Adam Maloney wrote: >>It was in response to lower rates for DSL. >> >> > >Qwest has been (smugly) sitting on the sidelines while the cable >companies have been gobbling up market share and pricing themselves out >of business (consider the small but steady rate hikes, moreso in TV >service, and the not-so-unlimited unlimited internet service - remember >how cheap cable used to be? Even without the $6.00 Radio Shack >descrambler <g>). > > I also remember when phone service was cheap ... but I agree that QWest is sitting on the sideline, and probably always will. I had DSL, moved across the street, now I can't get it and due to issues with the phone system between the CO and my house they tell me its unlikely that I will ever have the DSL option. BTW, I live in St Anthony so its not like I'm 6 miles out of East Bumf#$k and expecting service :-) I'm afraid that I don't see anything particularly redeeming about circuit-switched copper. Cable companies have just finished a massive upgrade to their systems so that they can offer video, broadband and phone service over their systems. The video largely pays for the connection making them strong competitors in the market for local phone service and broadband. I used AT&T digital phone for the last couple of years and recently switched to Vonage - I can't conceive of the circumstances that would convince me to go back to paying twice as much to QWest for the same services. And I'm not the only one. QWest is one of the most impacted companies when you look at people switching to other companies for local service. I just can't see how a circuit based system can economically compete with a packet-switched system. And if you start losing large numbers of phone customers to VoIP or digital cable-based phones all you're doing is increasing the average overhead cost for the remaining customers. The inflexibility & overhead cost of the current phone system, coupled with the regulatory requirements for universal service, makes it hard for competent RBOCs to compete let alone a company like QWest. >They priced their service to be competitive with DSL, and I imagine they >were operating on a pretty significant loss, or at least very little >profit. They were gambling that they had deeper pockets than Qwest, to >afford operating their network long enough to gain a larger install base >so they could raise their rates to what they should be (and they could >afford the customer exodus it would cause, because of their market >share). I guess that's called a pawn storm :) > > > That would be more convincing if QWest was in a position to compete with cable. Most people in the metro area have the option of cable broadband from either Comcast or Time Warner. I think something like 40% are locked out of DSL because of technical issues. There is no way for Qwest to take advantage of any disaffection for that 40%, nada, no way, no how. >It will be very interesting. > >But I could be dead wrong :) This is just the feeling I'm getting, >watching the action from the stands. > > All it takes to see how lame QWest is in this business is to take a serious look at their announcement that they are going to start offering VoIP services to their customers. So I need a phone line to get DSL so I can use VoIP - what's wrong with this picture :-) --rick _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list