zabes63
join:2003-04-05
Batavia, IL
| reply to Kaltes
Re: Will Comcast and SBC deliver?
Kaltes is dead on in his/her assessment of the following statement:
"SBC can expand its networks anywhere and everywhere if they want to, but they are choosing not to. This is not a business choice in the sense of cost/benefit. This is a choice to leverage politicians in order to achieve their lobbying goals."
If you want proof go to »cityofbatavia.net click on the on going projects link and from there go to the Broadband (Fiber) Project (with Geneva and St. Charles) link. Finally click on the link for SBC "Ameritech on project Pronto"
The synopsis is this: Jim Volk, an alderman for the City of Batavia, and also sits on the Telecommunications committee, attended a conference hosted by, at that time, SBC/Ameritech. The message from SBC was clear, “either side with us and lobby the FCC and the Illinois Commerce Commission or die waiting for DSL deployment in your area.”
SBC all but admitted that the infrastructure was ready and waiting for turn up, but that nothing would be done until they had assurances that they did not have to share access with other providers. The fact that SBC was turning up DSL service within days of the FCC decision last February proves that the network was there and waiting.
This is not an example of a market driven company reacting to its customers needs, it is that of a spoiled brat holding its breath until it gets its way.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-06 04:39:13] |
|
AuroraJock
join:2003-04-02
Chicago, IL
| reply to Kaltes
On this point I agree wholeheartedly. Furthermore, you'd think since the feds deregulated fiber, it'd spur on the incumbents to build FTTH, but so far, zippo. Cost/benefit still does play a role, however. Interesting interview with Wayne Masters of SBC last year about Illinois and the deployment cost/benefit. He basicly admits that the ICCs open architecture requirement on the first pronto go-round was not an interesting enough business model for SBC to get involved with.
»www.tr.com/newsletters/lmtr/lmtr021502.pdf |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to AuroraJock
ACTUALLY, it is not like SBC has some finite set amount of infrastructure investment they must dole out sparingly.
SBC can expand its networks anywhere and everywhere if they want to, but they are choosing not to. This is not a business choice in the sense of cost/benefit. This is a choice to leverage politicians in order to achieve their lobbying goals.
SBC is extorting states by saying "if you do not free us from regulatory constraints, we will only service the most profitable areas."
The states should fight fire with fire, and retort to SBC "If you do not meet our deadlines for expansion, we will force you to resell your lines for less than you do now." |
|
AuroraJock
join:2003-04-02
Chicago, IL
| reply to ravital
It's not propaganda, SBC just chooses not to deploy services where they deem it not as profitable as other locations. Since Illinois will most likely not deregulate, it's their choice not to deploy (not that it's good for consumers). This is not propaganda, just their business decision. Read about Pronto round 1 for yourself at...
»telephonyonline.com/ar/telecom_p···rt_deux/
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that since the FCC left regulatory decisions at the state level to figure this one out. |
|
