So ask yourself this. If it is profitable, then why not continue to do it? If the telcos are out to make money, and there is money to be made doing what they have been doing up until now, why stop?
That's a very good question, and the real answer is, Wall Street is a bunch of f'ed up money-grubbing high-maintenance losers.
Edit: What I really meant by that, in a less childish way of speaking, I suppose, is that it seems that most of the entrenched Wall Street-types, are basically fueled by Greed, and have mostly lost their Humanity, and lost care for their fellow person. I believe in doing what's best, if possible, for the whole picture.
I mean, those that want the highest short-term gain, mostly turn to crime, and I think there's a fine line sometimes between street criminals and Wall Street-types. Just my biased opinion.
On the other hand, those people that are CEOs at major companies, if they are any good, are pretty serious leaders, as well as potential risk-takers. Which are positive traits.
For my example, Verizon introduced Fiber-To-The-Home a few years back, they called it FIOS.
The CEO changed, the new CEO *halted expansion* of FIOS. Not because it wasn't making money, it was. It was that it wasn't making a HUGE ENOUGH PROFIT IMMEDIATELY TO SATISFY WALL STREET.
Wall Street, in case you hadn't guessed, does NOT "support" Main Street (rural America), in any way shape or form. The do not support infrastructure. All they care about is profits, and not just that, but HUGE profits. Immediately, so that they can cash out.
Only more recently, has FIOS expansion been happening again, and now finally, Boston is getting FIOS, and parts of NYC that were supposed to be served before, but weren't.
Edit: These delays in infrastructure-building, when shown on a balance sheet, really don't account for the very real HUMAN COST of delaying their introduction. This is lives we're talking about. Not life-and-death, generally (although it may get to that if the telcos get to abandon copper without "reliable replacements" being required by law), but a very real and measurable quality-of-life issue. Kind of like being stuck without an air conditioner in summertime. Depending on the climate, you'll most likely survive, but it's going to be... unpleasant.
Edit: I haven't run the numbers, but I feel that FIOS could, potentially be a money maker in rural America. Maybe. But OTOH, if everyone is eventually moved to fiber, then they're going to have to do it eventually anyways, right?
Edit: And if it's truly not profitable, at all, then that's why we have the sorts of social welfare programs that we do, in the form of the Universal Service Fund.
Though, if some successful Mesh Networking project takes off, then I can see plenty of rural folks buying their own little slice 'o the 'net, and powering it up, and together, they can form their own network, that ties into the greater phone and internet networks at the edges, where possible and commercially feasible. (I posted a link to just such a thing happening, in the other FCC "network neutrality" thread here.)
Maybe I shouldn't get sucked into P&N posting, on the eve of my Mod appointment. I just saw that news article about this vote, thought that it was timely, remembered that P&N required a comment about the link, and not just a link, and then I felt the need to defend my position when questioned.
I think that I'm going to bow out, and just say that, pure unadulterated greed, is NOT the solution to the world's problems. The "invisible hand", needs to remember to NOT cause pain, in doing what it's doing.
Facebook
Twitter