 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | And what's up with internet service? Interestingly enough, the study maintains deep silence about the troubled cable networks: when it comes to next-gen bandwidth, new high-speed tiers plus plenty of HDTVs in a house, most of the cable networks will be forced to finally invest into long due but always postponed (see profit) developments, otherwise telcos will eat up their outdated networks alive within few years. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Well, that's debateable.. D2.0 and D3.0 will bring their speeds up to acceptable levels, most likely. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to kamm
said by kamm:Interestingly enough, the study maintains deep silence about the troubled cable networks: when it comes to next-gen bandwidth, new high-speed tiers plus plenty of HDTVs in a house, most of the cable networks will be forced to finally invest into long due but always postponed (see profit) developments, otherwise telcos will eat up their outdated networks alive within few years. Wasn't it the cable industry that just invested about 90 BILLION to build a hybrid-fiber-coax network oh, say, about 10 years ago?
--
I have tried to see things from your point of view, but no matter how hard I try, or what I do, I just can't get my head that far up my ass. |
|
|
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | said by Matt:said by kamm:Interestingly enough, the study maintains deep silence about the troubled cable networks: when it comes to next-gen bandwidth, new high-speed tiers plus plenty of HDTVs in a house, most of the cable networks will be forced to finally invest into long due but always postponed (see profit) developments, otherwise telcos will eat up their outdated networks alive within few years. Wasn't it the cable industry that just invested about 90 BILLION to build a hybrid-fiber-coax network oh, say, about 10 years ago? You mean that's what they say?  Well, even if they did, that was a decade ago.
Keep in mind that 10 years ago they barely had internet users at all, let alone at multiple-tens of millions scale. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl:Well, that's debateable.. D2.0 and D3.0 will bring their speeds up to acceptable levels, most likely. That's highly unlikely because new modem standards doesn't solve the network congestion problem... Face it: they did not invest enough into upgardes, now they have to - that's why they created the 'multi-tiered' internet shit, to create a fuckin new business modell, new revenues, so they can recoup the cost and simultaneously stretch out the essential upgrades whicle they're playing the 'gatekleeper' role, allowing billed traffic only. |
|
 Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | reply to Ahrenl
You might get a faster speed to the CO but there pipes will be the same, they will be forced to upgrade to catch up with the pounds of cash the telco's are skating on. |
|
yac898
join:2002-12-06
Stony Plain, AB | reply to kamm
who is your local cable co? how do you know they have not invested in their network?. after reading your comments to see if they are true or just another uneducated rant, i searched my local cable co ( aprox 4 million subs ) and have found out they have spent, on average, 550+ million/ year over the last 5 years on capital costs. they are spending about the same this year, and are forecasting just under 600 million for 07.
advertising expenses come in just under 35 mill/year on average, and customer aquisions are forcast as minimal (read no free ipods or monitors). assume half of those costs are for labour/building maintance, bills, ect, that leaves about 200 mill for system upgrades/year. not alot, but nothing to sneeze at either. i dont know what your local telco is like, but here they are just starting to roll out adsl2+. if you think that adsl2+ can "eat up a mid sized cableco" i think
it must be time for you to switch to a better brand of crack. |
|
| reply to kamm
Short term memory problem? It was, is, and likely will continue to be the telcos who are the only ones proposing a so called two tier internet. |
|
yac898
join:2002-12-06
Stony Plain, AB | reply to kamm
again, where do you get your facts? i've searched and all i can find is telcos and multi tiered internet, not cable co's.
with bell south & at&t being the loudest (and first) voices.
please post a link stating the cableco's are responsible for this. as for network congestion, it is a problem and i agree the cable co's ( at least where i live are reactive, not proactive). they saturate a node and then SPLIT, not splitting b4 saturation is achieved. that being said, another search has come up with 61 node splits for my city & surrounding satelite communities, scheduled for completion b4 aug 1/06. in my opinion, node splits should happen as needed.
allowing billed traffic only? what does this mean? i pay my bill so all traffic i generate is allowed, period. you must live in some communist country if you recieve anthing less than that. oh wait you live in the states, where the corporate voices speak louder than that of the consumer. my advice, move. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | said by yac898:again, where do you get your facts? Did you bother to look up the numbers?
When a Comcrap spent some 10B over 7 YEARS - everything including food for company parties etc - but at the same time its network grown 60x-100x times then you know what I mean, I guess...
i've searched and all i can find is telcos and multi tiered internet, not cable co's.
Then you should look again: cable is the loudest. Telco, as another actor in the scene, would simply enjoy the same role, of course. I never said they aren't dirty - in this case they are on the same plate with cables. But the main power was and always are the cable monopolies behind such multi-tiering.
with bell south & at&t being the loudest (and first) voices.
please post a link stating the cableco's are responsible for this.
Please do your own research - check all the comments from cable companies on the subject - Comcrap, Crapter etc etc - at least here, at BBR.
as for network congestion, it is a problem and i agree the cable co's ( at least where i live are reactive, not proactive). they saturate a node and then SPLIT, not splitting b4 saturation is achieved. that being said, another search has come up with 61 node splits for my city & surrounding satelite communities, scheduled for completion b4 aug 1/06. in my opinion, node splits should happen as needed.
You're missing the point. Cable monopolies are able to do it because they are enjoying monopolies. That's what has to go.
allowing billed traffic only? what does this mean? i pay my bill so all traffic i generate is allowed, period. you must live in some communist country if you recieve anthing less than that. oh wait you live in the states, where the corporate voices speak louder than that of the consumer. my advice, move.
Are you high? WTF are you talking about? |
|
