dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
share rss forum feed

bicker

join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
reply to Lazlow

Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service

I believe you misread the message you replied to.


Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

No, I understood. It is right back to the situation of a business looking at short term profits or taking the long term view. Verizon, Cablevison, etc are taking the long term view. They are investing and reinvesting in their infrastructure so that they have sufficient capacity to support the speeds they are offering. Customers who do not experience slowed service due to the lack of capacity their provider has, are happy customers. Happy customers spread the word about a good product and are not looking to switch providers. Unhappy customers also spread the word about capacity issues and migrate to companies that do have such issues(when they can). If TWC continues in the direction they are headed, they will soon find themselves in the same situation as Qwest, disparately needing to upgrade but with insufficient income (due to failing to keep up) to do the upgrades.


bicker

join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA

No, sorry, I don't think you understand. There isn't a choice between looking at the short term realities or taking the long term view. Companies must always do both. Furthermore, there is nothing here that differentiates between short term and long term view: Metered service may indeed be the BEST approach from the long term view. Remember, your personal preference doesn't determine what is best; the business realities do. Your comments about "happy customers" is nice wishful thinking on your part. It isn't the realities of mass-market business today. Customers are utterly unloyal.


Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

If happy customers are not a concern anymore why did TWC back off?

While it is true to some extent that companies need to look at both long term and short term interests, TWC's refusal to accept where the market is and where it is headed makes it clear that they are exclusively looking at the short term. Along with that a company that has kept its eye on long term interests generally does not have to worry about the short term (they already took care of that when they paid attention to the long term in the past). TWC's low caps with outrageous overage fees (well over 10X cost) was an attempt to keep people from seeing how badly they need to improve their capacity.

For the most part I have concentrated on Fios becuase I think it is the best long term solution (10 years or more). But Cablevision is taking a completely different path. Since they understood that even with D3 they were going to have to significantly split their nodes in order to have enough capacity 2-3 years down the line, they chose(till recently) to stick with D2 and split the nodes now instead of later. This allowed them to offer 30Mbps service (for over a year now) without significant congestion, while still using the cheaper D2 technology. When they come back and switch those nodes to D3 they should be able to easily offer 100Mbps speeds without significant congestion. Both the Fios and Cablevison paths allowed them to offer the higher speed tiers without congestion issues. TWC on the other hand has chosen not to upgrade to D3(still a lot of D1.1 systems) and not to split the nodes to ease congestion, instead they went with ultra low caps. So when they finally do upgrade they are going to be so far behind that they will have to split the nodes and switch to D3 at the same time just to remain competitive(again the same situation Qwest is in).


bicker

join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA

said by Lazlow:

If happy customers are not a concern anymore why did TWC back off?
Because the media created a fire-storm, which could have led to political implications.

said by Lazlow:

While it is true to some extent that companies need to look at both long term and short term interests, TWC's refusal to accept where the market is and where it is headed makes it clear that they are exclusively looking at the short term.
Ridiculous. This has nothing to do with TWC's acknowledgment of lack thereof. That's a red herring.

TWC was unlucky. That's it.

said by Lazlow:

Along with that a company that has kept its eye on long term interests generally does not have to worry about the short term (they already took care of that when they paid attention to the long term in the past).
That's simply not the case. Companies have to work at the short term and the long term every single day. Taking a long term view in the past does nothing to absolve a company of concerning itself with short term considerations in the future. You're just plain wrong.

Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Why did the media create a fire-storm? Because people were p^ssed off(not happy) about the issue.

The VAST majority (certainly not all) of short term issues only become short term issues becuase they were not addressed (in the past) when they were long term issues. The rate of bandwidth consumption has only been headed in one direction since the birth of the internet and it will continue to go in that direction for a lot longer. Everybody knows this. TWC has tried to ignore and prevent this.

If you think I am wrong, just look back at the article on stock jocks(front page). They thought that Verizon was throwing away their money and Qwest was the smartest kid on the block. Compare the two companies positions today. Verizon is a HUGE threat to its competitors in every market they have moved Fios into. Qwest is looking at having to sell its long distance lines just to stay in business(a move that would probably mean the end of Qwest). For the most part, if a company stays on top of its long term issues the short term issues do not offer any significant problems. Conversely if a company ignores long term issues(Qwest in the past, TWC past/now) they create short term issues that they may or may not be able to overcome.


bicker

join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA

And people weren't unhappy about a billion other things? No, sorry Laz, but reality isn't anything like what you assert.


Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

2 edits

It is a matter of degree. If I get a $10 parking ticket that I do not think I deserve, I will probably just pay it. Not becuase the ticket was right, but becuase it is not worth my time to fight over a $10 ticket. Now move that ticket up to a $100 and I am FAR more likely to fight it. The $1GB was not going to be some minor annoyance. People could easily see how it was going to cost them $150/month for the same service that they were getting at $60/month(or less).