Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Gov't Approves Parts of Verizon-Cable Spectrum Sale

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the santa-doesn't-give-you-everything-you-want dept.

Verizon 76

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.'"

cancel ×

76 comments

Goatsex (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41023811)

about time

Re:Goatsex (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41024251)

That's a very appropriate term in the context of these business deals. It's exactly what the consumer gets.

Re:Goatsex ONLY IN AMERICA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41024583)

Adolf Hitler never would have arrested elderly couples for having a vegetable garden in their yard but America is doing that.

Adolf Hitler never would have arrested farmers for selling fresh produce on the side of the road but America is doing that.

Adolf Hitler never would have sentenced a man to 30 days in jail for collecting rain water on his own property to use on his gardens but America has done that.

Adolf Hitler never would have let a man steal 1.2 billion dollars from segregated customer accounts and let him go free. But Americaâ(TM)s government has done that.

Re:Goatsex ONLY IN AMERICA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41025965)

Adolf Hitler would never have combined his own name with out-of-context soundbites to make a sweeping generalization.

opening for Google? (2)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 years ago | (#41023837)

If their Kansas-City fiber experiment goes well, perhaps they'll expand into markets Verizon is losing interest in with FiOS.

Re:opening for Google? (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41023887)

the TV part of google fiber is crapola. and a little with FIOS as well.

i have some family who live in the FIOS footprint. they still have cable. the reason is that they watch A LOT of international TV and the cable company has 4 of their language international channels. FIOS has 2. cable costs $80 a month more, but for them its worth it for those channels since that is what they mostly watch.

same with almost every other language channel lineup. lots of people in the USA watch them and are willing to pay for them. with with the huge costs in building out infrastructure like this its stupid to not try to cover every last potential customer

Re:opening for Google? (3, Informative)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#41024057)

Who seriously gets Google Fiber for the TV aspect of it? I dropped my cable subscription years ago, went with my local DSL because my cable company was crap. That trend is growing, plenty of people don't get cable because of the TV aspect but because it is the best way to get broadband for their area.

Re:opening for Google? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41024591)

Who seriously gets Google Fiber for the TV aspect of it? I dropped my cable subscription years ago, went with my local DSL because my cable company was crap. That trend is growing, plenty of people don't get cable because of the TV aspect but because it is the best way to get broadband for their area.

I know I'm wasting my virtual breath here, as you sound like the sort of hipster wonk who's probably been reminded of this hundreds upon hundreds of times in your life and it still hasn't sunk in yet, but you are not the normal internet user . Maybe you were at one point. Like, in the 80s, before everyone started using it. But nowadays, you aren't . For the vast amount of people who aren't you , they actually want TV service OVER internet service.

Seriously. They. Want. TV. Service. AND, get this, they don't consider face-meltingly fast internet service to be IMPORTANT. If Google expects this to be at all profitable (a prerequisite to it flourishing across the US), they need to cater to the 80+% of the US who wants TV service.

No, nobody cares about all those "reports" you've heard about people cutting the cable. No, your four or five hipster buddies who constantly brag about not owning a TV aren't "most of the people". Cheese wombler foony foony duck weasels are fighting the Zorndian overlords on Pfiolious III! The cold, hard reality of the world is that you aren't most people, period .

Of course, I didn't expect you to read this far. I mean, I've seen that argument from lots of people on the internet, and I know from experience that as soon as someone tries to remind you about how the world outside your fantasy land works, you tend to shut out everything. That's why I added the sentence about duck weasels in that last paragraph, since I knew you wouldn't read down that far, so I can say whatever I want and it'll never hit your thick skull through those gigantic rims on your hipster glasses.

Re:opening for Google? (0)

Khyber (864651) | about 2 years ago | (#41025269)

"For the vast amount of people who aren't you , they actually want TV service OVER internet service."

Wrong, they're forced to get it because bundled packages are cheaper than the standalone internet service.

Old hat trick. So sorry you're too ignorant to see it.

Re:opening for Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41031571)

> "For the vast amount of people who aren't you , they actually want TV service OVER internet service."

Maybe so, but do those people want to pay $150 a month, or more, for that TV?

Too soon (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#41025763)

...plenty of people don't get cable because of the TV aspect but because it is the best way to get broadband for their area.

And all too soon, US broadband will be just like cable TV: corporatized, regulated for morals, bundled, overpriced, and no real freedom whatsoever.

Re:opening for Google? (1)

Svartalf (2997) | about 2 years ago | (#41027003)

IF you can get Google Fiber. Unless you're in Kansas City, you're not getting it for a while yet to come.

Re:opening for Google? (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | about 2 years ago | (#41030029)

I am in Kansas City and it is questionable whether I can get it. Because they only give it to people who have enough pre-subscribers in their area (they call the areas Fiberhoods) who also sign up for it. I am the only person in my Fiberhood who is a potential subscriber. My friend's neighborhood had 3 people sign up so far, far from the goal. My brother's neighborhood reached the goal and he can actually get it. In general, it looks like their strategy has, in a roundabout way, led to mostly middle and upper classes being eligible for the service and other neighborhoods being deprived. AT&T U-verse isn't available in my neighborhood either, although it's available in my aunt's neighborhood. I'm sure Time Warner is breathing a sigh of relief that their monopoly will still be intact for most of the city.

Re:opening for Google? (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | about 2 years ago | (#41029969)

Getting Google fiber with TV has a price less than what I'm currently paying for Time Warner cable with Roadrunner broadband in Kansas City. By about $10 or so. The only channel I'd lose that I'd care about is Velocity TV.

Re:opening for Google? (1)

dijiplat (2713807) | about 2 years ago | (#41092177)

IF you can get Google Fiber. Unless you're in Kansas City, you're not getting it for a while yet to come.-- http:www.dijiplat.com [dijiplat.com]

Re:opening for Google? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41024253)

>>>the TV part of google fiber is crapola. and a little with FIOS as well.

I'm surprised to hear that. I did a quick review of FiOS channel listing and it was hundreds..... more than I would ever watch. In fact I don't even have cable: Just an antenna and still barely watch the 40 channels I get.

Quick list:
- ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, MyNetTV, Ion
- ~10 independents (mostly showing talkshows & reruns of Xena,SG1, etc)
- PBS, PBSkids, PBSinfo (documentaries), PBSart(live concerts), PBScreate
- MindTV (shows like DemocracyNow) (also Italian/German/Korean dramas)
- News: Fox24, France24, RT, and Japan's NHK
- movies: ThisTV
- shows: RetroTV, AntennaTV, FamilyTV
- Qubo, SmileofaChild, TBN, ChurchChannel, Enlace'(spanish)
- IonLife, ABClife
- AccuWeather
- traffic channel (kind of a waste; they should put something else there)
All free.

Re:opening for Google? (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41024403)

that's nice

too bad my inlaws don't watch most of these but the russian channels they have and the ones FIOS doesn't. same with international channels in almost every other language. lots of immigrants in the USA from all around the world who like to watch TV from their birth country.

Re:opening for Google? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41024561)

Naturally.
I've stayed in a lot of Indian-owned hotels over the years, and all of them had a satellite dish in order to watch their home channels. That's because in most areas of the U.S. cable systems don't carry foreign nations' channels..... for example my town's Comcast has none. In my experience that's the norm rather than the exception.

Re:opening for Google? (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#41024515)

FiOS has RT? Shit, I may have to subscribe to TV then, I currently have a data-only package and I think adding TV is only $5 or $10 extra...

Re:opening for Google? (1)

Cutting_Crew (708624) | about 2 years ago | (#41025923)

if i decide to ditch cable completely and get an antenna where can i go to check what channels i would get?

Re:opening for Google? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41026431)

http://antennaweb.org/

What OTA channels can you get... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41026913)

Here:
http://www.tvfool.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=1

I used this one for setting up my antenna, worked very well :)

Re:opening for Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41024375)

And most of us with FiOS TV would argue that there are way too many international TV stations and that they keep adding more of that crap instead of adding the missing HD channels people are bitching about and wasting space.

Re:opening for Google? (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#41024429)

And most of us with FiOS TV would argue that there are way too many international TV stations and that they keep adding more of that crap instead of adding the missing HD channels people are bitching about and wasting space.

There are hundreds (thousands?) of options with FTA type satellite for international channels. It seems like that would be the way to go if you live in the USA and want programming from outside the country.

Re:opening for Google? (1)

kaiser423 (828989) | about 2 years ago | (#41025049)

I don't know if you've noticed this, but the cable TV part of cable is crapola also.

I was paying $45 a month for all SD, no HD channels with fewer channels than I got over the air. To upgrade to equivalent of what I could get for free was $60/mo, and anything with more stuff was pushing ~$100.mo. This is Comcast in my area. But they have the best internet hands down. So I'm doing only internet. Despite them offering me the "basic cable" package for $1/mo on top of my broadband I still declined because it literally is worse than free OTA.

Re:opening for Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41023925)

the tv part isn't crap, the only missing is espn, you can stream the games hi def if you so desired at such a savings why wouldn't you? even if you just paid the 300 for 7 years of 5Mb u/d its well worth it. hopefully google expands all over, i know so many people who would switch, plus you get a free nexus 7....easy choice

Re:opening for Google? (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41023965)

and if you have kids its missing disney channel as well. i think Fox and CBS were also missing

Re:opening for Google? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41024113)

and if you have kids its missing disney channel as well. i think Fox and CBS were also missing

If you have kids who cannot do without the Disney channehao reevaluate how they spend theirtimeAlso, aren't cable networks required to carry the over-the-air channels like fox and cbs?

Re:opening for Google? (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41024415)

mostly because disney has better quality content than Nick

if i had a choice to choose one for my kids it would be disney over Nick

Re:opening for Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41024551)

I grew up without cable TV (and without the Disney channel), and I don't think anybody would be missing much of anything if they didn't have cable TV. Sure, there's 50x more channels, but only 1.2x content that actually worth my time watching. I don't have cable TV, but I do have cable internet, only because Verizon refuses to wire up my neighborhood even though I know for a fact there's a trunk line under the street in front of my apartment and a connection box for businesses just up the street.

Re:opening for Google? (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#41025801)

I grew up with cable, turned out okay, and have more to talk about with my coworkers.

I will concede, though, that Clarissa Explains it All hasn't come up in recent conversation.

Re:opening for Google? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41024655)

I prefer Nick or Cartoon. I rarely put-on Disney. I admit I used to like watching Hannah Montana with the kids, but all the other shows are mediocre and since HM is gone the channel has nada that I'd watch.

Re:opening for Google? (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#41025131)

Hannah Montana? I think you may be ill.

Re:opening for Google? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41024359)

>>>if you have kids its missing disney channel as well

They can watch it over at their grandparents' house, and at home watch Qubo or Nick or Cartoon instead. As for FOX and CBS isn't it a violation of must-carry rules not to carry the locals? Maybe they didn't demand to be added. (shrug)

Re:opening for Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41024543)

Fox and CBS can't be missing, local channels are must-carry. You either carry all or none.

I'd give them up (1)

KingSkippus (799657) | about 2 years ago | (#41024683)

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!

different strategy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41023943)

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.

Re:different strategy (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 2 years ago | (#41024257)

One is called HPC or Home Phone Connect. It's a wireless base station in the house that connects to 1X and then routes it to a home phone(Voice Only.) The other is Home Fusion Broadband. Same concept except this is broadband(LTE) that connects computers and other data devices. It's amazing how VzW is bitching about data usage yet they offer a TON of solutions that use the data more and more.

Soon. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41023949)

You'll have only one choice for broadband in america. (instead of just in most places like now)

We don't have to care. We're the isp. Pay up sucker.

Re:Soon. (1)

mk1004 (2488060) | about 2 years ago | (#41024045)

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.

Re:Soon. (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 years ago | (#41024289)

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.)

Re:Soon. (1)

Alan Shutko (5101) | about 2 years ago | (#41024353)

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.

Re:Soon. (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 years ago | (#41024913)

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.

Re:Soon. (1)

Cutting_Crew (708624) | about 2 years ago | (#41026089)

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.

Re:Soon. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41024333)

See, that's why I'm glad my city owns the power company which owns the best ISP in the area.

Thank you Electric Power Board of Chattanooga!

Too bad the right-wing conservative paper is still trying to destroy it.

The rejected part about selling cable TV service (4, Interesting)

devjoe (88696) | about 2 years ago | (#41024097)

The part of the deal that was rejected was related to Verizon Wireless selling the cable TV service from Comcast et al. (not FIOS TV) in their stores. This little detail is missing from the summary. Without understanding this, the "Verizon's commitment to the technology has faltered" makes little sense, since it would seem like they were trying to support FIOS if they wanted to sell FIOS TV service through their stores.

That they even considered doing this shows how little Verizon and Verizon Wireless cooperate. They are two separate companies, alike in name only.

Re:The rejected part about selling cable TV servic (1)

fistfullast33l (819270) | about 2 years ago | (#41024483)

I thought it was clear? Maybe missing the word TV?

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

are they sure? (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 2 years ago | (#41024179)

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?

Re:are they sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41024549)

Verizon sold their entire FIOS / DSL / phone service to Frontier in northern Indiana right after finishing their massive FIOS rollout because it wasn't making them enough money.

They sold their wireless spectrum because (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41024309)

they realized that their name was "Time Warner Cable" and not "Time Warner Cable & Wireless".

Amazing (-1, Flamebait)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#41024319)

This is simply amazing, this should be truly mind boggling, 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. You want to buy a goat or to sell a goat? Why don't you ask government officials first? (actually that's not far fetched, you need all sorts of licenses, permits to do any type of goat selling and maybe even buying).

OK, so the wireless spectrum is not a goat, but it is a freaking business deal. I mean, Attorney General is approving this, I wonder what back handed, back door type of deals are going on there and who is paying who and how much? Wouldn't it be great to have real investigative reporting on this for once? Wikileaks, do they have anything on this?

lying sock puppeteer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41024463)

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 [slashdot.org] , 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?

Re:Amazing (4, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41024465)

>>> 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.

Amazing - Honey Badger does not care abt cust svc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41025409)

Gas pipes and electric wires provide utilities, but we can opt to pay alternate "suppliers" for whats delivered. How is Cable different?

I would not have a problem paying cablevision for the media and verizon for the content .

The thing I object to is Cablevisions content and rules about whose tuner I can use.

I DONT want another box attached to the TV in my kitchen for example. It looks nice and neat all by itself. There is no place for a tuner.
How does cable vision not consider what we will think?

Does this Honey Badger not care about customer service?

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41025843)

Let's also not forget that they are essentially selling us public airspace. They do not own the airspace that their frequencies travel through, they can only license it's use from the public. The public uses the FCC as it's intermediary to allocate and control this public resource in order to maximize it's use for public good.

This is why every TV and radio station that also licenses public frequencies must, according to the Communications Act of 1934, operate in the "interest, convenience and necessity" of the public. I would like to see a world where wireless carriers operated in the public's best interest and convenience.

I'll go one better (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#41025981)

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.

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.

Re:Amazing (1)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41028629)

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?

Re:Amazing (2)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 2 years ago | (#41024491)

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.

Re:Amazing (0)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41024603)

(I have to juggle 2 accounts here, depending on how the moderation goes)

There is the problem with those assets being in the hands of the government in the first place. Obviously this is completely inefficient that there is any sort of government ownership there, the frequencies must be sold off at an auction, people should bet on them and then use them once they buy them, lease them, resell them, borrow them, whatever.

more lies and more sock-puppetry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41024719)

(I have to juggle 2 accounts here, depending on how the moderation goes)

no, you don't. you already showed that you don't. you posted many many times under your first account, then went back to this sock puppet, then back to your first account. nobody is forcing you to use two accounts, you are doing that of your own will.

Re:Amazing (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41025431)

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).

Re:Amazing (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#41028543)

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.

Re:Amazing (1)

Rakarra (112805) | about 2 years ago | (#41115917)

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."

Fiber to the premises is too costly (2)

kriston (7886) | about 2 years ago | (#41024323)

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.

Re:Fiber to the premises is too costly (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41024607)

Why? I don't see why splitting a single fiber off the main bundle (and to the home) is any more expensive than splitting Coax for Comcast TV?

Re:Fiber to the premises is too costly (2)

Lord_Jeremy (1612839) | about 2 years ago | (#41024853)

You don't have FiOS, do you? In addition to my regular ol' modem, there's a big fibre link and battery backup box bolted to the wall of my basement. Ignoring the fact that fibre line and the splicing is pricey, theres a lot more equipment required for each home, for which Verizon foots the bill.

HFC is already everywhere. (2)

CrAlt (3208) | about 2 years ago | (#41025025)

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.

Re:HFC is already everywhere. (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 years ago | (#41025893)

Thats why they are bailing on FiOS. There is quicker money to be made elsewhere.

Exactly. Put a "public" company in charge of "public" infrastructure and they can/should be held to be financially irresponsible to their shareholders for installing high-quality infrastructure when they are holding a monopoly grant from the local government and can get away with installing crap.

Re:Fiber to the premises is too costly (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 2 years ago | (#41024883)

But when the cable companies justify monthly bandwidth limits they imply that they can only sustain a few hundred Kb/s per user before the network becomes congested...

Re:Fiber to the premises is too costly (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 2 years ago | (#41025345)

"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."

Durrr, as if those subscribers will/will not leave and some other person just reuses existing infrastructure.

Verizon wasn't making money fast enough for their tastes.

Poor planning and execution, that is all this is.

Re:Fiber to the premises is too costly (1)

Rakarra (112805) | about 2 years ago | (#41115941)

Where are they supposed to come up with that money? How are they supposed to make it back? Do you think they could just charge every single person $2000-$12000?

Re:Fiber to the premises is too costly (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 years ago | (#41025817)

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.

That's not the cost to run to the subscriber, that's the all-inclusive cost to finally fix their ancient broken-ass network so that they can finally make a drop to the subscriber. It's going to have to be done sooner or later anyway.

Re:Fiber to the premises is too costly (1)

kriston (7886) | about 2 years ago | (#41030491)

Of course it is the cost of building the fiber and deploying the drop, but this is provided that all houses along the line become subscribers. The money has to come from somewhere. How does a rural provider make back $12K per subscriber? Answer: they don't.

Tthere is no guarantee that all of those customers on the street you're building on are going to become subscribers. This is also why Verizon got permission to physically cut the copper lines in FiOS neighborhoods. It forces a customer who chooses to remain on FiOS forever if they ever want to use Verizon service again, even if just for POTS.

tomorrow's vernacular (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41024373)

"Verizon" = Future slang for "Internet"
"Internet" = Future slang for "Verizoned"
"Verizoned" = Future term for "Fucked"

FiOS is not fiber service (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#41025997)

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.

fuck comcast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41027091)

WTF, If Comcast and these other cable companies have so much extra spectrum to sell, why don't they consider pushing actual non compressed HDTV content to their overcharged subscribers? for what I pay for cable I expect (though I don't get even close to it) Full uncompressed (or extremely close, ie, Highest quality h.264 encoding...etc) HD 1080P and Surround 7.1+. Or they should reduce my bill.

Then again I suppose cable companies are not using the spectrum or "airwaves" to broadcast content to subscribers. Though I'm curious why these companies have ANY spectrum at all if they are operating cable services. I thought ALL of this spectrum went up for auction by the FCC, so why do these still have all this spectrum to spare? They don't even use it. aside from perhaps transmissions between orbital and terrestrial satellites to extend the range of subscribers they can screw.

Also, I note that it seems to always be Verizon. Every time I see some article or news clip about more spectrum being sold, it's always Verizon buying it up, never sprint, or ATT or tmobile or any other wireless company that should or could be using it. Especially ATT and their bullshit 4g. Tmobiles dual band hspa crap might get up to like 42mb/s which is good. It's faster than verizon LTE atm, but verizon isn't actually done with lte. LTE advanced which comes out... who knows when is supposed to meet (I Think) the actual 4G requirements for the first time. So it's not like these other companies like *cough ATT cough* couldn't use all this extra bandwidth.

regardless it seems Verizon has bought most of it up so why is their coverage so shitty?(still better than the others by far from personal experience.... so it's nothing for the others to go patting themselves on the back for, at all.)

I can be full bars perfect signal in my house for vzw "4g", but if I go like 1.5 miles down the street either direction I can drop into 3g very easily and if I enter any buildings, just forget it. I used to be able to keep a 3g connection on verizon so i could use the internet or scan prices and whatnot... not anymore. I can be in a huge open parking lot and have like 1-3 bars 4g... not even move an inch and bam! down to 1 bar 3g or no signal and then back to 1bar 4g... then bam no signal again.. it's ridiculous. Maybe it's satelite radio services causing major interference? I have no idea but it's aggravating to no end. If they are going to do this tier pricing bullshit, I want and expect PERFECT coverage always. I shouldn't lose coverage unless I go into the basement of a huge office building or something. If I go into a normal roofed grocery/hardware all in one... store like meijers, walmart, lowes, ..whatever, I should have at least a small 4g signal or a very strong 3g. unless all these stores are now deploying active blocking devices?

Don't even get me started on their bullshit use wifi crap. If I send data verizon should be dealing with through my own personal home internet(to save verizon of all people money) then I think they should be paying me.

gah I'm done or I'll rant forever. Hopefully they will learn how to actually do business correctly or soon enough we'll just have a world wide adhoc network we all voip through and all the big cell carriers don't get a dime.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...