 
Boomerang86
Got FUD?
Premium
join:2002-10-18
VampireState
clubs: | big deal? SBC deployments of FTTN and DSL are already dead slow... this will do NOTHING to improve that, though the newly formed company will probably enhance shareholder value.
--
Life is a journey; death is a given. | |
|
 | 
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
| Re: big deal? said by Boomerang86  :SBC deployments of FTTN and DSL are already dead slow... this will do NOTHING to improve that, though the newly formed company will probably enhance shareholder value. Bellsouth has a few communites with FTTP already (3 different general of fiber optic systems + Copper). AT&T may take these communities and 'upgrade' them to make it their first 'real' FTTN services.
--
YourIP.US - Quickly Locate Your IP!
LiveWhois.Net - It's Never Been So Easy!
RR.CX My Blog.. | |
|
| | 
nekote
join:2000-12-16
Hopkinton, MA
1 edit | Re: big deal? Yea, I sure wanna' continue down the path to re-constitute that golden era.
When the Ma Bell monopoly bean counters wanted to keep their little world just as it was.
300 baud dial up speeds.
DSL that was always just ahead, but never available.
Telephone interconnect / safety device to protect Ma Bell's phone network (for a hefty "rental fee", of course) from nasty third party phone makers.
Long Distance fees astronomical, compared to today's pennies per minute / "free" VoIP.
While I loved the standardization and universal availability, the death grip on innovation only ended via the courts - MCI's initial long distance microwave service - and then the full blown breakup.
And look at the unbelievable foot dragging by the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILEC) monopolies that hobbles the competitive CLECs, keeping them at the mercy of the ILECs.
Monopolies are a bad idea.
Fewer services, glacially slow innovation, very high prices and incredible barriers to market entry by newcomers.
Just look at what the cable providers (say, Comcast) are doing to hinder Verizon from entering "their" video / TV market. Well, Gee, cable had to get a franchise license, community by community, some 20 years ago. The new guys should have to, too, right? Plain old bare knucle resistance by a high priced monopoly to a competitive newcomer. | |
|
| | | Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| Re: big deal? Bell South is in debt from what I have read. So if they owe $22 Billion I am sure I won't see DSL for many years. At least Engineers told me that not for another year. Every year they say that. This is a joke. Over 500 people in this community already established. Down the block people are getting DSL that live in Mobile homes. Hello its an old folks mobile home park. Don't they know this? Wow money well spent. Good job. Too much competition from the BIG Cable Companies for the public to worry about. I think if Bells don't consolidate again they will be history anyway VOIP is the next Generation. Eventually Cable will go Fiber to the home not much further they are already running down everyone's street. Need better competition. | |
|
| attcssguy
join:2006-03-07
Redford, MI
| Dead slow maybe. You also have to understand that the ilecs made a lot of mistakes when they initially deployed DSL. Now, there are process in place to make sure that the network can handle the new equipment. By the way, My ilec just placed a FTTN node down the street from my house. It's not turned up yet. I heard that the fall of this year will be green light for FTTN.(Going Live) | |
|
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | I say go for it the cablecos will be doing this anyway(supermergers) and I dont think ATT will drag it's feet knowing that Verizon is laying fiber down by the mile plus when SBC merged with att dsl prices dropped maybe dsl after this will be 9.99 a month | |
|
| 
scooby
Premium
join:2001-05-01
Chicago, IL | Re: I say go for it They are taking a loss on it in order to try and kill the competition. After the competition is gone watch them jack the prices up. | |
|
| | JamesTree
join:2005-01-20
Birmingham, AL
| Re: I say go for it Is it competition for telephone service that people are worried about? Well, around here, theres BellSouth, cellular (just about any provider) or some VOIP service. Whats the difference in my only traditional land line company choice being BellSouth or my only choice being AT&T or my only choice being Verizon? There are so many more options right now for voice and data that werent available 20 years ago. I see so many posts about things regarding this being anti-competitive... Its really easy to say that. Theres already no competition for land line. What would change? Is a procalamation goin to go throughout the land stating that all must have AT&T if this goes through? Someone tell me because I must be missin somethin. | |
|
| | | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: I say go for it said by JamesTree :Is it competition for telephone service that people are worried about? Well, around here, theres BellSouth, cellular (just about any provider) or some VOIP service. Whats the difference in my only traditional land line company choice being BellSouth or my only choice being AT&T or my only choice being Verizon? There are so many more options right now for voice and data that werent available 20 years ago. You're right. The real competition isn't between telcos and never has been. And whether the merger is approved or not that won't change. The real competition is now between telcos and cable companies. That will be the real battlefield. Who cares if the BS/AT&T merger is approved.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
| | | | 
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| Re: I say go for it said by LiamJunket :You're right. The real competition isn't between telcos and never has been. And whether the merger is approved or not that won't change. The real competition is now between telcos and cable companies. That will be the real battlefield. Who cares if the BS/AT&T merger is approved. Well, you should. AT&T(SBC) is already one of the 10 ten most profitable companies in the world, Verizon is not far behind. Cable monopolies aren't even in the ball park. By allowing the phone monopolies to recombine and become even larger more profitable unregulated giants, they will squash cable.
Cable has to negotiate franchise agreements with every city. They must continually renegotiate after each term. With the new proposed bills in states written by AT&T and Verizon to remove franchise agreements, they only do so for the phone monopolies. They do nothing for cable and force cable to continue the old slow method of franchise agreements.
In addition, the phone monopolies seem to ignore that Video competition already exists over the entire country and it has done next to nothing on cable tv rates. Every person already has access to 4 different TV options: cable, direcTV, dishNet, and free over the air. Yet prices remain high for cable. Bell entering the market will do nothing for prices as well.
And for those who say the ATT/SBC merger lowered DSL rates, you are so wrong. Studies show the average rates has gone up not down. The 14.95/12.95 rates are only for six months, then it jumps to $30, plus additional fees.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
|
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: I say go for it In addition, the phone monopolies seem to ignore that Video competition already exists over the entire country and it has done next to nothing on cable tv rates. Every person already has access to 4 different TV options: cable, direcTV, dishNet, and free over the air. Yet prices remain high for cable. Bell entering the market will do nothing for prices as well.
You say six, I say half a dozen.
You are right, Dish, DirecTV, and over the air IS cheaper than cable. You also get less for less money from the other services than cable.
You look at the bottom line price, I look at what I get for the money I spend. Cable may package more together to justify charging more and people don't like that, but I do realize that I am getting ALOT more for my cable dollar than I do for my satellite dollar. Don't even try to compare over the air service - that's plain silly.
Whate Satellite has done to the landscape is offerd a service at a price level that people want over Cable TV. That's what the sat competition has done and it's a good thing. I want all the bells and whistles that cable can give like OnDemand, the analog option for extra televisions, and a very fast internet connection and will pay the price for it. Others want low budget, slower internet and just a good set of digital channels for a lower price because it fits their needs.
Viewing the landscape on price alone does tend to show the lack of knowledge in the industry. Not everyone cares about price alone. Many people still care about "value" for their dollar spent.
Look at two cars - you can compare car classes between the ford and chevy lines. One may have a lower sticker price than the other more expensive one. I bought a 2005 Dodge Ram 4x4 Quad Cab. I WAS looking at the comparable Ford F150 truck. The Dodge was a bit more expensive, however I got twice the truck for about $50 more a month. If I went with the Ford, I would have saved $50 but I would not have had the nicer interior, the better rims and tires, and all around trim package. It was the value that I went for, not price. Some, however, WOULD have went for the $50 savings and been happy.
Point made. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: I say go for it Can't tell you.. it's on a 3 year lease.. the ford would have been the same. | |
|
| | | | | dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH
 ·AT&T Midwest
| said by TelecomJunky :And for those who say the ATT/SBC merger lowered DSL rates, you are so wrong. Studies show the average rates has gone up not down. The 14.95/12.95 rates are only for six months, then it jumps to $30, plus additional fees. Get your facts straight. The 6 month promotion was for January. It's now 12.99 for 1.5/384 for 12 months or 17.99 for 3/512 for 12 months. The USF addition for my 14.99 Express package was only a little over a buck so it doesn't make for a major price increase.
I doubt that the merger had anything to do with these prices since SBC had been lowering them anyway. After the promo terms, most people have been able to re-rate with a new contract to the current promos. (I took the express package for 6 months in January and was already able to re-rate to the Pro package for 12 months with no hassle when the price dropped and I saw how good my line stats were) Whether this will continue or prices will go up, we will see. Still, 34.95 a month for 3/512 is cheaper than most cable providers for similar speeds ($10/month less than Insight with RR and "classic" tier cable).
I do think that if cable companies have to pay the franchise fee, the telcos should have to pay it as well in order to offer IPTV services comparable/competitive to cable. Personally, I'll stick with the analog broadcast that cable offers over the one-channel-at-a-time-on-demand that IPTV (or digital cable channels) would offer. | |
|
| | | 
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA | Exactly. When Ma Bell was broken up there was pretty much only one way to place a phone call. That's absolutely not the case any longer.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network | |
|
| | | |
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| Re: I say go for it said by djrobx :Exactly. When Ma Bell was broken up there was pretty much only one way to place a phone call. That's absolutely not the case any longer. Do you really? Ok you could use cellular. Oh wait, Verizon is owned by Verizon and Cingular is owned by AT&T. Those are the same companies as your local phone. Just because you move your $50 to cells instead of local phone doesn't mean the same company isn't getting it.
VoIP, although a viable alternative in the future is hampered. Can you keep your DSL and dump your local phone? Not in most areas, and even though the FCC has mandated some naked DSL, it only did so for a small 2 year period. So that leaves you with the only other option for broadband access and that's cable.
There are no choices. How do you not see that?
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
|
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: I say go for it I guess Sprint/Nextel, T-Mobile and Virgin doesn't exist? Or did you not know about the other providers?
As for VoIP, I will NEVER consider them a viable choice. Since those providers are nothing more than internet appliances and those options can't control ANY LEVEL of quality on their services, they can't be considered in the big game of things unless government cares to step in and label them a serious option and regulate packet quality for those services. Until then, they can't be put into the mix. They also have to go through one of the two main players - CABLE or DSL which are the two players in phone.
Sure, there are cell phones, but at this point and time, land lines still dominate the field and we are talking about home phone service - not mobile celluar that people somehow seem to put into the same category. (For the record, if cellular service is such an option at home, please tell me why so many of my friends that have cellular as their only home phone have to leave their lower level in their house and go up stairs to make their calls.) | |
|
| | | | | 
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| said by TelecomJunky :said by djrobx :Exactly. When Ma Bell was broken up there was pretty much only one way to place a phone call. That's absolutely not the case any longer. Do you really? Ok you could use cellular. Oh wait, Verizon is owned by Verizon and Cingular is owned by AT&T. Those are the same companies as your local phone. Just because you move your $50 to cells instead of local phone doesn't mean the same company isn't getting it. VoIP, although a viable alternative in the future is hampered. Can you keep your DSL and dump your local phone? Not in most areas, and even though the FCC has mandated some naked DSL, it only did so for a small 2 year period. So that leaves you with the only other option for broadband access and that's cable. There are no choices. How do you not see that? You are incorrect. Verizon wireless is owned by Vodafone, NOT Verizon. While Verizon does own a non-controlling portion of Verizon Wireless, the two are completely independent. As for VoIP, you do not need naked DSL or even "regular" DSL to use it. The largest VoIP provider in the US is not even a telco at all, it is Time Warner; a cable company. We have more choices now than ever before. To say otherwise is silly and uninformed!
--
Now THATS superfluous!! | |
|
| | | | | | rreola86
join:2005-08-01
Sanger, CA | Re: I say go for it Wrong. The Cellco Partnership (dba Verizon Wireless) is jointly owned by Verizon (55%, as in THEY DO control it) and Vodafone PLC (45%). | |
|
| | | | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
1 edit | said by TelecomJunky :said by djrobx :Exactly. When Ma Bell was broken up there was pretty much only one way to place a phone call. That's absolutely not the case any longer. Do you really? Ok you could use cellular. Oh wait, Verizon is owned by Verizon and Cingular is owned by AT&T. Those are the same companies as your local phone. Just because you move your $50 to cells instead of local phone doesn't mean the same company isn't getting it. VoIP, although a viable alternative in the future is hampered. Can you keep your DSL and dump your local phone? Not in most areas, and even though the FCC has mandated some naked DSL, it only did so for a small 2 year period. So that leaves you with the only other option for broadband access and that's cable. There are no choices. How do you not see that? No choices???? Cummon man, get a grip. As much as you love to say it, there are no monopolies in voice, TV, or internet. In fact, there are multiple choices for each-
Voice:
1. Tmobile
2. Cricket Wireless
3. Nextel
4. Cingular
5. Verizon Wireless
6. Sprint
7. Slews of VOIP providers
8. Cable company voice offerings (aka digital voice)
Internet:
1. Clearwire Wireless »www.clearwire.com
2. Cable Internet
3. Directway
4. DSL
TV:
1. Satellite (2 providers)
2. OTA / free
3. Cable
4. Emerging IPTV offerings by telcos / Verizon FIOS
5. Emerging TV services over the internet still in their infancy
Definition of monopoly: In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods. source: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
By definition, there are no monopolies in these industries, period. | |
|
| | King75
King Of All And Nothing
Premium
join:2004-07-31
Stevensville, MD
clubs: | The Verizon CEO released a statment in support of the merger but I think that is mainly because they just merged with MCI and have been looking to buy out Vodafone's share of Verizon Wireless. | |
|
| | |
| kcjames1138
join:2003-04-25
Olathe, KS
| "I dont think ATT will drag it's feet knowing that Verizon is laying fiber down by the mile"
Um, Verizon and AT&T do not compete with each other. They have 0 overlapping markets for local phone, LD, and Internet. AT&T could careless what Verizons high-speed plans are. | |
|
| |
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | Re: I say go for it ok I see what you are saying but why would Att sit on their hands while Verizon another telco is offering speed up to 35mps wouldnt ATT customers be mad and switch to their local cablecos | |
|
| shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA
1 edit | Verizon doesn't compete with AT&T in the local markets. The would be competing with wireless phone, voip, and commercial circuits. Or you might eventually be able to get AT&T DSL over Verizon POTs lines. | |
|
| fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by odreian615 :twhen SBC merged with att dsl prices dropped maybe dsl after this will be 9.99 a month When did the price of DSL drop again? They have 'special offers' for 'new customers' out there for cheap, but I wouldn't say that the purchase 'dropped the price of dsl' - especially if you look at the reason why they are dropping the price.
The introductory price specials are not in place to keep prices low. The IP was to attract customers away from dial up and cable users in order to keep them as "a captive auduence" so that phone could roll out new services. once a customer is captive, they are less likely to switch or move to another service provider"... those are the words from the big dog himself.
No favors, nothing innovative, no new or dropped prices. They even made it harder on round two to get the new price stating it was an 'online price for new customers only - get it through the web' - why? Because they could guide the sign up process for NEW CUSTOMERS only and remove the ability for people to call in and asl (though people are) my point is was they wanted to make it harder and make it clear.
No favors from your local bell - sorry. | |
|
CO_Chris
Premium
join:2001-08-28
Broomfield, CO | Naked DSL? Well we see naked DSL this time around? | |
|
| 
Bird Dog
Another Bird
Premium
join:2002-03-07
Missouri
| Re: Naked DSL? said by CO_Chris :Well we see naked DSL this time around? it is comming! June or July time frame from what I have heard. | |
|
| 
klownin06
join:2006-02-22
Liberal, KS
| One of the stipulations that the FCC put on both SBC and Verizon when they wanted to buy both ATT and MCI was that they had to start selling naked DSL within a certain time frame after the mergers were complete. Since sbc and att merger is complete be looking out for naked dsl in the att areas in the near future | |
|
| |
Bird Dog
Another Bird
Premium
join:2002-03-07
Missouri
1 edit | Re: Naked DSL? yea... it's really inevitable.. so many switching to cell phone and ip based phone, it almost seems like we got no choice... But then the only thing about the naked dsl is, when your power goes out, you better have a ups system on your PC. I don't but I know if I did...I could still surf  but then during those bad storms I turn the pc off along with most other electronics...
Dialtone thru an RBOC is so heavily regulated, batteries and generators, it's pretty much a disaster or an equipment problem (you'd be surprised how many you don't even notice)before you loose dialtone...
Well time for bed... later ya'll... gotta be able to get up with the kids... the wife is out for the evening... lucky her, but.. hey, next weekend is mines
Cheers... to Makers and Coke... hardley ever hung over... | |
|
rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA
| Yeah this isnt a big deal NOT No big deal here in the south where BellSouth just switched all customers except those with BASIC phone service to untrarrifed new 'agreements'. Why should we be concerned?
/end sarcasm
--
Got a new podcast to share? Looking for a podcast?
Pcsites.com | |
|
kcjames1138
join:2003-04-25
Olathe, KS
| Done Deal This merger is a sure thing. SBC and BellSouth have been in bed together for a long time in Cingular wireless. When the Fed said nothing on the AT&T wireless merger and the SBC AT&T merger.
It's funny, the Feb blocked the Sprint/MCI merger, but they had no problem with Verizon buying MCI and now the rumors are Verizon is going to scoop up Sprint who is no merged with Nextel.
The Fed makes no sense. | |
|
|
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | Re: Done Deal vrizon should have brought sprint b4 it merged with nextel it made way more sense why would sprint buy a company that use different technology than they have | |
|
| 
KeepOnRockin
Music Lover Forever
Premium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR | Yep, it's probably a done deal.
The feds seem to be 'merger happy' these days.
As for me, I'm all for it. If AT&T buys Bellsouth, it'll be all for the better. | |
|
CO_Chris
Premium
join:2001-08-28
Broomfield, CO
1 edit | Quest? I can only hope that Verizon buys Quest now. then there will only be 2 people will offer phone service Verizon and ATT.
I would love to see Verizon in Colorado getting out FIOS | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Quest? Verizon won't acquire Qwest now because of the debt load that would result. I hate to say it but Katrina is part of the reason A T & T (formerly SBC) can acquire BellSouth now. | |
|
| | 
FLea973
Premium
join:2001-02-27
Morristown, NJ
clubs:
1 edit | Re: Quest? said by Sammer :Verizon won't acquire Qwest now because of the debt load that would result. I hate to say it but Katrina is part of the reason A T & T (formerly SBC) can acquire BellSouth now. True, and I'm NOT looking forward to the lame bidding war for Qwest when they come out of bankruptcy protection (i know, they aren't bankrupt....yet) -- but AT&T and Verizon are both not willing to take THAT debt load given all they get is the old US-West footprint (which no-one wanted in the first place - you know the footprint...its where all our Universal Service Fees are heading) and some long-haul fibre (which everyone basically already has now) that is why Qwest was trying to (and basically did) toss in the kitchen sink to get MCI away from Verizon (and also failed). I give it 5-10years till its AT&T (SBC) vs Verizon and sadly the management won't be much different than the old pre-breakup MaBell (since basically it still is the same ... just the next generation)
edit: Got this when posting...seems fitting:
Random fortune (from news)
And that's the way it is...
-- Walter Cronkite | |
|
| | | rreola86
join:2005-08-01
Sanger, CA | Re: Quest? If they wait 'til Qwest goes bankrupt, the creditors will probably cancel much of that debt (Like the "New" MCI that was bought out by VZ). | |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
Newtown, PA
| No big deal? Wait, how we forgot how all the telco CEOs got together to say they need to charge QoS to companies for internet access?
Or how that this merger goes through, they will dissolve off Cingular (yes, I understand that some are unhappy with its service).
Maybe you forgot how we had (a few years ago) good competition to drop the cellular rates for phones and now there are going to be only three providers? So much for competition...
Ofcourse a really big tree is good for shade. However, the bigger they get, the more they rot from within..  | |
|
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK
·AtlasOK
| Cake & eat it too? For years, here in OK, SBC claimed that, even though none are in direct competition, all of the small ILECs were competitors and, therefore, SBC should be allowed to offer long-distance services and have state regulations reduced. The state legislators agreed and handed SBC everything they wanted.
Now, it seems that these non-competing "competitors" are being merged back into Ma Bell with the reason that there isn't really any competition, so the mergers should be approved.
So which is it? Are these other phone companies competitors or not?
This merger doesn't really affect me at all because neither SBC nor BS services my location. But we (the consumers & voting public) need to make these companies pick a stance on their 'competition' and stick with it. | |
|
Missing Person
@bellsouth.net | The past is future. Never trust a company that has the Death Star for it's logo... | |
|
DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| Competition Is Effectively Impossible How does one foster competition between the telcos? If the ILEC owns the physical network, how does one compete against the ILEC in the next region over? Build a new network to 'compete' against the old network?
The only way you can have true competition is to have the actual network be owned by a neutral entity and then let the telcos be providers on the network. You would get cutthroat competition between providers, to be sure. WHo would be the neutral network entity? If it is a corporation, the corp would either a) be lobbying to be allowed to make a profit, busting any providers who don't sign sweetheart deals, or b) lobbying to be a provider themselves. Why? The sole motivation of a corporation is profit.
So, it has to be a neutral entity that does not desire to make a profit controlling the physical network. That could really only be fulfilled by a government entity - and no American will allow that, as socialism is a no-no. | |
|
artie
join:2002-07-14
Panama City, FL
clubs:
| competition I only see this increasing the level of competition that already exists. Which is not between two different phone companies, but between cable and phone companies and their various data products. That is the only true competition there has ever been. These two industries will eventually compete, offering the same products. What worries me is that big companies move slow, like they said in the article, and are inevitably disorganized. I'd hate to see lots of peoples' service degrade because of a big inefficient operation like Comcast... | |
|
daythree
join:2001-07-20
Spring Hill, TN | The feelings about the merger around here.... Let's see.......
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Monopoly blah blah blah blah blah blah big business blah blah blah blah blah not enough choices blah blah blah blah blah telcos suck.
Same old crap.
Let's continue. | |
|
macken 657
join:2006-01-29
Ballwin, MO
| local franchise when the Texas approved a statewide franchise agreement both charter and time warner begin plans to drop their rates and to upgrading their facilities. the real killer to competition (between CATV and ILEC) is the ILEC's having to negotiate deals with thousands of cities, which, let's face it, is 90 percent politics and 10 percent substance. let requirements for local and public service programming be negotiated at the state level.
| |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: local franchise I'd settle for the county or regional level considering I live in a county with over 100 municipalities and FIOS lines are already in my neighborhood. | |
|
| | Doug45
join:2002-08-27
Wheaton, IL | Re: local franchise ATT just sent out notices to "surplus" people today from the SBC purchase of ATT. Now we have to go through another round of bloodletting... | |
|
biznatch11
join:2004-11-21
London, ON | genius at work "Eventually, an integrated company could introduce new services more quickly. But there is a risk that a bigger AT&T could move slower."
...so it could be faster, or it could be slower. wow, such insight. | |
|
putitoff
| work through sbc first. They should put this off until next year. They've got alot to work on sorting out their current markets before expanding. AT&T is not BellAtlantic; Expansion does not have the kind of synergies that are devoid of conflicts of interest(s). Just as Time Warner jumped at the possibility of getting AOL, it may be important to look at BellSouth with a more tactical EYE not solely in the lenses of competing with cable companies, but building a world-class fiber-optic seemless network and expanding that to the last-mile for the wireline business much in a similar way Verizon is doing, but with lower costs (much due to the fact of starting 'later'). By putting this off until next year, they save as much as 50-75% of deployment costs. ATT could commit to more fiber on it's own current foot-print.
What I'm surprised at is that there hasn't been a bigger LAND-GRAB in the smaller internet backbone companies, particualrly trying to acquire 'less profitable' municpal fiber buildouts and rights of way, and run them more profitably, much like Verizon does with wireless/ aka Vodaphone. (which is to say, use the comapany as a tax-writeoff against profits). Chunks of DARK fiber should come online in 2006 at the fringes of the ATT footprint, so att should nibble. My impression is ATT could run these datacenters more efficiently with peering logistics.
(This would put more weight behind the rhetoric announced in the att/sbc merger). | |
|
|
|
|
Consumer Groups Attack AT&T Merger
