brooks7 3/27/2017 | 4:52:54 PM
Re: "transition" Kb,

I have stated it for a long time.  Not suggest.  In fact, this is the reason that I considered Net Neutrality the worst thing for the consumer of all time.  It fixed a problem that didn't exist, while taking all the political capital and throwing it away.  Is NN wonderful?  Yes - great...but Cogent admitted PUBLICALLY that they were the ones slowing down Netflix NOT Comcast.  So, as far as I can tell other than some IOCs screwing up years ago, nobody ever degraded performance.  And yet, we have an antiquated model for investing in Broadband Infrastructure.  So either we turn them all back to Rate of Return carriers (which I think is practically impossible), go through Structural Separation (slghtly less impossible) or Turn Residential Broadband with escalating service requirements (call it 25M today 100M in 2020 and 1Gbps in 2030 as an example).  CAF and all its variants replace CAPEX that was going to be spent with government money.  It does NOT go into places that were not going to have it done anyway.  Now, I will get complaints by the odd overbuilder or CLEC...but the truth is that the work they do covers such a small part of the US population that it does not matter.  Local to me Sonic has fewer FTTH subscribers than we used to install with Verizon via FiOS EVERY DAY.


KBode 3/27/2017 | 12:04:33 PM
Re: "transition" "There has not yet been a regulatory method to encourage the investment."

Are you daring to suggest that throwing billions at companies -- then failing utterly to track how this money was spent -- hasn't resulted in world-class telecom infrastructure? :)
brooks7 3/27/2017 | 11:14:05 AM
Re: "transition" Verizon and AT&T have taken different paths to minimize their investment in Residential Broadband.  Given that this is not a mandatory investment, it makes business sense.  There has not yet been a regulatory method to encourage the investment.  My take is (and has been for some time) that the only way is to make residential broadband a universal service and manage it as a utility.


KBode 3/24/2017 | 3:38:35 PM
"transition" I think "transistion" is a nice way to put it.

Another way to put it is AT&T and Verizon don't want to spend money to upgrade massive swaths of their DSL networks. And that many second tier telcos (CenturyLink, Windstream, Frontier) are only modestly upgrading highly selective parts of their network because they A. don't see real competition and B. took on so much debt gobbling up AT&T and Verizon's unwanted POTS users that they lack the funds to engage in FTTN/FTTH at any real scale.
danielcawrey 3/21/2017 | 3:32:05 PM
Re: Losing subscribers I think OTT offerings are going to have to be part of the equation here. 

Yes, I know this does result in a bit of cannibalizing exiting services. But what choice do these companies have? Sell an internet package with a great content bundle. That's probably a great way to get customers onboard without totally losing them. 
FbytF 3/20/2017 | 4:38:14 PM
Losing subscribers The question is how many lost subscribers are intentional?  It seems traditional telcos have little interest in wireline broadband customers and instead focus on wireless customers.  I live in a non FiOS Verizon territory and really only have one choice for Internet service, unfortunately its Comcast.  Verizon can only offer 1.5M DSL, seriously, who signs up for this.  So reluctantly every month I send those morons at Comcast $255 for TV and Internet. Where's the competition?  I could cut about $70 off my Comcast bill if I took their triple play offer but I need a reliable phone service. I know people who have FiOS and they have their complaints too but at least they have options.  My point is, Comcast is taking customers from VZ and AT&T in areas where they don't compete. In areas where they do compete it's probably a mixed bag split between Cableco and Telco's. All though I can't remember ever meeting anyone who loved Comcast service.