 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | That's the whole point ISPs aren't afraid of traffic. They're afraid of video competition. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by Dogfather:ISPs aren't afraid of traffic. They're afraid of video competition. Only if they don't have someone on staff with basic algebra skills to show why they don't need to be worried about it anytime soon. |
|
1 edit | reply to Dogfather
ISPs aren't afraid of traffic. They're afraid of video competition. 2nd |
|
|
|
 Jovi
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA | reply to Dogfather
Afraid of video competition and another way to milk a buck. 
--
"Where's my coffee? Oh. I guess it's my turn to make it."  |
|
andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by Dogfather:ISPs aren't afraid of traffic. They're afraid of video competition. Only if they don't have someone on staff with basic algebra skills to show why they don't need to be worried about it anytime soon. Since for many people content is more important than HD quality, services like Hulu, which can easily be accomodated by most existing broadband connections, are posing a threat right now. It's not necessary for the perfect substitute to come along for them to lose a large number of potential subscribers. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by andre2:Since for many people content is more important than HD quality, services like Hulu, which can easily be accomodated by most existing broadband connections, are posing a threat right now. The numbers don't really support that.
In May, Hulu served 80 million video streams and 411 million total minutes of video, according to Nielsen's VideoCensus, meaning each stream was 5.1 minutes in length, time in most cases for just one ad exposure. And according to ComScore, Hulu users spent an average of 6.6 minutes on the site per visit in May. Source: »www.alleyinsider.com/2008/7/hulu···business
Certainly there are some people watching large quantities of content on Hulu, but the vast majority are not. I think if you did a serious poll you'd also find the average Hulu viewer uses the service to augment their existing TV service, not replace it. |
|
andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA | said by espaeth:Certainly there are some people watching large quantities of content on Hulu, but the vast majority are not. I think if you did a serious poll you'd also find the average Hulu viewer uses the service to augment their existing TV service, not replace it. You'd have to include not only Hulu, but Abc.com, Cbs.com, etc. And then there's unauthorized sources such as Youtube, bittorrent, etc. (which are probably largely responsible for the fact that legal sources exist at all).
I'm sure you're right about augmenting as opposed to replacing existing TV service, but in the present economic downturn, that can mean a lot of people who decide to use their existing flat-rate broadband more, as opposed to subscribing to an extra service. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
3 edits | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by Dogfather:ISPs aren't afraid of traffic. They're afraid of video competition. Only if they don't have someone on staff with basic algebra skills to show why they don't need to be worried about it anytime soon. Sure, you go on believing the myth that Apple alone selling or renting 1,500,000 movies and shows a month isn't cutting into MSO VOD PPV revenue. The MSOs certainly aren't that stupid.
Add to that Unbox, Microsoft, Netflix, Hulu and the rest; the MSOs see the writing on the wall and they're certainly afraid of this new competition. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | reply to espaeth
We're not talking about replacing "TV". These online vendors taking MSO VOD PPV revenues is enough to scare the MSOs into this defensive posture. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather:Sure, you go on believing the myth that Apple alone selling or renting 1,500,000 movies and shows a month isn't cutting into MSO VOD PPV revenue. The MSOs certainly aren't that stupid. Comcast claims 250 million VOD views each month (Source: »www.multichannel.com/article/CA6509888.html ), so even if every single one of those views came from a Comcast subscriber you're only talking about 0.6% encroachment.
Of course, there's other people in the game (DirecTV, Dish, ATT, Cablevision, etc etc) so the numbers dilute down even further. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | But those numbers come from FREE VOD programming.
How many of that 250 million are Pay Per View rentals? |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Those numbers include both free and pay content delivered via VOD.
You're missing the point though. Internet video delivery in its current form is so inefficient it has inherent limits preventing it from scaling to anything threatening in the foreseeable term. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | 
Growth is gone |
said by espaeth:Those numbers include both free and pay content delivered via VOD. You're missing the point though. Internet video delivery in its current form is so inefficient it has inherent limits preventing it from scaling to anything threatening in the foreseeable term. That is pure conjecture. 3rd party video is infinitely scalable so long as MSOs and telcos don't interfere. The only thing stopping 3rd party video scalability is ISP capping.
And 3rd party video is obviously having an impact on Comcast VOD growth and major Comcast VOD growth comes from free content (meaning no additional revenue for the MSO). We seen from Comcast's own data that growth has come to a grinding halt.
--
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -Hermann Goering 4/18/46 |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by Dogfather:That is pure conjecture. 3rd party video is infinitely scalable so long as MSOs and telcos don't interfere. The only thing stopping 3rd party video scalability is ISP capping. Are you kidding me? That's like saying courier services could take over for the USPS, delivering each letter individually with no issues of scale. (they can keep getting more drivers and cars, right?) Can you really not see the obvious scaling issues in having bandwidth utilization increase linearly with every view of identical content? ISP bandwidth restrictions is an issue, not the issue.
said by Dogfather:And 3rd party video is obviously having an impact on Comcast VOD growth. We seen from Comcast's own data that growth has come to a grinding halt. Look at that graph closely again -- viewing numbers decline every year leading into December, largely because network programming starts coming back with new shows so there's more compelling regular content to view.
You have to keep in mind that with VoD you're also fighting the human element. Internet-based VoIP providers are significantly cheaper than MSO options, and yet MSOs continue to subscribe people in record numbers. Why? The MSO takes care of all of the setup work and they provide real technical support both via phone and people who will come out to your house. (Arguments about quality of that support notwithstanding) The overwhelming majority of the people in this country are not technology evangelists. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
2 edits | You're missing my point. You talk about couriers "taking over" for USPS but you actually think for a second that United Parcel Service and Fedex haven't taken business from the Postal Service? No one here is saying that iTunes will completely replace MSO VOD, only that it's a huge threat to MSO PPV revenue just as UPS and Fedex are a huge threat to USPS revenues.
In terms of scalability, remember, Apple and Microsoft don't offer free content. All of their content is revenue generating so while the more VOD content Comcast sees used, the more money it costs them, the opposite is true for Apple, Amazon and Microsoft. The more views they have the more revenue they make. That is why they are easily scalable; every view pays for itself with plenty of margin.
MSOs are working, via caps, to insure the "couriers" of today; iTunes, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix, etc, don't become the UPS and Fedex of tomorrow. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by Dogfather:MSOs are working, via caps, to insure the "couriers" of today; iTunes, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix, etc, don't become the UPS and Fedex of tomorrow. The problem is much more simple than that.
For their HSI service they estimated a certain amount of usage to arrive at a price. There are now applications out there that will drive utilization beyond that estimated amount. The issue is that while the number of users that exceed estimated usage might be as high as 30-40%, they still represent an overall minority of the subscriber base.
Raising prices for everyone would cost them subscribers, especially the light users who had concerns justifying the cost increase over dialup. Implementing top-end usage fees may also cost them customers as well, but mostly only those on the unprofitable end of the scale. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | Except we have yet to see any verified instances of major network congestion that warrants nationwide capping/fapping policies. The ISPs that have been crying congestion (like Bell Canada) turned out to be lying when forced to actually provide data supporting their assertions.
We're not talking about top end usage. Comcast's plan includes a FAP in addition to the big cap. Just a few hours of usage can result in the connection being traffic shaped to the point of breaking the stream (as the buffer empties). Time Warner's testing includes caps so low that just a few movies would cause a customer to start paying overage fees with no other traffic. Even my provider, Cox, has low caps and if they actually enforced them would severely impact my rental patterns. And unfortunately their competitor is AT&T, which now that they have their own VOD services are also planning caps (for no reason according to reported industry insiders familiar with their network loads). |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:The problem is much more simple than that. For their HSI service they estimated a certain amount of usage to arrive at a price. There are now applications out there that will drive utilization beyond that estimated amount. The issue is that while the number of users that exceed estimated usage might be as high as 30-40%, they still represent an overall minority of the subscriber base. Then why would they market faster speeds, which would in effect make it easier for a single connection to overrun the node? You cannot upgrade the speed to the end user without upgrading the overall throughput capability of the network.
As technology has evolved, so has content. The ISPs have evolved their marketing to match, but not their capability.
ISPs have been profitable. Reinvest or fade away.
cw |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by wentlanc:Then why would they market faster speeds, which would in effect make it easier for a single connection to overrun the node? You cannot upgrade the speed to the end user without upgrading the overall throughput capability of the network. That's the biggest misconception of this whole debate. Of course you can upgrade the speed to the end user without increasing upstream capacity by the same amount. It's a statistically muxed system, so the less time my large transfer takes the probability that my transfer will line up with others on the network also becomes lower. With the exception of continuous traffic applications like streaming and P2P, increasing transfer rates actually tends to lower network impact.
See: »Faster speed doesn't necessarily mean more quantity
said by wentlanc:As technology has evolved, so has content. The ISPs have evolved their marketing to match, but not their capability. Capacity still exceeds demand for the overwhelming majority of broadband subscribers. |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | However, when you continue to add hosts to a node without upgrading the node, and add in the speed increase, and it's a recipe for disaster.
And way to build a network that cannot satisfy your customers' demand. Stop advertising that you can get to streaming music, videos, and the like FASTER if the network is not built to handle it.
cw |
|
