TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ |  About time this merger should be approved
The Dem foot dragging should end and this merger should be voted on - either up or down. |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
| Yep. The concessions are fine, and several of them have absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the deal nor antitrust concerns. Many of them are just extortion from competitors and the Democrats - bribes for allowing this through.
People whining about the as-yet vaporware "net-neutrality" problem, including industry "expert" Burnstein, need to realize that the FCC isn't around to impose restrictions on one company that they don't impose on anyone else. They've done it correctly here - they've agreed to 30 months of following the "net-neutrality" principles stated by the FCC in order to let Congress decide on the actual rules. Congress is supposed to make laws - not the FCC.
Let's get it through. They've already given the extortionists several cookies...
Adam |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| reply to TKJunkMail
This got nothing to do with Dem's.
Has to do with down right bullshit concessions. If you think that it's beneficial that now we have up to 6000kbps/768kbps dry pair lines only to hop down to 768kbps/768kbps. To me this is actually hurting any growth in the broadband industry itself for expansion and help the country gain better speeds.
It's not all about taking a bite out of cable, as cable would only increase there speeds where there is competition. AT&T insists on using old technology and with the merger concessions show nothing new than already exists today so I find this merger still to be rather pointless even if it's a vertical merger.
Tell me something good that will come out of this merger and then I might begin to see it in a different light but from what I see now, I won't approve it even if they offered a endless supply of Pina Colada's. |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
| Hurting growth? I can't see how $10/month DSL or $20 naked DSL will somehow hurt growth. It might hurt the growth of their competitors, but that's called "business."
The merits of the merger have absolutely zero to do with increasing speeds or which technology they use. THat's 100% up to them and the FCC has no say.
That's what so many people around here don't seem to understand. THe FCC isn't around to look at the business case for the merger. It's only there to make sure antitrust violations are addressed (which they have been with ATT selling off all BellSouth spectrum, among other things.) They don't care (or at least "shouldn't care") about the company's business strategy or the technology they use. Period.
Adam |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| I could see considering that a dry pair is only 5 dollars extra. While the 10/month cost is only for one year of service and under contract.
While the FCC has nothing to do in regards of competition the court does which is why it first much be approved by a court while FCC handles and checks for any violations.
As for hurting growth with competitors that is true, but this is cutting there lifeline and although I do agree they should all deploy there own networks this is suicide period. On top of that why does the article state the following "However, looking at the list, the promise to offer "naked" DSL (DSL without force-bundled phone service) is restricted to just 768kbps."
Meaning they are cutting there competitors speeds so it is about speed restrictions to 3rd party providers and on top of that it means they can offer 1.5mbps speeds and can consider themselves as the superior product. This is not beneficial competition this is hurtful competition or should I say murder competition to eliminate a group of companies all together where the battle will now simply be cable and telco. |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
1 edit | quote:
to eliminate a group of companies all together where the battle will now simply be cable and telco.
What is it now? That's the fight - cable vs telco. The sooner everyone realizes that reality, the sooner we can go forward.
I assume you're talking about "murdering" CLECs. CLECs are fine and dandy, but the bottom line is that they can't do squat by themselves. Except for the rare Covad (who I really applaud for trying to build out their own network,) CLECs are simply the dingleberries of the telco business. They use ILEC lines, they use ILEC facilities. THey can't really innovate because they don't have their own networks. They'll still be able to lease lines (especially considering the price freeze put in as a consession,) but at this point they serve very little purpose.
Adam |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| Even with Covad they still require to lease the copper and the price hike is simple idiocy. I am connected through a Covad facility which goes all the way to the Atlanta, GA POP from Speakeasy.
So even Covad is affected as they use ILEC lines. CLECs are gone and now instead of having several competitors we have two and maybe even three if Covad survives. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
If its going to be a tie, then what ?
--
Prove it... |
|
zooropean
join:2003-08-27
Lake Zurich, IL | reply to Alpine
There are still some facilities-based CLECs which only lease the last mile from the ILEC. I used to work for one. They were actively trying to find alternatives to leasing the last mile, however. |
|
