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 ! |
|
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 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. |
|
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
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.... |
|
