 nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | oops so much for that much vaunted competiton.
a duopoly by any other name is still a duopoly. | |
|
 | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: oops Amen. From Kennard to Martin, those FCC Chairmen who consistently backpedaled from Reed Hunt's "all open" approach to competition must be happy with the paybacks from their duopolist friends.
The rest of us are just disappointed at how easily the incumbent telco and cable players used the FCC to gut competition.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
| Re: oops I look forward to the followers of Ayn Rand and their usual responses, repleat with oft-repeated phrases about how deregulation will bring our prices down, market forces will come to bear, and invisible hands will stroke us all.
At which time, I will offer them the deed to a certain bridge in Brooklyn. | |
|
| | | 
N3OGH
They both suck, we're so screwed
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: oops said by TScheisskopf  :...them the deed to a certain bridge in Brooklyn. Sir, I want to buy your bridge... 
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
|
| | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
edit:
January 24th, @11:59PM
| And I look forward to the responses from the followers of Karl Marx, with there their usual responses about how the government should be paying for it all.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | |
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
·Sprint Broadband D..
| Re: oops said by NormanS :And I look forward to the responses from the followers of Karl Marx, with there their usual responses about how the government should be paying for it all. Never said that government should supply it all, but government should be part of the mix, supplying it where the incumbents and cablecos won't or refuse to tread and by calling it a utility. Which is what it is, especially since the incumbents have been charging USF on it, which was supposed to be used to expand the footprint of a utility.
It is time for government to get in the faces of the telcos and cablecos and tell them to get off their duff. We got a country to run here, and in 2007, broadband/baseband technologies are a big part of it.
Face it; there has been too much smoke and mirrors. | |
|
| | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: oops said by TScheisskopf :It is time for government to get in the faces of the telcos and cablecos and tell them to get off their duff. We got a country to run here, and in 2007, broadband/baseband technologies are a big part of it. Face it; there has been too much smoke and mirrors. Broadband Internet is not a utility. It is an option; and a costly one at the higher speeds. That is why some people opt for no broadband Internet, and many others for cheap DSL over cable when the latter is available.
Government involvement is one of those slippery slope issues. How do you determine when the government should be a part of the mix (there are poor people in the west who could use cars for transportation)? At some point, you either say, "No", to government, or you decide to implement state socialism.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: oops said by NormanS :... Government involvement is one of those slippery slope issues. How do you determine when the government should be a part of the mix (there are poor people in the west who could use cars for transportation)? At some point, you either say, "No", to government, or you decide to implement state socialism. Or you use that false dichotomy as an excuse to leave a former state-mandated monopolist in the dominant position in the marketplace while not enforcing those network and infrastructure sharing provisions that were part of the deal to remove separate governmental controls (e.g., long distance prohibition; rate regulation; etc.) on their monopoly status.
The slope may be somewhat slippery, but that doesn't proscribe all government involvement. Using your own example, auto transport in the west is heavily subsidized through tax funding of road construction. Without that, everyone would have to buy Hummers to get around.
Enough with the false "either-or" choices.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: oops Cable was never a state mandated monopolist, is not now.
Telephone has to compete with cable, and along with cell phones, and VOIP, it is damned hard to convince me that there is a monopoly here.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: oops Well, with 90+% of the landline market, and with 80+% of the T-1 private line & special access market, the incumbent telcos qualify as a monopoly under virtually all economic tests. No anti-trust enforcement action has ever required 100% monopoly to impose anti-trust sanctions.
As for cable, they were a government mandated monopoly in many cities--I used "state" as representative of government in general, not just States in the US. The government protected cable's dominant position aggressively by adopting "immediate build-out" requirements for new entrants that the cable companies did not have to meet themselves when they started (i.e., high barriers to entry). They also gained tremendous market power through government protection--but they weren't as subject to TA-'96 as the telcos were, in part because they lack the long history of anticompetitive conduct of the Bell System.
Overall, it's not just how many competitors you have--it's a larger test of how effectively you dominate a market. And the Baby Bells still dominate their respective markets.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | 
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| said by calvoiper :The rest of us are just disappointed at how easily the incumbent telco and cable players used the FCC to gut competition. What does anyone expect from unfettered capitalism? And this is a situation that's not likely to change in a nation of coprophagous consumer-bots with double-digit IQs .
--
.sig currently unavailable. Try again later. | |
|
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | So others don't have to look it up like I did.... "Coprophagous" means "dung eating."
calvoiper | |
|
| | | |
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| Re: So others don't have to look it up like I did.... said by calvoiper :"Coprophagous" means "dung eating." calvoiper And is where cursory exposure to Latin pays dividends (pun intended). Copro: feces; phagous: eating.
--
.sig currently unavailable. Try again later. | |
|
| | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: So others don't have to look it up like I did.... I suffered through a high school "cursory exposure to Latin," but my school was so repressed that the word for "dung" would never have been discussed.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| Re: So others don't have to look it up like I did.... said by ctgreybeard :said by Titus Pullo :And is where cursory exposure to Latin pays dividends (pun intended). Copro: feces; phagous: eating. It's Greek, actually, but a wonderful word none-the-less! Wow, I had no idea the word would generate such, uh, interest -
It's all Greek to me! It stuck in my mind from studying Latin roots.
--
.sig currently unavailable. Try again later. | |
|
| | | 
operagost
join:1999-08-02
Phoenixville, PA | Re: oops Looks like "karlmarx" just got a new ID. | |
|
| | | | karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: oops actually, no. But he's right on the money. Techically, about 50% of the population has a double digit IQ (how else could you explain republicans, the religious right, and creationists.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|
| | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: oops Actually an IQ number is an abstract concept where 100 was set to be the average. So EXACTLY 50% of the population SHOULD have double digit IQ's, otherwise 100 needs to be adjusted so that is true. | |
|
| | | | | | kinabrew
join:2002-02-01
·Comcast
| Re: oops Actually, no.
•Some people have an IQ of exactly 100. Take this hypothetical group of IQs of 10 people:
two: 110
six: 100
two: 90
This group has a mean IQ of 100, but only 2/10 people have a two-digit IQ.
•Variation may not be consistent in both directions. Take this hypothetical group of IQs of 10 people:
three: 110
six: 100
one: 70
This group has a mean IQ of 100, but three are above, six are exactly 100, and only one is below the mean(and only that one has a two-digit IQ).
| |
|
| | | | | | | Kirby Smith
join:2001-01-26
Derry, NH
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: oops Actually, measured (by some test standard) intelligence of large groups fits the Normal distribution. The results are scaled so that the mean is 100 and the standard deviation is 15. In order for even the range between 70 and 130 to have meaning, thousands of samples are required. In this real case, half the population have an IQ of 100 or less, by definition.
The wider extremes are more difficult to evaluate. For example, Marilyn vos Savant's purported IQ of 190 or thereabouts is six standard deviations above the mean. There aren't enough samples tested by any standard test to establish that value from the test population. I suspect her IQ was extrapolated by scaling MENSA test results from its members IQ distribution.
kirby | |
|
| | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
edit:
January 25th, @04:20PM
| With very large sample sets, I believe, a normal distribution is achieved. So if you're just talking about the people in the room with you, then I agree, but if you're talking about 300m people, then that doesn't apply.
Edit: didn't see that someone had already reply'd with basically this same idea. | |
|
| | | | | dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH
·AT&T Midwest
| said by karlmarx :actually, no. But he's right on the money. Techically, about 50% of the population has a double digit IQ (how else could you explain republicans, the religious right, and creationists. Whereas single digit IQs must explain Democrats.
You started it. And left a wide opening. | |
|
| | | | | | 
RIRWIN1983
join:2005-08-30
Columbus, OH | Re: oops Booya! LOL | |
|
| | | | | | 
grcore
Power To The People
join:2003-12-06
usa
| said by dentman42 :Whereas single digit IQs must explain Democrats. And dectuple deficits come from Republicans, along with quintuple deaths in Iraq.
The power of numbers.... | |
|
| | | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: oops said by grcore :...And dectuple deficits come from Republicans, along with quintuple deaths in Iraq. The power of numbers.... Yes, but numbers must be normalized and standardized. When recent deficits are adjusted for inflation and standardized as a percentage of GNP, they aren't outliers as so many would love the public to believe....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | | | 
chotty
join:2004-07-12
Birmingham, AL
| Or... on the other hand, how else could you explain Political Correctness, Defeatism, Self-Hatred, Group Think, The Elitist Thought Police, The ACLU or Marxist-lite Millionaires who know what's best for all and feel the pain of the oppressed? ... (just as long as they don't have to live next to them). | |
|
| | | | | | thedad
join:2002-07-04
Douglas, GA | Re: oops Yeah! What he said! | |
|
| | | | | | vinnie97
join:2003-12-05
Mesquite, TX | Karl Marked, properly owned on this occasion. | |
|
| 
Jim Gurd
Sorry Roger, you tiger now.
Premium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI
edit:
January 24th, @01:17PM
| nevermind nevermind | |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
edit:
January 24th, @12:24PM
| corporate retard jargon his comments are full of corporate b.s. speak. i'm a little surprised he didn't include something on "synergy" and "paradigm". | |
|
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | competition doesnt make sense to them. Welcome back to 1984. | |
|
| |
| 
idjk
@embarqhsd.net | Sounds like they both drink the same koolaid. | |
|
| | 
Joebob38
Premium
join:2004-09-18
clubs:
| Re: competition doesnt make sense to them. See Youtube link of Colbert Report. | |
|
inurenegade
join:2006-06-11
Wilmington, DE | gotta love it gotta love this crap why fight other companies when we can screw customers equaly! | |
|
moko
join:2002-12-22
Fayetteville, GA | words what the hell is "value equation"....boy...the spin words these idiots come up with  | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs:
edit:
January 24th, @12:46PM
| equation value equation= extra unneeded service to pad their bottom line, keeping the speed increases(especially upload) slow to upgrade, increasing prices on a normal schedule while revenues are already high. Just a guess but anyone else agree
Just FYI att vdsl is slower than the cable company's internet int he area and priced about the same. the 6/1 tier from att is priced the same as the 12/1 cox cable tier in this area. | |
|
wicked_wifi
Are You Wifi Compatible
Premium
join:2003-11-04
Placentia, CA | My Hyundai Rocks I guess i will keep driving my Hyundai(DSL) as it works for me | |
|
Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| VDSL broadband will be slower then ADSL broadband AT&T isn't really offering faster internet with VDSL, they are offering the same or slower speeds.
Take the Elite, sure 6/1 sounds great until you read:
"High Speed Internet maximum speed achieved depends on customer location, line condition, and concurrent use of other AT&T U-verse services."
That's right... we all know there is a bandwidth crunch in that 25mbps and when they start trying to jam that second HD stream in there your internet allocation is going to suffer. Of course the reverse isn't true.... they aren't bothering to let you have MORE then 6MB when you aren't using the full 25MB. | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| So, if they're not planning on competing on price what will they compete on?
Their 6Mb uverse speeds versus my 18 ~ 20Mb Comcast powerboost ones?
Or, how about their 3 day..20 hour Uverse attempt at installs here in Ct. and it's still not working right?
»[info] It's Here! U-Verse
Just curious.
~Rick
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|
|
See 13 replies to this post |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL | 'Just doesn't make sense to us,' 'Just doesn't make sense to us,'..
that pretty much sums up AT&T. | |
|
| |
|
moko
join:2002-12-22
Fayetteville, GA | yes...nice one | |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
edit:
January 24th, @01:38PM
| no competition Why should they compete in price/services when there is no competition?
Having a choice of one crappy service or another is not competition.
There might be a few areas where there is some competition, but not in most of the US. | |
|
|
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: no competition said by gaforces :Why should they compete in price/services when there is no competition? Because the merger between AT&T/BellSouth was suppose to stimulate competition? So much for that ..
--
YourIP.US - It's Your IP .. and more!
rr.cx - Personal Site.. coming soon. | |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | break up How much longer do we have before AT&T is broke up again? | |
|
| |
| | 
d_l
Barsoom
Premium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV | Re: break up Those are AT&T offerings, not the ones offered by at&t. | |
|
| cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| said by hayabusa3303 :How much longer do we have before AT&T is broke up again? Probably right about the time they start breaking up national cable companies...which will probably be never. | |
|
| KA9YHD
join:2000-08-16
Round Lake, IL | At the rate SBC, now AT&T, is buying up phone companies. It might be awhile.
Not to mention that several congressmen have huge stock in AT&T and probably lobby against breaking them up. | |
|
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Further evidence of the agenda... driving the telcos and it is well in keeping with the previous rhetoric of whitacre that sparked off the net neutrality debate.
What many people here don't understand is that power can allow these "clueless" people to radically transform things. They aren't really clueless, they are engaged in a battle to reverse the trends brought on by the internet. The fact that their vision is reactionary doesn't mean it will fail. People need to remember that.
quote:
price competition ... would result in the devolution of IPTV along the lines of CD players, DVD systems, big screen TVs, PCs and more.
...A is for Applications
Core to the evolution of U-verse is the development of applications that build on the delivery of video-driven package to enable new capabilities, commerce and interactive TV – three areas that can help AT&T CONTROL THE CONSUMER ENTERTAINMENT EXPERIENCE. ... WE need to CREATE AN APPLICATIONS ENVIRONMENT ... The telco provided core APIs and its partner wrote an application that became a launch feature of U-verse – Web remote access to the service’s DVR offering. ...The APIs COME FROM US, and we believe that third parties that can write applications for the Internet can write ones for us
ATT doesn't want to be a communications provider. They intend to control the content and applications over their pipes and recreate the vertically integrated services that the internet subverted. This integration and control of applications gives them the power they had with the old intelligent network.
Note the following quotes which make clear that this ISN'T simply about television content. They speak a number of times about the "three screen vision":
quote:
"AT&T also realizes that delivering on its three-screen vision (TV, PC and wireless device) is a daunting integration effort ...
And for APPLICATIONS TO REACH THREE SCREENS IN A TRULY INTEGRATED FASHION, they must be accessible across three networks, which most expect can be accomplished using the all-promising, but still nascent, IP multimedia subsystem (IMS). "
Note the three screens, TV, wireless and the PC. The goal is to create network in which they control the apis and applications for all major communications, computing and entertainment appliances. The appliances become little more than access boxes for their integrated control of applications, content and communications infrastructure.
See this wiki entry on the IP multimedia subsystem they make reference to:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Multime···ubsystem
I don't see how martin can continue to pretend in the face of ever mounting evidence about the intentions of these companies.
This vision IS NOT THE INTERNET. It is the antithesis of the freedom and empowerment that the internet has delivered. | |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| Just as cingular won't compete with sprint, verizon, tmobile What happens if customers just plain old-- DON'T SIGN UP?
There is such a forward looking statement as DOORSTOP broadband service.. where you build it, pass consumer's homes, and they look at you like your selling E-Coli infected Tacos!!
Well, that's what many flavors of DSL are.. anal-retentive distance (and speed) limited broadband, and if you make it overpriced, that might as well be the $200 e-coli infected tacos... you'd have to be smoking some pretty good stuff to buy at those prices and terms...
Well, we'll see if AT&T can get customers for a service people really don't want on AT&T's terms.. AT&T can easily have it's hat handed to it in the coming quarters as it spends billions on a network that is already rubbing many communities the wrong way.. | |
|
| dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Just as cingular won't compete with sprint, verizon, tmobile I have no interest in replacing my cable (essentially broadcast, all standard channels always present) with IPTV (essentially on demand, one stream per channel being viewed). I like being able to add splitters and connect as many tuners as I need without having to have a "set top box" for each channel I wish to simultaneously receive.
Unfortunately, the digital switchover (if it happens) will break this since I only have NTSC tuners. (I really suspect as the analog switch off date draws near, people will wake up and realize that all their bedroom TVs are about to stop working and raise a protest)
The reason splitting up AT&T didn't have the desired effect is that there was no incentive given to CLECs to build out their own infrastructure. If the single infrastructure is to support competition, one company can't own it. The problem is that during the long monopoly period, nobody else was allowed to build a telephony infrastructure, so by the time AT&T was split, there was no practical way to catch up. | |
|
| | tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| Re: Just as cingular won't compete with sprint, verizon, tmobile Many potentially BAD things are going to happen to the consumer when companies move to "packet switched video" streams...
1. You will need to purchase/rent set-tops for EACH TV (extra cost)
2. You will need to pay higher fees for cable-tv service (you don't think the switchover is going to be FREE for the consumer do you?)
3. Your broadband and phone service will cost more (rate increases are likely in internet/phone service in the coming years, so be prepared to pay more soon)
4. Proprietary technologies utilized so that the consumer is more beholden to the company they get service from, which could end up in new cablemodem/network terminal or install fees, higher upfront or monthly tack-on fees.
5. Video franchise fees are going to make a "comeback" as the new tax-dejour similar to the "FCC LINE CHARGE" in POTS phone bills.
Forget $100 triple play, in the next 2-3 years, with buildout costs and rate increases it will be more like the $200 or $250 triple play with LESS service *fewer channels*, more proprietary equipment *think cell phone style set-tops and internet interfaces*, and much, much less flexibility than today-- tv outlets is just tip of the iceberg. | |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Did anybody actually read the article?!? Before posting such inane chatter about "duopoly" and "unfettered capitalism", did anyone bother reading the article, or did you just take Karl's misrepresentation of it as fact?
The AT&T veep didn't say they weren't going to compete on price at all (as suggested), but rather the quote is "The notion of competing JUST on price doesn’t make sense to us...". [emphasis mine].
If they are to compete with incumbent cable providers, they'll have to compete with respect to both cost and features; people won't switch to a new service that costs the same simply because it has a couple extra bells and whistles that most people aren't interested in anyways.
Aren't some of you the same ones who look down their noses at slower but cheaper DSL while extolling the virtues of higher cost but faster cable and fiber offerings that cost nearly twice as much? | |
|
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Did anybody actually read the article?!? said by dynodb :... If they are to compete with incumbent cable providers, they'll have to compete with respect to both cost and features; ... sez who? Comcast is already on record as stating they won't compete on price - remember, they offer BMWs, everyone else is a Hyundai; that being said, they do in areas where there is another wireline competitor, but the lower price usually seems to only be offered when someone calls in to cancel or threaten to cancel. In most cases, I don't think they actually widely advertise a low |
|
AT&T VDSL Won't Compete On Price
·
Re: 'Just doesn't make sense to us,'