 mrchrisOut and aroundPremium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | The pipe Be the pipe and nothing else, your worthless portal garbage or other stuff besides just providing access. |
|
 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | If there is money to be made, they will get involved.
For a long time, AOL was the pipe and content, and they flourished |
|
| reply to mrchris
I bet you are not willing to pay what it costs for a dumb pipe. The "worthless portal garbage" helps to pay for and attract other paying customers how help defray the individual costs of the dumb pipes. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:For a long time, AOL was the pipe and content, and they flourished And then this little thing called the internet came along and they were bled dry.  I wouldn't hold up their business model as a shining example of why the ILECs should get into the content game. If anything, it proves exactly why they shouldn't. |
|
| I agree completely. However, to their "benefit" they are also in control of the medium for getting there. AOL did not have this luxury. So the AT&T's and Comcast of the world can place caps, restrictions, and premium content fees with little to no consumer recourse. AOL on the other hand lost out because of those things.
NOTE: Overage charges will fall under the category of premium content fees. |
|
|
|
| reply to battleop
Really? Because I do not know a single person that choose an ISP because of their HomePage Portal. Nor does a single person come to mind that actually uses one of these portals and I do an a lot of computer support for a lot of people. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:I agree completely. However, to their "benefit" they are also in control of the medium for getting there. AOL did not have this luxury. So the AT&T's and Comcast of the world can place caps, restrictions, and premium content fees with little to no consumer recourse. AOL on the other hand lost out because of those things. NOTE: Overage charges will fall under the category of premium content fees. You definitely bring up two very valid points, but those points are central to what most would consider the net neutrality issue. While it seems caps and throttling may be here to stay, if the companies were to say, not count their VoD against the caps, but throttle and count a competitors service they would (will?) open themselves up to scrutiny by the FTC and FCC. With the current incoming Obama administration very pro net-neutrality and seemingly extremely pro-consumer, and Chairman "Telco-Lackey" Martin on his way out, they may not want to jump in that ring.
That is why we are seeing such a vocal movement toward "protocol agnostic" traffic shaping from folks like Comcast. As soon as Time Warner and AT&T roll out and institute their caps, the wording will be the same. |
|
| I agree completely and that is kind of my point.
AOL failed because the consumer had a choice to either deal with their "throttling" and "counting" or go to an ISP that gave you the whole internet for the same cost.
This current path will begin to make it a walled off internet like AOL. Sure you will still have access, but it is at their discretion and with any surcharges they apply. Toss in that they are pretty much shielded from consumers going to a competitor because in broadband there really is no competition to speak of. And if they are all doing it, there certainly is no incentive to go from one to another anyway. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to Skippy25
I know of very few who even have a choice. I haven't had a choice for over 10 years. When DSL came on the scene in 1998, I've been on the waiting list. Just a few thousand feet out of range. No movement from SBC(AT&T) in all of that time. The local cable company finally offered service in 2000 and I've been with them ever since. I would love to have a choice but AT&T simply cannot provide it.
Last summer they announced U-Verse in my community. Can I get it? No. Too far from the CO. Of course that would be the CO to which I am connected. Two other COs are under a mile but I guess that's not the way the wires were originally buried!
I have choices if I'm willing to go wireless. So far everything wireless I've seen is unimpressive. High latency, packet loss and slow speeds. Does WiMax fix these problems? I don't have any experience with 3G cell networks so I might be judging them unfairly -- however most have limited speeds, monthly caps, contractual ties to voice service and high prices. Cricket now offers a $40/month no-contract plan but I've read mixed reviews. It depends on the market and folks say that it has started out good and gets worse. (Assuming here that as more customers join, speeds and service levels drop...) |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to battleop
said by battleop:I bet you are not willing to pay what it costs for a dumb pipe.
That's easy for you to say when the ISPs aren't offering "dumb" as an option.
said by battleop:The "worthless portal garbage" helps to pay for and attract other paying customers how help defray the individual costs ... Utter and complete bullcrap.
Nobody wants the portals. Nobody picks Comcast over AT&T or Verizon over Comcast because of their perception of who has the better portal.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
...just some more roadkill on the Information Superhighway... |
|
CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | reply to battleop
You're on the right track. Let's follow the money here, using Comcast as an example (since everyone like to beat up on them).
Comcast puts the expenses of running its portal, plus any income that comes from advertising online or what have you into an entry on its balance sheet called "Corporate and Other". This includes all of the corporate expenses (running that nice big new building full of people in Philadelphia) and Spectacor (which is the entity that owns the Flyers, the 76ers and some other sports related stuff) as well as all of the online stuff (Comcast Interactive Media).
Total revenues for that in the third quarter of '08 were $71 million, with an overall operating cash flow loss of $119 million (and bear in mind that the online stuff is basically carrying the entire corporate overhead here). Meanwhile, overall revenues for the 3rd quarter were $8.5 billion. Operating cash flow was $3.2 billion and the operating income was $1.7 billion.
In other words, all of this online stuff is a drop in the bucket. You might as well complain about Comcast's share repurchases ($2.8 billion YTD) or dividend payments ($180 million on 10/29/08).
Source: »www.cmcsk.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=11···ghlight=
--
"2 Strangers + 1 20 minute ceremony + $50 + 10 shots of tequila = Holy Matrimony and 1st Class Protections Under the Law… now that’s crazy!" |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to funchords
said by funchords:said by battleop:I bet you are not willing to pay what it costs for a dumb pipe. That's easy for you to say when the ISPs aren't offering "dumb" as an option. said by battleop:The "worthless portal garbage" helps to pay for and attract other paying customers how help defray the individual costs ... Utter and complete bullcrap. Nobody wants the portals. Nobody picks Comcast over AT&T or Verizon over Comcast because of their perception of who has the better portal. I have to agree.
People chose Comcast or AT&T based on which company has the best price, or in rare cases, which company provides better service. |
|
CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | reply to funchords
said by funchords:Utter and complete bullcrap. Nobody wants the portals. Nobody picks Comcast over AT&T or Verizon over Comcast because of their perception of who has the better portal. I'd say people expect the portals. How many ISPs don't offer email? How much ISPs don't offer a place to post a webpage (which also incidentally saves a lot of upstream bandwidth)?
And how many people here like the idea of programming their DVR online? Or looking at their TV guide online? Or checking voicemail online? Or want to check and pay their bill online? Or any of these other synergies across the product line?
Or what about the people that ISPs push to get some kind of virus protection on their computer (perhaps not the best stuff on the market, but a heck of a lot better than nothing)? Just how many more zombies would a "dumb pipe" ISP have on its network?
All of these are "portal" activities. And as I've pointed out elsewhere, as corporate expenses go, they're not terribly big impacts on the bottom line (or on capital expenditures for that matter).
--
"2 Strangers + 1 20 minute ceremony + $50 + 10 shots of tequila = Holy Matrimony and 1st Class Protections Under the Law… now that’s crazy!" |
|
| reply to Skippy25
Someone must be using them. If they were getting zero hits a day they wouldn't run them. |
|
| reply to funchords
"That's easy for you to say when the ISPs aren't offering "dumb" as an option."
They do offer these types of circuits. They don't market them to the consumer because the consumer will not pay the price for a business or enterprise class circuit.
"Nobody wants the portals. Nobody picks Comcast over AT&T or Verizon over Comcast because of their perception of who has the better portal.
That's a pretty big claim that you can't backup. Do you honestly believe that no one visits their portal? |
|
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:For a long time, AOL was the pipe and content, and they flourished They flourished because the ability to get to any content outside of AOL's was a drag. when AOL had its heyday, back in the 90s, the internet lacked a lot of the readily accessible content that is out there now. There was no reuters.com or cnbc.com. You almost had to have your provider give it to your with your service.
But as it has already been said, with the internet, that model is unsustainable. People are going to get their content from sources of their own choosing. The walled garden approach doesn't work any more.
And providers like Verizon and ATT getting into the internet content game are going to get thoroughly beaten. Companies that focus purely on content will eat them for breakfast because it is hard to beat someone in their core business, especially when it is not yours.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to Corydon
said by Corydon:said by funchords:Utter and complete bullcrap. Nobody wants the portals. Nobody picks Comcast over AT&T or Verizon over Comcast because of their perception of who has the better portal. I'd say people expect the portals. How many ISPs don't offer email? How much ISPs don't offer a place to post a webpage (which also incidentally saves a lot of upstream bandwidth)? And how many people here like the idea of programming their DVR online? Or looking at their TV guide online? Or checking voicemail online? Or want to check and pay their bill online? Or any of these other synergies across the product line? Or what about the people that ISPs push to get some kind of virus protection on their computer (perhaps not the best stuff on the market, but a heck of a lot better than nothing)? Just how many more zombies would a "dumb pipe" ISP have on its network? All of these are "portal" activities. And as I've pointed out elsewhere, as corporate expenses go, they're not terribly big impacts on the bottom line (or on capital expenditures for that matter). Every single thing you've mentioned here can be provided by someone other than the ISP.
Content and carriage need to be separated.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
...just some more roadkill on the Information Superhighway... |
|
| reply to rradina
Wireless and cell network internet are different. Have you ever looked into a WISP? who is an actual Wireless Internet provider? |
|
| reply to funchords
And where is your national ISP to provide this service? |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to hottboiinnc
We use a "wireless" provider in our lab at work. It's really bad. 4 - 7% packet loss. Fine for surfing but makes anything else maddening. They've replaced the radio transmitter on our building's roof several times. They've replaced their end but it still has packet loss. My parents out in the country have point-to-point wireless and it too has packet loss. They are about 3 miles from the "water tower" where the ISP's receiver is. Again, fine for surfing but not much else.
Are these examples of WISPs?
Note: Both of these solutions do not use traditional 802 "WiFi" technology. They are wireless but I don't know if they qualify as a WISP. |
|
