From J.R. Snyder Jr.
From J.R. Snyder Jr. (internal link)
On the telecom front, I feel as if we've stepped into a time warp. We're back to former RBOC's wanting into cable TV; how reminiscent of the late 80's and early 90's. This time there's a twist: cable TV wants to get into wireless and VOIP.
The business news people are calling it the cable vs. telco wars. It seems to me that it's more like trucking vs. rail, two different forms of transit that serve different purposes. Sometimes I don't have the stomach to keep up with the current events, I'm still more interested in the history, although there is the thought that history repeats itself and that may be a lesson here.
I suspect that telcos are more talk than action and CATV is more active. What I don't like about any of this is that it's leading towards buying a package of services, which to me is actually less choice. In other words, the consumer will be in the position of if they only want wireless and not CATV or wireline or VOIP, they won't really be able to choose among wireless providers but buying a single service from a package provider at a premium price for one product. It's the trend where marketing forces demand consumers buy products in a lump. In other words, buy it all or a single piece that's overpriced. So what's the difference between marketers forcing a monopoly by the force of marketing or the government forcing a regulated monopoly? I don't pretend to have an answer, but just a question. I also hope that made sense. Any thoughts?
What if I like my Verizon Wireless service and my Comcast CATV but the separate cost is far more expensive than a package from either Verizon or Comcast, or Cox or SBC for that matter for all the services? Or I only want broadband and wireless and not CATV and VOIP? How about forcing satellite radio in the mix on me that I may never listen to?
ok...I'll stop rambling.
J.R.