Steve Dropkin wrote:
> I read up on Whitacre's and Seidenberg's comments. AT&T/SBC and Verizon
> already charge its residential and small-business customers for access
> to the Internet. I'm sure they're also selling high-capacity access to
> business and other organizations in their service area. So I'm not sure
> who is getting the free ride here. As the Googles and Vonages increase
> the offerings which demand broadband, they're paying more for their
> access. And customers may decide to upgrade to (a higher level of) DSL.
> If the telcos are not charging enough to cover their costs, though, they
> have a business problem.
As this discussion came up in Germany too, one
had that point: Well, all want broadband, and
the telcos are pleased to offer broadband. But
puleeeeze, not THAT broad! Google is the bad guy
that lures the broadband (and even flat rate!)
user into the depth of the internet for endless
hours or so, and pulling / pushing big data as
well. But the telcos calculated 'broad' as not
that broad, even 'narrow' with many customers.
So it may really be their business model that
cracks at some spots.
> I understand that regulation, which served the Bells quite well years
> ago, is now shackling telcos to some extent, and I think it's fair to
> level the playing field now that cable/media companies are offering
> similar services. I'm not sure total deregulation of both telcos and
> cable companies is the answer; my experience is that the market alone
> does not support the efficient choice of technologies. OTOH, perhaps the
> success of cellular networks and cable is an indication that "five
> nines" of reliability no longer is a requirement for most customers.
Same true over here. They ask: Who is paying for
the required high-high speed glass fibre nets, if
no sort of monopolistic protection secures income
for at least an extend initial phase.
> Moving to a deregulated world, though, will require capital investments
> just for the telcos to catch up to some of the offerings from the
> cable/media companies. This isn't going to improve the bottom line for
> telephone companies any time soon, I don't think.
Me too ...
> In the meantime, though, destroying the network neutrality that built
> the Internet into what it is today by allowing telcos to control who
> gets served first is , IMHO, a bad idea. It might bump bottom lines
> short-term. But it could very well kill the Internet.
That is true. But then it destroys the very basis
of their business model as well. And I think they
know ...
Andreas
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|