dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
29
share rss forum feed

jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH
reply to myokitis

Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR

said by myokitis:

a highly competitive environment
I highly disagree. I only notice decent to good competition in larger cities.
--

- "Techie" Jim

myokitis

join:2004-06-19
Alexandria, VA

1 recommendation

ISP/Video Competition

said by jimbo2150:

said by myokitis:

a highly competitive environment
I highly disagree. I only notice decent to good competition in larger cities.
You obviously don't work for a MSO or Telco. Take it from somebody in the business: The level of competition is intense. They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.

It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game.

jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH

said by myokitis:

You obviously don't work for a MSO or Telco. Take it from somebody in the business: The level of competition is intense. They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.

It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game.
You obviously don't live in an area where you only have 2 options that have not changed in over a decade and commonly see people in areas that have 1 or no broadband options. From what I hear Virginia is already one of the most wired states in the nation.
--

- "Techie" Jim

myokitis

join:2004-06-19
Alexandria, VA

said by jimbo2150:

said by myokitis:

You obviously don't live in an area where you only have 2 options that have not changed in over a decade and commonly see people in areas that have 1 or no broadband options.
I understand where you're coming from. But that doesn't change the fact that both groups of companies are indeed intensely competing against each other for survival. It's just that your area probably isn't one of their primary battlegrounds.

Luminaris

join:2005-12-01
Waterford, VA
Reviews:
·exede by ViaSat
reply to myokitis

said by myokitis:

said by jimbo2150:

said by myokitis:

a highly competitive environment
I highly disagree. I only notice decent to good competition in larger cities.
You obviously don't work for a MSO or Telco. Take it from somebody in the business: The level of competition is intense. They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.

It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game.
This makes no sense in this case. If TW were trying to win customers, they wouldn't even be introducing caps at all. If you want to win customers, you have to be innovative and for the consumer which TW is NOT in this case at all.


fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
reply to myokitis

said by myokitis:

They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.
I don't work for a MSO or Telco but I'm smart enough to observe that someone desperate to win customers is not going to do so with ridiculous cap levels and insane markups when a competitor in the same market has no caps.

If TWC had simply opened their stats for public or independent scrutiny that could determine that in fact they are having bandwidth issues, it would go a long way toward resolving this dispute. That will never happen though.

So I see now, there's hinting at the layoff boogeyman if TWC doesn't "compete" (translation: caps and overages).
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com


sivran
Opera ex-pat
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Irving, TX
kudos:1
reply to myokitis

Ain't it funny, too, how the "trial areas" are all non-competitive market...

I live in the middle of the DFW area, and the "competition" here is little more than the mere presence of two broadband ISPs: AT&T and TWC. They set up shop, display their wares, and that's pretty much the extent of the competition. They don't even try to respond to one another. It's a "We're here. Pick one." kind of situation.

Being that Verizon FIOS is ~30 miles away from Arlington (and practically non-existent in Tarrant County, and our ILEC is AT&T, I wouldn't be surprised if one of those "trials" showed up here.

Frontier did everyone a favor by making noise about dropping caps in Rochester. What did AT&T do in Beaumont? Implement caps themselves. If you ask AT&T, competition is the race to see who can gouge their customers more.
--
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon profitable cause...



Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12

said by sivran:

If you ask AT&T, competition is the race to see who can gouge their customers more.
I couldn't agree more. It seems as though the two compete against themselves to see who can create the most confusing package to entice a customer to their service. All the while providing the least amount of actual service possible.

They don't compete on the actual merits of their respective offering. Verizon and Cablevision seems to be the only larger companies who do that.


sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

1 edit
reply to myokitis

said by myokitis:

said by jimbo2150:

said by myokitis:

a highly competitive environment
I highly disagree. I only notice decent to good competition in larger cities.
You obviously don't work for a MSO or Telco. Take it from somebody in the business: The level of competition is intense. They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.

It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game.
I am a CUSTOMER. In my area the competition is ZERO, I have as the only option for good high speed internet access Comcast.

The lies about competitive market are just designed to hide the truth from uneducated politicians and customers. and that is what they are:

LIES.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.


Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA

1 recommendation

reply to Luminaris

said by Luminaris:

This makes no sense in this case. If TW were trying to win customers, they wouldn't even be introducing caps at all. If you want to win customers, you have to be innovative and for the consumer which TW is NOT in this case at all.
Did you read the part where he said they're between a rock and a hard place?

What do you do when you have two bad choices? They're going with the one they think everyone will be doing in a couple years and hoping they can ride out the churn.

Here's the thing, everyone is looking at this from the point of view of right now. People see they had good profits last year and using that to "prove" that their cries of running out of money are nothing but BS. They are looking 3 to 10 years in the future something the majority of people don't do, which is pretty much the root cause of all the problems in society.

You can be sure that the people at the helm of Verizon and the others are all sitting at the helm with their finger on the button. No one wants to be the first to do it, the desperate companies are going to be the first to do it and the rest will hang onto flat rate as long as they can comfortably do so to snatch up all the defectors of the early adopters, then they'll switch to metered billing.
--
Come let us reason together.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to myokitis

Seriously...

I worked for a major Telco, and that's the refrain they'll keep repeating not to pay you a decent salary, and the one they tell the customers to keep gouging them.

If I had to do it all over again, (work in the Telecom field that is) I'd go with a start-up, cause my career would have nowhere to go but up.
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household.


jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH
reply to myokitis

said by myokitis:

I understand where you're coming from. But that doesn't change the fact that both groups of companies are indeed intensely competing against each other for survival. It's just that your area probably isn't one of their primary battlegrounds.
I understand that, but you were also making it sound like the select few areas that they are competing equates to the entire (or at least a majority) of the market, which it does not. I just don't see the "ravenous" competition that they so often claim. For example: Just because they are competing in, lets say five, select markets... is it really necessary to claim stiff competition when the majority are not in areas with much or any competition? See my point?
--

- "Techie" Jim

myokitis

join:2004-06-19
Alexandria, VA

said by jimbo2150:

... is it really necessary to claim stiff competition when the majority are not in areas with much or any competition? See my point?
I think I do, but it sounds like you're speaking in terms of %of geography, while the companies need to look at things in terms of %of customers (where their revenue comes from).

The current acquisition offers d'jour from select MSOs & Telcos are around $200 in value (cashback,credits, etc; I know of at last one major telco and one major MSO w/ offers like this), and the companies wouldn't be spending that $$$ to win customers from each other if they didn't think they needed to, if their management and shareowners weren't applying the pressure on their organizations to do so.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. This is a situation where "position determines perspective".


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3
reply to myokitis

said by myokitis:

said by jimbo2150:

said by myokitis:

a highly competitive environment
I highly disagree. I only notice decent to good competition in larger cities.
You obviously don't work for a MSO or Telco. Take it from somebody in the business: The level of competition is intense. They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.

It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game.
Sure, if you look at an area like the greater southern california area, where half of telco-land is owned by Verizon, the other half owned by AT&T, and where Time Warner Cable owns about 90% of the cable business.... (and 5% to Charter, and 5% to Cox, give or take) ... there is plenty of competition there.

I get calls from AT&T at least once a month (and they are allowed to do so as they supply one of my phone lines, thus existing customer) if I don't want to switch to their DSL service. TV ads from FIOS, Uverse, and Time Warner are slamming each other.

I never believed for one minute that in the greater SoCal area, they would ever introduce caps, as both Verizon and AT&T would have a FIELD DAY and rake in the customers.

But if you are living in a city like Boise, ID where the competition is a sub-par DSL provider that considers "standard" to be 1.5 Mbps and "ultra" is 3 Mbps, and the city is so widespread, with so many neigborhoods far away from any CO.... cable companies can easily introduce caps and get away with a whole lot more.

jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH

said by maartena:

I get calls from AT&T at least once a month (and they are allowed to do so as they supply one of my phone lines, thus existing customer) if I don't want to switch to their DSL service. TV ads from FIOS, Uverse, and Time Warner are slamming each other.
Advertisements do not equal availability. Time Warner and Comcast advertise in my area but do not serve my house. They serve neighborhoods up north and south I think, and in my area is a smaller cable co, but as far as I can tell none of them compete with each other... only with satellite.
--

- "Techie" Jim

Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
reply to Combat Chuck

Combat Chuck

If you think TW has been looking ahead, you are deluding yourself. It has been obvious what direction the bandwidth usage has been headed for years. Yet, TW still has a ton of systems still running D1.1 and D2. If they had really been looking forward, a significant amount of their footprint would be D3 today.

All cable companies (or companies in general) have debt. Take a look at their 10k. After expenses they still made 4 BILLION dollars. Spend, say 1/3 of that, on network upgrades (today) and they will no longer have capacity issues for the next few years. You are correct in that the demand for more bandwidth will continue to grow. But the way to handle that is to plan for the future and provide the capacity for that bandwidth, not to try and stop it. Essentially what they are doing is like a car company selling a car that you can only drive 40 miles a day. If you want to drive more than 40 miles a day, they are going to charge you $1/mile. All trying to do stuff like this is going to accomplish is to drive customers elsewhere.

As far as other ISPs watching this; sure if customers are actually stupid enough to put up with this, they will want in on the action too. If customers will put up with it, any business would be foolish not to try something that will ten fold their profit margins. There is nothing in this that the ISPs have to do this.


soothsayer15

join:2002-03-01
Irving, TX

said by Lazlow:

Combat Chuck

If you think TW has been looking ahead, you are deluding yourself. It has been obvious what direction the bandwidth usage has been headed for years. Yet, TW still has a ton of systems still running D1.1 and D2. If they had really been looking forward, a significant amount of their footprint would be D3 today.

All cable companies (or companies in general) have debt. Take a look at their 10k. After expenses they still made 4 BILLION dollars. Spend, say 1/3 of that, on network upgrades (today) and they will no longer have capacity issues for the next few years. You are correct in that the demand for more bandwidth will continue to grow. But the way to handle that is to plan for the future and provide the capacity for that bandwidth, not to try and stop it. Essentially what they are doing is like a car company selling a car that you can only drive 40 miles a day. If you want to drive more than 40 miles a day, they are going to charge you $1/mile. All trying to do stuff like this is going to accomplish is to drive customers elsewhere.

As far as other ISPs watching this; sure if customers are actually stupid enough to put up with this, they will want in on the action too. If customers will put up with it, any business would be foolish not to try something that will ten fold their profit margins. There is nothing in this that the ISPs have to do this.
Use the profit to upgrade the network and invest in the company's future? Probably won't happen. They will use the profits to pay out dividends and increase the value of executive stock options.


Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA
reply to Lazlow

said by Lazlow:

Combat Chuck

If you think TW has been looking ahead, you are deluding yourself.
You're deluding yourself if you think that looking ahead is limited to the goal of figuring out how they can provide more bandwidth for you. They're looking at money, it's fairly clear that Time Warner cares little about their front end infrastructure.
--
Come let us reason together.

Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Combat Chuck

You really do not understand how business works do you? In a consumer based market, if you do not keep up with what the consumer wants, you are going to loose customers. Loosing customers (in significant numbers) means that you are loosing money. The only reason companies reinvest in their infrastructure is so they can continue to be competitive. Fios did not come into play becuase it was a "cool" idea. It came about becuase it was obvious that ever increasing amounts of bandwidth were the direction things were/are headed. Cablevision understood this too (which is why they have 30Mbps D2 available today). Comcast even understands this, as evidenced by their rapid (relatively) switch to D3(despite their official caps, there has been no significant amount of action done to those that have exceeded the caps). Even Charter (broke as they are) recognizes that they have to offer more bandwidth (slower switchover to D3).



Chris H

@cerner.com
reply to jimbo2150

Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR

Hell, even then there isn't. I live in Kansas City Mo, and TW is the only cable game in town.


GyroCaptain

join:2008-08-01
reply to Lazlow

Re: ISP/Video Competition

said by Lazlow:

Combat Chuck

You really do not understand how business works do you? In a consumer based market, if you do not keep up with what the consumer wants, you are going to loose customers. Loosing customers (in significant numbers) means that you are loosing money. The only reason companies reinvest in their infrastructure is so they can continue to be competitive. Fios did not come into play becuase it was a "cool" idea. It came about becuase it was obvious that ever increasing amounts of bandwidth were the direction things were/are headed. Cablevision understood this too (which is why they have 30Mbps D2 available today). Comcast even understands this, as evidenced by their rapid (relatively) switch to D3(despite their official caps, there has been no significant amount of action done to those that have exceeded the caps). Even Charter (broke as they are) recognizes that they have to offer more bandwidth (slower switchover to D3).
Loosing eh?

Classic.

Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

My apologies for my typo. I should always have caffeine before I type. Despite my typo, I think everybody understood my point.


fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to myokitis

Ok, then take it from someone that has been in the industry for many years when I tell you that I disagree with you 1001% on what you said.

Billing by the byte is not necessary.. its a much better billing model for THEM. RIGHT NOW, they say "most only use about 5g to 10g of data" which is about right... for RIGHT NOW. So, there IS urgency to get this plan in place NOW rather than later. NOW, it's true, LATER, when people will start moving over that 5 to 10g of data per month, NOW it makes sense to have that kind of billing system in place. HOWEVER, by that time, where AVERAGE data (which is important to say AVERAGE in billing terms) IS exceeding say even 50gb a month AVERAGE, then it will be easier to justify a higher charge AND the "back haul" systems will be able to more than accommodate. If they CAN'T handle that kind of data flow, then the consumer is being screwed.

Profits from broadband are very high right now and with those profits they need to be reinvesting into their pipes. If they are not, they are simply screwing the customer. Internet use IS on the rise, however, with the profits they make they need to be keeping up with those demands.

Billing by the byte is insurance in advance protection so secure more revenue as they need it in the future. They need to ALL simply be honest and charge for the service what it's worth. I don't think that DSL at $25 a month, and cable service at $40 a month is an honest price. I believe they need to raise the price about $10 on average.. if they did that, alone, they could EASILY rebuild their networks sooner, rather than later, and make everyone happy.

The consumer needs to realize that broadband prices are a deal right now - that I will say is true. You can't expect lower prices and demand better service at the same time. The consumer is also demanding that they see return on their monthly fees in the form of improvements.

I can't disagree with you ANY more on your post and if there was EVER a shill on this site, it's you.

The most dangerous thing you can say on this site is "Take it from somebody in the business"... becuase you just opened yourself of for attacks, and quite honestly, you sound totally arrogant at the same time. Not everyone here is stupid OR ignorant. However, in what you are talking about, which is mostly speculative and opinionated, to say "take it from someone in the business" you just told everyone they have no clue what they are talking about. You look dumb saying this.

No, the competition is NOT intense as you think.. Much of the DSL providers have contracts so their base is somewhat secured. Cable doesn't go by contract but they sell on speed and value. They have a harder job keeping a customer than phone. AND, I find it ironic that cable is actually being more consumer friendly in the lack of contract over phone any day.

"It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game."

Good one..


fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to myokitis

said by myokitis:

said by jimbo2150:

said by myokitis:
But that doesn't change the fact that both groups of companies are indeed intensely competing against each other for survival.
At every post, you're displaying arrogance. Survival? Hardly.. dominance? Sure..

In the SMALLER areas, you may have a provider, such as Embarq, competing for survival.. bu that just goes to show why all the smaller companies merged and sold to larger ones back in the late 90's/2000's.

No.. right now, it's about dominance and king. But, it's not an over blown survival game like you say it is... far from it in MOST cases.

HexCalamity

join:2005-03-16
Salem, OR
reply to myokitis

said by myokitis:

said by jimbo2150:

said by myokitis:

a highly competitive environment
I highly disagree. I only notice decent to good competition in larger cities.
You obviously don't work for a MSO or Telco. Take it from somebody in the business: The level of competition is intense. They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.

It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game.
Ahh, competition, sucha wonderous thing. Come on out to Salem OR where its been Comcast and Qwest DSL for years. Qwest is finally competing somewhat with new 12mbps fiber service in some neighborhoods. Many are still 1.5mps or 6mbps. They send me directly 1-2 mailers a month, newspaper ads and tv as well. Their deal is 15.99/month for 6 months for 1.5mbps. Of course that requires a 2 year contract and the price jumps up to 39 I think. It all depends on their packaging deals too. That doesnt include buying their approved modem or renting it at $8/month (which is just insane). Though they have offered deals for cheap modems thru BestBuy etc.. The non contract price is $10 more per month last I saw.

Comcast is almost as bad with their mailers, simply because they want me to reup beyond the basic tv package (which made no sense unless you wanted digital cable until the Feb. HDTV switch over).

myokitis

join:2004-06-19
Alexandria, VA

1 edit
reply to fiberguy

said by fiberguy:

I can't disagree with you ANY more on your post and if there was EVER a shill on this site, it's you . . .No, the competition is NOT intense as you think..
This is now getting personal . . .

I won't bother replying to all of your points. But my viewpoint is formed by this: I've seen way too many colleagues laid-off/RIF'd to be comfortable that is is somehow not a competitive industry. The jobs aren't going away because there's not competitive pressure.

According to their annual reports, in 2007 T & VZ combined lost 6.4M residential access lines, and only gained 1.5M broadband lines. To somehow imply that competition is not having a profound impact on these companies is just not rational.

The intensity-level in my daily work environment is constantly escalating. The corporate culture has irrevocably changed. Again, complacency is not causing this.

I care not what you or others on this site say. Myself and all of my colleagues live it daily. We're fighting for our jobs.


Link8

join:2001-12-16
Davis, CA

Don't throw out your unused Rollover Megabytes(tm)! Some customers just aren't lucky enough to be on TimeWarner Cable, the world's most reliable network!



espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
reply to Lazlow

said by Lazlow:

If you think TW has been looking ahead, you are deluding yourself. It has been obvious what direction the bandwidth usage has been headed for years. Yet, TW still has a ton of systems still running D1.1 and D2. If they had really been looking forward, a significant amount of their footprint would be D3 today.
That's a little optimistic -- DOCSIS 3 early-use hardware didn't start manifesting itself until Q2/Q3 of 2008, with final full D3 certified gear arriving in Q4.

Comcast appears to be leading the way in DOCSIS3 deployments, and they aren't even close to 50% deployed yet.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to myokitis

said by myokitis:

said by jimbo2150:

said by myokitis:

a highly competitive environment
I highly disagree. I only notice decent to good competition in larger cities.
You obviously don't work for a MSO or Telco. Take it from somebody in the business: The level of competition is intense. They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.

It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game.
Intense competition? Bullshit. In Hawaii TWC has a complete monopoly on all FOUR ISLANDS. This hell was predicted several years ago when the last holdouts were eaten by TWC. As for DSL, that is from Hawaiian TelCom which is in bankruptcy and doesn't have the funds to compete well with TWC. I live in the second largest city in Hawaii and I cannot get DSL. HawTel refuses to extend it to this very nice area of Hilo where there are three large condos as well a residences. I have no idea what you could possibly mean by "intense competition". I have NO choices. It is TWC or dialup. With TWC we have NO TURBO RR...only standard and lite plans. That is because Oceanic TWC cannot get Turbo working on any of the neighbor islands. Again, where is this intense competition? If HawTel cannot get out of bankruptcy the PUC will likely dump the POTS on Verizon again. You think Verizon would ever build up DSL in Hawaii? They couldn't wait to dump Hawaii after the merger of GTE and Bell Atlantic. So, again where is this "intense competition"?

You see, Hawaii is the VERY PLACE that TWC will force these horrible caps on. And there will be NOTHING that the vast majority of users can do as there is NO competition in many areas of Hawaii, and limited in the areas where there is some, much less any "intense competition" in Hawaii.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to myokitis

Maybe it's time to stop raping customers for $upwards of $40 for local phone service.

I'm sorry to tell you, but you can spin this how you want, but not many are going to buy it. Residential access line loss? to what? VZ's own cellular service? And, are they losing residential lines to the fact they are charging WAY too much for a land line anyway?

.. get this one. AT&T service.. if you buy a regular POTS line, local service with a typical feature pack is about $40 a month. HOWEVER, when you buy it as part of U-Verse, somehow, that copper line is subject to different rules, terms, etc. SOMEHOW that VERY copper line's Voice Mail becomes no charge, ie: included. They give you the option of using their voip service or remain on copper.. but again, the copper line now falls under a different set of rates and rules DRAMATICALLY lowering the price.

Phone companies I do NOT feel sorry for. It has NOTHING to do with competition. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact they do not want to get into the game.

You call it competition, I call it the loss of a horrendous century of strong holds on consumers and over charging them for sub-par services.

You're not the only one here, guy, that works or has worked in the industry, yet you make it all dramatic and sound like you know more than anyone else. Again, smug..

The providers need to stop manipulating consumers, and the prices they pay. Put out a product, sell the service at a reasonable rate, PROVIDE CUSTOMER SERVICE and the customer will come. But, ANYONE in the industry that thinks the consumer wants to talk to a recording, or have a recording call their home to do the job of a human, or that somehow the copper service provided is worth far more than it really is.. well, it deserves to die.

I, and many people here, are not about supporting a business that continues down the past of yesterday just for the name of it's own survival. The communications industry needs to focus more on the customer's needs like every other's business.