soothsayer15
join:2002-03-01
Irving, TX
| reply to Cod
Re: Seriously, though....
said by Cod  :
said by techguyga :....I'll believe it when I see it.
I sware you can't win around here. SBC customers get great & exciting news and its the same-o brain dead posts bashing the telco's (with BBR's encouragement).
Cod is right. Everyone that has a bone to pick with the Telco's or Cable Co's comes on this site to spew their slanted logic. The Telco's aren't doing this because they like empty promises. FTTP is a must for their survival. You cynics can talk you want, you have no understanding of business. Businesses aren't in business to lose money just so you can be happy. People here complain too much because FTTP is not available yesterday. There is nothing these companies can do to appease you because you need a soapbox to complain from. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by soothsayer15 : The Telco's aren't doing this because they like empty promises. FTTP is a must for their survival.
If that's true, why do they need deregulation to do it? Are you saying the bells would rather wither and die than not get their monopoly on fiber?
I have absolutely no sympathy for any of the ILECs. They should have been doing this a couple of years ago, before they were getting their lunch eaten by cable and VOIP. That's not the way would be monopolies play though. Instead of innovating and leading in technology, they spend their money on lobbying and FUD; how many fiber connections could have been laid with the ILEC lobbying budget? If the FCC hadn't given in the the bells lobbying, I guarantee you fiber would have been deployed, deregulation or not.
The ILECs only held out this long because they were sure they could buy (thru lobbying) the deregulation they sought. |
|
lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
| why should they have done it years ago? because you say so?
ha thats funny. Yes of course they waited until the legal climate was right for investment - something wrong with that? as for cable and VOIP eating their lunch - boy have you got your facts wrong. VOIP is used by less than 1% of phone users nation wide - yes thats right the other 99% is still their market. as to cable - DSL is gaining ground everyday on cable and when fiber lights up SBC will be offering VIOP. so to me it looks like SBC buisness plan is right on track  |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by lvas .. Yes of course they waited until the legal climate was right for investment - something wrong with that? as for cable and VOIP eating their lunch - boy have you got your facts wrong. VOIP is used by less than 1% of phone users nation wide - yes thats right the other 99% is still their market. as to cable - DSL is gaining ground everyday on cable and when fiber lights up SBC will be offering VIOP. so to me it looks like SBC buisness plan is right on track
[/BQUOTE:I'm being optimistic about VOIP "eating their lunch" - I can dream, can't I? And yes, if the business plan is to get their monopoly back, I would say SBC and Verizon are right on track. Don't get me wrong, the ILECs have every right to pursue their monopoly; that doesn't mean I have to like it. The real problem is the spineless, corrupt political process that allows this sh1t to happen. It would just be nice not to be a semi-third world country when it comes to broadband. |
|
soothsayer15
join:2002-03-01
Irving, TX
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude : said by soothsayer15 : The Telco's aren't doing this because they like empty promises. FTTP is a must for their survival. If that's true, why do they need deregulation to do it? Are you saying the bells would rather wither and die than not get their monopoly on fiber? I have absolutely no sympathy for any of the ILECs. They should have been doing this a couple of years ago, before they were getting their lunch eaten by cable and VOIP. That's not the way would be monopolies play though. Instead of innovating and leading in technology, they spend their money on lobbying and FUD; how many fiber connections could have been laid with the ILEC lobbying budget? If the FCC hadn't given in the the bells lobbying, I guarantee you fiber would have been deployed, deregulation or not. The ILECs only held out this long because they were sure they could buy (thru lobbying) the deregulation they sought.
This is exactly what I am talking about, business sense. Would you spent billions of dollars deploying a network, if there was a chance you would have to share it with your competitors? Why not just paid for their advertising while they are at it. The Bells are paying it's own employees and contractors to deploy this network. I don't envision their competitors sharing the costs. This also shows what you know, lobbying does not cost BILLIONS of dollars. It is expensive, but nowhere near the cost of building a fiber network. Do you think The Bells or the Cable Companies competitors don't lobby? |
|
