<<What is best for the customer?
Do you think it is best for Portland not to have BB cable?>>
I think they should have the best distribution of internet they can get.
<< Will that speed up deployment of DSL in that area?>>
I don't know. But why should their choices be limited?
<<Despite what you think of T they have made it clear that they will not deploy cable without their agreements in tact. I'm not scared of "open access", I don't think it would hurt @HOME in the long run, but for now T is and does.>>
I agree the T business model of being cable king used some poor assumptions when it came to profitability and expenses and that what this is all about.
<<So, what is best for the consumer right now, is to give T its agreement until 2002. They will roll out cable anywhere possible.>>
Provided they can execute. Provided they have the time, talent and money to get it done.
<<The phone companies will be forced to compete with DSL. The sat. co's will have to work hard to get theirs going. >>
That's good for customers.
<<By 2002, the customer has 3 strong choices for broadband.>>
That will be good. But customers want to know why they can't have choices now.
<<Do you honestly think DSL would be where it is today, if Cable BB was not present?>>
My point, competition is good for business and customers.
<<I think you miss the point of the argument. Its "hands-off" the internet. That means letting it develop un touched. Part of that development so far has included a massive infrastructure upgrade to offer consumers a very good internet product, with an exclusive agreement until the year 2002 with @HOME.>>
The exclusive agreement is that the customer exclusively agrees to use the dictated method of distribution of internet until 2002.
<<If Open Net, or others like it did not exist, we would not be having this discussion. Thus the talk of "regulation" the need for the FCC to clarify its stance, the need for companies to choose up sides (and don't for one second think any company is doing this for altruistic reasons) has come from the very people who claim that they are working in the best interest of the consumer.>>
You are correct. Business is business and rarely altruistic. I think this is about which "BUSINESS" gets the regulatory protection they need to survive because of sloppy strategy.
<<Another question: Do you seriously want Joe Alderman from Nantucket to have to power to alter the state of the internet and its infrastructure or would you rather let the consumer and their money decide?>>
This is what I really object to. The arrogance of casting customers or local officials as being
too dumb to participate in questioning things or making the "big guys" accountable.
Just because you wear suits and ties and know what a 401k is, that doesn't make you right. You speak in a paternalistic regal tone which pisses me off. (JMHO,FWIW)
<<You seem to be having a lot of conceptual problems lately.>>
Not ashamed to admit it. Don't you every have 2 conflicting ideas that need more input for resolution?
<<What is it about Broadband that does this? It is just another product. But a strong product, of which I'm sure one day AOL will be a part of.>>
Broadband is a Method Of Distribution (as is DSL,sat,wireless) for products offered over the internet.
Broadband is not a product.
Rascal |
