  baineschile2600 ways to live
Premium Member
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI |
Other competitors?When did these cities get the sense of entitlement that FIOS was definitly going to come there? Why not worry about getting another cable overbuilder, or FTTP provder (ala Uverse).
Verizon is a company thats here to make money. Obviously there were some details in the planning and building where these places were not picked due to profitibility issues. | |
|
 | 45612019 (banned)
join:2004-02-05
New York, NY |
45612019 (banned)
Member
2012-Mar-27 12:44 pm
Re: Other competitors?They got the sense of entitlement when they passed legislation ensuring that Verizon was the only telecom to have exclusive rights to build in the city.
These companies got sweetheart deals to ensure a duopoly of cable and telecom in most markets. It's not unreasonable for cities to expect Verizon to keep up with their infrastructure. | |
|
| | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Mar-27 1:42 pm
Re: Other competitors?said by 45612019:They got the sense of entitlement when they passed legislation ensuring that Verizon was the only telecom to have exclusive rights to build in the city. What legislation mandates exclusivity for VZ? said by 45612019:It's not unreasonable for cities to expect Verizon to keep up with their infrastructure. Yes, VZ should maintain it's infrastructure. Does it not? | |
|
| | |  djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV |
djrobx
Premium Member
2012-Mar-27 2:03 pm
Re: Other competitors?said by openbox9:Yes, VZ should maintain it's infrastructure. Does it not?
Letting it rot technologically as-is, is not maintaining it, at least not in the competitive sense. Even U-verse did a lot of good in terms of nudging Time Warner Cable to be more competitive in our area. I suspect the pressure from the Verizon-Comcast deal would just lead Verizon to sell non-FiOS areas off. | |
|
| | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Mar-27 2:32 pm
Re: Other competitors?said by djrobx:Letting it rot technologically as-is, is not maintaining it, at least not in the competitive sense. That's confusing the issue. If the infrastructure is maintained in serviceable condition, great. If VZ doesn't want to compete with improved infrastructure, then that's a choice of VZ. Suggesting that VZ isn't maintaining its infrastructure because it doesn't upgrade the infrastructure is misleading. said by djrobx:I suspect the pressure from the Verizon-Comcast deal would just lead Verizon to sell non-FiOS areas off. I expect that to happen regardless of any pressure from any deal. | |
|
| | | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: Other competitors?You cant sell somehting when there are no buyers. Frontier is in some serious trouble. Nobody is dumb enough to buy these areas anymore.
The best bet is for Verizon to finish what they started with FiOS, and pull down the old plant to make copper pipes.
Im buying stock if I find out Verizon will complete its FiOS buildout. FioS is the architecture and long term investment that will give Gbps , Tbps broadband and beyond. These short sighted clowns should seriously wake up. | |
|
| | | | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Mar-27 3:00 pm
Re: Other competitors?said by ITALIAN926:You cant sell somehting when there are no buyers. Frontier is in some serious trouble. Nobody is dumb enough to buy these areas anymore. I doubt that very much. Plenty of smaller/regional telcos are around that may be champing at the bit to expand. said by ITALIAN926:The best bet is for Verizon to finish what they started with FiOS, and pull down the old plant to make copper pipes. Best bet for whom? | |
|
| | | | | | |
1 edit |
Re: Other competitors?quote:
Best bet for whom?
What kind of ridiculous question is that? For Verizon to halt FioS deployment is the same as them admitting they made a mistake on FiOS. Is it making money now? YES. Does it come as quickly as wireless? No . If they are saying they made a mistake, then Ivan Seidenberg and the rest of the previous top executives should cough back up all the millions in bonus's they received. If Verizon believes in the future in FioS, then they should install it everywhere within their footprint, this really isnt that complicated. | |
|
| | | | | | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Mar-27 3:12 pm
Re: Other competitors?said by ITALIAN926:What kind of ridiculous question is that? For Verizon to halt FioS deployment is the same as them admitting they made a mistake on FiOS. It's a legitimate question so that I understand your logic. VZ makes money selling services over FiOS. VZ makes money selling wireless services. Both are relatively capital intensive undertakings. VZ is currently choosing to focus on wireless. I don't believe VZ's current hold on further building out FTTH infrastructure indicates any failure at all. You're right, it's not that complicated. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Other competitors?Listen, you cant have Verizon selling Cable company wireline services, you are completely going off the issue.
| |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Mar-27 3:23 pm
Re: Other competitors?Huh? Why would VZ resell a cable company's wireline services?
I'm off the issue? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Other competitors?quote:
Huh? Why would VZ resell a cable company's wireline services?
Thats a big part of the issue thats being overlooked! In VZ wireless stores, they will be selling cable quadruple plays. So in areas where Verizon sells FioS, DSL, Landlines, whatever, they are making deals with the cable companies to sell cable wireline services instead of their own. They have never sold FiOS ( or any other wireline products) in their stores, now they will be selling cable company products, u dont find anything wrong with that? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Mar-27 3:37 pm
Re: Other competitors?said by ITALIAN926:They have never sold FiOS ( or any other wireline products) in their stores, now they will be selling cable company products, u dont find anything wrong with that? No more wrong than reselling DBS. It's a mutually beneficial business arrangement...nothing more, nothing less. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
2 edits |
Re: Other competitors?Oh, I see , so its ok for Verizon to self destroy its own wireline business because it increases its net profits? Alright.
Competition and Anti-trust laws have nothing to do with this, huh? Its ok to basically have one choice of wireline services... Time Warner, Comcast, Brighthouse, etc. As long as Verizon is paired with them wirelessly, that will somehow bring prices down for consumers.?
What is today? Opposite Day ?
Oh, and re: "reselling DBS" , guess what would NOT be happening if Verizon FioS was deployed everywhere within their footprint. So your comment is completely null. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144
1 edit |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Mar-27 4:00 pm
Re: Other competitors?said by ITALIAN926:Oh, I see , so its ok for Verizon to self destroy its own wireline business because it increases its net profits? I believe you're being overly dramatic. VZ isn't destroying its wireline business anymore than it wants to. VZ's management is consciously making a strategic decision to focus on wireless right now...not much different than the strategic decision it made previous to 2007 to focus on FiOS. said by ITALIAN926:Its ok to basically have one choice of wireline services. That is a different discussion. said by ITALIAN926:As long as Verizon is paired with them wirelesssly, that will somehow bring prices down for consumers. That's not the point of this business arrangement. Why would you even realistically think lower prices are part of this arrangement? BTW, this story is about a handful of cities filing a complaint because they feel wronged by a business that doesn't want to expend additional resources in their jurisdictions. We've gone off topic. Edit for your edit: said by ITALIAN926:Oh, and re: "reselling DBS" , guess what would NOT be happening if Verizon FioS was deployed everywhere within their footprint. So your comment is completely null. argh...I feel like I'm going around in circles. How is my comment irrelevant? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Other competitors?Its not off topic at all. The arrangements we speak of will guarantee that FiOS will never be brought to these cities.
Its not ok for Verizon to sell wireline services of other companies in areas where the have their own wired products. Under no circumstances is that OK.
If Verizon thinks this deal will move forward without heavy restrictions, they need to find some people to run this company with a bit more IQ points.
I had to add a question mark to one of the quotes bc you missed my sarcasm. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Mar-27 4:18 pm
Re: Other competitors?It is off topic and these arrangements don't guarantee anything. said by ITALIAN926:Its not ok for Verizon to sell wireline services of other companies in areas where the have their own. Under no circumstances is that OK. Why? said by ITALIAN926:I had to add a question mark to one of the quotes bc you missed my sarcasm. So you asked a rhetorical question about price decreases for consumers. I didn't miss it, but for those that believe any business intends to lower prices for consumers is misguided...unless the business is able to increase revenue by doing so. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Mar-28 8:57 am
Re: Other competitors?Please tell me how this is anti-competitive.
Verizon agrees to purchase spectrum licenses from a consortium of cable companies that was never going to utilize the spectrum. As part of the deal, an agreement is made to resell each other's services. I don't believe this deal is exclusive. The competitive landscape hasn't changed. The same number of players will exist in the marketplace after the deal that exists today. Other "competitors" aren't prohibited from striking similar deals to the best of my knowledge. Competitors aren't prohibited from entering any of these markets.
So once again, what is anti-competitive? | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
4 edits |
Re: Other competitors?When someone walks into a VERIZON STORE. Whether its wireless or not, and THEY SELL CABLE SERVICES, instead of their OWN products, that is not only anti-competitive, but idiotic !
Its simply a way for them to accelerate their plans to self-destroy their wireline business in favor of wireless. How could you not understand this.
Verizon Wireless rep: " Dont get Verizon DSL or a landline, get Comcast Xfinity TV / Phone / Internet and bundle it with our cellphone service."
Youre kidding me right? Its like walking into McDonalds and the people working there tell the customer to go across the street to Burger King !
Keep supporting this business move. Youll end up with just one wireline choice with VZW attached to it, and no products to compete with it.
(psss I'll give you a hint as to what the next strategic move would be if this deal went forward.. their DSL prices will increase exponentially so that people will sign on to the cable co. bundle ) | |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Mar-28 10:12 am
Re: Other competitors?said by ITALIAN926:When someone walks into a VERIZON STORE. Whether its wireless or not, and THEY SELL CABLE SERVICES, instead of their OWN products, that is not only anti-competitive Once again, how is it anti-competitive? You repeating the mantra doesn't make it any more accurate. said by ITALIAN926:How could you not understand this. Apparently in the same manner that you can't seem to understand that a mutually beneficial agreement between VZ and a consortium of cable companies isn't anti-competitive in nature. If VZ truly wants to "destroy" its wireline business, it would opt to sell of its remaining unwanted assets before "destroying" value. said by ITALIAN926:Verizon Wireless rep: " Dont get Verizon DSL or a landline, get Comcast Xfinity TV / Phone / Internet and bundle it with our cellphone service."
Youre kidding me right? Its like walking into McDonalds and the people working there tell the customer to go across the street to Burger King ! Except McDonalds already sells burgers. Does VZ offer HSI in these markets? What markets are we even talking about? said by ITALIAN926:Keep supporting this business move. Youll end up with just one wireline choice with VZW attached to it, and no products to compete with it. What's different now? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Other competitors?How are you making quotes, and asking questions, when the answer is in the quotes?
We are obviously not on the same page.
From what I can tell, is we MIGHT agree that Verizon should NOT be able to resell cable wireline services in areas of their OWN wireline areas. If not, I give up. Have a nice day. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Mar-28 10:30 am
Re: Other competitors?said by ITALIAN926:How are you making quotes, and asking questions, when the answer is in the quotes? Simple, the answers to my questions aren't in your responses, hence why I keep repeating my questions. My fundamental question still remains. Why do you believe this business arrangement is anti-competitive? Or perhaps we can go back to the original topic as to why you believe it appropriate for municipalities to whine complain to the FCC that VZ isn't deploying FTTH in their jurisdictions. said by ITALIAN926:From what I can tell, is we MIGHT agree that Verizon should NOT be able to resell cable wireline services in areas of their OWN wireline areas. I disagree. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Other competitors?quote:
Why do you believe this business arrangement is anti-competitive?
Verizon is not only endorsing a competitors products, but selling them ! Possibly in areas that they cover with their own wireline network ! Thats not anti-competitive? What are you a comedian? quote:
I disagree.
Disagree all you want, we'll see what the FCC and DOJ feel about it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Mar-28 11:00 am
Re: Other competitors?said by ITALIAN926:Verizon is not only endorsing a competitors products, but selling them ! Possibly in areas that they cover with their own wireline network ! Thats not anti-competitive? Why do you continue harping on the concept of "in VZ's own wireline market"? I don't understand the relevance of this and your complaints of the agreement being anti-competitive. Is VZ and this consortium of cable companies collaborating to exclude competitors from making similar arrangements (regardless of the cable plant owner)? If the answer to this question is demonstratively yes, then I'll agree with your anti-competitive assertion. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Other competitors?Verizon should be selling their own wireline products competitive to the cable co.
Having " Verizon " sell both DSL/ Landlines, AND the cable companies TV/Cable internet/ VoiP is in the same areas, is ridiculous !
As long as Verizon Wireless and Verizon Wireline are under the same company stock, this deal represents conflict of interest and is damaging to competition.
Porky Pig will step in now. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Mar-28 11:17 am
Re: Other competitors?said by ITALIAN926:Having "Verizon" sell both DSL/ Landlines, AND the cable companies TV/Cable internet/ VoiP is in the same areas, is ridiculous! Your opinion. I guess we'll eventually see from a legal perspective. said by ITALIAN926:As long as Verizon Wireless and Verizon Wireline are under the same company stock, this deal represents conflict of interest and is damaging to competition. "Company stock" has absolutely nothing to do with this. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Other competitors?bedeedeebee | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  kpfx
join:2005-10-28
San Antonio, TX |
to ITALIAN926
Did you actually read any of the references you posted or did you just want to post links to seem relevant? Please cite properly.
CLECs, ILECs and Cable Companies have already been reselling each other's local loops in the business world for the past 20 years. Verizon Wireless reselling Comcast's home phone service is just the business equivalent of Paetec-Windstream reselling voice & data services over a cable company's plant (which they do all the time). | |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Mar-28 10:01 am
Re: Other competitors?Thank you for being a voice of reason. | |
|
| | | | |
to openbox9
actually in some cases the cities around the bigger city passed agreements with verizon. The bigger cities wanted verizon to wire everywhere and verizon wouldn't agree NOW those cities won't get it at all. | |
|
| | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2012-Mar-27 3:17 pm
Re: Other competitors?Sounds like a local franchise issue to me. I guess the citizens need to beat on the franchisor. | |
|
| | |
to baineschile
Uverse is NOT FTTP... at least not in 99% of the cases. | |
|
| | |
to baineschile
The cable companies should have
a) built their own wireless company like they intended.
b) merged with a company in which there is no conflict of interest regarding wireline, like TMobile , or Sprint (who spun off wired into embarq)
or c) given the spectrum BACK to the FCC so it could be auctioned back off to companies that actually want it. And yes, Verizon could have gained the spectrum in that manner as well.
This deal doesnt only impact FioS, but landline/DSL customers as well. Even though these products may be considered "outdated" , Verizon still has millions of these customers nevertheless. Landlines and DSL are competitive to cable company products. Of course this spectrum deal is about Verizon gaining wireless customers, but a huge agenda of Verizons plan is to speed up it copper abandonment with this deal. Imagine a customer walking into a Verizon wireless store and the reps say, " dont get a Verizon landline or DSL, get Comcast Xfinity and enjoy your $300 giftcard ! " Un-believable. Can this deal actually go through? Its so ridiculous !
If this deal was to pass, there should be a condition that Verizon complete its FiOS build across its entire footprint, and that should include TV franchises as well. With such a stipulation, do you think Comcast, Time Warner would still actually make the deal? Would Verizon have any interest in that?The reality is that Verizon is looking to destroy its landline business, and the cable companies are looking to take advantage. This is not competition ! | |
|
| |
••••• |
| | |
to baineschile
Then stopping suing and having states block muni from rolling out their own FTTH network.
I'm so sick and tired of these monopolies dictating the future of America in the name of their profits.
The American people need to get their head out of their a--- and stop worrying about who is going to win the voice, or be the next bachelor, or who is being transferred to X team and start paying attention to things that actually impact their lives and wallet. | |
|
| | |
to baineschile
Funny thing is I had already given up hope of ever seeing FIOS here in Baltimore, City (ironically I live a few hundred feet away from the Baltimore County line (land of FIOS). The most telling aspect of this deal is that Comcast knows that they have a monopoly on truly high speed internet (only competing with pathetic DSL in the city). One offshoot is that, for the first time (after having a year promotion for 2 years in a row) I suddenly have to pay full price for my 50mbps down/10mbps up Comcast Extreme internet (from $49 up to $99 monthly). I downgraded to 22mbps/5mbps service. (LOL my Verizon 4G LTE is faster than that!). Speaking of 4G LTE, home-based LTE from Verizon will be the only competitor with Comcast in these cities .....but the caps are very low making it even more expensive than Comcast internet. | |
|
| |
en103
Member
2012-Mar-27 12:37 pm
Verizon could...Deploy a VDSL (uVerse style) deployment in the markets that they aren't upgrading... but I dont' see that happening either. | |
|
| |
iamwhatiam
Anon
2012-Mar-27 12:38 pm
According to Wayne['s World]..."Politician says, 'what?'."
(Maybe if they'd stop passing laws prohibiting muni-fiber et al, they'll get a fiber network--because the incumbents are under no obligation to serve anyone but their investors [as we all know].) | |
|
45612019 (banned)
join:2004-02-05
New York, NY |
45612019 (banned)
Member
2012-Mar-27 12:47 pm
Build your own!Why aren't these cities building their own municipal fiber projects? As far as FiOS goes, it's pretty pathetic for fiber optics anyway. With a maximum speed of 150/65 Mbps available for $200 a month, Verizon is nowhere near using that fiber's capacity and they're charging a pretty penny for it.
Muni fiber can provide symmetrical 1 Gbps for a reason price. Google's fixing to show on a large scale what can be done in Kansas City.
The best thing to get Verizon and Comcast scared shitless is to provide them with actual, vastly superior competition. | |
|
|
••••• |
| |
jobs lost?I can understand the general frustration over the lack of competition, but citing theoretical jobs as "jobs lost" really doesn't hold much weight in this argument. | |
|
| |
2 - OptionsGet the city to install Fiber.
Be lazy have Comcast come in. | |
|
|
•••••• |
| |
Spectrum Crunch? What Spectrum Crunch?I'm wondering how VZ and "AT&T," in particular, can legitimately complain about a spectrum crunch when they're using allegedly scarce wireless spectrum to service high-density fixed locations. Smacks of a scam of some kind, to me. | |
|
1 edit |
Bigger fish to fryAT&T is the one to be complaining about.. deploying less than HALF the originally selected U-Verse cities and actually deploying broadband of any kind in even less than that!?!?!? That left Comcast off the hook BIGTIME!! If anything these cities should be rioting in the streets from all the NON-COMPETITION that leaves in major metro areas across the country!
Just slapping AT&T on the wrist with the blockage of proposed AT&T/Tmobile merger wasn't enough, the DOJ & FCC need to look into what was promised when AT&T bought up Bell South and see how many southern municipalities got SCREWED in that deal with no u-verse (as crappy as that is as an alternative to a Docsis 3 deployment) and virtually NON-EXISTENT AT&T FTTP in the south. | |
|
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT  ·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68
|
BiggA
Premium Member
2012-Mar-27 6:37 pm
Finally an honest article from KarlMaybe this would be a good opportunity to learn from a huge missed opportunity after the AT&T&T deal, and allow the deal through with a series of conditions about additional build-out of FIOS and other pro-consumer conditions. That way, it would be best for all.
This sort of weird competing in parts thing is not new, AT&T and DirecTV bundle their stuff in some of the same markets that also have U-Verse TV service. | |
|
| | |
Re: Finally an honest article from KarlAgreed, but keep in mind that if Uverse/ FiOS was everywhere ( with TV franchises) They would NOT be making deals with satellite companies, they would be selling their own TV service. | |
|
| | BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT |
BiggA
Premium Member
2012-Mar-28 12:08 pm
Re: Finally an honest article from KarlMaybe, but if it was all-or-nothing thing, they wouldn't have built FIOS or U-Verse in the first place. | |
|
|
|
·
