Slashdot Mirror
Gov't Approves Parts of Verizon-Cable Spectrum Sale
fistfullast33l writes "The Associated Press is reporting that the Justice Department, FCC, and New York State Attorney General approved portions of a deal between Verizon Wireless and cable companies Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Bright House Networks and Cox to sell parts of the wireless spectrum to Verizon for $3.9 billion. However, the Justice Department rejected the agreement between the two groups to allow Verizon to market cable services in its stores in markets where it also offers FIOS service. The spectrum will be used to increase Verizon's 4G LTE network coverage. Verizon will also sell some spectrum to T-Mobile. Consumer groups were very concerned about the cross-marketing by Verizon: 'When it comes to home broadband, Verizon Communication Inc.'s FiOS provides the only significant competition to cable in many areas. Yet FiOS is costly to build out, and Verizon's commitment to the technology has faltered. Consumer groups and unions that opposed the deal between the cable companies and Verizon said it showed that Verizon was further giving up on FiOS and yielding the home broadband market to cable.'"
If their Kansas-City fiber experiment goes well, perhaps they'll expand into markets Verizon is losing interest in with FiOS.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I dont think they will be giving up on the "home broadband" market, but will probably focus on trying to attack it differently, wirelessly.... theres an awful lot of spectrum out there.
What you mean is that infrastructure is so costly that most companies won't build if another company has already built-out an area. Because there are multiple ISPs, even with decreasing overlap, it will count as competition as far a government regulators are concerned. It's still a monopoly if you only have one choice.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
That they even considered doing this shows how little Verizon and Verizon Wireless cooperate. They are two separate companies, alike in name only.
I find it hard to believe as Verizon FiOS is building out like crazy in my area and have been for at least the last 5yrs now. Who knows, maybe they had these plans laid out years ago and just want to finish them up?
"That's right...I said it."
That's a very appropriate term in the context of these business deals. It's exactly what the consumer gets.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It is not totally true that nobody will build out in areas where existing service exists. Verizon put FIOS into areas where existing cable infrastructure existed.. Of course they charge about 30% more for the same basic services in my area, but they apparently have to pay off the money they borrowed for putting in all that fiber, but they did increase the competition in some ways. The cable company now offers much higher data rates on their internet services and had to build out more capacity to provide that.
Satellite providers can provide cost competition for your local cable provider for TV services. Not so much for broadband internet service, but the wireless companies can provide some pretty cost effective solutions for that.
My point is that there is plenty of competition for cable companies and even though there is a huge cost to start up a competitive service, it can be done. (Or at least it was possible at one point.)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Fiber to the premises is too costly. In relatively built-up suburban areas it can cost between $2000 and $7000 per subscriber. In rural areas it costs between $5000 and $12000 per subscriber. And you wonder why Verizon has stopped building outside of already committed build-outs, and why Verizon has sold entire DSL and FiOS plants to Frontiernet and Fairpoint?
Hybrid fiber/cable as used by cable television companies like Cox and Comcast is far cheaper with comparable actual speed. Naturally with HFC they cannot claim the same theoretical speed but the practical speeds in a modern DOCSIS 3 HFC plant in real life (and not from speedtest.net) is very comparable for far, far less cost to both subscriber and operator.
Kriston
Verizon did it when they were trying to roll out FiOS, but now Verizon has stopped moving into new areas. AT&T has also stopped expanding Uverse into new areas. Instead, they're focusing on wireless where they can charge much more for less data.
when you started using your sock puppet account again earlier this morning you claimed that you couldn't write any more messages as roman_mir for 24 hours, yet here you are just a few hours later. what gives? why use the sock puppet there and your regular account here? how many other sock puppets do you have?
>>> that people in a supposedly 'capitalist' society do not see anything wrong with the very idea that government should at all under any circumstances be meddling with any private deals.
If it was free market I would agree, but Comcast is not a free market. It is a natural monopoly and just like the electric, natural gas, water, and sewer monopolies needs to be regulated. Else these monopolies could raise their prices skyhigh & the customers would have no choice but to pay. So the government steps-in to ensure that does not happen.
Of course an alternative solution is to open Comcast's market to outside Cable TV providers (Cox, Time-warner, Cablevision, etc), but so far local and state governments appear unwilling to let that happen. So the closed monopoly market needs to be regulated by the New York PUC.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I thought it was clear? Maybe missing the word TV?
What don't you understand? The FCC monitors the spectrum and 'owns' the frequencies. They are in charge of how it moves around, sold and used. Yes it is business deals between companies, but it is like...I am not going to use an analogy here. At the end of the day the FCC still 'owns' the spectrum. OK, analogy: It's like an apartment. You rent it, but the apartment still owns it and you can not sublease it.
I may also not understand where you are coming from. So, clarify for me if I am off.
"That's right...I said it."
I'd gladly give up any channels that don't want to be part of Google Fiber for the gigabit connectivity. In fact, today I watch almost all television via Hulu, which doesn't include those channels, even CBS, so I simply don't want CBS television shows. Their loss.
I'm really tired of these network playing games with providers. They already make a killing off of advertising, and now they want to make a killing off of subscription fees, while simultaneously pushing hard for exclusive broadcast contracts and whatnot to shut people out of alternative ways of getting programming. I say screw 'em. If they don't want me to watch their channels, I will happily oblige.
And I know this is going to sound a bit idealist, but Disney has become one of the most evil companies out there when it comes to content providers. Please don't indoctrinate your kids into becoming dependent on that company for entertainment, especially when there is so much other quality entertainment out there.
Meanwhile, hey Google, I can't move to Kansas City right now. Please expand the Google fiber offering into more markets!
Verizon did it when they were trying to roll out FiOS, but now Verizon has stopped moving into new areas. AT&T has also stopped expanding Uverse into new areas. Instead, they're focusing on wireless where they can charge much more for less data.
This is not surprising, given the current economics in this country. When you think of cutting costs when you are on unemployment, I'm sure a lot of folks dump the cable bill in order to buy food. I'm sure this thinking has impacted their subscriber base and they simply don't see the case for expanding their business. Wireless companies are not saddled with the huge infrastructure costs of laying out fiber or coax over large areas. Just pop up a tower and you are in business. Their major cost is spectrum space but once you have that, it's a low incremental cost to add new towers.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
HFC CATV systems are already everywhere. All comcast has done is buy up local cable companies and upgrade the active equipment. No need to replace the millions of miles of plant out there. DOCSIS3.0 doesn't know the difference between coax from the 1970's or 2012. Most homes are wired for CATV and already have a coax drop running to the street. All comcast has to do it plug them in.
FiOS has to build out from scratch. They have all the labor costs in trenching or hanging the fiber to the house. They have to deal with getting right-a-ways and such. Also splicing fiber is alot more labor intensive then just popping an F-connector on to the end of some rg6.
The cable co makes money back on a sub after a month or 2. VZN has to wait YEARS for payback. If they cancel or switch after a short time then that means they just LOST money. Thats why they are bailing on FiOS. There is quicker money to be made elsewhere.
I have to return some videotapes...
As the Supreme Court stated a loooong time ago before the FCC even existed (It was called the National Radio Committee... or something). You can't have everybody in a room talking at the same time. Yes everybody has a right to free speech but you still need a moderator to bring order to the chaos by designating who will talk. The FCC is that moderator (for broadcast signals) (not limited-access cable signals).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
And all too soon, US broadband will be just like cable TV: corporatized, regulated for morals, bundled, overpriced, and no real freedom whatsoever.
The main thing that keeps a lot of people wedded to cable TV is the also the principal driver of endless spiraling costs: SPORTS. Whether pro leagues or the silliness of March Madness ('student' athletes, my wide ass), or possibly worst of all: SEC football, they are the monopolies that need regulated - along with their co-conspirators ESPN and CBS Sports. The modern day Opiate of the Masses; make it a Class A drug.
FiOS is the name of a service that is delivered over fiber. The fiber itself is not the service. FiOS is essentially the same as cable service without the coax. It does have additional bandwidth by using different wavelengths for the data, and using a wide broadband for the QAM TV.
While at least two companies are now offering at least a gigabit bandwidth to their customers over fiber, FiOS simply has no chance of serving that kind of demand (but neither does cable). Fios could maybe serve 10 customers with gigabit service while cable could maybe serve 6 customers with gigabit.
The direction we need to go with is delivering a WHOLE STRAND (plus backups) to each customer. The model that should be used needs to be similar to the "electric competition" model. One company provides the infrastructure and rents out the fibers. Each customer chooses which "light my glass" provider to use (hence, the competition). Then they get whatever services over that fiber that they subscribed to with that company (potentially up to 10 gigabit or more). The provider pays for renting the fiber and their customer pays the provider. Or the customer can rent the fiber directly and connect somewhere else and full fiber capacity.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
well in southern mississippi here... i just bought land outside of town here and I was wondering what I was going to do about internet since *gasp* hughsnet is a no go and dial up of course is too. Just last week they laid down fiber optic down the hwy that is perpendicular to the street that i live on and this week they were going to run the lines from the hwy to all the homes(which are a good mile from the hwy). I dont know if maybe in some areas that stopped expanding UVerse..I can just tell you that I just now got it and my neighbor should be getting the service up and running by this weekend. It really surprised me when i heard about it but I am glad.
NRCS. As I said, this shouldn't be in the hands of the government, there is no reason that government should be the moderator in the room, that's my point.
You can't handle the truth.
If it was free market I would agree, but Comcast is not a free market. It is a natural monopoly and just like the electric, natural gas, water, and sewer monopolies needs to be regulated.
- there is nothing here that says 'natural monopoly', the government makes it a monopoly, not the company.
Secondly, there is no reason in this world that electric lines, gas, water, sewer should be a monopoly, and they are a monopoly, but again, this has nothing to do with nature, they are government monopoly. Which part of this is unclear? How is it a 'natural' monopoly, when the city grants licenses and permits and tax code is manipulated and various subsidies are provided, what exactly is natural about it, unless you believe that having government do this is a 'natural' thing and cannot be avoided?
MY OTHER COMMENTS
There is the problem with those assets being in the hands of the government in the first place
Well who else is it supposed to be owned by? It can't be owned by individuals. It can't be owned by companies. This sort of commons is pretty much the reason the US government was set up in the first place. You can't get any more clear case of a "government function."