iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to IPPlanMan
Re: Only for bundles? As bicker said, of course it's a net neutrality issue. Comcast would then be prioritizing third-party networks' content over other third-party networks' content by having a "cap free" zone that is only accessed via an agreement between cable customers, Comcast and TV channel operators.
About the cap being hard, again I've gone over 250GB and haven't heard anything from Comcast. They aren't charging for overages and they won't kill your connection outright on one offense. Additionally, the streaming media on TV Everywhere probably won't be high-quality enough to make the cap even come into play.
That said, I'd love a fiber optic connection to the home with no caps and high throughput. However people are talking about Comcast like it's...I dunno...Ma Bell 2.0. They can't do anything right, etc. etc. etc. Which totally disregards the fact that they're the largest cable provider in the US to launch DOCSIS 3 service (and the largest cable provider period). They'll be the second cable provider (and the second non-muni provider by the way) to offer 100 Mbps download speeds on a connection costing less than $500 per month. Despite what people say, service is actually decent in many of their area and I'd much rather have their service than, say, Time Warner Cable's at this point, though TWC is cheaper. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | said by iansltx:However people are talking about Comcast like it's...I dunno...Ma Bell 2.0. Excellent example, and to be clear, my perspectives were greatly affected by the fact that I was there at "Ma Bell" in the time after divestiture, and it was shocking how unfairly we were regarded by mass-market consumers regarding residential service. It was still the very early dawn of rapacious entitlement mentality, though, back then, and so I really am blown-away sometimes by how self-centered some consumers are with regard to service providers today.
|
|
| reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:However people are talking about Comcast like it's...I dunno...Ma Bell 2.0. They can't do anything right, etc. etc. etc. Maybe if they didn't act like Ma Bell 2.0 their customers wouldn't think they are Ma Bell 2.0. |
|
2 edits | reply to bicker
said by bicker:said by iansltx:However people are talking about Comcast like it's...I dunno...Ma Bell 2.0. Excellent example, and to be clear, my perspectives were greatly affected by the fact that I was there at "Ma Bell" in the time after divestiture, and it was shocking how unfairly we were regarded by mass-market consumers regarding residential service. It was still the very early dawn of rapacious entitlement mentality, though, back then, and so I really am blown-away sometimes by how self-centered some consumers are with regard to service providers today. Are you kidding? US Consumers pay more per month for less service than many other countries in the world.
For God's sake, Slovenia offers 100/10 fiber service for 20 Euro/month. You can get 100-160mbps fiber in Korea for ~$20/month. 1gbps will be the *standard* in Korea by 2012.
We're self-centered? How many years have these ISPs made billions upon billions of dollars? Just how fat are their bank accounts? If they had been spending all those billions in profit year after year on expanding their network, we'd have a top 5 national telecommunications infrastructure.
Heck, if the telcos hadn't illegally swindled the US populace out of $200 billion, the entire country would be wired with fiber, providing at a *minimum* symmetrical 45 mbps service.
Instead, these incumbents stole that money, spent it on building out their wireless networks, and have turned that into a major cash cow. And yet looking at the wireless providers' services, national coverage is absolutely pathetic. In Sweden the government mandates 99% of the entire territory be covered. This includes the incredibly sparsely populated northern section of the country. You can go *anywhere* and you'll have perfect coverage.
In the US... well I don't need to remind you how bad it is.
I think consumers expect decent service for a decent price. We're not even asking for the ultra-competitive markets present in many other countries. We just don't want to be treated like bovine. How is that self-centered? |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Korea and Sweden both get government subsidies for broadband. True, AT&T et al did as well, but Comcast has gotten no such thing.
Personally, I'd rather my internet bill be $20 higher per month than my tax bill being $600 higher per year.
If you want to build your own network as a private entity, there's nothing stopping you, though if you want to go wireless you have to fight for spectrum with everyone else. If you want to lay out cash for fiber, heave at it. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to sonicmerlin
Absolutely. Your message confirmed what I wrote. Thanks for playing your role very well.
said by sonicmerlin:How many years have these ISPs made billions upon billions of dollars? Just how fat are their bank accounts? Have you checked your 401(k)'s recently? I checked mine. There are at least four ISPs in it.
Or are you one of those people thinking you're going to retire on Social Security.  |
|
|
|
| reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:Korea and Sweden both get government subsidies for broadband. True, AT&T et al did as well, but Comcast has gotten no such thing. Personally, I'd rather my internet bill be $20 higher per month than my tax bill being $600 higher per year. If you want to build your own network as a private entity, there's nothing stopping you, though if you want to go wireless you have to fight for spectrum with everyone else. If you want to lay out cash for fiber, heave at it. The initial cost of the coaxial plant laid down by cable companies has long been paid for. Using the cost of laying down the network is a terrible excuse for companies whose only focus is on maintenance and upkeep.
Just look at Time Warner's financials, where over the last two years they have tremendously increased profits while *decreasing* investments in upgrading their network. Besides capex, actual upgrades only cost them tens of millions, compared to the billions in profits they make every year.
The only cable company to invest in DOCSIS 2.0 was Cablevision. Why is that? A lack of money? Really?
And what about DOCSIS 3.0? Besides Comcast and Cablevision, who is investing? And even with those companies upgrading, are they providing legitimate, affordable tiers, or just using it to dig into the pockets of the ravenous early adopters?
You think cable companies and their annual rate increases on cable television are the result of a steadily increasing cost of service? Please.
And as for the telcos, you best be staying away from defending those thieves. |
|
| reply to bicker
said by bicker:Absolutely. Your message confirmed what I wrote. Thanks for playing your role very well. said by sonicmerlin:How many years have these ISPs made billions upon billions of dollars? Just how fat are their bank accounts? Have you checked your 401(k)'s recently? I checked mine. There are at least four ISPs in it. Or are you one of those people thinking you're going to retire on Social Security. Here's your problem, and essentially the problem with Republicans (I know you are one) in general.
You want the government to protect your industries and businesses. You want them to give your favored corporations the rights of an "individual". You don't want companies and their proprietors to be held responsible for financial calamities, such as bankruptcy.
Back in pre-union days, heck even during the Great Depression, average people would become so enraged with the abusive behaviors of monopolies and oligarchs that they would resort to violence.
And yet those same giant corporations enlisted government help and military force to subdue those rioters.
These days things are much more peaceful. Yet the same antagonistic forces between corporate abusers and the abused plebeian exist today. You still want the government to exact just enough laws so you and your favorite investments can profit as much as possible. But you don't want the government to even the playing field for everyone else in an attempt to simulate a truly free market (zero barrier of entry, infinite competition, profits tend towards zero, etc.).
I really dislike this pro-corporate hypocrisy. Rational thought alone will lead to a more altruistic outlook. But the vast majority of people like yourself lack even this most basic attribute. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to sonicmerlin
Again, capitalism. Publicly held companies are the worst about it. If they can keep an old system without tearing up roads to make a new one, guess what sticks around? They provide services at prices the market will bear.
Also, about DOCSIS 3, you've got Comcast, Cox, Cablevision, Sunflower Broadband, Suddenlink, Charter, Service Electric Broadband/PenTeleData, MidContinent Communications and maybe a few others that have deployed the tech, though all but Comcast and Cablevision stop at the 5 Mbps mark for uploads.
Realistically though, it would cost just as much for the big cable companies to deploy fiber as it would for a new provider to come in and do it. Economies of scale would be offset by transition costs.
One thing to note: Cablevision is privately owned. They also have the highest broadband speeds in the nation over a cable network. Coincidence? I think not.
All that said, I'd rather have free enterprise (without lobbying and a government that can mar the market on a national level) than a government-owned or government-subsidized/tax-subsidized/taxpayer-subsidized network. Municipal projects are great, because they're fine-grained enough to address market realities in those cities.
In a system with little competition, the value proposition of network upgrades is merely to offer higher tiers of service, assuming people will pay for those tiers. In areas with decent competition, prices will stay the same for better speeds, or they might even drop. See the Southwest Effect with airlines.o
Again, if you think the value proposition for a for-profit business is great enough to create your own fiber network, come to my area. I'll be the first one to sign up. That's the great thing about a free country; you can do stuff like that. It's my opinion that government in this area is too large; if it has enough power to effectively give an entity or goup of entities preferential treatment over other similarentities, government is too big. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:... Republicans (I know you are one) in general. Wrong! (I doubt anyone is surprised that you're wrong. You've been wrong pretty consistently.
I'm a registered Democrat, vegetarian, and granola cruncher. I greatly admire my church's minister, who happens to be gay (and married). I'm pro-choice, and in favor of health care reform.
I'm also a capitalist, and anti-union.
said by sonicmerlin:You want the government to protect your industries and businesses. You are wrong again! Unlike you, I want our society to balance the priorities of businesses and consumers, not favoring either over the other.
said by sonicmerlin:You want them to give your favored corporations the rights of an "individual". You are wrong again! Corporations have the rights they have. I have no interest in having them have any different status than they already have. Your denial of the reality of the status they already have is your problem.
said by sonicmerlin:You don't want companies and their proprietors to be held responsible for financial calamities, such as bankruptcy. You are wrong again!
said by sonicmerlin:I really dislike this pro-corporate hypocrisy. Your self-serving drivel is utterly ridiculous, and patently antagonistic, so I've responded in kind. You've been repeatedly wrong, and now you've painted yourself into a corner you cannot get out of. I cannot see how to help you get out of this gracefully. Sorry. |
|
| reply to iansltx
"Additionally, the streaming media on TV Everywhere probably won't be high-quality enough to make the cap even come into play."
I wouldn't bet on this by a longshot. No need to throw examples, you should know better. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| I just read "don't confuse me with the facts"
The HD streams (yes, HD) I tend to watch are under 5 Mbps. Standard-def streams are under 1 Mbps. Let's go for 1.5 Mbps, tops, on standard-def.
You'd have to watch 111 hours of HDTV (nearly 4 hours per day) to hit 250GB. Considering the fact that you could watch the same programs on TV (you have their cable package if you have TVE) you probably won't hit that amount. Standard-def multiplies this number by five.
Sure, you'll be using your 'net connection for other stuff, but internet video is low-bitrate enough to cope with today's connections that you won't hit your cap all that quickly.
Even if online video quality was upped by a significant amount, satellite video tops out at about 10 Mbps for HD. That's still a lot of viewing. |
|
| 4 hours per day is hard how exactly?
Oh right, lets try it this way. Standard month, 8 days of weekend. 6 hours each day on the weekend (while doing work around the house, etc, whatever) + 3 hours a night on a weeknight (maybe after dinner) suddenly doesn't sound as unreasonable does it?
Oh wait, this assumes you do absolutely nothing with the internet else at all, huh? As you noted, there are other things that can make a big diff. Let's try higher def streams, lets go for 6mbps, because we need to include audio.
On the flip side, I think usage might be a not less for non power users because it's a browser window so people will a)not use it because it'll probably use silverlight and b) close out the tab as it will bog down their pc |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Again, people with TV Everywhere will already have cable TV service. So they'll only be watching TV Everywhere content on a computer screen. While your numbers are reasonable (except the bitrate; my figure already included audio and was on the high side anyhow) they assume that people will replace $10-a-month set top boxes with $500 PCs without CableCard tuners to view their content. Which is a fallacy. |
|
| Actually, I agree with what you are saying here, but I think the service kind of implies it/hopefully shows Comcast where they could provide additional benefits/services to customers.
I realized I sounded kind of ad hominem, so I apologize in advance if it did to you.
It's all up to the implementation and what they do; maybe we could be completely wrong and comcast will actually do a decent job? who knows. |
|
 IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | reply to iansltx
Just me? Try a house or apartment with 4-5-6 people.... 250GB is very reachable.... |
|
