6 ms·

CTL is much stronger in the commercial space than they are in residential. Vertical integration is the name of the game in the commercial telecom space, and has

by exelius 10y ago

CTL is much stronger in the commercial space than they are in residential. Vertical integration is the name of the game in the commercial telecom space, and has been for 30+ years. And really, think of CTL as a decades-long rollup of baby Bells in the north central / midwestern US and they make more sense -- just like AT&T is largely a rollup of the southern and western Bells and Verizon is largely a rollup of east coast Bells. AT&T and Verizon were able to prevent Comcast from becoming a third national competitor (for now), but it looks like CenturyLink will just take their place. Look for them to get into cellular in more than an overbuilding capacity soon though. I will almost guarantee that Sprint ends up with Comcast and T-Mobile with CenturyLink -- though I also wouldn't be surprised if the opposite happens. Our goal as people who use telecom services should be to get as much diversity in telecom as possible. Right now, it's a two-horse race: AT&T / Verizon and Comcast / Charter / Cox. If, in 10 years, we have a choice between AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and CenturyLink... that will be better. Small, local competition for ISPs do not make sense over the long term. It may get you fast speeds over the last mile in the short-term, but doesn't get you a fast connection to everywhere else and the investment levels are going to be unable to keep up after the first generation. The oversubscription model benefits from national scale, and even a national last-mile telecom without a national fiber network will have problems matching the cost structure of their competitors (as we recently saw with TimeWarner Cable). The infrastructure doesn't scale operationally or financially otherwise.

chrishacken 10y ago
" If, in 10 years, we have a choice between AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and CenturyLink... that will be better." CenturyLink is already one of the big players and they'll never enter markets that Comcast, ATT, or Verizon are already in. We're a small ISP and a Level 3 customer. I'm moderately concerned about what this acquisition will mean for companies like us in the long run. The hand that feeds us is now also a competitor.
- exelius 10y ago
  > CenturyLink is already one of the big players and they'll never enter markets that Comcast, ATT, or Verizon are already in. The market is drastically changing. Wireless has quickly become the center of the telecom industry; look for CTL to jump in there (which would put them in direct conflict with AT&T and Verizon). The FCC rules governing wireless are also a lot more favorable. CTL already overbuilds residential service on top of AT&T/Verizon/Comcast, albeit in select areas that are underserved. There will still be market space for small ISPs in markets that are too small for the large players to serve (just like there are still small, regional wireless companies) but they'll be fighting over the scraps.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > CenturyLink is already one of the big players and they'll never enter markets that Comcast, ATT, or Verizon are already in. They are entering Comcast's market in Seattle. A lot of places now have two options, where they only had one ~3 years ago.
  - at-fates-hands 10y ago
    They've been competing with Comcast in my area. I was lucky before I moved, I was about 30 yards from the DSLAM and was getting solid internet service from them for about $25 less per month than Comcast. Then I moved to an area they're not servicing very well. My internet speeds went from 60mbs down and 7mbs up to a paltry 4mbs up and 1mbs down. I had to switch to Comcast which wasn't so bad, but I got way better service from CL tbh. I've been told they're building out fiber in my area and their 1gb service will be available "soon".
  - loeg 10y ago
    > They are entering Comcast's market in Seattle They aren't really competitive in most of Seattle. 6-12 Mbit vs ~50 Mbit at the same pricepoint. I don't hate Comcast that much.
colechristensen 10y ago
>Small, local competition for ISPs do not make sense over the long term. I would love a Glass-Steagall for the telecom industry – long haul and last mile not allowed by the same company. ISPs must peer at local exchanges. Add municipal ownership of the last mile fiber with ISPs leasing capacity to individual residences (allowing you to choose one of many) and the world seems ideal. I'm lucky enough / chose my home such that I am served by a local ISP which is hooked up to a local exchange. It's great. The biggest bottleneck is usually WiFi, and after that peering. Having the last mile not be the weakest link is great.
- wmf 10y ago
  So now the "middle mile" ISP is completely undifferentiated and basically owns one router with some ports connected to the local exchange and some ports connected to the municipal last mile... Why bother? Why not just nationalize the whole thing?
  - simplemath 10y ago
    >Why not just nationalize the whole thing?
    - colechristensen 10y ago
      Because the government only drives innovation when it's in competition with other governments (wars mostly). Give it a basic service to manage and it tends to do the shittiest acceptable job possible.
  - colechristensen 10y ago
    The "middle mile" provides customer service, does advertising, installation, bundled services over IP (voice, TV, etc.), negotiates competitive rates and speeds; does things like colocating Netflix on their network to reduce peering costs. Their business is bridging the gap between customers and long-haul network operators. It's basically enforced separation of the wholesale and retail markets. The roads that get you to brick and mortar stores are publicly owned, why not the last mile of fiber? Vertical integration is good for some markets, but markets where your customer is captive because you own the lines outside their house, vertical integration is terrible.

by exelius 10y ago

chrishacken 10y ago

" If, in 10 years, we have a choice between AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and CenturyLink... that will be better." CenturyLink is already one of the big players and they'll never enter markets that Comcast, ATT, or Verizon are already in. We're a small ISP and a Level 3 customer. I'm moderately concerned about what this acquisition will mean for companies like us in the long run. The hand that feeds us is now also a competitor.

exelius 10y ago
> CenturyLink is already one of the big players and they'll never enter markets that Comcast, ATT, or Verizon are already in. The market is drastically changing. Wireless has quickly become the center of the telecom industry; look for CTL to jump in there (which would put them in direct conflict with AT&T and Verizon). The FCC rules governing wireless are also a lot more favorable. CTL already overbuilds residential service on top of AT&T/Verizon/Comcast, albeit in select areas that are underserved. There will still be market space for small ISPs in markets that are too small for the large players to serve (just like there are still small, regional wireless companies) but they'll be fighting over the scraps.
CaptSpify 10y ago
> CenturyLink is already one of the big players and they'll never enter markets that Comcast, ATT, or Verizon are already in. They are entering Comcast's market in Seattle. A lot of places now have two options, where they only had one ~3 years ago.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  They've been competing with Comcast in my area. I was lucky before I moved, I was about 30 yards from the DSLAM and was getting solid internet service from them for about $25 less per month than Comcast. Then I moved to an area they're not servicing very well. My internet speeds went from 60mbs down and 7mbs up to a paltry 4mbs up and 1mbs down. I had to switch to Comcast which wasn't so bad, but I got way better service from CL tbh. I've been told they're building out fiber in my area and their 1gb service will be available "soon".
- loeg 10y ago
  > They are entering Comcast's market in Seattle They aren't really competitive in most of Seattle. 6-12 Mbit vs ~50 Mbit at the same pricepoint. I don't hate Comcast that much.

colechristensen 10y ago

>Small, local competition for ISPs do not make sense over the long term. I would love a Glass-Steagall for the telecom industry – long haul and last mile not allowed by the same company. ISPs must peer at local exchanges. Add municipal ownership of the last mile fiber with ISPs leasing capacity to individual residences (allowing you to choose one of many) and the world seems ideal. I'm lucky enough / chose my home such that I am served by a local ISP which is hooked up to a local exchange. It's great. The biggest bottleneck is usually WiFi, and after that peering. Having the last mile not be the weakest link is great.

wmf 10y ago
So now the "middle mile" ISP is completely undifferentiated and basically owns one router with some ports connected to the local exchange and some ports connected to the municipal last mile... Why bother? Why not just nationalize the whole thing?
- simplemath 10y ago
  >Why not just nationalize the whole thing?
  - colechristensen 10y ago
    Because the government only drives innovation when it's in competition with other governments (wars mostly). Give it a basic service to manage and it tends to do the shittiest acceptable job possible.
- colechristensen 10y ago
  The "middle mile" provides customer service, does advertising, installation, bundled services over IP (voice, TV, etc.), negotiates competitive rates and speeds; does things like colocating Netflix on their network to reduce peering costs. Their business is bridging the gap between customers and long-haul network operators. It's basically enforced separation of the wholesale and retail markets. The roads that get you to brick and mortar stores are publicly owned, why not the last mile of fiber? Vertical integration is good for some markets, but markets where your customer is captive because you own the lines outside their house, vertical integration is terrible.