11–20 of 193 posts
Aren't these companies making a profit on this infrastructure? Are they selling more profitable services and they want users to switch over? Are the maintenance fees that high?
Copper can still play a role. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.fast
"...for local loops shorter than 500 m"
Pardon the possibly ignorant question, but what do the telecom companies have to gain by destroying their own infrastructure? I feel like I'm missing something about the US telecom market here. Aren't these companies making a profit on this infrastructure? Are they selling more profitable services and they want users to switch over? Are the maintenance fees that high?
This ruling let’s them abandon them altogether from what I gathered.
Copper can still play a role. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.fast
From Wikipedia: "...for local loops shorter than 500 m"
A large part of the infrastructure you need to replace when upgrading is inside buildings. With a 500m radius, you can avoid rewiring buildings and have loops terminate in the street.
This is exactly what Verizon did to parts of the NE after Hurricane Sandy. They provided CDMA/LTE based pots services in areas in which they didn't feel it was economical to rewire with fiber.
Pardon the possibly ignorant question, but what do the telecom companies have to gain by destroying their own infrastructure? I feel like I'm missing something about the US telecom market here. Aren't these companies making a profit on this infrastructure? Are they selling more profitable services and they want users to switch over? Are the maintenance fees that high?
It’s not destroying the infrastructure, it’s abandoning it. The article states that prior to this ruling they’re required to maintain or replace with comparable functionality for existing copper customers. This ruling let’s them abandon them altogether from what I gathered.
Pardon the possibly ignorant question, but what do the telecom companies have to gain by destroying their own infrastructure? I feel like I'm missing something about the US telecom market here. Aren't these companies making a profit on this infrastructure? Are they selling more profitable services and they want users to switch over? Are the maintenance fees that high?
It would definitely be more profitable to drop support for large parts (land mass, not population) of the U.S. entirely.
Pardon the possibly ignorant question, but what do the telecom companies have to gain by destroying their own infrastructure? I feel like I'm missing something about the US telecom market here. Aren't these companies making a profit on this infrastructure? Are they selling more profitable services and they want users to switch over? Are the maintenance fees that high?
Selling the copper from the wires also could be quite lucrative.
Pardon the possibly ignorant question, but what do the telecom companies have to gain by destroying their own infrastructure? I feel like I'm missing something about the US telecom market here. Aren't these companies making a profit on this infrastructure? Are they selling more profitable services and they want users to switch over? Are the maintenance fees that high?
In the U.S. rural telecoms access has always existed because of government mandates supported in part by government subsidies and taxes. It would definitely be more profitable to drop support for large parts (land mass, not population) of the U.S. entirely.