tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| several caveats... 1. Telco gets serious about FTTP / deep fiber and competing on price / value.
2. Consumer demand for high speed applications (video, sure.. but what else?)
3. Economic viability (ability for consumers to afford the rates which are just about guaranteed to be over $100/month by the time they achieve such capability).
4. Cable companies must be able to protect their content or evolve their business model... do you really think they're gonna unleash 1gbit and kill their existing Cable-Tv business without a way to make up that revenue? I don't think so. | |
|
 decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN | Re: several caveats... Its called Caps on content that's not theirs... | |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
 ·CableOne
| said by tmc8080  :3. Economic viability (ability for consumers to afford the rates which are just about guaranteed to be over $100/month by the time they achieve such capability). When I had Comcast in 2005, I paid $62.95 for 8/1. Now that same $62.95 gets you 20/5 with Comcast.
The speeds they are offering have kept up with bandwidth demand so far. The only reason I could see for your prediction to come true is if everyone started using their connection for a TV pipe, and the cablecos charged more to make up for lost TV revenue. But if that happened, the consumer wouldn't be paying for separate TV service anymore, so the bill for both TV and internet would still be the same.
--
How many assholes do we have on this ship, anyway?
YO!
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes! | |
|
 | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: several caveats... said by PolarBear :said by tmc8080 :3. Economic viability (ability for consumers to afford the rates which are just about guaranteed to be over $100/month by the time they achieve such capability). The only reason I could see for your prediction to come true is if everyone started using their connection for a TV pipe, and the cablecos charged more to make up for lost TV revenue. But if that happened, the consumer wouldn't be paying for separate TV service anymore, so the bill for both TV and internet would still be the same. If all TV content starts being delivered over the internet, you can bet your life that the cost will increase to deliver internet access. Cable companies subsidize the infrastructure costs with their cable TV revenues. Lose that and they will have to raise the price of internet access to cover the now unsubsidized costs. Will the "TV over internet only" price be less than the existing combo price of internet/cable TV - Yes. But it will never be as low as the currently subsidized price of internet access.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
| | 
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
·Cingular Wireless
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: several caveats... said by TKJunkMail :If all TV content starts being delivered over the internet, you can bet your life that the cost will increase to deliver internet access. Cable companies subsidize the infrastructure costs with their cable TV revenues. Lose that and they will have to raise the price of internet access to cover the now unsubsidized costs. Will the "TV over internet only" price be less than the existing combo price of internet/cable TV - Yes. But it will never be as low as the currently subsidized price of internet access. If cable MSO's want to raise internet rates marginally to recoup lost CATV subscribers, BRING IT ON!! By all means, if a $10-$15 increase in my monthly internet cost gives me truly unlimited service, complete with EITHER truly uncapped bandwidth, or REASONABLE caps and overages, I'm all ears. I for one have NO problem if Comcast and other companies embrace the "dumb pipe" model. It's basically like the ala-carte enthusiasts' dreams come true... | |
|
| 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| said by PolarBear :When I had Comcast in 2005, I paid $62.95 for 8/1. Now that same $62.95 gets you 20/5 with Comcast. I remember when Optimum Online was the fastest thing around with 10/1 speeds for $49.95/month (up from the original $39.95). Now we get 15/2 for the same price and they are no longer the speed leaders for your average user unless you pay extra for "Boost".
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by PolarBear :said by tmc8080 :3. Economic viability (ability for consumers to afford the rates which are just about guaranteed to be over $100/month by the time they achieve such capability). When I had Comcast in 2005, I paid $62.95 for 8/1. Now that same $62.95 gets you 20/5 with Comcast. VIDEO subsidizes HSI as it does on every cable provider.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| Re: several caveats... And I assume by that you mean that since there would be no more video service, the cost of HSI would be dramatically higher. And you're right. But as I said above,
said by PolarBear :if that happened, the consumer wouldn't be paying for separate TV service anymore, so the bill for both TV and internet would still be the same. Yes the price of HSI would go up, but the price of video would be zero. So essentially, you'd be getting the same two services (just via different delivery methods) and paying the same amount (for example $120 for both services together instead of $60 for each service separately. | |
|
|
|
|
