Verizon Promises Not To Cherry Pick Philadelphia Insists that FiOS deployments will reach entire city... Last week, we noted that Comcast was trying to stall Verizon's deployment of FiOS into the cable giant's home town of Philadelphia, by feigning indignation before the city council over the fact that the telco's FTTH service probably wouldn't reach all parts of the city, and ( correctly) noting that the addition of telcoTV to the market probably wouldn't lower TV prices. People used to care about redlining, which is why local franchises used to force cable operators to deploy into less profitable rural areas if they wanted to do business at all. But this is a new age, and the baby bells have lobbied the FCC and State lawmakers to gut the local franchise system, legalizing cherry picking in most suburban markets. But they've still got to convince many individual cities, and new bendable fiber for apartment installs, mixed with lagging DSL subscriber additions, make doing so a priority. So Verizon this week fired back at Comcast, promising to Philly leaders that they won't engage in cherry picking or redlining of any kind: Verizon told the Philadelphia City Council Committee on Public Property and Public Works Wednesday that the company "is ready, willing and able to install its advanced, all-fiber-optic network and bring real TV choice to more than 600,000 households throughout the city." Verizon added it plans to offer competitive cable service to all of Philadelphia within seven years of the effective date of a cable franchise being considered by the Council. While Verizon will bring FiOS to much of the city, most of these recent agreements they're signing with cities like NY and DC include plenty of loopholes and very few penalties for failing to stick to their deployment schedule, allowing Verizon to wiggle or buy their way out of obligations. In NYC, where they've promised to have every single home wired by 2014, the franchise allows Verizon to either stall indefinitely or buy their way out of obligations for a few cool million. Fortunately for Verizon, nobody in this industry (particularly politicians) has very long attention span when it comes to Verizon promises, nor does anybody bother to read the fine print of these agreements, usually hashed out privately between Verizon and city leaders with virtually no public input. All the same, that's very sweet of Verizon to pretend they care about even deployment, and it's absolutely adorable to see Comcast pretending they care about high TV prices.
|
 | | Didn't We Hear This Before I could have sworn the people of PA, heard this one before!! | |
|  |  beerbumobscurum per obscuriusPremium join:2000-05-06 Eastern PA | Re: Didn't We Hear This Before said by JohnDrenZ:I could have sworn the people of PA, heard this one before!! you mean the promise to have 80% of the state wired for T1 internet speeds? .. wasn't the promise to have been done by 2000 or was it 1996? I forget.. --
a mind is a terrible thing...
| |
|
 AlpinePremium join:2000-01-11 Atlanta, GA | Cherry-pick away! It's known as "Business Strategy 101." Build to the most profitable areas first. Nothing wrong with that.
Just like cable, over the years they'll keep expanding into new areas to continue gathering market share.
And haven't we seen recently what the anti-"redlining" lobby has done for housing loans? A bunch of sub-prime borrowers (and the idiot lenders lending to them) destroying the housing market. Obviously broadband and TV aren't on that kind of importance level, but so-called "redlining" and "cherry-picking" aren't necessarily as evil as their opponents make them out to be. | |
|  |  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA 1 edit | Re: Cherry-pick away! "Necessarily," nice disclaimer there but effectively you said nothing but advocation of greed. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Cherry-pick away! said by gaforces:"Necessarily," nice disclaimer there but effectively you said nothing but advocating greed. Advocating greed? What makes it greedy for a company to not want to deploy services to an area that will give it little or no return on investment? TV and Internet are not a right. Typical product of the entitlement society... | |
|  |  |  |  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA | Re: Cherry-pick away! I'll answer your questions with my own since it's obvious you dont want to see my answers.
Why cant Verizon be happy with 20% profits instead of 50+%. | |
|  |  |  |  |  N3OGHCertified GLG-20Premium join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Cherry-pick away! Why can't Verizon be happy with 10% profits instead of 20%?
Why even 20%? How about 10%?
While we're at it, why 10%? How about 5%?
Wait a second. Why should an evil company like Verizon make ANY profit? They should serve the public good and simply break even!
That's a slippery slope you're heading down.... -- Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power
| |
|  |  |  |  |  | | said by gaforces:I'll answer your questions with my own since it's obvious you dont want to see my answers. Why cant Verizon be happy with 20% profits instead of 50+%. I don't think you even know what you are talking about. Verizon's profit margins are 6.5%
»finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=VZ
Let the big kids have a real discussion, mmmm k? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA 1 edit | Re: Cherry-pick away! I am not that gullible to believe that figure due to all the tax breaks and loopholes in the tax code for corporations.
Those numbers are also deducting the cost of upgrades/fios deployment which is a short period of time compared to the returns in the future. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Cherry-pick away! said by gaforces:I am not that gullible to believe that figure due to all the tax breaks and loopholes in the tax code for corporations. Buddy... net profit is net profit. A simple search on google shows that net profit includes everything from expenses to profits AFTER tax (which would include all those "generous" loopholes you think all these evil corps are getting). | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA | Re: Cherry-pick away! It's creative bookkeeping ... pal | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Cherry-pick away! you are delusional... if they are getting creative about anything, its about how high their profit margin is, not how low it is. Shareholders want to see that number as high as possible, they surely aren't cooking their numbers for people like you who think they are nothing but greedy pigs. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  N3OGHCertified GLG-20Premium join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by gaforces:It's creative bookkeeping ... pal That's right. No one can trust those evil corporations MAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNN! -- Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA | Re: Cherry-pick away! Is the fox evil because it eats the chickens? or a wolf sheep? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  jaminus join:2004-10-14 Arlington, VA | Less profit usually means less investment. Verizon reinvests a substantial portion of its income in network buildout, so 20% profit means less buildout. Plus it's not like FiOS is even profitable in the first place -- over $1000 per home with no guarantee the owners will even sign up is a pretty big bet to make.
Plus, the more profit FiOS makes, the more comfort shareholders will have with even more investment in fiber. | |
|
 |  |  AlpinePremium join:2000-01-11 Atlanta, GA | said by gaforces:"Necessarily," nice disclaimer there but effectively you said nothing but advocation of greed. Since when are TV and internet providers charities? They're in it for the money, pure and simple. Is that some sort of surprise in a capitalist society? | |
|
 |  jaminus join:2004-10-14 Arlington, VA | Good point. What's the logic in demanding that Verizon lay fiber in parts of the city where most people won't even sign up? Some neighborhoods simply won't have enough uptake to make FiOS profitable. so Verizon must make the money back elsewhere by charging higher prices.
The main result of these absurd anti-redlining statutes is that Verizon deploys FiOS slower and in fewer cities than it otherwise would.
But for idiotic city council members forcing Verizon to jump through hoops just to provide a service that people desire, I bet FiOS would now be available in many more cities. Even if Verizon skips your neighborhood at first, moving a couple miles to a home wired for Fiber is much easier than relocating cities. | |
|  |  |  Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Cherry-pick away! said by jaminus:Good point. What's the logic in demanding that Verizon lay fiber in parts of the city where most people won't even sign up? Some neighborhoods simply won't have enough uptake to make FiOS profitable. so Verizon must make the money back elsewhere by charging higher prices. Who says it's a matter of people not signing up? I think if FiOS actually came to Philadelphia sans cherry picking, A LOT of Comcast customers would make the switch, but how much money will Verizon lose once many of those said customers go into a disconnect status because they haven't paid their bill in two to three months, or that these customers couldn't afford the sticker shock of their first month's bill? But hey, that's life...that's what Comcast is already dealing with, so if Verizon wants to come to the party, then they should at least be prepared for all the people in attendance.
Or if they want to service to only affluent neighborhoods, then put a disclaimer in their ads that states "not for people who make less than X amount of dollars....and live in X part of town." | |
|  |  |  |  jaminus join:2004-10-14 Arlington, VA | Re: Cherry-pick away! If Verizon thought it could make a profit by laying fiber to a certain neighborhood, it would do it. Maybe not right off the bat, but it'd happen. Verizon obviously will make errors sometimes in assessing demand, but given how much experience VZ has in Fios subscriptions I bet their guesses are pretty much on-target.
Comcast customers who actually pay their bills are getting screwed by the city, too. But that's hardly a reason why Verizon should have to lay fiber in areas where people don't even pay the bills on time. | |
|  |  |  |  |  Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA | Cherry-Picking argument is stupid in this case! said by jaminus:If Verizon thought it could make a profit by laying fiber to a certain neighborhood, it would do it. Maybe not right off the bat, but it'd happen. Verizon intends for their FiOS network to eventually replace their copper network in the Philly metro and other metropolitan areas. Verizon doesn't want to maintain the copper forever so that means FiOS will eventually reach every place in Philly that Verizon's copper phone lines do now. Now I wouldn't be surprised if Verizon cherry-picked in rural areas but that doesn't apply to Philly. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | Re: Cherry-Picking argument is stupid in this case! said by Sammer:Verizon intends for their FiOS network to eventually replace their copper network in the Philly metro and other metropolitan areas. Verizon doesn't want to maintain the copper forever so that means FiOS will eventually reach every place in Philly that Verizon's copper phone lines do now. Now I wouldn't be surprised if Verizon cherry-picked in rural areas but that doesn't apply to Philly. That does mean ultimatly LifeLine POTS customers (subsidized by State USF for welfare, seniors and disabled) will get FIOS Phone, which is billed identically to copper POTS phone, when Verizon starts serious deffered maintence on their copper POTS (not replacing a trunk line when it runs out of good pairs), and if you call your copppr POTS went out, they will convert you to FIOS phone, yuo don't have a choice about delivery anyways.
Its also possible Verizon will start to convert FIOS apartment buildings to pure FIOS phone eventually to free up copper pairs for other customers (I guess single house customers) when VZ starts to abandon trunk lines. | |
|
 |  | | Actually mortgage backed securities caused the housing problem. There have always been prime and subprime mortgages. This is just the first time they were bundled and flipped. | |
|  |  | | beat me right to the punch. | |
|  |  JimFPremium join:2003-06-15 Allentown, PA | said by Alpine:And haven't we seen recently what the anti-"redlining" lobby has done for housing loans? A bunch of sub-prime borrowers (and the idiot lenders lending to them) destroying the housing market. Quite so. The politicians are quick to support "fair" housing loans, but when the whole market collapses due to their gross financial stupidity, these politicians are nowhere to be found. Do you think they would have acted the same if it were their own money at risk rather than ours, or are they too busy getting sweetheart mortgages from the lenders? | |
|
 MemphisPCGuySenior Systems EngineerPremium join:2004-05-09 Memphis, TN Reviews:
·Comcast
| Risk vs Reward If the incentives and tax reductions are given based on the actual "cherry-picked" number of households it would be fine, but promising 600,000 house holds by a given date and then actually delivering a percentage of those at a much later date should not be tolerated. How about promising late and delivery early for once. | |
|  | | Not a new age "But this is a new age, and the baby bells have lobbied the FCC and State lawmakers to gut the local franchise system, legalizing cherry picking in most suburban markets."
Actually, it has been the situation for decades that companies can decide the jurisdictions in which they will seek TV franchises. None of the recent FCC changes or state laws legalize cherry picking or prevent a jurisdiction from including terms preventing cherry picking in their franchise agreement. | |
|  |  Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: Not a new age None of the recent FCC changes or state laws legalize cherry picking or prevent a jurisdiction from including terms preventing cherry picking in their franchise agreement. Are you suggesting that a town in Wisconsin, under say...Wisconsin's new franchise "reform" law, can force an incumbent ISP to deploy to areas with poor ROI? I'd be curious to see some sourcing for that claim.... | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Not a new age said by Karl Bode:None of the recent FCC changes or state laws legalize cherry picking or prevent a jurisdiction from including terms preventing cherry picking in their franchise agreement. Are you suggesting that a town in Wisconsin, under say...Wisconsin's new franchise "reform" law, can force an incumbent ISP to deploy to areas with poor ROI? I'd be curious to see some sourcing for that claim.... I assume the reference to an "incumbent ISP" is a slip. As to a company seeking a CATV franchise from a Wisconsin town, I believe the town can include provisions in the franchise agreement forcing the company to provide service to all areas. You are the one making the allegation that the Wisconsin law changed things, so maybe you have a specific provision of the law in mind that you can point to? | |
|  |  |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY 1 edit | said by Karl Bode:None of the recent FCC changes or state laws legalize cherry picking or prevent a jurisdiction from including terms preventing cherry picking in their franchise agreement. Are you suggesting that a town in Wisconsin, under say...Wisconsin's new franchise "reform" law, can force an incumbent ISP to deploy to areas with poor ROI? I'd be curious to see some sourcing for that claim.... No, however the city/town/etc. can include provisions (such as NYC and Philly did) that say the provider must provide coverage to all areas within a geographic region. If these provisions are very limiting, and include many areas that the provider wont make a profit on, then the provider likely will simply pass over that given city/town/etc. Realistically however, the carriers (in this case Verizon) realized that the potential revenues from a very large city such as NYC or Philly would allow them to eventually serve most portions of the metro, even if some areas were a wash (or worse, a loss).
The issue that comes up is when providers such as ATT are battling small towns (like they did in Illinois) who are demanding universal coverage. In cases like that, the carrier cant count on economies of scale to keep their profits where they need to be. The end result? Absurd rules passed by mindless local governments prevent any citizens from receiving new services. As I have said many, many times before some citizens receiving better service is better than no citizens getting it. -- Комитет государственной безопасности
| |
|  |  |  |  Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
1 edit | Re: Not a new age No, however the city/town/etc. can include provisions (such as NYC and Philly did) that say the provider must provide coverage to all areas within a geographic region. If these provisions are very limiting, and include many areas that the provider wont make a profit on, then the provider likely will simply pass over that given city/town/etc. Realistically however, the carriers (in this case Verizon) realized that the potential revenues from a very large city such as NYC or Philly would allow them to eventually serve most portions of the metro, even if some areas were a wash (or worse, a loss). That clarifies things, thanks. But my understanding of the new franchise rules indicates that State law trumps local jurisdiction in most markets...and that if AT&T signs a State wide franchise they no longer need to be concerned with negotiating with smaller municipalities....in many cases those municipalities not only lose negotiation rights, but they even lose eminent domain rights.... | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Not a new age said by Karl Bode:That clarifies things, thanks. But my understanding of the new franchise rules indicates that State law trumps local jurisdiction in most markets...and that if AT&T signs a State wide franchise they no longer need to be concerned with negotiating with smaller municipalities....in many cases those municipalities not only lose negotiation rights, but they even lose eminent domain rights.... The state law does trump much local jurisdiction, and does make it so that they don't have to be concerned with negotiating with small municipalities. But AFAIK none of them (other than possibly NJ) permits service to be denied to areas of low ROI. I did hear about the eminent domain issue in IL or WI - that's a rare bird that I am not familiar with. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: Not a new age The state law does trump much local jurisdiction, and does make it so that they don't have to be concerned with negotiating with small municipalities. But AFAIK none of them (other than possibly NJ) permits service to be denied to areas of low ROI. Do the State laws allow a town, in a state covered by a state-level franchise argeement, to force an ISP to deploy broadband service to an entire town? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY | Re: Not a new age said by Karl Bode:The state law does trump much local jurisdiction, and does make it so that they don't have to be concerned with negotiating with small municipalities. But AFAIK none of them (other than possibly NJ) permits service to be denied to areas of low ROI. Do the State laws allow a town, in a state covered by a state-level franchise argeement, to force an ISP to deploy broadband service to an entire town? I think thats where it gets tricky. The state may have a franchise law that gives the provider the right to service any location. However, this doesnt (necessarily) mean the provider can decide to setup shop and service just part of a city. My understanding of it is that the provider still sometimes needs to negotiate with the city for ROW and things like that, which basically brings all parties to the negotiating table. At that point the city/town/etc. can impose additional restrictions that are not directly related to the franchise agreement, but are about deployment (timeframes, locations, etc). It might vary from state to state (I am sure the franchise laws are quite different), so there might be exceptions to the rule. -- Комитет государственной безопасности
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | Re: Not a new age said by wifi4milez: However, this doesnt (necessarily) mean the provider can decide to setup shop and service just part of a city. My understanding of it is that the provider still sometimes needs to negotiate with the city for ROW and things like that, which basically brings all parties to the negotiating table. It seems to be all telcos get ROW through their POTS regulation. It winds up that all next gen network equipment is dual purpose, and only video specific infastructure is regulated, if its called video at all (ATT seems to have won lawsuits in many states saying Uverse is an internet product, and not a cable product, so legally Uverse=Xbox Video Marketplace, and only something affecting Xbox Video Marketplace can affect Uverse, otherwise Uverse is nothing more than a Remote Terminal for DSL internet service, which is not regulated by any govt entity).
VZ claims FIOS is dual use, so only video specific equipment can be regulated (head end mpeg equipment and cable boxes). So deploying FIOS without a franchise is fine since FIOS plant is installed under POTS regulations/what allows VZ to install a T3. Legally, FIOS would be as regulated as a fiber optic link to a remote terminal. But nowadays deploying FIOS plant without a franchise agreement is a big no no for VZ management, since FIOS Internet uptake on its own is not profitable (VZ assumed it would be profitable and all cable and DSL users would jump to it, they haven't, plus people are willing to pay more for video than internet, because of how high video charges are on cable, also VZ stopped building FIOS before and unless a franchise is in place for video). | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  | | said by Karl Bode:The state law does trump much local jurisdiction, and does make it so that they don't have to be concerned with negotiating with small municipalities. But AFAIK none of them (other than possibly NJ) permits service to be denied to areas of low ROI. Do the State laws allow a town, in a state covered by a state-level franchise argeement, to force an ISP to deploy broadband service to an entire town? There is of course no authority to require Internet service. That is why the right of localities to require universal buildout of CATV is so important. So the Internet service piggybacks on the CATV service. Yes, it is backwards as Internet access is more important to a community than CATV, but that's the way it is. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | Re: Not a new age said by SD6:There is of course no authority to require Internet service. That is why the right of localities to require universal buildout of CATV is so important. So the Internet service piggybacks on the CATV service. Yes, it is backwards as Internet access is more important to a community than CATV, but that's the way it is. Sneaky sneaky. | |
|
 mike417Follow Me join:2001-02-25 Philadelphia, PA | Cherry Pick I'll bet they will take years to get to my neighborhood it took the 8 yrs to 3 mbs from 768 mbs -- I GOT THE MAGIC STICK!!!!! | |
|  RickPremium,MVM join:2001-02-06 Waterbury, CT | Communities need to be careful opening the door to "competition" sometimes. Because sometimes it can wind up spelling HIGHER prices than lower.
Verizon today isn't really offering anything in terms of pricing that Comcast isn't. And that's notable because Verizon is the new contender for peoples TV dollars.
Let's do a what if here for a minute. What if a city lets them begin rolling out services. And what if the same trend continues whereby Verizon keeps losing dsl and landline customers. What does the landscape then look like in 2 to 3 years? If anything..there's probably more incentive and need for verizon to RAISE prices than anything else. Meanwhile..they're still out there taking customers away from Comcast or other cable co's reducing their profitability as well. What incentive does that give a company like Comcast except to ALSO raise prices higher than they otherwise might if they weren't giving up a fair amount of business to another company.
What a scenario like this could amount to is the consumer not benefiting at all. It's just one company struggling to compete in the market..cannibalizing another companies business. Some consumers may see it as "choice"..but it could be a choice without any financial benefits and in fact..could result in higher pricing all the way around.
Sorry to say but I think that people and communities need to be careful about Verizon. The problem ISN'T their fios rollout which we can all respect as being state of the art.. but the TIME it's going to take and what is happening to their core businesses in the meantime. Losing landlines and losing DSL customers to the tune of millions of customers is going to do nothing except weaken this company. Add that to the huge cost of Fios and we really might be witnessing the broadband equivalent of what happened to Rambus memory in the war versus DDR. What happens next year when virtually every comcast customer can already get fios like speeds off a docsis 3.0 network? What will fios look like after that happens. And particularly 5 years after that happens? It will be a johnny come lately product..a what took you so long kind of a rollout. Fios will have lost it's luster. Add that to the landline losses..the dsl losses..and what you pretty much wind up with is verizon who? But they could be damaging in that their need to raise prices could also impact what a company like Comcast also winds up doing.
The powers that be in Philly should seriously consider whether there's any benefit at all to allowing this to happen. They have a very good corporate citizen in comcast who has done a lot for that community. And at the very least...I'm very hard pressed to see any reason at all that a verizon request should be expedited. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed in. But there's simply no consumer benefit to hurry things up IMO. -- The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|  |  EPS join:2008-02-13 Hingham, MA | Re: Communities need to be careful If Comcast needs to be a monopoly for the "public benefit", then it needs to accept much heavier regulation, especially on the internet side, than the current light scheme it has now. | |
|  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | said by Rick:Add that to the huge cost of Fios and we really might be witnessing the broadband equivalent of what happened to Rambus memory in the war versus DDR. What happens next year when virtually every comcast customer can already get fios like speeds off a docsis 3.0 network? What will fios look like after that happens. And particularly 5 years after that happens? It will be a johnny come lately product..a what took you so long kind of a rollout. Fios will have lost it's luster. Why do people buy sports cars if you can only drive 55?
Why do people buy FIOS Internet if most websites don't run any faster?
FIOS has plenty of ability to sell the 100 mbit plan to each customer that they will never max out or be able to really use.
Eventually caps will piss off new media hipsters and gamers, whose parents or relatives pay for internet, and they will convince their parents or relatives to switch to FIOS for their benifit. The iphone/best buy shopping consumer electronics "experts" will find FIOS of value, if only for bragging rights, and recommend it over cable to their jow six pack friends.
Remember DOCSIS 3 speeds are for the entire node, shared among all DOCSIS 3 subscribers. We've seen how Comcast caps, even their 50mbit DOCSIS 3 tier. With GPON, or if VZ is willing to risk overloaded fiber strands (32 houses sharing 622 mbit on BPON, 2500 mbit on GPN), they can easily release a 100mbit tier. DOCSIS 3 is 380 mbit per node, not 622 or 2500, and cable nodes will always be higher than FIOS's PON nodes which are capped at 32 potential houses per fiber. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Communities need to be careful Interent Speeds isn't the issue. It's the fact the Comcast service and picture quality blows and can;t get any better on a Coax line. comcast's digital package is complete garbage. Every channel below 100 is still an anolog signal. Fios's digital channels are in most cases better quality picture then some of comcast's HD channels. I hope they pass this. I have no problems paying what i'm paying just as long as what i'm paying for has good quality. FU comcast.. Choke on it. | |
|
 |  tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM join:2008-01-16 Chandler, AZ | said by Rick:If anything..there's probably more incentive and need for verizon to RAISE prices than anything else. Meanwhile..they're still out there taking customers away from Comcast or other cable co's reducing their profitability as well. again, maybe if the cable co's produced a better product or offered to compete with verizon on a price level, they might actual win subs. fios is cool because its fiber optic. its a buzz-word that catches people's attention. however, they offer no low level internet service. maybe is comcast would be *routinely* under fios' prices for services (without the damn bundle or the "intro" rate crap) people wouldn't switch. the mso's have to define themselves. they have said that they were "n times faster than dsl", which was the telcos only answer for hsi. now that we have some fios in the mix, cable will need to redefine themselves or fail in every market that fios serves.
said by Rick:What incentive does that give a company like Comcast except to ALSO raise prices higher than they otherwise might if they weren't giving up a fair amount of business to another company. the more appropriate question is why hasn't this given cable co's the incentive to actual *compete* rather than just follow suit? am i missing something or is this proving that what is considered "competition" doesn't really exist and we have an oligopoly for our tv/hsi/phone needs and we are forced to bown down to the major players or not have services at all? again, if comcast could compete with fios on a level other than sleazy marketing, you wouldn't be worried now, would you Rick ?
said by Rick:but the TIME it's going to take and what is happening to their core businesses in the meantime everything comes to he who waits. if it truly is a flawed business model, then you won't have to worry now will you Rick ? fios will fail and you will get your subs back.
said by Rick:It will be a johnny come lately product..a what took you so long kind of a rollout. Fios will have lost it's luster. if i recall correctly, fios is offering much faster speeds than almost *every* market comcast has a footing in. doesn't this make docsis 3.0 the late-comer? who is going to switch back to cable when they already have a much faster, much more reliable transport medium for their data? epic fail, Rick .
said by Rick:hey have a very good corporate citizen in comcast who has done a lot for that community except for continually raising prices (without verizon competition, i might add [»It's Cable TV Rate Hike Season, »Comcast: Hey, At Least We're Not Hiking Broadband/VoIP Prices), continually ranking at or near the bottom in customer service ([»JD Power: TelcoTV Beating Cable In Satisfaction, »Cable Continues Low Customer Satisfaction Tradition), messing up the homes of those who try to use your service ([»Cable Install Comes With Free Sewage), throttling the user experience (without disclosure) and adding anti-competitive usage caps to your service ([»Comcast’s Throttling Plans Outlined, »Examining Comcast's New Bandwidth Management System, »Sandvine Fuels New Comcast System), you are right...comcast is an upstanding company.
besides, why are you even worried about verizon Rick ? i thought att was your biggest threat (»Comcast: AT&T Is Our Biggest Threat )?
oh yeah...i forgot how well these two correlate...
said by Rick:I'm very hard pressed to see any reason at all that a verizon request should be expedited. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed in. But there's simply no consumer benefit to hurry things up IMO. wouldn't have anything to do with this (»Economy Worries Slowing DOCSIS 3.0 Rollouts), would it?
please Rick , my sides hurt from laughing. there is such a thing as too much humor in a night.
q. -- those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it... | |
|
 mpteach join:2003-11-22 Manchester, CT | video bandwidth how much of that 2500 is used for video and not the internet? apples and oranges? | |
|  ebubman join:2002-01-17 Mechanicsburg, PA | no cherrypicking if they're not going to cherrypick, then verizon can start right on city line avenue in west philadelphia and work their way east to the delaware river. just a thought. bub | |
|  | | Smells like B.S. Verizon is so full of it. They're in it for the money. Don't let them fool ya | |
|  |  EPS join:2008-02-13 Hingham, MA | Re: Smells like B.S. I think anyone with even the slightest semblance of a brain realizes that Verizon is in it for the money. | |
|  |  | | It's a buisiness.. not unicef. | |
|
 | |
|
|