how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
2656 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 |  Generate More Money and Kill Online Video
| |
|  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Generate More Money and Kill Online Video Wait.. they have a right to protect their own business lines, at this point. But, that's another argument.
HOWEVER, it's not VOD they are protecting.. it's SVOD and PPV they are trying to protect. Their free VOD is just the loss leader to get people to go to Channel 1 or the VOD channel so they will see the recent releases and possibly buy one.
On another note.. you still also don't see people rushing to the online movie downloads either.. many people, the common Jones', don't know what movie downloads are or how to make them work on their televisions... yet.
I think a lot of the arguments and wars being waged about online entertainment is largely being waged in the small tech community that wants it.. but, at large, I still don't see it being much of a war.. not now, not at this time.
I still think, at this time, the war that's being battled are the few, small hand-fulls of customers, that are in fact over consuming with their lines causing others to slow down, snubbing their nose at TOS/AUP agreements which cause a lot of grief for the company and other customers. Remember, those peak time slow downs can be caused not only by a large group of people on line, but a few who are over using their service in ways its not intended.. ie: abiding by the rules. | |
| | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
3 edits | Re: Generate More Money and Kill Online Video "45 percent of respondents across the UK, France, Spain, Germany, and Italy claimed to be watching at least some TV online, with France taking the lead at 59 percent."
"As much as 20 percent of all TV viewing in the US now happens online,"
From:»www.betanews.com/article/Surveys···17453732
That is a lot more than a small tech community.
Downloading during non-peak hours (11pm-8am roughly) causes other peoples connections to slowdown how? It does not. Caps will not cure this problem. Proof of this is in the fact that Charter's new 60Mbps tier is still uncapped. It is capable of downloading over 600GB per day. Now compare that to the 50GB a day a 5Mbps connection can download. If congestion was really at issue there would be a huge price difference in the two tiers(it is $60/month for 5Mbps and $115 for 60Mbps) to discourage most from downloading large amounts. Congestion is not the issue. Protecting their video product and corporate greed are the issue. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: Generate More Money and Kill Online Video Without picking that survey apart, 20%, in my opinion, is a biased, skewed number. If 20% of all TV viewing was online, I'd then have to argue that 6 million homes are not ready for viewing digital TV. Sorry.. it's not 20%, .. that so called study doesn't get deep enough. Pretty much, I'm sure the study was asked "do you watch at least 1 video on line"?" and if they answer "yes" they are counted as an online viewer.. plain, flat, pure, B.S. of a study.
As for the cap issue and corporate greed.. you just lost me in carrying on a discussion. I refuse to discuss with ANYONE when they bring up the end result of "corporate greed" becuase my only defense to you is "you're a socialist" and I'm not interested in that debate. I'm not about to force a company to drop their revenue for simply providing a service to the customer so they can put themselves out of business.
If they are in fact protecting their, as many call it "lucrative video service" WHICH happens to BE their primary business in the first place, then fine! I'll accept that, ... but now, lets start taking supply and demand in play here and let's charge what the internet really is "worth".. and let's slap a $100+ price tag on the connection.
You, or anyone else, is NOT going to force an ISP, mostly cable, to drop their price of internet, while their video is diminished by a player who has NO investment in the delivery system, in order to give you cheaper access to service which are provided by the very company who's main business IS video. I will also agree with the same of the phone company.. I'm not going to support anyone's view to drop the price of internet so cheap so someone can use that line to buy a 3rd part Voip service to put phone into jeopardy.
You guys wanting to devalue internet to get more from it also don't realize you are also calling for the destabilization of the network system itself.
Cable TV offers video, THEN internet. Phone Companies offer VOICE, THEN internet. If you guys want to find new ways to put their main service out of business, you think they're going to keep internet prices low? Hell no! You're going to see prices of internet spike! In case you haven't noticed, the REASON why services like Vonage and Blockbuster/Netflix are so cheap online is becuase THEY, unlike the carriers, do not have an infrustructure to maintain. They don't have thousands of employees to pay, fleets to maintain, plant to repair and build.
So.. you can honestly, at this point, take your socialist "yea, buts" and apply real world reasoning to them, and try again. Everything I've posted has been countered with reasons that are not valid to the argument. I mean, to compare Japan and their system to ours is absurd. If the grass is greener over there, then PLEASE, by all means, move to Japan to get your dream internet.. OR, move to Utah for Utopia, which, by the way, has caps and is failing.
Good luck! But, I'm done following this thread.
One more thing.. you are right about one thing, kinda,.. it's not 100% congestion though it is, that is the problem, but it's not corporate greed. But, it IS greed, on the consumer level. People wanted caps defined, they got them. If you had any experience in managing a network, which you clearly don't, you have to balance your networks to keep them flowing. This is true even in a well planned corporate network. You have to limit data flow at the managed switch level. So, why should a wan be any different? Customer greed, while VERY slim, IS a HUGE deal when you start bring in lawyers and government investigations into issues that never existed in the first place.. rather, it's the consumer that DOES in fact slow the node down (see the fat guy on YouTube whining that he was cut off even after being warned to cut back, and didn't) that causes the problem for the rest. And, to be honest, even with a 250gb cap, that we're at now, it is not going to matter at ALL to the 99% of users out there.. but, you asked for a definition, you got one. It's CLEAR it's not "unlimited" which means there is a limit.. you got it defined. You also have NO idea what the average user is using. If 99% of the people get by with far less than 250 gb, then why can't you? If you need more data, then you should consider getting a line that supports your needs. But, for now, 250 is fine. | |
| | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Generate More Money and Kill Online Video On the cap issue; I showed you why it will not cure the congestion issue and why it is a matter of greed. They are advertising a tier (that runs over the exact same system) that is uncapped and is capable of downloading over three and three quarters times that data per day as their current next fastest tier(60Mbps vs 16Mbps), how can congestion be the issue? It cannot.
Admitting that they are doing this to protect their video products will get them in trouble with the FCC, which is why they are so adamant that it is not to protect their video products. Just look at Comcast and the VOIP issue. By treating their VOIP differently from everyone elses VOIP it is a anti competitive act. Video is the exact same thing.
Yes, there are times you need to control the flow of the network. IF Comcast had just used the proticol agnostic throttling, I personally would have thought that to be a acceptable solution. Effectively that would have throttled those people who were causing other customers speed issues. Downloading during off peak hours (which would not be affected by this type of throttling) does not cause such issues.
The thing you are not getting is that the market is inverting. POTS is already seeing a rapid decline. Video(current version) is definitely headed the same direction. The companies have to accept this. I think FIOS already has accepted this. They are in a prime position where they can (when the time comes) switch to IP based video. People want to watch what they want, when they want.
It is sure funny that when facing the competition of local fiber systems, the big players can pull out all the stops. From dropping their prices to the lowest that they offer nationwide to threatening to move support centers out of the area, they have done everything possible to drive this competition out of business. They know that when others show that it can in fact be done for less (just like in other countries), people are not going to stand for it. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Generate More Money and Kill Online Video said by Lazlow:They are advertising a tier (that runs over the exact same system) that is uncapped and is capable of downloading over three and three quarters times that data per day as their current next fastest tier(60Mbps vs 16Mbps), how can congestion be the issue? That 60mbps tier runs on 4 times (or more) as much last mile bandwidth through the use of DOCSIS 3 then the 16 Mbps tier does. That 60 Mbps tier has pretty much free reign on those additional channels, unlike the 16 Mbps tier which shares channels with all the lower tiers running DOCSIS 1 gear like Moxi boxes, eMTAs, and any other DOCSIS devices like status monitoring.
60Mbps isn't even possible on the DOCSIS 1 system all the other tiers and devices run on. DOCSIS 3 devices have access to spectrum above 860 Mhz which isn't available to DOCSIS 1 devices. | |
| | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Generate More Money and Kill Online Video D2 runs from 88 to 860 MHz while D3 runs from 108 up to 1 GHz. Most of that(108 to 860) is shared between D2 and D3. This is further limited by the channels that are already taken up by the video side(rf is rf). Yes video had access to the 860-1000mhz first, so they used the frequencies that were available. So in reality they will (on most system) be running on the same (shared) channels.
www.microtune.com/products/whitepapers/docsis3cablemodems.pdf
Pages 3-5 are the most relevant. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Generate More Money and Kill Online Video Video didn't use above 860 because the equipment commonly available can't use it. Tuners in TVs only go up to 860 and tuners in every cable box (except the newest models: Moto DCX and Cisco RNGs; which aren't in common use) are also limited to 860 Mhz. D3 downstreams can be dropped into the 860-1000 Mhz spectrum untouched by D1, D2, and video.
D1 and D2 modems can only run on single 38 mbps downstream channels and 15-30 mbps upstream channels at a time. D3 modems use multiple channels bonded together for 160+ mbps downstream bandwidth and 120+ mbps upstream bandwidth.
So D3 has access to more last mile bandwidth per modem given the channels, more RF spectrum for its channels to be deployed in, with fewer competing devices (for now) than D1 or D2.
It comes down to 200 D1/D2 modems, eMTAs, and other devices on a single channel vs 20 D3 modems on a set of 4 or more bonded channels untouched by D1 or D2 devices. Sounds like less congestion to me. | |
| | | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | Re: Generate More Money and Kill Online Video 1st There are no modems currently available that can do upstream bonding, so upstream limit is still low(30Mbps total?).
Many of the systems have switched over to the 1000Mhz system in the last year and those boxes you listed were available before the D3 modems were. And thus those channel have already been used up (vod took a lot of it in many markets).
You have still missed the point. The D1,D2, and D3 modem will NOT be on different channels or CMTS(Just as the D2 and D1 modems are currently on the same channels). The D3 CMTS are backwards compatible with D1 and D2. The D3 modems will not see the congestion unless all 4 of the channels it is bonded to are congested at the same time(it will just use the other non congested channels to keep it's speed up). The D1 and D2 modems will see the same or worse congestion becuase they have all the current load(minus those that shifted to D3) plus the share of the D3 traffic running on their channel. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Generate More Money and Kill Online Video The modems are able to do bonding, the CMTSs aren't certified for it yet (except for Casa Systems). Remember the CMTSs have the 3 tier CableLabs certification process, not the modems. The modems either are certified DOCSIS 3 or they aren't.
Why would a system roll out VOD in the spectrum above 860 when only the DCX and RNG boxes can use it? Neither of those models have been available for more than a few months. What about all the other customers? Name a provider or system with VOD above 860. I guarantee there are more D3 capable systems than systems with VOD above 860.
Beyond the extra physical channels available to D3 modems, which can be unavailable to D2 and D1 modems. The D1, D2, and D3 modems if on the same physical channel can be on different logical channels, just like partitioning a disk. The system can be setup so D3 logical channel bandwidth won't have a noticeable affect on the bandwidth of the D2 or D1 logical channels. Basically, there are all sorts of ways that can be implemented so the D3 modems don't impact the D2/D1 modems.
60 mbps tiers and the modems using them won't cause the last mile congestion the D2 and D1 modems will be stuck in. It'll be the "guaranteed bandwidth" demands of the D1 and D2 eMTAs on top of users saturating their bandwidth capacity for hours on end dealing out torrents. | |
|
| |
|
