citizen is supposed to suffer with no options until big bad telco thinks it is time for them to finally get around to providing something. Did I say that...no. In those exact words, no, you didn't. But by making statements that the telcos have the right to protect themselves by fighting any other competition when they, themselves, are not planning on providing the service, then you are saying that the citizens should just suffer.
said by Combat Chuck :said by ropeguru :I still say it is "scorched earth tactics" no matter how you look at it. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. It is not jsut me saying. The actions of the telcos spending millions of dollars to fight something instead of using the money to build out the system and just provide the service, says so.
said by Combat Chuck :said by ropeguru :It just only goes further to prove the mentality of big business and their childish antics. They will noever grow up and always only be thinking about the money. As opposed to your childish mentality that they should just build out without consideration of being a good steward of their investors money, because the people gots teh have their broadband. So now I see it is me being childish. If they are being good stewards to their investors, they would not being wasting the investors money by spending millions fight somehting they do not plan on providing in the first place.
said by Combat Chuck :said by ropeguru :It used to be this country was a country of innovation and chances on new things. It still is but there's a big difference between taking a chance and throwing money at something you know you can't sustain. Used to be lots of companies took those chances. But because they have started letting short sighted day traders completely take over, they can no longer look into the long term and plan for the future. The fight that Verizon's cCEO has had on his hands with investors proves that point. I am totally surprised they have not ousted him by now.
said by Combat Chuck :said by ropeguru :Now, it is only about satifying the short term investor and no one has the ability to see long term anymore. Well when it's your money on the line you can do what you please with it, including investing in a company and choosing to remove your money should said company take a loss over an extended period of time waiting on expensive capital investments to pay out. See my answer above.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| said by ropeguru :In those exact words, no, you didn't. But by making statements that the telcos have the right to protect themselves by fighting any other competition when they, themselves, are not planning on providing the service, then you are saying that the citizens should just suffer. Nope, I never said that. Cool off, take a step back and reread what I said.
said by ropeguru :It is not jsut me saying. The actions of the telcos spending millions of dollars to fight something instead of using the money to build out the system and just provide the service, says so. The issue is bigger than just the one area, neighborhoods don't exist in a vacuum.
said by ropeguru :So now I see it is me being childish. If they are being good stewards to their investors, they would not being wasting the investors money by spending millions fight somehting they do not plan on providing in the first place. Ah but there again you still insist that they have no intention of building into the area. Just because an area is not profitable now doesn't mean it won't be if they wire the neighboring areas. They're paying money now to attempt to protect future potential income, which they probably think is a better investment than wiring the area with current technology and letting it bleed money.
said by ropeguru :Used to be lots of companies took those chances. But because they have started letting short sighted day traders completely take over, they can no longer look into the long term and plan for the future. The fight that Verizon's cCEO has had on his hands with investors proves that point. I am totally surprised they have not ousted him by now. Funny how you like to talk about investors, and by extension Verizon, being short sighted. Yet you can't see that the whole reason they are fighting muni's in areas they aren't currently interested in is because they are looking to the future; a future where for instance it might be profitable to wire an adjacent area knowing that it gives them options to wire the development we're currently talking about.
And yes Verizon is making decisions based on what their investors want because their investors can take their money elsewhere if they don't, leaving Verizon with nothing. What do you expect them to do; just tell their investors to piss off, bury the money in someones yard and hope no one comes after them?
I'm not defending what Verizon does; it's just that you want to take this into the realm of the emotional; the CEO in his black tower throwing darts at a map to decide who he screws today just for the fun of it, when it's not. It's the CEO in his boardroom trying to protect a future stream of income because it puts his company in a better position for the future. It's no different that union members going on strike to because they don't like their retirement plan and insurance.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| People will not sit around and wait until "some day" to get services that other areas get today. And they should not have to just because some company wants to cherry pick who it is giving access to, and when. Make a commitment, and give a timeline. If they said we will service that area, but buildout is not until next year... I think people would be ok with that. But they want to pass up the area as unprofitable, but we don't want anyone else to sneak in while we aren't doing anything.
puritan |
|
