3 ms·

The big problem with that unbundling scheme is that it made DSL less profitable than cable internet,which didn't have to be unbundled (because they aren't ILECs

The big problem with that unbundling scheme is that it made DSL less profitable than cable internet,which didn't have to be unbundled (because they aren't ILECs). This is why in the USA the cable companies are the big ISP leaders and the telecoms are second fiddle. Verizon only built Fios when they got clearance that they wouldn't have to share it. The unbundling is a great way to make sure that legacy systems are fairly priced. It's a bad way build new systems.

wahern 10y ago
It's worth pointing out that Verizon has abandoned Fios expansion. Most of their build-out was to low hanging fruit like new residential communities where they laid fiber instead of copper. So there's no simple cause+effect here related to unbundling. And even with unbundling it's not like a company loses money; they just lose monopoly rents but are guaranteed some profit whether or not they have to share. Really the issue is about opportunity cost and financing: Verizon would rather invest in endeavors with a higher return than what they'd get with copper or even fiber. That higher return is wireless. But there's so much cash available, or at least there has been for the past 10 years, that theoretically somebody could have stepped in to invest in these projects. Google was tentatively one of those people--initially it was enough for them to break even--but it looks like the only entity capable of committing for the long haul will be a non-profit or government entity. More so as the era of freakishly low capital costs slowly comes to an end.
thomastjeffery 10y ago
> The big problem with that unbundling scheme is that it made DSL less profitable than cable internet,which didn't have to be unbundled (because they aren't ILECs). Don't forget the fact that it's 2017, and DSL sucks. 40mbit down and 10mbit up at best is what DSL providers tend to offer. DSL just isn't viable compared to cable.

wahern 10y ago

It's worth pointing out that Verizon has abandoned Fios expansion. Most of their build-out was to low hanging fruit like new residential communities where they laid fiber instead of copper. So there's no simple cause+effect here related to unbundling. And even with unbundling it's not like a company loses money; they just lose monopoly rents but are guaranteed some profit whether or not they have to share. Really the issue is about opportunity cost and financing: Verizon would rather invest in endeavors with a higher return than what they'd get with copper or even fiber. That higher return is wireless. But there's so much cash available, or at least there has been for the past 10 years, that theoretically somebody could have stepped in to invest in these projects. Google was tentatively one of those people--initially it was enough for them to break even--but it looks like the only entity capable of committing for the long haul will be a non-profit or government entity. More so as the era of freakishly low capital costs slowly comes to an end.

thomastjeffery 10y ago

> The big problem with that unbundling scheme is that it made DSL less profitable than cable internet,which didn't have to be unbundled (because they aren't ILECs). Don't forget the fact that it's 2017, and DSL sucks. 40mbit down and 10mbit up at best is what DSL providers tend to offer. DSL just isn't viable compared to cable.