grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
| reply to Warez_Zealot
Re: Crazy
Let me illustrate the cycle for you:
Early 20th century government intervention -> Telco wiring monopoly
Late 20th century government intervention in the form of franchise agreements and exclusive MDU deals -> cable monopoly
Telco + fiber + cable = duopoly, which means it isn't hard for the industries to collude on a psychological level and keep prices stable and churn low
Recently there has been some more turbulence between cable and telco, but this is in part due to Martin who is a Telco shill.
Duopoly that provides internet and TV = conflict of interest as TV can go directly through the internet.
Lack of more than 2 competitors in market = easy for internet providers who also have lucrative TV monopolies/duopoly can screw with 3rd party TV traffic over the internet.
Solution = 1) more government intervention to force net neutrality (doomed to failure eventually unless legislation is temporary oh say 20 years until the internet providers are comfortable as being dumb pipes and will be reluctant to go back to the old content provider business model)
Solution = 2) Cable companies and telcos or in other words the EXACT same thing since they both use high bandwidth medium to deliver media services realize that if they push their one way content cartel on the consumer it will backfire either in the form of net neutrality legislation or if they choose not to screw with traffic they will simply be destroyed (as TV providers) by the free market as 3rd party companies start deals with channels like ESPN to offer IP streamed content. I'm not sure how viable this will be as cable companies are still the largest in terms of Voip holdings, but partly because it is difficult to get things fixed when you have multiple companies as each points the finger on the other.
Internet service companies can still make big profits if they just move the charge of cable over to internet and offer tiered services.
Say 400/100 at 140 dollars per month for those who want TV from a 3rd party company (channels will cost next to nothing in this scenario because of vicious competition by IPTV upstarts).
You would still be able to buy cable TV from your cable company.
I think the problem right now might be that cable companies work on the over subscription model and gouge customers, they wouldn't like it if the tables were turned. |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | reply to Warez_Zealot
Oh, he just throws that FUD out every time this story comes up. It's just part of the scare tactics that are supposed to keep the one-fodder-units shut up. |
|
Warez_Zealot
Rural land of the rising sun
join:2006-04-19
japan
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail  :said by dr3yec :Totally agree! It is time that these isp's start upgrading or get out of the business. It the isp's fault for any bandwidth problems. Stop worrying about the shareholder and start worrying about the customer. And will you be a customer if the monthly cost goes from $40/mo to $140/mo because of all the video flowing thru the system and requiring massive investment in new infrastructure? You're thinking the wrong way. North America is an LME market. As a result companies tend to think in the short term. If they acted like a CME they would think of the long term. They would upgrade their networks, not freak out when the stocks *possibly* drop a little, and give it a few years o recover.
Anyhow, look at Verizon. Are they charging $140/mo?
»fp.tm.tue.nl/ecis/papers/Los,%20···aper.pdf
Read this and maybe you will get a different perspective.
To be honest, I think it's time the Governments tax every ISP who ever received a dime of subsidies and use that money to develop better back bones and last km to the customer. Once that is rolled out, they can lease that network to various 3rd party startup who would to customer connections and provide the internet /w their own head end. In Canada we need this since there is literally 1-2 real ISP's in each city (if that). |
|
