On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Frank Coluccio wrote: > On the matter of some networks working and some not, where is the board > going with this line of discussion? Does anyone here seriously think > that either the left or the right has a lock against this phenomenon > from occurring? Sure, first rounds of anything have their fair share of > flops. Look at IPTV, as initially announced by the RBOCs, for example. Note which administrations supported meaningful competition and which ones are completely beholden to the monopolies. Telecom Act of 96 remained more or less intact until the Bush-appointed FCC took hold. After that, it was all downhill.
> Also consider, AT&T (nee SBC + AT&T) is in worse shape than Verizon. > They are using FTTNode/Curb, i.e., AT&T is not installing fiber all the > way to the home, but only part way, and using twisted copper pairs for > the remainder of the distance to the home. What this means is that AT&T > doesn't even have a third optical wavelength to use for an analog video > fix, like Verizon does, so they're sucking wind for the moment, and not > delivering "any" video services, at all. The jury is still *way* out what is the right way. ADSL2 is enough capacity to give you video. FTTH of course is the ultimate, but it is about twice as expensive per home passed. Personally, I would love nothing more than VZ going bankrupt because of FTTH, but it is unlikely. VZ has far more money than sense. -alex -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
