  Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
 ·Bright House
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
| HoW DARE THEY! When is doing something that benefits the consumer EVER a good idea?
I fail to see how this helps those who invest the most lobbying dollars; get a good return on their investment.
Just more greedy consumerism, if you ask me.
NV
--
Any Goal that is Driven by Animosity, is Empowered through Deceit. | |
|
| | full costs 90 (not so popular) TV channels.
How much more are the good ones? the sports ones?
what is the cost for a HD box? per box?
HD DVR per box cost?
this sounds a little like comcast good promo rate but it has hidden fees as well. | |
|
 | | | Re: full costs I've watched French Tv.... OMG!!! 
 O la la! | |
|
| | |
| | | | | Re: full costs Somebody tell CNN. This would justify 24 hour news channels. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by Joe12345678: 90 (not so popular) TV channels. How much more are the good ones? the sports ones? what is the cost for a HD box? per box? HD DVR per box cost? this sounds a little like comcast good promo rate but it has hidden fees as well. sarcasm
yeah, exactly! man, I bet by the time you are done that quadruple play is $80 or $90 dollars!
/sarcasm
beats the hell out of $150+ bills for a quadruple play in the U.S. | |
|
| | | | Re: full costs $150 for quad play??? Must not be getting very much.
Between my cable bill for TV, Internet and Phone and my cell phone bill I'm paying $453/month, And that's not including when I have NHL Center Ice, MLB Extra Innings or ESPN GamePlan on the cable bill. | |
|
| | | Who cares, have you seen the obesity rates in Europe....
Probably because people would rather take a walk than sit at home watching ESPN or playing HALO....
Just saying. | |
|
|
|
| slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Wireless? said by baineschile:Awesome deal, but quick question. It was my impression, that most of Europe (especially France) used post-paid wireless service. Is the wireless in the article referring to cellular service, or more of a wireless data card? I know those two lines are blurring, but there is still a certain distinction. The article says "dsl/fiber" and wireless, i think its safe to assume the wireless = phone since the internet was already covered. It is france though /shrug | |
|
approval from:
Noah Vail 
| what's a quadruple play? Wouldn't this be a homerun? | |
|
|  gimme5
join:2002-12-23
Kissimmee, FL | Re: what's a quadruple play? Good point! | |
|
| | | | Re: what's a quadruple play? A triple play is getting 3 outs on the base-pad lol
A "quadruple" play would not be possible as there are only 3 outs per half inning. | |
|
| | | | I guess it depends what team you are on 
A tripple play would be getting caght out a double play ( a net negative for the batting team)
A homerun would be a +1 for the home team | |
|
|
| BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN Reviews:
·Integra Telecom
 ·voip.ms
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Not possible... said by r81984:If you talk to many people on here they will tell you it is impossible to offer any broadband for less than $50 a month and it would cost hundreds a month for 100 mbps. France should not be able to do this because it proves what all the smart people have been saying and destroys the arguements of the lobbyists. Every country is different. Different laws, regulations, labor rates, etc.
I would guess that a lot of the costs of building out the fiber in France was subsidized. The labor rates might have been lower there compared to the US.
Keep in mind, the biggest challenge with delivering higher speeds is typically the last mile. Majority of residential buildings/homes/etc only have copper available. Most telecommunication companies that offer fiber builds won't want to waste their time on a low-return with residential fiber builds. They'd rather build into a skyscraper that houses multiple large companies. It's easier for them after all. Does it make it right? Nope. But that's reality. | |
|
| | | | Re: Not possible... There are differences obviously, but the single biggest difference in them now compared to the US is how they implemented major parts of our Telecom Law of 1996.
They took core parts of it and used it to created competition as it was designed to do. All while our fat cat corporations, their lobbyist, and our POS politicians stripped it apart to make it worthless.
If the US companies were not allowed to do that, then we would be here with the same type offerings and speeds. | |
|
| | | | said by BlueC:said by r81984:If you talk to many people on here they will tell you it is impossible to offer any broadband for less than $50 a month and it would cost hundreds a month for 100 mbps. France should not be able to do this because it proves what all the smart people have been saying and destroys the arguements of the lobbyists. Every country is different. Different laws, regulations, labor rates, etc. I would guess that a lot of the costs of building out the fiber in France was subsidized. The labor rates might have been lower there compared to the US. Keep in mind, the biggest challenge with delivering higher speeds is typically the last mile. Majority of residential buildings/homes/etc only have copper available. Most telecommunication companies that offer fiber builds won't want to waste their time on a low-return with residential fiber builds. They'd rather build into a skyscraper that houses multiple large companies. It's easier for them after all. Does it make it right? Nope. But that's reality. They haven't been subsidized. You're completely and utterly misinformed if you actually believe that. The labor rates are much higher in France due to extremely strong unions and a pro-union government. Labor laws are much stricter in France than the US, where there's no requirement to give 2 weeks notice before a layoff and vacation time isn't a requirement. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please do provide some evidence instead of spouting blatant lies.
The real reason behind France Telecom's quadruple play is free.fr's upcoming wireless offering, which is expected to force price drops across the board 15-17%.
FT started out with illegal, uncompetitive tactics against Xavier Neil's company, but a lawsuit and subsequent out-of-court settlement forced them to give up their old ways.
Now they're desperate to lock in as many customers as possible before Neil's offering comes to town.
Your comment about residential fiber offerings is entirely asinine. Free.fr started out using the incumbents' lines to provide their service, then eventually expanded to build out their own ADSL2+ connections. And now they're building 100 mbit fiber lines throughout France's major cities.
Neil's only requirement is that he make $10/customer of profit. The rest goes entirely back into the network. This mindset is utterly lacking in the US. | |
|
| | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN Reviews:
·Integra Telecom
·voip.ms
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | Re: Not possible... said by sonicmerlin:said by BlueC:said by r81984:If you talk to many people on here they will tell you it is impossible to offer any broadband for less than $50 a month and it would cost hundreds a month for 100 mbps. France should not be able to do this because it proves what all the smart people have been saying and destroys the arguements of the lobbyists. Every country is different. Different laws, regulations, labor rates, etc. I would guess that a lot of the costs of building out the fiber in France was subsidized. The labor rates might have been lower there compared to the US. Keep in mind, the biggest challenge with delivering higher speeds is typically the last mile. Majority of residential buildings/homes/etc only have copper available. Most telecommunication companies that offer fiber builds won't want to waste their time on a low-return with residential fiber builds. They'd rather build into a skyscraper that houses multiple large companies. It's easier for them after all. Does it make it right? Nope. But that's reality. They haven't been subsidized. You're completely and utterly misinformed if you actually believe that. The labor rates are much higher in France due to extremely strong unions and a pro-union government. Labor laws are much stricter in France than the US, where there's no requirement to give 2 weeks notice before a layoff and vacation time isn't a requirement. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please do provide some evidence instead of spouting blatant lies. The real reason behind France Telecom's quadruple play is free.fr's upcoming wireless offering, which is expected to force price drops across the board 15-17%. FT started out with illegal, uncompetitive tactics against Xavier Neil's company, but a lawsuit and subsequent out-of-court settlement forced them to give up their old ways. Now they're desperate to lock in as many customers as possible before Neil's offering comes to town. Your comment about residential fiber offerings is entirely asinine. Free.fr started out using the incumbents' lines to provide their service, then eventually expanded to build out their own ADSL2+ connections. And now they're building 100 mbit fiber lines throughout France's major cities. Neil's only requirement is that he make $10/customer of profit. The rest goes entirely back into the network. This mindset is utterly lacking in the US. I know I'm misinformed, that's why I said "I would guess". Don't get too hostile about my guesses.
How is my comment about residential fiber offerings "entirely asinine"?
Have you actually approached a CLEC or other local provider for a fiber build? Because I have. Very few will work with you if it's not building out to a large commercial building. How can you offer services to residential custumers when the local loop charge makes up 80%+ of your potential revenue? That's excluding the cost of transit.
Like I said, it's not right what goes on in our country. I've done my share of research on this subject. Nothing will change until there are reasonable costs with bringing fiber to residential properties. Either you pay tens of thousands up front or you suffer a fairly high MRC. You can't become profitable unless you can negotiate the costs down. | |
|
| | | |
2 edits | Re: Not possible... Sorry for the hostility. I assumed you were yet another DSLR troll trying to spread FUD.
For the US I was thinking more along the lines of open access benefiting the 80% of the population that lives in an urban or suburban area. Actually building out fiber is a completely different story, thanks to incumbents like AT&T and Verizon.
The FCC could do something to make it easier for smaller groups with the national broadband plan, but perhaps the most remarkable policy undertaken by Genachowski is that of doing nothing. Who knew it could be done with so much fanfare? | |
|
| | | | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN Reviews:
·Integra Telecom
·voip.ms
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Not possible... Hey, I'm all for open access. Problem is we have a lot of telcos that refuse to build out their network, even when you're willing to give them business.
I'm certainly not trying to spread any FUD. This is all from experience.
When you have the telcos controlling the access, I agree, they can sit back and do nothing, take in our tax money and still control the market.
My whole frustration is getting a telco to build out a 100mbps MPLS or Point-to-point fiber circuit under 1 mile from the nearest fiber. Most will tell you that can't justify it w/o charging $3-4k/mo in service. Keep in mind this is in an urban environment, downtown close to tons of fiber.
There are a select few that still can make it happen. Comcast is one of them and have priced it out very reasonably. Go figure, Comcast has come in @ the cheapest price w/ minimal up front costs. Everyone else either prices it too high or is simply not interested in building out fiber.
That's why you don't see competition. It's tough to even create competition. I'll do it one way or another because the telco industry is a joke in this country. | |
|
| | | | | Hmm, does Neil have to pay for employee and retirees medical and pensions??
Isnt it easy to settle for 10 dollars a customer when retirement and medical are not your concern?? Different environments lead to diffrent deals.
That is not to say that companies here could and need to do better but the environments are not the same. France Telecom is still 33 percent owned by the French goverment. Easy to get a company to do what you want when you own. | |
|
| | | |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Not possible... said by FloridaBoy: France Telecom is still 33 percent owned by the French goverment. Easy to get a company to do what you want when you own. Hence the accusation above that the French system is subsidized. Because it is subsidized by the French Government because cap expenses are funded thru taxpayer dollars. | |
|
| | | | | | said by FloridaBoy:Hmm, does Neil have to pay for employee and retirees medical and pensions?? Isnt it easy to settle for 10 dollars a customer when retirement and medical are not your concern?? Different environments lead to diffrent deals. That is not to say that companies here could and need to do better but the environments are not the same. France Telecom is still 33 percent owned by the French goverment. Easy to get a company to do what you want when you own. I'm saying he takes an average $10 of profit per customer. That's why he offers a triple play for $40/month, and that is his only offer.
The criticism of more socialist leaning countries by US neo-conservatives has been that starting up and running new businesses is much more difficult due to "excessive regulation" and employers being at the mercy of their employees. Hence free.fr should be having a more difficult time expanding their business than US start-ups.
As for France Telecom, they are every bit as abusive as AT&T and Verizon. They're not a whole lot different than Telstra, which is still 10% owned by the Australian government. In fact, FT has up until now been so uninterested in upgrading their own territory that they've been investing almost entirely outside of France, in other European markets. It's kind of ridiculous how horrible they are. | |
|
| | | | | | Of course not because French people never retires and there is no medical system in this Country.
Just kidding.
When a french company employee receives 1 Net $ it costs the double to the company (taxes, medical, retirement plans and so on) | |
|
| | |
| | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN Reviews:
·Integra Telecom
·voip.ms
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Not possible... You fail to understand that very few residential homes/buildings have fiber coming into the property. That will always be a limitation.
There is an actual cost (go figure, right? because it's all a scam) to bring fiber into a property.
And no, internet costs do not stay "100%" in a large cable company. There are operating costs internally and externally, as well as CAPEX. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Not possible... "There is an actual cost (go figure, right? because it's all a scam) to bring fiber into a property."
That's not true. Verizon was so happy to install FIOS that they could not do it fast enough and for free, including all connections to all rooms.
Why? Because they want to get rid of copper (expensive to maintain) and DSL competition (even their own). | |
|
| | | | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Not possible... No, it is true. Just because it was free on your end, doesn't imply it came with no cost. Verizon was simply willing to absorb the construction costs for long term business. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Not possible... Takes money to make money..... If you don't invest back into your business it wont grow. If you try to make the rules, you will anger people. If you pay of politicians to make sure there is no competition (right of way access), people will get pissed.
Why do these businesses do this? If they keep competition out and don't have to re-invest. Keep raising rates on subscribers, why should they ever have to invest when they can just keep making more and more money without spending a dime.
That my folks is called a monopoly and it holds us all hostage. Just like the church had a monopoly way back in the day on free thinking and religion, today monopolies and super long term copyrights hold us hostage today. | |
|
| | | | | | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN Reviews:
·Integra Telecom
·voip.ms
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Not possible... Of course. Why do you think I'm frustrated with my current projects?
I'm giving a provider exclusivity with their fiber, which pretty much guarantees them business for life unless someone else hauls fiber into the building (which at that point, if fiber is already there, a provider is unlikely to bring in more, they'd rather just pay the local loop to the existing provider).
Yet even with that opportunity, they have a tough time justifying the build out cost. They'd rather have the instant ROI with copper or wait for someone else to build out the fiber.
So what do you call existing competition all refusing to build out fiber at a reasonable cost? Yet in other markets (within the US), it's done for a very reasonable cost. Certain areas really get screwed over for development.... | |
|
|  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | said by r81984:...because it proves what all the smart people have been saying... Tee hee... smart people on DSL/Broadband Reports. It is starting to look like Drudge Report here... | |
|
| | |
|
|
Wireless?
