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. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
4 edits | 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 ! |
|
etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | 
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? |
|
|
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| 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. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to mushmouth
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? |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to ITALIAN926
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?. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to etaadmin
quote:
if verizon can't offer TV in a particular market then they can offer cableTV.....
Theres a huge difference between CANT , and WONT.
Once again, I am talking about Verizons own wireline coverage areas. Its their own damn choice NOT to expand FiOS further. This deal fortifies their BS decision making. Hopefully, the restrictions put on this deal covers ALL of Verizons areas, and not simply FiOS areas. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
2 edits | reply to openbox9
quote:
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.
So, are you a descedant of Nostradamus? Or are you sitting on Verizons board?
If you dont want access to FiOS, EVER, sure, back this insane deal. People who live in a Verizon coverage area, and want access to FiOS, they need to voice opposition to this deal.
" They stopped FiOS expansion either way... bla bla bla"
Ever think plans for this cable partnership is years in the making ?!
quote:
Conflict of interest? Was the competition really working without this deal?
Yes! Verizon still has 20 million landlines, and 4 million DSL customers. These products COMPETE against cable co. internet and VoIP ! Are you really this naive ? Or just enjoy playing Contrarian? |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to mushmouth
said by mushmouth: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. And I've routinely said that the FiOS build will begin again once the LTE build is complete.said by mushmouth:If there was no deal VZ would have to do something to compete Yep, like continue building out LTE and the necessary backhaul. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:So, are you a descedant of Nostradamus? Or are you sitting on Verizons board? Not necessary when you understand that VZ is currently focusing on its LTE build and will likely move back to FiOS once the build is complete.said by ITALIAN926:If you dont want access to FiOS, EVER, sure, back this insane deal. I had FiOS...not the point. This deal does nothing regarding the potential for future FiOS builds.said by ITALIAN926:Ever think plans for this cable partnership is years in the making ?! Every think that VZ is focusing capital allocation on deploying LTE instead of FiOS?said by ITALIAN926:Yes! Verizon still has 20 million landlines, and 4 million DSL customers. These products COMPETE against cable co. internet and VoIP ! Maybe a little on price. What's the real competition between old DSL and what most cable plants are capable of offering?Call me naive if you must, but I'll hang my hat on being a realist. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
4 edits | reply to ITALIAN926
Allowing this deal in its current form in conjunction with their legislative efforts (search: Bruce Kushnick, Huffington Post for details) will allow VZ to get out of the copper business. They will have FiOS, Wireless, LTE, and marketing agreements with Big Cable. CableTV will become the new carrier of last resort anywhere FiOS is not available.
This is what we all need to realize: VZ doesn't want any part of the legacy landline business. They do not want to invest in any new outside plant that does not involve LTE. They do not view themselves as a public utility!
This is hard for some of us to come to grips with but it's the simple fact.
We can complain all we want about VZ halting the FiOS build and how they are passing up the chance to build the network of the future but the cold hard fact is that all they care about is profit and the largest profit margin possible. To do this they've shown their willingness to shake hands with the enemy and forsake their own employees AND their amazing ability to control the FCC and DOJ.
Don't understand how this deal is anti-competitive? Ask anyone who lives in an area where FiOS competes directly with Cable. They'll tell you how they are constantly being offered deep discounts to switch to the other company and how Internet speeds and on-demand and channel offerings are always improving.
And no, the government nor anyone else can't force VZ to build out FiOS further but they can certainly give them the incentive to do it. But by allowing Big Red and Big Cable to collude in this deal, neither will have any incentive to compete, to discount their rates, to improve service. They are telling VZ and cable that it's ok to gang up on their customers and stick them with whatever they feel like offering them all the while ignoring the fact that these very customers will have no real choice.
And here's a big note to all of you who think any kind of government regulation is evil: Someone has to be watching to ensure that business, especially big business, does not collude to stifle competition. Without competition, capitalism is dead and consumers suffer through high rates and mediocre service....
Next time some multi-billion dollar corporation bends over backward to convince you that something will be to your benefit, think twice because it probably benefits them at your expense.... |
|
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to mushmouth
said by mushmouth: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?. Actually, the direction Verizon is heading is to kill off the union in short order upon the latest contract expiration. The conditions set upon the Verizon/Comcast deal were primarily to protect the smaller wireless carriers. An era of deregulation 2000-20008 that enabled Verizon to become Verizon also enabled AT&T to become a monster of a wireless company essentially buying about 40% of the market with acquisition of Bell South (spinning off Cingular for all of about 18 seonds, er, no I mean months.. when regulators were looking the other way $$$). The side effect of (all of these actions) paid lip service to wireline competition.. and did not follow through with any meaningful deployment of U-Verse.. seriously, did AT&T even break 100 million in deployment costs for U-Verse before gutting the deployment/maintenace budgets? This was a signal for Verizon to change course and battle AT&T's geography grab for wireless, ie a competitive threat.
When I say stop buying services from these companies.. I mean just that... your money feeds this bad behavior, just as $4 and $5 gas feeds more oil industry brainwashing commercials on Television! Sick of it?!? Then cut your consumption, as much as possible or completely! |
|
