how-to block ads
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to ColdFiltered
Re: This is BS.
said by ColdFiltered  :I really wonder what folks would do in the United States if the ILECs all closed up shop. that would be wonderful. without the drag of these dinosaurs we would have a chance of catching up to the rest of the world leaders in broadband. | |
ColdFiltered
join:2005-01-25
Atlanta, GA
| said by nasadude : said by ColdFiltered :I really wonder what folks would do in the United States if the ILECs all closed up shop. that would be wonderful. without the drag of these dinosaurs we would have a chance of catching up to the rest of the world leaders in broadband. I'm not following you, here. There is no law, federal or otherwise, preventing an entrepeneur from spending billions of dollars on their wholely owned and operated network, and in turn kissing off any competition from trying to access it.
Octopussy2: I never suggested they would, but I can 'imagine'. Let's all pretend that instead of a day without Mexicans (remember that movie?), what it would be like if one day all ILECs shut down service, lock stock and barrel, for a day.
I would necessarily say these companies are cherry picking. I see quite a few neighborhoods in my area in low-income homes, apartments, etc. that are being served. The majority of the fiber, DSL muxes, ATM switches, and entire data core came after the divestiture, not before.
Both the major cable companies and LECs (both RBOCs and non-RBOCs) spent billions during the late 1990's and into about 2002 until the tech economy fell out. As a stockholder, this is evident in the billions of dollars that were spent. Yet, this get's ignored, or worse its porttrayed as assets that were in existence prior to the bell divestiture.
And the spend, while haven been relaxed the past two years due to the economy and product acceptance slowdown (as a result of the overall economy), the future is a completely new network by most of the RBOCs as they expand their offersing in products and services to better compete with the cable and satellite industries.
As a result, major networks are being deployed, not revised or updated. Can you imagine the cost involved with deploying several hundred edge routers along with several thousand next-generation brodband muxes? We are not talking a measely $125 Million in investment, but rather something much, much larger.
And if the RBOCs and cable companies are so bad then why do so, so many support them, but as subscriber and as stockholder? There are pleny of unbound solutions for CLECs and Muni's can use, and as always its a commonsense thing for a city resident to deduce in whether or not the ILECs and Cableco's are telling the truth or not.
Not suggesting one is any more wrong/right than the other, but trying to look at things objectively, from a particular frame of reference. BTW, how much do you think the RBOCs will spend in the next 2-4 years on IPTV in order to compete with the cable and satellite industries?
So, yea, they may be looking at the $/port, but if they focued only on middle and upper class cherries you are kidding yourself. The bulk of the population in number of hoursholds is not in line with your point. Personally, I look to the future.
And keep in mind there were failed instances of Muni brodband, as well as successes. All I want is that the people paying for network X to realize this. Marietta, Georgia was one such failure, and wasn't ILEC intervention. | |
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| The only reason that you hear about the failed Muni-broadband networks is because that's what the people and companies against them want you to hear. Nothing regarding success of any of them.
That's like you keep bringing up Marietta, Georgia. That's one city out of how many that have actually did this. And as far as the the the ILECs cherry picking for the FTTH deployment, that's what they're going to do. They don't care about middle class families or anyone else but the rich. As long as it makes them the buck that's what they'll do. It's not what the customer wants its what the company wants. If a customer wishes and can pay for a service why shouldn't they be served just as the rich or a cherry picked city or neighborhood just because their area doesn't meet the standards that were set by the stockholders that they think how much money everyone has.
As for cities wishing to spend their tax money as they wish they should. Its their money. If the public doesn't want to support it. Tell them to move. but when they want a service that the Muni offers tell them to touch sh*t go to the ILEC or cable company. | |
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
1 edit | reply to ColdFiltered
Marietta was actually not "a failure". It was ebitda positive when it was bought by a private industry company. Munis, as you know, work on a different business model- they only have to break even. Marietta was on schedule to break even in a few more years. In fact, when the business was bought, all employees were kept on. Is that a sign of a failed business?
The mayor did not have to sell the muni fiber system (which only served businesses BTW, and only was an ISP) but chose to sell the system at a loss because he didn't believe govt. belonged in the private sector. He ran on that platform. So, the muni utility did not fail, it was sold by the mayor at a loss because of his beliefs, and if he would've let it remain, it would've had a positive cash flow in about 2 years.
There are over 620 muni run infrastructures in place according to the APPA website. Some muni's offer cable, some internet, some phone, some the triple play, some just own the infrastructure and act as the wholesalers. Whatever model it is, the point is, munis should have the right to own their own infrastructure. Communities should have the right to govern their communities, and provide for them, the way they see fit. And ILECs should not have the right to stand in their way.
And you are kidding yourself if you don't think SBC isn't cherry picking with their new Project Lightspeed. They have broken down their market projections down into three customer markets: high value (income), medium value (income), and low value (income). They only plan to serve 5% of the low value (income) neighborhoods. Check out the pie graphs in their SBC Investor updates. If that ain't cherry picking than what is?
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com | |
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to ColdFiltered
I don't really want to get into it here why I think the ILECs are dinosaurs. You need to go to teletruth or someplace similar and read up on the history of the RBOCs. Some of the regulatory regime they have endured over the years is not entirely their fault, but the simple truth is they were monopolies once and they are basically monopolies again.
Monopolies by nature tend to not innovate or reduce prices or treat their customers right - why should they, you have no other choice (BTW, having a choice between one cable provider and one ILEC in NOT competition). The legacy copper networks were built with customer money - there was absolutely no risk to the original RBOCs for building out the copper network.
As for deployment of networks, I still can't DSL and I will be surprised if I get fiber in less than 5 years (and I live in a county where they are deploying). | |
|
