said by NewMariner :

I agree with Verizon....Why should they have to subsidize a competitor? If the other ISPS want to compete, then build your own network! Its as simple as that...

said by hottboiinnc :

Telocity was bought by DirecTV not by Covad. But VZ wants to kill DSL's line sharing so they don't have a reason to build out FiOS/ FTTP. That's why they cherry pick. Not everyone is going to get FiOS and they know it and everyone else does to. So the markets that don't get DSL and the rates raised if VZ got what they wanted.

said by PGHammer :

Define cherry-picking, please.

I live in Prince George's County, MD (a majority-minority county). FIOS is available in over half the county (in terms of area); in fact, it's been available in some areas of the county for over a year. I live in an area where FIOS has been available for over a year (no, I do *not* have the service myself, though I know of no less than four people that do in this subdivision, including my neighbor, who just had FIOS installed Saturday), and we had *no* DSL penetration prior to FIOS. Not merely *very little penetration*, but *no penetration at all* (the DSLAM servicing us was never equipped for DSL). However, FIOS penetration here is fast headed to the point of saturation (as it is, we're one of only six households on this street that *doesn't* have FIOS). No single provider has ever garnered over half the households on any street in this subdivision for either HSI or video/TV (the video providers servicing the street are FIOS TV, Comcast, D* and E*), and some households have multiple providers for video (the mutliple-provider households usually have a mix of D* and FIOS TV). FIOS Internet penetration has already exceeded that of CHSI by far (even though CHSI has been available in the development for six years plus, and DSL hasn't been available at all). How is this *cherry-picking*?

said by NewMariner :

I agree with Verizon....Why should they have to subsidize a competitor? If the other ISPS want to compete, then build your own network! Its as simple as that...

said by Jodokast96 :

Easier said than done my friend.

said by Jodokast96 :

Somehow the electric companies made it work.

said by Jodokast96 :

No, but that way is more doable than everyone building their own. You know it and I know it, if another competitor came in and tried to build their own network using a duplicate infrastructure, they'd almost certainly not get approval. Somewhere you've got to find a middle ground, and it leans towards line sharing. The third parties aren't getting a free ride here, they still have to pay to even get in. Somehow the electric companies made it work.

said by Jodokast96 :

So if 15 competitors each came in to build their, where the hell to you expect them to build it? Poles 5 deep from the street? Places with underground utlities would be real fun to watch getting deployed too. Yeah, just what anyone wants, 15 different companies coming in and tearing my street. Not to mention the fact of whether the PUCs would even let them. Easier said than done my friend.

said by Jodokast96 :

Keep thinking that the law would, in reality, allow them to get built, and I'll sell you my shiny new bridge.

said by wifi4milez :

[
All companies (new, existing, future, etc.) are guaranteed access to public ROW by law. Thats not the issue, as any company is legally allowed to build a network. The issue usually comes down to cost; and do the new ISP's have the money needed to do so. We have seen time and time again that companies who chose to actually build their own infrastructure have done quite well, so it is very doable.

said by wifi4milez :

We have seen time and time again that companies who chose to actually build their own infrastructure have done quite well, so it is very doable.

said by sporkme :

Name a residential ISP that's turning a profit doing this.

RCN? Yeah, right.

Unless of course you're being sane and calling Covad's huge investment in co-locating DSLAMs in COs "infrastructure", but I doubt it.

said by Jodokast96 :

Yeah, because wireless providers abound offering 20-50mbps.

said by Jodokast96 :

The point is, it's here now, and future deployments will be even faster. If you can't offer it, you won't last very long. The slowest cable offerings already surpass it, and while it's the norm for DSL, it probably doesn't have much more than a few years left except in rural areas. Being deployed is not the same as competition. That's like saying dial up is competing with cable. Not happening.

said by Jodokast96 :

Outside of rural areas, almost anybody with a cable connection sees 20mbps+ connections now via PowerBoost, and it sells.

said by Jodokast96 :

DSL is dying in most places, and anything offering similar speeds won't last long either. Hell, why do you think nobody want's to touch BPL? Because it has no future. If the money was in 2-4mb connections, neither the cablecos nor Verizon would be rushing to get FIOS and DOCIS 3 out there.

said by Jodokast96 :

Yeah, because wireless providers abound offering 20-50mbps.

said by wifi4milez :

I will admit that my first hand experience is limited to the business market only. Although I realize there are differences, I can point to a number of companies who have been quite successful in that space by building their own infrastructure. I would say the biggest success story in the residential market would be cable. They came into a "one party market" and have no eclipsed the telcos in many areas. There are also many smaller wireless ISP's (both 802.11x and Wimax) who provide service to residential users.

said by NewMariner :

I agree with Verizon....Why should they have to subsidize a competitor? If the other ISPS want to compete, then build your own network! Its as simple as that...

said by BF69 :

Sorry those companies still have to PAY Verizon to use thier lines. Verizon isn't out anything.

said by TKJunkMail :

Verizon is out something when forced to resell at a price below their costs. In effect, gov't is mandating that Verizon SUBSIDIZE their competitors.

said by bjbrock :

Verizon got to where they are mostly due to regulations. In fact it is more reasonable to consider their infrastructure as being built by the rate payers and not by Verizon in a competitive market. This is the case with all the Telco's.

The government has guaranteed their existence through regulations. Their competitors need the same considerations.

Telco's have never had to compete in a truly competitive market and shouldn't be treated as someone who has.

said by gaforces :

replace the dancing, steroid muscled baby bell who has a monopoly from a 20-50 year old rollouts of aging copper and fiber.

said by NOCMan :

Also every time someone tries to overbuild the incumbent sues the crap out of them.

said by openbox9 :

Really? Please provide some lawsuit references involving incumbents and competitors (not municipalities) attempting to enter their market.

said by NewMariner :

I agree with Verizon....Why should they have to subsidize a competitor? If the other ISPS want to compete, then build your own network! Its as simple as that...