You would do far better to read at least some, 3 months, of this thread. The author doesn't have as good as a knowledge of the subject that he pretends. His opinion is definitely tilted to the RBOC-DSL camp, but the technology just isn't there. We've gone over the details extensively. It confirms why the RBOCs drag their feet about deployment. The economy of scale never arrives.
Down this line I recently received the local RBOC's best offer for DSL. $60/mo. for speeds less than currently constrained ATHM, and various add-on charges. I sense they have few takers.
This article has subtle misleading elements. I won't go into numerous others, but this is a representative example:
When AT&T's acquisition of TCI was announced, AOL quickly reiterated its interest in forming a partnership to resell high-bandwidth access. And even if @Home does not cooperate, narrowband portals should develop exclusive services for broadband users to compete for customers' share of mind.
As Jermoluk recently admitted ATHM practically begged imperious AOL to partner, but AOL had the hubris to tell him to effectively get lost. Now it is true that AOL is interested in broadband, and it is true that there is a lack of cooperation between the two, but the author makes it seem that ATHM is at fault. Wrong. It is AOL who isn't cooperating and won't have to if the FCC rides in to protect and increase their profitability. The FCC could not do this without violating their own already set rules and undermining the natural effect that ubiquitous cable modem has to open up local phone monopolies. You just can't trust socialists though especially when they think they know what free markets are, yet they actually don't have a clue. |
