Broadband Sub Losses Getting Ugly for Telcos Incumbents Focus on Wireless, Smaller Telcos Just Not Very Good The Associated Press broke down last quarter's broadband numbers and the results aren't pretty -- at least for the telcos. Incumbents are giving up on DSL and the smaller telcos lack the funds or competitive impetus to upgrade their networks, and the results are obvious. Windstream lost broadband subscribers last quarter for the first time ever losing 2,200 subscribers for a 1.36 million total. Verizon added just 2,000 net broadband users last quarter, the worst quarterly result in four years. The AP quotes Verizon as saying that the hit was due to Verizon's decision to stop selling standalone DSL: Verizon Communications Inc. gained just 2,000 broadband customers in the latest quarter — the worst result in four years. Verizon says the weak showing was in part due to Verizon ending the sale of DSL connections to people who don't have a landline phone account. The effort is part of an attempt to improve profitability. That's partially true, but the AP fails to note these losses by Verizon are intentional. As I recently noted in a piece here that was also picked up at Ars Technica, Verizon has intentionally been driving unwanted DSL customers to cable as they shift their focus from fixed broadband to wireless services and cuddle up to the cable industry (with the added benefit of getting rid of unionized labor). Verizon hopes that most of their current DSL and POTS customers either flee to cable, or that they wind up on the company's fixed LTE service, which packs far costly $10 per gigabyte overages. Meanwhile, smaller telcos like Windstream, Frontier, Fairpoint and CenturyLink find themselves unable or unwilling to upgrade their networks to keep pace with faster cable speeds. That's going to result in considerably more bloodshed for the telcos as additional subscribers jump ship (assuming they have the choice), resulting in cable's domination of the U.S. residential broadband market.
|
  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | This Is News? Company makes bad business decisions and fewer sales result.
Why is anyone surprised?
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge. | |
|  | | | Re: This Is News? Why shouldn't we be surprised? | |
| | Reviews:
 ·Callcentric
| Much like the aviation industry, the private telco sector has yet gain colluded and failed Americans. In fact, government owned international airlines are not only the best in the world, but also extremely profitable.
While the rest of the world overtakes us in yet another industry we effectively co-invented, we cheer on corporate boards that force us to use expensive and extremely limited products that we do not want -- like capped, tiered, and overpriced 4G.
I'd love to see a RWer explain this one, considering you beat on daily about the free market and my favorite lie of 'letting the consumer decide'. | |
| | | | | Re: This Is News? said by Telco:Much like the aviation industry, the private telco sector has yet gain colluded and failed Americans. Difference is: Airplane fails and people die. Failure to get affordable, quality Internet connectivity: Not so deadly.
said by Telco:While the rest of the world overtakes us in yet another industry we effectively co-invented, ... Co-invented? For much of it: I don't think there's any "co-".
said by Telco:I'd love to see a RWer explain this one, considering you beat on daily about the free market and my favorite lie of 'letting the consumer decide'.
Would libertarian do, in place of a RWer? (Tho, if you're a "liberal," which I'm guessing you are, you can't tell the difference.)
I explain it this way: I feel subscription TV is too expensive for what you get. So I don't buy it. I feel smart phone data plans are too expensive for what you get. So I don't buy it. I do feel that SOHO business class Internet connectivity is worth what they want, so I do buy that. If I didn't feel so: I wouldn't buy that, either.
The model appears to be working for me.
We are getting screwed, tho. Most people aren't aware of it. Even if they were: Most are too lazy and short-sighted to do anything about it. (I.e.: Stop buying it.) My overseas friends, family and colleagues are flabbergasted by what we pay for what we don't get, here in the U.S.
Jim | |
| | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: This Is News? Sure, you can choose to not buy broadband.
Or you can get raked over the coals, due to the lack of competition and choices and "Failure of the market" (IE Collusion of Big Business and Government.)
His point exactly.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: This Is News? said by rradina:http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27490614-I-don-t-trust-that-handy-tool-
It's not hard to avoid smart phone data plans if you don't own a smart phone.
True, but I'm missing your point.
Jim | |
| | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: This Is News? said by jseymour:I feel smart phone data plans are too expensive for what you get. So I don't buy it.
If you don't trust smart phones, it's difficult to believe your statement about avoiding smart phone data plans because they are too expensive.
That's like complaining about the price of natural gas but you don't trust gas so you own an all-electric house or complaining about the price of water but you don't trust the public water supply and you drilled your own well. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: This Is News? said by rradina:said by jseymour:I feel smart phone data plans are too expensive for what you get. So I don't buy it.
If you don't trust smart phones, it's difficult to believe your statement about avoiding smart phone data plans because they are too expensive. What possible motive would I have for saying such a thing if it wasn't true?
What I actually wrote in that thread was:
quote:
This story is one of the reasons I've not been particularly anxious to own a "smart" device.
I actually have many reasons for not yet owning a smartphone:
• The cost of the plans and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the devices
• The increased security risk in having my private/personal data on a network-connected device such as a smartphone
• The increased security risk of having my private/personal data mirrored to or backed up on cloud servers, rather than a server or desktop under my control
• The relatively lousy consumer satisfaction numbers for smartphones vs. "dumb" ones
• The poor-to-non-existant PIM functionality of most of today's "smart" phones
• Being unwilling to spend another $5-$10/mo. for insurance, the almost paralyzing fear that it'd be lost, stolen or destroyed
The plan cost is the biggie, tho. I could probably talk myself into living with the rest of it. I guess I'm just odd that way, but, to me, $1000+/year for a smartphone with a data plan is a lot of money.
said by rradina:That's like complaining about ... the price of water but you don't trust the public water supply and you drilled your own well.
The price of water around here is exorbitant, but I'm not complaining because I'm on my own well 
Jim | |
| | | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: This Is News? Again, *sigh*, forest for the trees.
Until you own one and derive benefit or detriment, your comments must be considered of the Monday morning QB variety. | |
|
| | | | How are you forced to use expensive 4G??
I have never had a it and see no reason to have it. My family also just cancelled our cell phones because it just wasnt worth it.
EDit:Also, havent you decided when you compain about prices and then use the product anyway?? Why do you need 4G?
There are those that need them for business but most people that I know that have 4G dont really need it for anything but to be in the in crowd. | |
| | | | | | Re: This Is News? said by FloridaBoy:How are you forced to use expensive 4G?? You're not. Of course.
said by FloridaBoy:I have never had a it and see no reason to have it. My family also just cancelled our cell phones because it just wasnt worth it.
I was just thinking about that... yesterday, I think it was. I don't think I'd be willing to go quite as far as dumping wireless altogether. I like my wife having it for safety's sake. I like having it for the sake of making my job easier. But once I'm retired... I can easily see knocking us back to a single wireless phone we share. Just a phone. No data.
The window the TelCos have in which to grab me and get me addicted to the mobile data thing is closing. Quickly.
I can see dumping the expensive Internet connection for a cheaper one, too. Off-loading my email to gmail or the like. Selling my domains. Dumping the web site altogether. Basically getting mostly "off the grid," as it were. Won't really need all this anymore.
Jim | |
|
| |
4 edits | One last thing. I am not calling you out nor am I a RW as you call them. I am just curious and ask the following question for that reason.
Looking at your posts, is there anything the goverment should not own??
Also, how much is the difference between the US and others is the way employment is tied to health benefits? Verizon's NE employees have showed us that Verizon pays all the health care costs for the employees and their dependents. I was talking to a German fellow on a forum and the standard there is the company pays seven percent of salary and the employee pays seven percent of salary and that gets the employee health coverage.
Also, do those carriers, owned by the government, pay taxes to local areas?? Verizon, in my county in Florida, pays about 2.1 million in property taxes for a county with about 320k people in it.
»www.manateepao.com/Content/Repor···2011.pdf
Sorry, while greed is involved, I hate that too many on this board think that is the only reason. I want to try and understand all the reasons that price might be different. | |
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: This Is News? said by FloridaBoy:...I want to try and understand all the reasons that price might be different.
the single biggest reason that price COULD be different (lower) is COMPETITION, of which there is none in the U.S. (at least not real competition; one cableco and one telco as a choice is not competition and even that is starting to go away).
the single biggest reason the price IS different (higher) is LACK OF COMPETITION and monopoly/duopoly status; this gives the incumbents the power to set whatever price they want. | |
| | | | | | | Re: This Is News? Great! I happen to agree with you. However, considering they different ways telcos in the US and the rest of the world developed, how do you propose to fix it?? Mandate open access?? Verizon spent alot of money building Fios and it is not that profitable for them. How will lower prices make them stay in the game??
How much money should they be allowed to make nasadude to where you would be ok with it??
Also,Verizon wireline made 21 cents on the dollar last quarter. How much should they be able to make without anyone crying greed?
Comcast made 45 to 47 cents per dollar last quarter. How much should they be able to make without anyone crying greed?? | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: This Is News? incumbents stop opposing and killing municipal broadband projects
mandatory line sharing for last mile infrastructure
they should be able to make as much money as they can in a competitive environment; a monopoly seems as far from a free market as you can get. | |
| | | | | | | WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Re: This Is News? If a municipality goes into the cable business it should cove the entire county. It really should be a separate unit that has to pay taxes at the same rate as the private telco and cable. They should not get any special treatment like free or reduced offices in town hall and other city departments. In other words if they can stand on their own like a private company then more power to them. I just don't think it is fair to take many customers from a private company but force a telco or cable company to continue to pay property taxes at the rate they did before. Who is going to make up those taxes if the telco and cable abandon the area because they can no longer compete.
Muni utilities tend to over charge or under charge and then do not have enough to make upgrades to the plant. Or they over charge and still don't keep the plant up to date.
IF the town wants to fund the project the bond holders should not get tax payer backup. If the project fails then the bond holders take the hit just like a private company.
If the Town wants to build the fiber system as a dump pipe but the customer has to arrange all content then I can be more supportive. I still feel like the system should be county wide so someone outside the populated areas or town limit never gets service like the telcos and cable companies have done.
The only place that has done that is the Power Company in the Chattanooga, TN. If I am reading right they brought FTTH to all customers in their territory. Even Google Fiber is not covering all of KC in either state. | |
|
| | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | quote:
Verizon's NE employees have showed us that Verizon pays all the health care costs for the employees and their dependents.
Sorry but that is wrong on a couple of levels. First, employees pay co-pays, deductibles, out-of-network expenses, prescriptions, dental, etc. By no means does Verizon pay 'all the health care costs' for its employees (except probably for the upper executives). If you intended to say health care premiums then you also have to consider that they are part of a compensation package. Those employees that chose to have a lower salary to offset the premium are still 'paying'.
If you want to compare Germany, you should also mention the 30% tax that German corporations pay to the government... in contrast to the credit the federal government gives to Verizon.
Besides taking the reasons the prices might be different into consideration, you also have to consider where the profits end up... who benefits from them and who suffers. | |
|
| |  kontosxyzzy
join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY | said by Telco:I'd love to see a RWer explain this one, considering you beat on daily about the free market and my favorite lie of 'letting the consumer decide'. Years of a lower regulatory burden placed on the cable industry compared to the telco industry (see: DSL line sharing requirements; wacky requirements placed on the GTE/Bell Atlantic merger, telcos had to jump through hoops to sell local and long-distance service as a package, etc.).
Cable has won the wire-line race, because it was easier going for them. Telcos focused on wireless because it ended up being easier for them.
The one thing that still smells bad to me is the fact that there has been no cross-geographical competition among any of these companies. Even with greenfield deployments, nobody seems willing to expand their customer base by expanding their geographic reach by building in new areas. | |
|
|  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Improving sales is not the objective here. Increasing profitability and getting out from underneath those pesky unions, while shedding an aging and expensive to maintain copper infrastructure. Well, that's the ticket!
Verizon is through with their Fios "build out" as they've put Fios in everywhere they have any desire to do landline business in the future. The rest of their landline business has been deemed nothing but a burden, and given the current downward spiral of POTS subscribers, it's a pretty smart decision.
If you're in territory where Verizon can't sell you both TV and InterTubes over Fios, they're just not interested. They're not making enough off dry loop DSL to make it worth the hassle.
If they can get you to cozy up with Comcast & buy your cell phone from Verizon & bundle, they're more than happy to do it.
Everyone in Verizon territory that's NOT in a Fios area best get ready to either get their service from the local cable co, or end up with a paint can in their attic, 'cause that's the way things are going....
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
| |  CylonRedPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | Since they WANT to get out of the landline business (and thus less sales) - it is not a bad decision. They have done very well for themselves actually....
--
Brian
"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain | |
|
ssavoyPremium
join:2007-08-16
Dallas, PA Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Frontier Frontier's area manager sent us a relatively unconvincing letter about how Frontier is the only provider that can give us a "dedicated" connection. They leave out real speed from all of their advertising. When you actually go to order you realize they can only give you 2mbps/384kbps while the cableco is giving you 20mbps/5mbps for the same price.
For $39.99 I can get blazing-fast "768kbps" broadband from Frontier. What a deal. | |
| | Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| Re: Frontier I'm near Dallas PA, same as you, and I've got a 6/1 connection from Frontier. Of course I had to go business class to get it, residential from my CO maxes out at 3/384 regardless of how good the local loop is. I think that's kind of silly, but for whatever reason that's how they do it here. My loop could actually go higher than 6/1, it has better stats than my old 10/1 Verizon connection, all they'd need to do is put some ADSL2+ line cards in their DSLAM.
A few weeks ago I was speaking with a one of Frontier's field techs, he indicated that they are experimenting with pair bonding. I asked him if this was their silly "second connection" product, he said no, it's actual pair bonding. If this turns out to be the case they'll be able to compete favorably with cable, at least into the speed range needed by the typical consumer/small business.
Incidentally, I just moved here a few months ago, the competing product offered by Blue Ridge/PenTeleData failed to impress me. On paper my fiancee (now wife) had 5/384, in actuality we got download speeds around 2mbit/s. DOCSIS 3.0 is available here and may have addressed the issue (she had a DOCSIS 2.0 modem) but Frontier was willing to give me a business class account with a fixed IP for a lot less money than PenTeleData wanted for the same, and that was ultimately the determining factor.
If I didn't care about the fixed IP I could get the G30 offering (30/3) from PenTeleData for the price I'm currently paying for my DSL. Of course, the business class DSL connection is truly dedicated, and every residential offering from PenTeleData is capped at no more than 250GB. | |
| | |  Irun Manwhat obstacle?Premium
join:2002-10-18
Walden, NY | Re: Frontier Frontier is starting to market 6mbps residential (with ability to go as high as 10mb) here... they still require POTS bundling, a two year contract and a stiff ETF penalty... still not worth it.
FWIW I'm in TWC land with their standard 12/1 service. Even when my promo ends (currently paying $5 over basic) it will still be better than Frontier DSL.
Sucks to live three miles from FiOS land!
--
I turned on my computer for this? | |
| | | | | | Re: Frontier Hmm, they told me here I could get service without POTS. I have a POTS line regardless but they did indicate that dry loop was available if I wanted it. | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Why do you need a fixed IP? Are you running some kind of server? If so, consider moving it to the cloud. Far more reliable, infinitely expandable and bandwidth is never a concern. If you want a static IP to access premises security, HVAC or freezer/cooler/electrical monitoring devices, use one of the dynamic DNS services. Even some consumer-grade routers support dynamic DNS so setup doesn't require significant networking experience.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "the business class DSL connection is truly dedicated". Is this a reference to cable's shared infrastructure? Unlike the early days, most cable operators do a great job of managing the size and congestion of their nodes. Unless the local operator is unusually outdated or incompetent, DSL can no longer claim a "dedicated" advantage. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: Frontier said by rradina:Why do you need a fixed IP? Are you running some kind of server? If so, consider moving it to the cloud. Far more reliable, infinitely expandable and bandwidth is never a concern. Having physical control over the device that my personal data is stored on is a prerequisite to me. Also, having a fixed IP makes it easier to VPN into my network. Some IPSec implementations are very IP focused, it's a PITA to use them with dynamic IPs. The Android VPN client is a great example.
said by rradina:I'm also not sure what you mean by "the business class DSL connection is truly dedicated". Is this a reference to cable's shared infrastructure? No, it's a reference to them allocating enough bandwidth to ensure I can reach 100% of my provisioned speed 24/7. No residential grade connection that I'm aware of makes that promise. Frontier prioritizes business class connections over residential ones, so even during times of congestion on the back-haul network I still receive 100% of my provisioned bandwidth.
said by rradina:Unlike the early days, most cable operators do a great job of managing the size and congestion of their nodes. Unless the local operator is unusually outdated or incompetent, DSL can no longer claim a "dedicated" advantage.
In my old hometown (Binghamton, NY) Time Warner Cable had countless nodes that were oversubscribed. My 10/1 connection dropped to sub T-1 speeds during peak hours, sometimes to the point that I couldn't even stream Netflix in SD. Binghamton just wasn't important enough for them to invest money into, hell, they were still running DOCSIS 1.1 when I ditched them for Verizon DSL.
Mind you, the "not important enough to invest money into" syndrome isn't unique to cable, but in that particular market at my particular address it wasn't even a contest, Verizon DSL blew Time Warner out of the water. | |
| | | | | bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Frontier
No, it's a reference to them allocating enough bandwidth to ensure I can reach 100% of my provisioned speed 24/7. No residential grade connection that I'm aware of makes that promise. Frontier prioritizes business class connections over residential ones, so even during times of congestion on the back-haul network I still receive 100% of my provisioned bandwidth.
My TWC biz class is prioritized and I get 105% of my paid connection pretty much 24/7 | |
| | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | said by Crookshanks:Having physical control over the device that my personal data is stored on is a prerequisite to me. Also, having a fixed IP makes it easier to VPN into my network. Some IPSec implementations are very IP focused, it's a PITA to use them with dynamic IPs. The Android VPN client is a great example. To each his own but why? Do you also stuff socks filled with money under your mattress because you don't trust banks?
Why do you need VPN? Remote controlling a single workstation on your network seems much more secure and way faster than anything VPN.
said by Crookshanks:No, it's a reference to them allocating enough bandwidth to ensure I can reach 100% of my provisioned speed 24/7. Why is all-the-time 100% of your bandwidth important? | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: Frontier I simply like having control over my data. What happens if your cloud service goes out of business? What happens if they are hit with an overly broad subpoena/warrant and the gear hosting your data is seized? What happens when someone sues you and your cloud provider turns over all your files without a fight?
As far as VPN, I just like having the functionally. It's nice to be able to use public wi-fi spots without fear of being monitored. I can bounce my Android phone off my VPN to defeat Verizon's "network optimization" practices. I could do this with a VPN provider, but why pay twice?
Regarding bandwidth, I want what I pay for. Nothing more, nothing less. | |
|
| | AT&T We only have AT&T in my subdivision. It took me 6 months to get service (not enough ports) when I first moved in. Why not put enough ports in for all homes especially when you are the only provider? Boneheaded decisions like that and not upgrading the network until it's too late. But for people like us we have no choice but to stick with outdated service, or maybe not...
Now it's looking like Charter is going to build out our subdivision. I know I will be switching if they do, please lord! If AT&T had upgraded our area with U-Verse (with TV) I could see myself staying since the U-Verse bundle is a pretty good. AT&T is starting to rethink it's strategies (»AT&T Fails to Sell Aging DSL Markets, May Upgrade) but it maybe too late if they don't get on it quick.
| |
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: AT&T In a year or two, U-Verse won't be serious competition for cable. Charter is already a triple play where each service is $29/month (phone, Internet and video). The Internet speed at that price is 30Mbps. Soon entry-level cable speeds will make U-Verse data look like dialup. | |
| | etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | Uverse is a brand that encompasses different technologies (ADSL2+, VDSL2 and FTTH)
In some areas of Texas at&t is selling ADSL2+ uverse like it was FTTH many people are starting to notice the lie and are switching to cable's DOCSIS3.0 technologies.
At&t is not doing any upgrades is because they know they will never be able to match cable's DOCSIS3.0 in term of speeds, features and most importantly TV picture quality. So the only upgrades that at&t are doing is re-branding their old ADSL as uverse and hope people will not notice. | |
| | | | | Re: AT&T Is that right? Then how come Fios can?
At&t could easily match and destroy cable speeds. They just dont want to spend the money. | |
| | | |  LightSPremium
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX | Re: AT&T Not over standard copper. Show me a study where a phone line delivers 300+ mbps.
Or are you talking about AT&T doing a complete FTTN/FTTH rollout? Then again, this wouldn't be classified as "easy." | |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Treat your customers like S, overcharge for services... ...and they leave.
Who would have thunk it? | |
| Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| $$ Verizon raised prices.. and no wonder they had a bit of an attitude about letting a customer cancel service.. I wasn't the only subscriber cancelling..
Well, they bet the farm on going after wireless customers who seem to be more profitable.. good luck, b/c I will probably never be a wireless customer of Verizon's.
Let's see if they cut prices to get customers back..
Or next quarter they'll probably see a net loss..
| |
| Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| AT&T slow DSL in Southern California, and it's intentional. And here I am with AT&T naked DSL in Southern California and all I can get is about 2.2 MBPS, and that's very flaky.
The reason is they intentionally bypassed my block when they put in the Uverse fiber.
They have a VRAD the next block south, half a city block away and that only feeds that block with at least 6MB service. The fiber that feeds that VRAD passed by our 30 year old box coming from the same CO.
My block, mostly at 1.5 MBPS or less. Could they feed my block from the same VRAD? Yeah, sure they could. A tech was in my driveway the other day and he said they sure could, they would need to trench and install some copper to the old box that feeds our block. It would cost them about the amount they make in 1.2 seconds every day.
But AT&T won't do it. Not can't, they just don't want to spend the money. My block is low density homes. The block south? High density apartments. The funny thing is, more than 50% of my neighbors subscribe to AT&T DSL.
AT&T doesn't care about good service. All those ads are just talk. | |
| | | | Re: AT&T slow DSL in Southern California, and it's intentional. Look into Sonic.net. The have ADSL2+ and include unlimited local and long distance POTS for about $50. per month. My speed is 14.8/845. | |
|
| | Sigh The telco industry keeps looking more and more depressing for the consumer... | |
| | | DSL going down means broadband competition is over It's not just the telco industry, it's broadband as a whole - the worse telco looks, the more cable has you by the nuts. And all of it because we never had the balls to mandate open access for all ISPs. | |
| | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: DSL going down means broadband competition is over Mandate open access and what incentive would Verizon have had to spend billions of dollars on a FIOS rollout? Spend billions of dollars so your competitors can leech off your network for a fraction of what you would be able to charge a customer?
Open access discourages investment. The only ways to make it work would be to nationalize the infrastructure and rent it out to ISPs, or mandate that the infrastructure be owned by a third party company and ISPs rent from them, similar to the way wireless carriers prefer to lease tower space instead of owning the towers outright. | |
| | | | | Re: DSL going down means broadband competition is over Open access does not discourage investment at all. In an open access model, CLECs lease lines from ILECs. If other competitors are offering a superior service (ie, DOCSIS 3), then revenue from direct subscriptions with the ILEC and revenue from the CLECs to the ILECs will both decline as subscribers switch to superior competing services. The only way to offset these losses in the marketplace is to upgrade your lines in order to be technologically equal or superior to your competitors.
Furthermore, one could argue that open access actually increases the incentive to invest in network infrastructure. A healthy, competitive market will drive adoption rates; which would in turn generate a higher volume of revenue for the ILECs. We saw this happen back in the old open access DSL days. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: DSL going down means broadband competition is over We had that kind of CLEC using ILEC lines to provide broadband competition.
The CLECs soon found when they did business with those ILECs they got screwed so much there was just no way to make money. They all went out of business. If it was possible to do that business they would still be there but it's not.
I agree it makes sense in a way, but with the ILECs still providing the copper lines and getting paid exorbitant amounts to build and maintain them it takes all the money out of the business.
You can't sell DSL against ATT for $90 a month, and that's probably where you would have to be.
It's the same as when they did that fake electric deregulation scheme in California. The bill I got from the Southern California Edison Company was 80% transmission and distribution. The rest was the deregulated part, "generation". So even if you got your electricity for free you would only save 20% maximum. No wonder there was never any competition. I wanted to save much more than 20% on my electricity.
Now, if there were a way to get 17 sets of wires on the poles out back there would be electricity providers walking the streets offering lower and lower electric rates. "Let me hook you up to our wires right now". Nope. | |
| | | | | | | Re: DSL going down means broadband competition is over Actually, the FCC killed mandatory line sharing in 2005. That spelled the end for most CLECs. A handful have stuck around though. One in particular, Sonic.net, has been doing very well despite this. | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: DSL going down means broadband competition is over That sonic.net hasn't gone out of business yet is a testament to their cleverness.
They are not line sharing, they are ATT resellers.
They handle the customer service and billing and manage trouble calls, but I talked to them about my ATT circuit.
They can't get me anything ATT won't give me.
ATT will not bond pairs even though all their equipment supports it. They won't support ADSL2+ even though all their equipment (and mine) supports it. I demanded they bond pairs to get my speed up and they refused.
The won't do anything that requires them to lift a finger. As long as you pay them without them having to exert themselves they are willing to take your money. If you don't like what you are getting from them they suggest you might be happier with another provider. They actually suggested that to me. They have no competition and they know it. They can do better but they refuse to do so.
ATT is a third rate company and we badly need the Justice department to break them up again.
Remember that ATT divestiture?
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Syste···estiture
Well, here we are 30 years later, they are all back together again. It was a 30 year plan! It worked perfectly and no one is the wiser. Certainly everyone at the Justice Department that had to do with that is long retired, just like was planned. | |
|
| | with cablevision When you hvae cable companies offering 20/2 speeds as standard at $50 a month why would you go dsl?
I have cablevision and 20/2 speeds with no caps and optimum wifi when I am not at home.
I can see switching to fios BUT verizon stopped fios roll out. Some places cant even get dsl. The telcos are just handing business to cablecompanies. | |
| | etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | Re: with cablevision said by majortom1029:When you hvae cable companies offering 20/2 speeds as standard at $50 a month why would you go dsl?
I have cablevision and 20/2 speeds with no caps and optimum wifi when I am not at home.
I can see switching to fios BUT verizon stopped fios roll out. Some places cant even get dsl. The telcos are just handing business to cablecompanies.
Exactly why would adsl users stay with obsolete/end-of-life technologies other than 'brand loyalty'?
Telcos capitulated because a technology (DOCSIS3.0) that is cheap to deploy and offer a clear path to more advanced video services and products. | |
|
| | Cable VS DSL Call me silly for saying this but I saw this coming years and years ago. I knew pretty much that when broadband replaced Dialup that we were stuck with TWO ISP's in most zip codes. Further, it was simple to see way back in the day that Coax cable with lower noise and higher bandwidth transmission possibilities was going to eventually blow DSL over thin, crappy unshielded pairs out of the water. It wasn't the thought of a aerospace engineer or top electrical engineer. It was the simple understanding that coax offered far greater bandwidth possibilities at lower costs if the cable companies decided to take advantage of the situation. Furthermore, I don't think they are done with this yet. After all, DOCSIS 3.0 with channel bonding (4x, 8x, etc) offers tremendous speed increases. The key is that they have to make sure that they have enough nodes and not too many neighbors plugged into it. Where I live in NC TWC gives me right around 20mbps fairly consistently even in the evening when everyone and their brother is online downloading the internet and playing COD4 on their Xbox/PS3, etc.
AT&T could compete with the cable companies but they are too busy scrimping pennies and not being willing to invest enough money in extending fiber to the curb (not to the node). If they would invest enough to get their DSLAM/VRAD, etc within 1000 feet they could easily compete with cable but I don't see them doing it.
One bad thing I still see coming is caps. TWC got their behind kicked in NC a few years ago when they tried it in this particular market and rightly so. The don't need metering and they don't need caps. Granted its not necessarily the case that I could easily replace TWC since I refuse to get U-verse because of their caps (yes I can get u-verse but I am not fooled by the scam that is caps even if they offer me a little cheaper deal for a while). I don't download stuff constantly but I refuse to subscribe to a service where I even have to worry with it in the first place and especially since it seems clear that a lot of times ISP's that use caps can't even count your data usage accurately. Again it is a scam by greedy crooks. If it was metered access at very reasonable rates (like $ 2/ 10 Gigabytes of downloading) then I might buy into that when its pretty affordable. That would be more like what we already get from the power company or from the water department in the city, etc. But even then I don't think they need it. Caps and metering are, in general, a sham for ripping people off who don't know better. | |
|  ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
·magicjack.com
·AT&T U-Verse
| Gotta love the system as it falls apart I'm lovin' it as the McD's slogan says.
Wait 'til the 6 strikes policy sees majority mainstream. We'll all be in jail and prison and they will only have a third of whatever's left in subs.
You thought the great depression was bad? Get ready for the Great Great depression... | |
| Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| pitiful speeds, well, in the end, I'm sure even the u-verse customers are bit pissed off with AT&T's refusal to do FTTP.. so why not push for municipal or 3rd party fiber? I know there are some micro muni's in California.. nothing big, but with Google offering Kansas City.. there's no reason why California need suffer..
plenty of issues will come to a head in California before elswhere in the country.. for example, the state will have to double down on alternative energy infrastructure to wean itself off the highest gas prices in the country. this probably means natural gas & hydrogen and/or hygrids will be the table as a phase in of the only vehicles you will be able to register in California or pay a hefty tax. by that measure, getting a company to do fttp is a piece of cake. | |
|
| |
|
|
