Competition is Bad? Research firm warns not to follow SK lead... A study from a UK research firm says cut-rate prices, inexpensive broadband availability, and free added services are a bad thing. According to Ovum research, broadband operators around the world could fall into a 'competition trap' by basing their marketing strategies on cheap pricing and offering free additional services. The firm notes that current uber-competition in South Korea and Japan has created a price and service war that is 'unsustainable'. What Ovum doesn't mention is that it has also created an amazing broadband explosion, where some residents in South Korea are paying $32 a month for a 40MBps connection loaded with the type of content we probably won't see for another three years. Here, the big news of the week was that BellSouth was offering a 256Kbps DSL line for forty dollars a month. Draw your own conclusions. Yet according to Ovum, "manic competition" won't get you anywhere, and adding additional free services could spell trouble. "They should remember," notes Ovum researcher Michael Philpott, "that offering multiple 'free services' was one of the downfalls of the high-tech bubble." Regardless of what is said by lobbyists looking to take a bite out of regulation, neither the incumbent telcos or cable companies are remotely close to losing their shirts. When a company for decades charges residents up to eight dollars for call waiting when it costs less than a penny to actually provide; when they cram your bill with a handful of questionable fees and charges, is their vitality really something to worry about just yet? Particularly with fairly anemic levels of competition and DSL price deals that usually aren't very impressive? Meanwhile, as we mentioned earlier this week, cable providers have been hiking rates at 3 times the speed of inflation, primarily, again, because of a lack of decent competition. Thanks Ovum, but incumbent survivability problems due to overly rabid competition isn't likely something we'll be worrying about this month....
|
 jdir
join:2001-05-04
Santa Clara, CA |  Hahahahahaha
Why can't the good ol USA offer such a service.
I sure will cut all those hour long download to just mere minutes. I dont have to turn my computer on for hours for download. | |
|  | | | Re: Hahahahahaha YOu should also remember that in South Korea $35.00 is probably a couple weeks salary. I don't think I want to exchange two weeks pay for 40 mbs. | |
| | |  PenguinsHave You Played Atari Today?
join:2001-12-01
Cleveland, OH | Re: Hahahahahaha Oooh go on, show us more of how little you know about the world outside your own front door.
--
Pure magic in 2k of 6502. | |
| | | | RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | Re: Hahahahahaha said by Penguins:
Oooh go on, show us more of how little you know about the world outside your own front door.
According to a March 2003 Asia Times article, South Korean income per capita surpassed US$10,000 per year (several other sites agree with that approx. value for 2002). Compare that to the US of A at about US$31,000 (several US governmental sites).
I know that the last time I was in Korea, raythompsontn's remarks would have been very true, but in the last few years they have made a big gain on paper, but at what cost remains to be seen.
Also, like all statistics these numbers are misleading, and I will leave the reasons for that to those who care to look it up.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
| |  bokambaChengdu RocksPremium
join:2002-04-05
Falls Church, VA | Right on. But it's still cheaper than in the U.S. Another reason for Korea's dominance is its smaller geographic area; it's not as hard to wire a country that's small and densely populated. | |
| | | | | | Re: Hahahahahaha Still the rollout in the states is atrocious, even when considering the landmass. The ILEC's are hold back their rollouts for better deals and less regulation. It's not about losing money because of line sharing. It's about not getting ALL of the money the ILEC's can.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
|
| | | | You are one of the narrow minded person in here. Have you ever been to South Korea? I am not Korean, as a matter of fact i hate Korean people (they just like you). But I can say, that I was there ONCE; and I can tell you $35 bucks, will get you breakfest and dinner...and?? that about it. The high cost of living there is enough to want to come back home. Peace. | |
| | | | tirgonPremium
join:2003-03-10
Waipahu, HI | Re: Hahahahahaha said by BJOO:
You are one of the narrow minded person in here. Have you ever been to South Korea? I am not Korean, as a matter of fact i hate Korean people (they just like you). But I can say, that I was there ONCE; and I can tell you $35 bucks, will get you breakfest and dinner...and?? that about it. The high cost of living there is enough to want to come back home. Peace.
narrow minded? then you're a hypocrite for posting your statement. Why do you hate Korean people? Because some restaurant charged you tourist rate for breakfast and dinner? come on now...if you're going to post such a statement, back it up with some facts...and why must you generalize? you ought to include yourself among the narrow minded people you loathe... | |
| | | | |  BrianDamageWe Are The Hounds From HellPremium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX | Re: Hahahahahaha Don't feed the trolls, particularly racist ones.... | |
|
| | | | | |  mr seanProfessional InfidelPremium,ExMod 2001-07
join:2001-04-03
N. Absentia
kudos:1
 ·Clearwire
| Re: Actually said by Jerm:
Average Korean salary is $20K. Thats only 1/2 of the US average.
But only 4% of the population is below the poverty line, compared to 13% in the US.
source: »www.odci.gov/cia/publications/fa···046.html
Just another factor to consider when weighing economic variables (like disposable income).
--
BE LIKE THE TWENTY-SECOND ELEPHANT WITH HEATED VALUE IN SPACE--BARK! | |
| | | | |  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: Actually Like everything else, it depends on where you set the poverty line.
People on the US poverty line would be rich in other countries.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | You can get a 100 mbps connection with a handful of IP's for $80 per month in downtown Sequim, WA. But it comes from the PUD, not Qwest. And there is at least one ISP in the area that will provide service through it if you don't want to install your own mail server.
I published a web page with big pictures through it last week in 3 seconds flat. | |
| |  LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Don't forget about population density people! Quite a confounding variable when comparing across countries —or even regions, for that matter. | |
| | |  Frankis chillingPremium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere | Re: Hahahahahaha population density my ass, I live in the state with the most population density in america and about 5 minutes away from new york city which has people litterally living living on top of one another. Yet I have no highspeed service options like japan and korea do with 100mbps fiber and such.
to top things off I know several people who live in NYC in which their areas had NO BROADBAND availability for YEARS after I got dsl. | |
| | | | bokambaChengdu RocksPremium
join:2002-04-05
Falls Church, VA | Re: Hahahahahaha That is true, but the problem is more pronounced in rural areas of the U.S. In your area, it's probably for lack of trying. In rural areas, there are more technical problems. | |
| | | | | BrianDamageWe Are The Hounds From HellPremium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX | Re: Hahahahahaha Yes, in rural areas, broadband delivery is more difficult, but not insurmountable.
Plus, it doesn't explain the overall lack of broadband availability in the urban areas, which are heavily populated.
The population density argument is a moot point when discussing this in a an urban setting.
Taken to task, there is no argument between broadband availability as we know it (sporadic at best, with services that are not even close to what is available in S. Korea or Japan) and what they have deployed in their urban areas.
Believe it or not, there are rural areas in those countries as well. It's not like these countries are just one big city.
The difference is policy-their economic policy and governmental attitude towards broadband is such that it provides a much more conducive environment in which broadband can flourish.
Their respective governments have taken an entirely different approach toward it than ours has.
--
"It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I'm wearin' milk bone underwear." | |
|
| | | LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Juxtaposing the situation in certain Asian countries and upstate NJ, I can think of a few variables I'd want to consider.
One of these is population density relative to surrounding areas. Think of it: South Korea is amongst some of the most populated countries in the world. So what we observe there has uniform per-capita/km² where as in America, you go down south east of Trenton far and you, I dare say, have hardly the people to support these types of technology so perhaps that rubs off —so to speak— on the metropolitan portion of NJ and even NY.
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan | |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | Boo Hoo Does anyone need any tissue paper to wipe the tears you're crying for broadband company alleged profit loss?
--
A good scapegoat is almost as good as a solution.»www.digitalconsumer.org | |
| | | Nonsense If they are right, how come cell phone companies are not going out of business all over the place?
They do exactly the same thing - offer more and more kinds of service at lower prices to get market share.
Last I looked it was a stable, profitable and mature industry.
--
We must destroy liberty to make the homeland safe for democracy | |
| | tirgonPremium
join:2003-03-10
Waipahu, HI | Re: Nonsense last time i checked....the prices for cell phone service haven't come down much...just offering more minutes for higher price per month.. | |
| | LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA
| The National Association for Business Economics released an upbeat report on the economy, however
quote:
. . .not all the findings were rosy. Profit margins shrank in the second quarter and the news on jobs was bleak . . .
See, those eeevil profits are what drive investors to throw down the money to finance the operation that gives Joe Sixpack a job (regardless of what the CEO makes).
Further:
quote:
the economy displayed the "split personality" it has for the last three years -- finance and services companies exhibited strength, while goods producers and firms in the telecommunications, utilities and communications industry suffered.
(For entire article go here here)
But we need to look on NABE with a jaundiced eye before we find out who pays their bills.
[text was edited by author 2003-07-11 03:04:52] | |
| | | | said by Eatmeingreek:
If they are right, how come cell phone companies are not going out of business all over the place? (snip) Last I looked it was a stable, profitable and mature industry.
The cell phone business is anything but stable and mature. It is profitable but only just right now. Profit margins are so low and necessary capital investment is so high that everyone in the industry is looking to buy some of their competition out. This will ease some of the competitive pressure and allow companies to make money on volume if not on margin. Problem is, no one is willing to sell because everyone thinks cellular is the technology of the future. Don't be surprised if there are big changes in the cellular industry in the next ten years. | |
| | | LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Re: Nonsense Which serves to point out that if the wireless industry is so fluid, why presume other broadband technology is not. The effect of regulations is to increase transaction costs, so the industry is not as fluid.
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan | |
|
| | wow!!!! 40 megs for under 35 bucks!!! someone could be running a super hosting company off their telephone lines in their basement!!!!! in north america don't expect to that kind of rates for a few decades maybe. sad to see i'm paying 35 bucks for less than 2 megs. =)
--
AIM: bbrdarktiger or HHHRockCityAya | |
| |  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: wow!!!! said by user726195:
40 megs for under 35 bucks!!! someone could be running a super hosting company off their telephone lines in their basement!!!!!
(snip)
Never happen. The ISP will make sure the TOS says no servers just like OOL. | |
| | | | | Re: wow!!!! well its korea, so many be a few special isp's allows that. that would be sweet. i wonder what the upload rate is.
--
AIM: bbrdarktiger or HHHRockCityAya | |
| | | |  JulioBachatero y Que?Premium
join:2003-03-19
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1 | Re: wow!!!! their upload speed is 128KB LMFAO!!!! | |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | SHILL ALERT -- Who Ovum works for.... From OVUM's website:
"Here is a snapshot of some of the customers currently relying on Ovum’s expert advice:
Oracle Corporation, China Mobile, Schlumberger Sema,
Alcatel, Bain & Co, Cisco, Ericsson, Daimler Chrysler, Vodafone, Stellent, EDS, BT, Telenor, Hewlett Packard, Logica, Telecom Italia, Level 3 Communications, Sun Microsystems, UBS, Qualcomm, Hutchison 3G, SK Telecom, Atos Origin, Computer Associates, McKinsey & Co, Standard Chartered Bank, Omnitel Pronto Italia, Fujitsu, AT&T, Microsoft Corporation, Siemens, Telstra, France Telecom,
NTT DoCoMo, SAP, Telkom SA IBM, Deutsche Telekom, SingTel"
A fair number of tech dinosaurs in THAT group who understandably fear the prospect of getting their butts kicked by competiton.
NEVER FORGET that so-called "ruinous competition" is the prospect advanced to argue for restrictive, monopolistic regulation--which many of these dinosaurs thrive in.
I'll NEVER trust an analyst who says competition is a bad thing.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| |  AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
| Re: SHILL ALERT -- Who Ovum works for.... While the telcos, for example, might not be "losing their shirts," they sure as hell aren't doing that well. How many employees have been the victims of layoffs in the last year or so?
And, at least in the case of the ILECs, the regulations aren't competition. They're purely privately-paid subsidies for the smaller guys. Essentially, with the UNE situation, the ILECS pay the "little guys" to compete. The formula they have to follow ends up giving their lines away at WELL below cost. How would you like it if someone said you had to literally pay your peers to compete with you. Wouldn't like it, would you?
Competition is a good thing, of course. Totally artificial competition though, at least like it's setup now, stifles upgrades and hurts everyone. The ILECs have no incentive to upgrade their lines because they have to not only pay for the upgrades, they also have to pay their competitors to use their upgraded lines. The competitors have no incentive to build their own network because 1) they're already being paid to compete on someone else's lines and 2) if something goes wrong they can say "hey, they ain't our lines..."
I'm very personally aware of the cash problems that ILECs have right now. Regardless of what people in the cheap seats think, the ILECs aren't exactly rolling in dough... Like I said, competition is good. Our environment today, however, just isn't competition....
Adam
[text was edited by author 2003-07-10 17:22:11]
[text was edited by author 2003-07-10 17:23:49] | |
| | |  KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | Re: SHILL ALERT -- Who Ovum works for.... Oh, phooey.
ILECs can cry me a river. They've had it great for decades, all the while skipping out on their upgrade promises, and now they're not making as much as they used to...and they're having a tough time of it?
My butt.
What was the profit the last round of ILEC quarterly reports? Somewhere in the billions? Ok, maybe millions?
They're not losing money. Any problems an ILEC has with money, employees, and equipment is PURELY poor management.
Yeah, these small CLECs are really eating the ILECs lunch.
What
Ever
Yes, the competitive landscape shouldn't be artificial, but with the broken promises and abuse of the ILECs over the past many years, perhaps it was time to force their hand. Would we even HAVE DSL if not for the Telecomm Act? It sure was available well before then. Yeah, computer abilities did make a difference, but I'll gamble it had more to do with cannibalizing their ISDN/T1 services.
Yeah yeah, same old arguments. Regardless, the ILECs get no sympathy from me. If they're having really money troubles, how about cutting the top 50 executive salaries by 10%? That should be enough to hire, what, 1000 employees for 2 years?
KM
--
"By civil liberties, I mean an individual's immunity from governmental oppression...The Bill of Rights, in the eyes of its framers, was a catalogue of immunities, not a schedule of claims." - Edward Bennett Williams 'One Man's Freedom' | |
| | |  JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Wow. I think you've covered every cliche ILEC excuse in the book. | |
| | |  ravitalJust Another Pesky Independent Nh VoterPremium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| said by Alpine:
I'm very personally aware of the cash problems that ILECs have right now. Regardless of what people in the cheap seats think, the ILECs aren't exactly rolling in dough... Like I said, competition is good. Our environment today, however, just isn't competition....
Just a question from the cheap seats, since you're aware of the cash situation: Is it true that the high/low salary ratio at a typical ILEC hovers somewhere between 450:1 and 550:1?
Because I could be wrong, and I admit this is a far-flung comparison, but I understand that layoffs at Ben & Jerry's are few and far between, and their high/low salary ratio is 7:1.
This is not simple green envy. I don't know a country in the world where the average Joe is as UN-concerned about his neighbor's salary as the U.S. Salary-envy practically doesn't exist here. But if you do the math and make reasonable assumptions about the lowest salary at, say, SBC or Verizon, you have to ask yourself how much more the ILECs could do - not just for the consumer, but mostly for themselves - if they brought it down to a more reasonable 40:1 or so. That's where Capitalism really works well. Not at 500:1.
As to competition, you're right, it's completely artificial, government-mandated, and the ILECs brought it on themselves. That's just a good example of what happens to a pendulum when you force it too far in one direction - it has a tendency to swing back with a vengeance.
One thing missing from all this, is that the U.S. is almost unique, in that the providers of telecommunications are owned and operated by corporate entities rather than government or public-semi-governmental ones, as is the case in so many other countries around the world. Maybe that's what justifies, sadly, the need for all that government regulation.
The OVUM customer list is at least as instructive as what they present as analysis.
[text was edited by author 2003-07-10 19:12:00] | |
| | | |
See 9 replies to this post | |
| |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by Alpine:
While the telcos, for example, might not be "losing their shirts," they sure as hell aren't doing that well. How many employees have been the victims of layoffs in the last year or so?
Actually their profitability is excellent. They just stuck it to the employees for political and other reasons... and they have *massive* bureaucracy that eats money hand over fist, and yet still makes great profits (from their own financial statements released)... however they did stick it to the rank and file with layoffs and firings... and of course they blamed it on "Competition" and "Freeloading CLEC's" rather then admitting it was a deliberate management strategy.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA
| Re: SHILL ALERT -- Who Ovum works for.... said by KrK:
Actually their profitability is excellent. They just stuck it to the employees for political and other reasons... and they have *massive* bureaucracy that eats money hand over fist, and yet still makes great profits (from their own financial statements released)... however they did stick it to the rank and file with layoffs and firings... and of course they blamed it on "Competition" and "Freeloading CLEC's" rather then admitting it was a deliberate management strategy.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
Wow. So much emotion. You should get a charge out of this post: »Competition is Bad?
[text was edited by author 2003-07-13 07:21:43] | |
|
| | BrianDamageWe Are The Hounds From HellPremium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX | quote:
The ILECs have no incentive to upgrade their lines because they have to not only pay for the upgrades, they also have to pay their competitors to use their upgraded lines.
How do you figure that?
Typical Bell employee nonsense.
When a CLEC orders a line for a DSL install, they would be charged xxx number of dollars for it depending on what kind of conditioning and provisioning must be performed. AT NO TIME has an ILEC ever been financially responsible for the provisioning or conditioning of a competitor's line, even though it is a line THEY own.
This is in fact a fallacy perpetrated by those who wish to throw confusion and mistruths into the UNE argument.
I would be happy to explain in more explicit detail how this works, but suffice it to say that you are way OFF BASE in that assertion, which is not based in any fact or verifiable information.
--
"It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I'm wearin' milk bone underwear." | |
|
| LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA
| said by calvoiper:
NEVER FORGET that so-called "ruinous competition" is the prospect advanced to argue for restrictive, monopolistic regulation--which many of these dinosaurs thrive in.
I must point out that we are exactly in one accord on this point. We've tangled before, but I really only mean to make this central point. Now here's the other shoe. You say:
said by calvoiper:
I'll NEVER trust an analyst who says competition is a bad thing.
That's awfully strong wording. Maybe we can replace "NEVER trust," with "it makes me suspicions," and here's why: because of economies of scale, sometimes the best, most efficient market structure is where there is only two or three firms in that particular market —maybe even *gasp* just one? When I say "efficient," I mean, no one is made better off without someone being worse off (the Pareto sense if you want to yank out that ol' econ 300 textbook). It could be that this shill of a firm is simply pointing out that price wars can be damaging to the market (for a time) because while firms are competing to bring the lowest price, maybe they neglect their capital formation (expansion). But we wouldn't know it because of the bias way the article is written (everyone has their shill  ).
So in the end, we agree, we don't need (you say "monopolistic") regulation when it involves "ruinous competition." My dovetail to that is that we don't need regulation against "ruinous market concentration," either. Regulation presumes some all-knowing regulation board that doesn't have the entrepreneurial knowledge because they operate under a different set of incentives, i.e., political. If you want to get the money out of politics, get politics out of money.
{edit}
I just had to add, that in a strange way, a price war can actually lead to a more concentrated market (more monopolistic market) because if one firm goes bankrupt, what's left is one less firm in the market.
{/edit}
[text was edited by author 2003-07-11 02:29:45] | |
| | |
See 28 replies to this post |
| | I wonder..... I wonder what it would take to start up a US company that offered a paltry 10Mbps for $50/month and open season on hosting servers?
Could you imagine the number of people scurrying to get that service?
Farkin monopolies sucketh mightily... | |
|  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA |  Former Canuck in L.A.
I don't even want to guess what the 45Mbps (DS-3) is going for here at work. | |
| | | | Re: Former Canuck in L.A. Burstable DS3 where I'm from is about 12K per month.
puritan | |
| | | | | Re: Former Canuck in L.A. had a quote for 25k a mnth after instalaton fee's in this area. | |
|
|  gogeta6
join:2002-06-20
San Diego, CA | DS3's are kind of expensive once you are the range of 10's of megabits. May as well get 100mbit ethernet over fiber or an oc3 for less or not much more. | |
|
wukong
join:2001-02-18
Seattle, WA | bubble burst-able? "They should remember," notes Ovum researcher Michael Philpott, "that offering multiple 'free services' was one of the downfalls of the high-tech bubble."
It wasn't competition that burst the "bubble" - it was a consequence of the rampant greed of pyramid scammers trading in stock at grossly inflated values. | |
| | | | Re: bubble burst-able? It was also 23 year olds thinking there was "nothing to this CFO thing".... | |
| | | LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Re: bubble burst-able? Rotfl. Well put. | |
|
| LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | said by wukong:
It wasn't competition that burst the "bubble" - it was a consequence of the rampant greed of pyramid scammers trading in stock at grossly inflated values.
It's not as simple as all that. If you can explain booms and busts, there's a Nobel prize waiting for you.
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan | |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | You know what's bad? A research firm that smokes crack. | |
| | | maybe they mean bad for indie ISP's. I cant see this being a bad thing for large ISP's such as bell telus ect.. and the various cable internet providers.
I could only see price wars effecting small ISP's who only have internet as their only source of income. If prices were to fall where they would lose $$ per customer then they migh be forced into going out of business. As for huge companies, I'm sure they wil survive...
--
A computer is only as smart as the people using it. | |
|  tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| Self Serving but accurate The problem rolling out first-mile access is that it is expensive relative to revenue potential.
Commodity markets often experience cutthroat pricing as the players jockey for market share. The advantage of a digital IP network is that it is a general-purpose bit delivery mechanism. As such it is difficult for an access provider to lock in customers. This makes companies leery of making the massive investment in first-mile access rather then making incremental improvements to legacy infrastructure. Investors expect a return based on risk – the greater the estimated risk the more expensive the cost of capital needed to build the network. The flip side is if a monopoly is able to build the network in that case investor risk is low – risk is transferred to customers as the entity has little inventive to aggressive control pricing.
The key questions we need to ask are:
1) Is competition in the local access market realistic?
2) If so how many players will be in a given market and how competitive will they be?
3) How much power should access network providers have to shape the way the Internet is used and new services developed?
4) The corollary is how much control should the local community have over the access network?
5) When should true high-speed access be implemented?
6) A true high-speed network pretty much destroys the existing value of both the Telcos and Cablecos, while opening the door to aggressive entrepreneurs able to offer new services made possible by new technology. How will the incumbents adapt and should they be protected? | |
| | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| The Self-Serving may die looking after themselves. As long as the providers examining provision of first mile/last mile access are determined to tie it to some other offering of their services, they will experience the reluctance you describe.
On the other hand, "independent" competitive broadband entities often focus on the value of their access connection alone, without the offensive notion that they can use it to force end users to buy other services they offer. As such, they are EXTREMELY threatening to entrenched monopolists with lousy products (telcos & cablecos) and particularly valuable to end users. Ovum's piece fairly nakedly plays to the fears of monopolists and tries to discourage investment in these new ventures--thereby propping up the monopolies.
I hope the "tied-product" providers continue to sit on their hands. New technologies, particularly wireless technologies, will enable new, independent providers to totally surpass them--they may well be dead before they know what hit them.
Calvoiper
[text was edited by author 2003-07-11 21:50:34] | |
|
| |
|
|
