Reviews:
 ·ooma
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| pick sides? well, while it's probably not a good idea to pick sides-- for too long, things can change-- consumers should consider not buying services with a telco if you can possibly avoid it.. these anti-competitive measures are tipping the scales beyond the pale, IMO... AT&T and Verizon win the bad company prize for not doing the right thing (by customers) regardless of which product we're talking about.. |
|
|
|
| Exactly! Well said. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to tmc8080
So, what exactly is anti-competitive with this deal? What exactly changes with this spectrum sale and marketing cooperative? What would've have happened if this deal was never initiative, or disapproved, that would be better for consumers? |
|
| said by openbox9:So, what exactly is anti-competitive with this deal? What exactly changes with this spectrum sale and marketing cooperative? What would've have happened if this deal was never initiative, or disapproved, that would be better for consumers?
Nothing if you live in a comcast,time warner area and never wanted fios, VZ wireline workers in those areas will see less work and the eventual demise of the copper based services, since vz will just push it's customers to cable cos voip and triple pkgs, and complain of line loss at its quaterly reports.
Verizon lobbied, and won again,Cable cos need not worry of price wars,customers once again lost. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Still don't get what the big deal is. You think if you deny this deal Verizon will magically care about DSL? nope. You think you can force Verizon to build FiOS out to more areas? Nope. Do you think cable would be forced to build their own mobile network to compete with Verizon and at&T? Sorry they looked into that and found that it wasn't worth it.
So here's what WOULD happen if this deal was denied. Cable would continue to squat on spectrum. Helpful to the consumer? Nope. Verizon would look to get spectrum elsewhere. Mostly through the incentive auction of OTA spectrum. Of course if Verizon is buying OTA spectrum that means companies like Sprint and T-Mobile aren't. How that is beneficial to the consumer would like someone to explain to me. |
|
| CLECS Considering VZ and ATT don't want there Landline networks anymore. Someone's garbage could be someone's treasure. It would funny if all Clecs started offering Cheaper , faster DSL lines, while undercutting ATT and Verizons Wireless services prices. The ILECS still have to let CLECS lease there networks, regardless if they want it or not. I see a CLEC comeback |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
4 edits | reply to mushmouth
Re: pick sides? openbox is completely def when it comes to this concept. Buying CABLE PRODUCTS in VERIZON stores within Verizons own wireline footprint is completely ridiculous, illogical, and anti-competitive !!!
People like openbox think its a good idea for Verizon stop expanding FiOS, but to also purposely destroy their landline/DSL offerings, and its good for competition? Wake up bro, youre living in a dream.
Cross marketing should be prohibited ANYWHERE within Verizons own wireline footprint. No if's and's or but's.
If they want to spin off VZW (cellco) go right ahead, and create a new stock symbol and name, they can do do whatever they want. But when they make wireless business decisions at the expense of wireline business, its a conflict of interest ! Its anti competitive to shake hands with wireline competitors ! |
|
| Huffington Post Article is Very interesting, About VZ's Bull »www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kus···423.html |
|
| reply to vzsux
Re: CLECS This is why they are trying to kill the copper , fiber was the end of the clec , and wireless will kill that even further. CLECs are done for, unless some one can snatch up the copper and the right of ways for pennies on the dollar ad build out fiber in it's place.
The major issue is all these greedy politicians who want stuff for their cities in order to allow these companies to provide a service there. Im sorry but one city I remember requested fire trucks and snow plows from Verizon in order to allow them to bring in FiOS... WTF is wrong with pols.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
| reply to BF69
Re: Still don't get what the big deal is. It's not, but the never ending licenses are not beneficial either. The licensing schemes need to be changed. They need to stop allowing squatting on lots of things at this point, glorified gambling is what it is.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | reply to ITALIAN926
Re: pick sides?
AT&T offers DirecTV |
said by ITALIAN926:openbox is completely def when it comes to this concept. Buying CABLE PRODUCTS in VERIZON stores within Verizons own wireline footprint is completely ridiculous, illogical, and anti-competitive !!!
People like openbox think its a good idea for Verizon stop expanding FiOS, but to also purposely destroy their landline/DSL offerings, and its good for competition? Wake up bro, youre living in a dream.
Cross marketing should be prohibited ANYWHERE within Verizons own wireline footprint. No if's and's or but's.
If they want to spin off VZW (cellco) go right ahead, and create a new stock symbol and name, they can do do whatever they want. But when they make wireless business decisions at the expense of wireline business, its a conflict of interest ! Its anti competitive to shake hands with wireline competitors !
Obviously you haven't heard of AT&T selling DirecTV in places where they don't have uverseTV.
Same thing with the Verizon/Cable agreement... if verizon can't offer TV in a particular market then they can offer cableTV. If Verizon can't offer faster internet speeds in DSL markets then why not DOCSIS3.0 services? If Comcast, TWC et al can't offer wireless services then why not Verizon wireless? |
|
| No competition equal to : Consumers paying more,no choice and crappy service. So that deal will not be good for us consumer not one bit |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to etaadmin
Re: pick sides? quote:
Obviously you haven't heard of AT&T selling DirecTV in places where they don't have uverseTV.
I would ask (being unfamiliar with uverseTV) if the DirecTV deal would prevent them (or discourage them) from rolling out uversetv in areas they don't have it now. Is there a technological reason why they would make the deal with DirecTV rather than expand uverse? Is AT&T getting something from DirecTV as part of the agreement not to expand uversetv?
Verizon also had (still has?) a deal to resell DirecTV but that was before they offered FIOS (or any TV product). Even with that deal in place, they planned and deployed FIOS in many areas. To me, that does not seem anti-competitive. If there are areas that would have gotten FIOS and that was canceled because of a spectrum deal with their competitor, then Yes... to me, that is anti-competitive. There is no doubt what-so-ever that it is anti-consumer. |
|
| reply to BosstonesOwn
Re: CLECS But remember, It/s easy to say CLECs are done for, but they still do Business using Vz's Copper Network. There are a ton of CLEC, STATE and CITY special circuits on the copper network. VZ will only tell you that THEY are losing residential subs, but they never bring up Business customers and Wholesale CLECS company that are leasing there network. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to mushmouth
Re: pick sides? said by mushmouth:Nothing if you live in a comcast,time warner area and never wanted fios You aren't getting FiOS any time soon if you don't already have it, regardless of this deal. That's the point many of you are ignoring.said by mushmouth:Verizon lobbied, and won again,Cable cos need not worry of price wars "Price wars" weren't happening regardless of this deal either. VZ wants to fade out its copper plant, once again regardless of this deal. So, my questions remain. Anti-competitive? Selling spectrum? Co-marketing? How would consumers be better off if this deal was disapproved? |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | reply to VZSUX
Re: Huffington Post Article is Very interesting, About VZ's Bull Very nice article, thanks! |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to ITALIAN926
Re: pick sides? said by ITALIAN926:openbox is completely def when it comes to this concept. Buying CABLE PRODUCTS in VERIZON stores within Verizons own wireline footprint is completely ridiculous, illogical, and anti-competitive !!! I'm not def, I'm a realist. DSL is dead in cable markets. It really is that simple.said by ITALIAN926:People like openbox think its a good idea for Verizon stop expanding FiOS, but to also purposely destroy their landline/DSL offerings, and its good for competition? Wake up bro, youre living in a dream. Hey bro, I never said stopping FiOS deployments was good for the competitive landscape. But since VZ already halted FiOS prior to this spectrum purchase, my question still remains as to what would be different if this deal was disapproved.said by ITALIAN926:But when they make wireless business decisions at the expense of wireline business, its a conflict of interest! Its anti competitive to shake hands with wireline competitors! Conflict of interest? Was the competition really working without this deal? |
|
etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | reply to CXM_Splicer
AT&T's explanation for no uverseTV |
said by CXM_Splicer: quote:
Obviously you haven't heard of AT&T selling DirecTV in places where they don't have uverseTV.
I would ask (being unfamiliar with uverseTV) if the DirecTV deal would prevent them (or discourage them) from rolling out uversetv in areas they don't have it now. Is there a technological reason why they would make the deal with DirecTV rather than expand uverse? Is AT&T getting something from DirecTV as part of the agreement not to expand uversetv? I am familiar with uverseTV and basically it sucks. I don't know if at&t gets something from reselling DTV but I suppose they do.
Yes there are lots of technological reason why many people don't qualify for uverseTV, the most obvious is the distance limitation other reasons are VDSL being unstable among other things.
Verizon also had (still has?) a deal to resell DirecTV but that was before they offered FIOS (or any TV product). Even with that deal in place, they planned and deployed FIOS in many areas. To me, that does not seem anti-competitive. If there are areas that would have gotten FIOS and that was canceled because of a spectrum deal with their competitor, then Yes... to me, that is anti-competitive. There is no doubt what-so-ever that it is anti-consumer.
I don't see anything anti-competitive in this agreement. |
|
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:said by mushmouth:Nothing if you live in a comcast,time warner area and never wanted fios You aren't getting FiOS any time soon if you don't already have it, regardless of this deal. That's the point many of you are ignoring. said by mushmouth:Verizon lobbied, and won again,Cable cos need not worry of price wars "Price wars" weren't happening regardless of this deal either. VZ wants to fade out its copper plant, once again regardless of this deal. So, my questions remain. Anti-competitive? Selling spectrum? Co-marketing? How would consumers be better off if this deal was disapproved? Lowell M said he would not continue the Fios build out until he can get some concessions from the union which would make the build out less costly, he never said it was over.
If there was no deal VZ would have to do something to compete, when they do cut out it's copper based services, but with a deal there is no need to.No plant no maintenance costs.
So how does this help the customers again?. |
|
| "Conditions" from FCC/DOJ are a joke - no one expects anyone to abide by the conditions anyway. |
|
