dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1201
share rss forum feed


pizz
1gbps is all the rage.
Premium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

1 step closer...

To killing IPTV.. 1 even closer step to Tiered/Metered whatever flavor of the month you want to call it billing. Oh btw comcast users, incoming higher rates again for this deal
--
The more you talk, the less you listen.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
How so? Is tiered/metered/capped internet access really in Comcast's favor now that they own a bigger stake in the content? Comcast wants content and advertising revenue and they'll shoot themselves in the foot if they bend over their HSI consumers with overage charges? If anything, I would think this merger a good thing to deflect metered service....at least from Comcast.

Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
The major reason for metered/capped internet(for the big players) is to protect their video product(cable tv). Now that CC has NBC they have even more to protect and the power to protect (NBC owns a big chunk of Hulu).


PToN
Premium
join:2001-10-04
Houston, TX
reply to pizz
IPTV is a method of delivering content just like coax or the old antenna way....

They still sell the channels to providers and providers just deliver it via their already deployed networks.

Now, if you mean that services like Hulu will end, then yes, but otherwise, no..

jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH
said by PToN:

IPTV is a method of delivering content just like coax or the old antenna way....

They still sell the channels to providers and providers just deliver it via their already deployed networks.

Now, if you mean that services like Hulu will end, then yes, but otherwise, no..
The difference is that now all channels available to a consumer are broadcast all the time, taking up a big chunk of the spectrum available to consumers. IPTV stops the signal either early on or at a point where it will get much more congested and only allows through content or channels that people in a given area are watching.

So, instead of getting NBC, CBS, Nickelodeon, TNT, etc all the time. You get none... unless you flip to that channel, then the node or CO lets the video stream for that channel through to the neighborhood or your home.
--

- "Techie" Jim

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Lazlow
But, there's no doubt that the traditional means of content distribution is changing. Comcast has already made a couple of halfhearted attempts into online distribution to test the waters. With a growing content lineup, it will be in Comcast's best interest to expand their reach to new subscribers. Until the FCC lifts their idiotic rule on cable subscriber ownership, Comcast will need to expand with new distribution mechanisms, i.e. the internet. You need to worry about other internet providers, not Comcast IMO.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to pizz
IPTV...... Really?? It's going to KILL it?? Are you nuts?

IPTV is actually GOOD for content providers.. it frees up INCREDIBLE amounts of bandwidth to the last mile..

IPTV takes the notion of X channels per frequency and throws that restriction away.. it all gets dedicated to bandwidth opening up the last mile.

And.. you guys ALL need to get something through your head.. you ARE NOT going to get network neutrality with unlimited services together.. NN is going to come with metered billing... while NN will ultimately (if it ever happens) unfettered access to "DATA" over the internet, it ALSO means that you're GOING to pay for what you use, too.

There are two sides to every issue.. it's not a take only issue.. there's always give AND take... the consumer keeps wanting to take, or at least the alleged consumers here at BBR, so what are you willing to 'give'...? less money? .. that's all that's ever said here.. "give me more, I'll give you less money for it"..

Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
reply to openbox9
While I agree the traditional means are changing, the cable companies are doing everything they can to prevent this. Why do you think their efforts were halfhearted(your term)? It was done this way as a PR stunt. They can say "we tried that" and make it look "good". This is how most of the communications industry handles things. Just look at the A+ project (yesterdays headlines). Boy that title sounds good (teach the children, protect the children, etc) but when one digs into the meat of the matter one discovers that it is all fluff.

jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH
reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:

IPTV takes the notion of X channels per frequency and throws that restriction away.. it all gets dedicated to bandwidth opening up the last mile.
Yes, turns it into something like:
A Frequency Total - B Frequency Used (X Users * Y Channels Watched - Z Duplicate Channels)

said by fiberguy:

And.. you guys ALL need to get something through your head.. you ARE NOT going to get network neutrality with unlimited services together.. NN is going to come with metered billing... while NN will ultimately (if it ever happens) unfettered access to "DATA" over the internet, it ALSO means that you're GOING to pay for what you use, too.
But there is the issue of price. Raising rates on a monthly service may raise your yearly bill by like $20 - $50... to most barely noticeable.

Raising rates even moderatly on per-bit/byte billing can easily shoot prices $100+ per year. And with little competition in many areas there is more incentive to nickel, dime, and gouge.

said by fiberguy:

There are two sides to every issue.. it's not a take only issue.. there's always give AND take... the consumer keeps wanting to take, or at least the alleged consumers here at BBR, so what are you willing to 'give'...? less money? .. that's all that's ever said here.. "give me more, I'll give you less money for it"..
Yes, there is give and take. There is also the cost of operating said networks over time dropping without user seeing any relief in their wallets (usually prices just go up more). There is also supply and demand -- unfortunately companies today see fit to ignore demand and instead complain that their users should bend to their will and their ideas of "average" or "normal" instead of meeting supply with demand.
--

- "Techie" Jim


pizz
1gbps is all the rage.
Premium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:

IPTV...... Really?? It's going to KILL it?? Are you nuts?

IPTV is actually GOOD for content providers.. it frees up INCREDIBLE amounts of bandwidth to the last mile..

IPTV takes the notion of X channels per frequency and throws that restriction away.. it all gets dedicated to bandwidth opening up the last mile.

And.. you guys ALL need to get something through your head.. you ARE NOT going to get network neutrality with unlimited services together.. NN is going to come with metered billing... while NN will ultimately (if it ever happens) unfettered access to "DATA" over the internet, it ALSO means that you're GOING to pay for what you use, too.

There are two sides to every issue.. it's not a take only issue.. there's always give AND take... the consumer keeps wanting to take, or at least the alleged consumers here at BBR, so what are you willing to 'give'...? less money? .. that's all that's ever said here.. "give me more, I'll give you less money for it"..
If customers didnt pay for the upgrades, i'll understand your point! But sadly, our bills state otherwise. Customers have paid into, paid off upgrades towards last mile/front mile/upstream/equipment etc..

No reason any MSO/DSL/ISP etc.. can cry poverty, or can't offer unlimited use because our network can't handle it BS. Thing is the companies crying right now, didnt have any fore-sight and plant planning. Instead of doing build-outs or buying/becoming Tier providers, they just keep pocketing it. So now that more people are going online, and purchasing products said dipshit company is selling non-stop, they're saying stop using the internet, our network can't handle it BS.
--
The more you talk, the less you listen.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow:

While I agree the traditional means are changing, the cable companies are doing everything they can to prevent this.
Of course they do. It's a scary new world. Many crusty old board members are scared of change and don't understand the Internet and how it can be leveraged for new, exciting, and profitable products. The transition will happen eventually....even if pirating consumers drag the content owners/distributors forward.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to pizz
Who's Koolaid are you drinking?

You seem to be saying that the customer has a stake in the company since they pay bills that profits are used to upgrade.. unless you're a stockholder, you have nothing to worry about other than to choose to buy and pay for service and use it.. that's it.

For the Record.. Nice use of Acronyms.. but an "MSO" can mean many things.. just say "cable" so you don't look foolish. MSO means Multi Service Operator or Multiple SYSTEMS operator.. Phone, so you know, is also an MSO.. but anyway..

Who's crying poverty? Your attempt to throw the cry poverty card while talking about unlimited are two different things. The "unlimited service" has been gone for many years now.. the landscape changed and providers knew it.. they moved to "typical residential use" models which were soft "reasonable" service.. then they started to define traffic caps. What you FAIL miserably to see is that again we're moving to another landscape change.. everyone wants to throw everything over the internet.. with that comes grand increased use of one service, while a decrease in another product. These operators need to make a certain amount of money to operate.. if their cable division slows down, and it's going to over time, that means the value and cost of providing internet will and MUST go up in price.. not down.. (think of how the dollar is valued and it changes consumer prices) but this is a fact that you will obviously over look.

You also think many of the big guys sit on their asses and do nothing to upgrade.. upgrades have been going on for years..

I can't even go on picking your post apart.. You're trying to make an intelligent argument here and are throwing out base talking point issues assembling them into a post..

Just remember.. when these networks were built, they built it with the technology they had AT THE TIME.. I'm sure they should have asked equipment makers to build equipment 3 generations ahead of their time so they could plan for the future..

Give me a break! Really... you have NO clue on how to run a network so please don't come in here trying and attempting to blow apart good points with BS arguments that can't hold water.

One last point.. again, people forget.. it's MUCH easier to throw up some servers, turn on some data lines and offer a product on the net.. it can take a few years to fully upgrade a last mile system and millions and millions of dollars.. the pace at which content is thrown on the net is MUCH faster than they operators can keep up.. again.. grow up.

bsoft

join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO
said by fiberguy:

You seem to be saying that the customer has a stake in the company since they pay bills that profits are used to upgrade.. unless you're a stockholder, you have nothing to worry about other than to choose to buy and pay for service and use it.. that's it.
No, we're saying that we expect the company that we're paying to continue offering good service at competitive prices. If, in the future, they are unable to offer service which we deem adequate or attempt to raise prices too much, we'll find something else.

The problem that providers have today is that the product isn't really as good as customers believe it is. They were promised 12Mbps (or whatever) and the network can't really deliver it if everyone attempts to use their 12Mbps at the same time.

As you know, all service is oversubscribed at some point. But higher utilization is here, it's here to stay, and it's only going to get worse in the future. Either you upgrade your network quickly enough to meet demand, or customers will switch to a different service.

Cable providers are in a particularly sticky situation since their primary competition (DSL) is easier to upgrade to handle higher utilization.

said by fiberguy:

I can't even go on picking your post apart.. You're trying to make an intelligent argument here and are throwing out base talking point issues assembling them into a post..
I *can* pick your post apart. Like many in the industry, you falsely believe that you have the ability to dictate how the Internet will evolve and how consumers will use new services. The reality is that the marketplace is far more competitive than you believe, that consumers expect an unlimited model and will be highly reluctant to adapt to metered billing, and that soon nearly everyone will be a "heavy" user.

That's the market reality.

said by fiberguy:

The "unlimited service" has been gone for many years now.. the landscape changed and providers knew it.. they moved to "typical residential use" models which were soft "reasonable" service.. then they started to define traffic caps.
Most consumers don't even know that these caps exist. We know what happened when Time Warner attempted to move to caps that actually affected many of their users.

said by fiberguy:

These operators need to make a certain amount of money to operate.. if their cable division slows down, and it's going to over time, that means the value and cost of providing internet will and MUST go up in price.. not down..
Cable providers don't have unlimited capacity to set prices, especially in the face of competition from ILECs, WISPs, and possibly even municipal fiber or power line broadband.

Now, if customers value broadband more as they abandon TV services, then it's possible that the market price for broadband will increase. But there's no reason that this "MUST" be the case, and it has nothing to do with the revenues of cable providers.

said by fiberguy:

You also think many of the big guys sit on their asses and do nothing to upgrade.. upgrades have been going on for years..
Of course. Most of us wouldn't have broadband at all without upgrades, let alone services like VDSL2 or DOCSIS 3.0. But compare the measures taken by an ISP like Verizon (FiOS) to the measures taken by Comcast (DOCSIS 3.0). In 10 years, we'll see who had it right - Verizon who bet big on FTTP, or Comcast who played it relatively safe and made incremental upgrades.

said by fiberguy:

Give me a break! Really... you have NO clue on how to run a network so please don't come in here trying and attempting to blow apart good points with BS arguments that can't hold water.
Right, because your job makes you an expert on the economics of operating a major network provider. You know damn well that this isn't a technology problem, so your expertise on "running a network" isn't really relevant.

said by fiberguy:

the pace at which content is thrown on the net is MUCH faster than they operators can keep up.. again.. grow up.
Incorrect. Network operators have had ample warning that bandwidth usage would grow, and they continue to have plenty of time today to invest in upgrades. Some providers, such as Verizon, have embarked on bold upgrade plans. Others, like most of the cable MSOs, have spent less on upgrades and continue to do so. If, in 5 years, cable providers are unable to meet bandwidth demands and need to resort to tactics like throttling and caps, they will have only themselves to blame.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
The only thing worth responding to was your last statement about me being incorrect and network operators had "ample warning"..

.. um... you're CLEARLY clueless.. When did DOCSIS 3.0 technology come out? When did Fiber and ONT technology REALLY come into play? You have to have the gear developed and the technology in place BEFORE you can deploy it.. der!

And, Comcast, for example, started upgrades more than 2 years ago for DS3...

It's not JUST about doing the work, it's about having technology as well.. besides, this has been discussed OVER AND OVER AND OVER before.. tell me, WHY in the world should a CABLE COMPANY jump from DS 1.1 to 2.0, which was never widely adopted, when 3.0 was on the horizon? It takes a few years to upgrade in the first place, plus the cost.. by the time they would go from 1.1 to 2.0 it would be time to start 3.0.. you REALLY want to see your bill jump?

I take it you're an expert on what cable operators are spending and what they SHOULD be spending huh? nice... you must be really good at what you do.. even though you don't.

What sounds good to you, which is narrow-casting your desires, doesn't work in the large picture of running a company entirely.

ISPs are NOT required to simply jump JUST BECAUSE someone says something is coming.. there are stories all the time that there is a bandwidth crunch and other say there isn't.. I wonder if white wine really causes better blood circulation... today that is.

So, maybe some of those tactics are in fact necessarily in the time being.. also, it's not just tactics like that driven by bandwidth more than it is on a node basis where you DO have hogs violating the TOS, forcing the hand of the ISP to answer their unfounded complaints and affect the rest of the customer base.

And, I HARDLY call Verizon's upgrade plans BOLD.. I call them acceptable, but not bold. You have your opinion, I have mine.. VZ had ample opportunity to install fiber years ago when they stole money from the government and never followed through... and besides, WinFirst, in Sacramento, CA, had fiber in the home back in 2000 - one of the first.. VZ didn't start until recent..

Take off the rose colored glasses and see life as it really is.

bsoft

join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO
said by fiberguy:

.. um... you're CLEARLY clueless.. When did DOCSIS 3.0 technology come out? When did Fiber and ONT technology REALLY come into play? You have to have the gear developed and the technology in place BEFORE you can deploy it.. der!
I'm talking about node splits, about cutting off analog, upgrading plant for more bandwidth, and the multitude of other changes that enable higher utilization.

These technologies have existed for years. Digital cable isn't new, nor is HFC, nor are 1GHz systems. Yet here we are in 2009 and Comcast still has 50+ analog channels in Denver Metro. That cutoff should have happened years ago.

said by fiberguy:

It's not JUST about doing the work, it's about having technology as well..
The technology has been available for years. DOCSIS 3.0 is new, but DOSCIS 3.0 is not the only solution for more (aggregate) bandwidth on an HFC network.

said by fiberguy:

tell me, WHY in the world should a CABLE COMPANY jump from DS 1.1 to 2.0, which was never widely adopted, when 3.0 was on the horizon?
DOCSIS 2.0 modems are widely available, and major cable MSOs (including Comcast) deployed DOCSIS 2.0 in a number of markets, including Denver. DOCSIS 2.0 didn't offer increased downstream bandwidth, so it wasn't a particularly compelling option.

Again, though, you seem to believe that DOCSIS 3.0 is some sort of critical, huge upgrade. The reality is that DOCSIS 3.0, while a major undertaking, is a small part of a much larger initiative that includes everything from upgrading plant bandwidth to node splits to analog reclamation. We're only now starting to see real motion on this.

said by fiberguy:

I take it you're an expert on what cable operators are spending and what they SHOULD be spending huh? nice... you must be really good at what you do.. even though you don't.
Presumably, executives at the cable MSOs understand the dynamics of their business and are making prudent business decisions.

That said, look at what's happening now:
- Defection to satellite (mostly DirecTV) because of limited HD lineups on many cable systems
- Experts (including cable company executives) indicating that cable broadband will be unable to cope with growing bandwidth demands
- Cable companies (Time Warner) attempting to (and failing at) moving customers to metered billing
- Customer defection to FTTP (mainly FiOS)

All of these things are consequences from failing to perform the kinds of network upgrades that are needed to keep cable competitive with satellite (on the TV front) and FTTP (on the TV / Internet front).

Now, if you're arguing that the technology wasn't available in the past, I guess I would have to disagree. DOCSIS 3.0 may not have been available in 2004, but there is no excuse for a ton of bandwidth-wasting analog channels in 2009. There's no excuse for 550MHz cable systems in 2009.

said by fiberguy:

ISPs are NOT required to simply jump JUST BECAUSE someone says something is coming.. there are stories all the time that there is a bandwidth crunch and other say there isn't.. I wonder if white wine really causes better blood circulation... today that is.
ISPs, like all businesses, are required to react to market trends. If they are well run, they should predict market trends. Sometimes they get it wrong.

I'm betting that Internet video is going to get vastly more popular. If it does, it's going to result in dramatically increased bandwidth usage compared with today.

Maybe I'm wrong about that. ISPs can make the bet that bandwidth usage will grow slowly, and invest only in smaller incremental upgrades. But I think that's the wrong bet.

said by fiberguy:

So, maybe some of those tactics are in fact necessarily in the time being.. also, it's not just tactics like that driven by bandwidth more than it is on a node basis where you DO have hogs violating the TOS, forcing the hand of the ISP to answer their unfounded complaints and affect the rest of the customer base.
It's not just a few 'hogs' driving bandwidth consumption anymore. That was true in 2006, when the main bandwidth driver was peer-to-peer sharing of (mainly) illegal videos.

The thing is, if Internet video (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, etc.) gets much more popular, suddenly everyone is a bandwidth 'hog'. Two hours of HD video per subscriber per night (less than the current average TV viewing of 4 hours per night) is 223GB/mo. Two streams? 446GB/mo.

If this happens, and I think it will, Comcast can either start cutting everyone off due to TOS violations, or they can upgrade their network and revise their policies.

said by fiberguy:

And, I HARDLY call Verizon's upgrade plans BOLD.. I call them acceptable, but not bold. You have your opinion, I have mine.. VZ had ample opportunity to install fiber years ago when they stole money from the government and never followed through... and besides, WinFirst, in Sacramento, CA, had fiber in the home back in 2000 - one of the first.. VZ didn't start until recent..
I'd call $20bln bold. A hell of a lot bolder than DOCSIS 3.0.

Yes, there were companies that did FTTP earlier than Verizon. But there's a difference between a small metro provider and 12 million homes passed.

said by fiberguy:

Take off the rose colored glasses and see life as it really is.
Today I watched a movie on Netflix watch instantly and downloaded MythBusters from Amazon. That's the way it really is.

This is my opinion, and you're free to disagree. But it's my belief that Internet video is not a fad, that it's going to grow dramatically, and that it's going to displace current video services.

If that happens, "life as it really is" will be big, big problems for cable Internet. You know that virtually no current cable system can handle even half of its users pulling 8Mbps (decent quality H.264 HD video) at once.

DSL, FiOS, and other systems are not immune from this problem. But because of the network topology, (modern) DSL and FTTP are more easily upgraded to handle higher utilization.

In my opinion, if the cable MSOs fail to make the necessary investments now, in the future they will face significant customer defections to other services.

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

1 edit
never mind... not going to try.

jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH
reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:

Who's Koolaid are you drinking?
Are you really going to bring up those rediculous old, tired political quotes? Do I really need to call the WAAAMBULANCE?

said by fiberguy:

You seem to be saying that the customer has a stake in the company since they pay bills that profits are used to upgrade.. unless you're a stockholder, you have nothing to worry about other than to choose to buy and pay for service and use it.. that's it.
Apparently supply and demand and market trends mean nothing anymore. At least, according to your school.

said by fiberguy:

The "unlimited service" has been gone for many years now.. the landscape changed and providers knew it.. they moved to "typical residential use" models which were soft "reasonable" service.. then they started to define traffic caps.
False and true. False, unlimited service is still used by all reputable companies, and will be for the foreable future... unless they WANT to be defined as a "utility" -- I can see the CEOs shuddering at that one. True, they have moved to "typical residential use" which is why they oversubscribe and provide unlimited service in the first place.

said by fiberguy:

What you FAIL miserably to see is that again we're moving to another landscape change.. everyone wants to throw everything over the internet..
False. Usage of internet, like many other things, has been gradually increasing over time. What was considered "too much" 5-10 years ago is the norm today. Complaining about the "bandwidth apocalypse" or trying to explain that caps are the future is bogus. The ISPs have the capability to keep up with demand. Caps are a tool for only two things: To try to force people into limited usage categories thereby delaying their need to upgrade by trying to control demand (in the end, this may have lead to a revolution against capitalism had all companies seriously adopted this). No one likes control and doing such also skews actual market results and changed stats on what the demand level really was. Secondly they are only used to try to prevent people from shifting to competing (or illegal) online video services instead of buying into the company's own. In the end this would be clearly seen as predatory practices and I can already hear the congressmen a-comin! I think fear will keep the business from trying to implement caps industry-wide and will only be limited to a few "ultra-conservative" companies for a little while.

said by fiberguy:

... with that comes grand increased use of one service, while a decrease in another product. These operators need to make a certain amount of money to operate.. if their cable division slows down, and it's going to over time, that means the value and cost of providing internet will and MUST go up in price.. not down.. (think of how the dollar is valued and it changes consumer prices) but this is a fact that you will obviously over look.
So you're saying because I choose not to use their video service I must subsidize their video service to use the internet service? Actually, every business class and management class and everyone I talked to about this said it's bogus. Typically, when a business has a department that is not doing to good they either change to meet customers expectations or DROP THAT DEPARTMENT. They don't use a excelling department to subsidize a failing one... unless they have the dumbest managers and accountants out there.

said by fiberguy:

You also think many of the big guys sit on their asses and do nothing to upgrade.. upgrades have been going on for years..
No, but they are not the brightest bulbs in the pack -- ESPECIALLY when it comes to technology.

said by fiberguy:

I can't even go on picking your post apart.. You're trying to make an intelligent argument here and are throwing out base talking point issues assembling them into a post..

said by bsoft:

... Like many in the industry, you falsely believe that you have the ability to dictate how the Internet will evolve and how consumers will use new services. The reality is that the marketplace is far more competitive than you believe, that consumers expect an unlimited model and will be highly reluctant to adapt to metered billing, and that soon nearly everyone will be a "heavy" user.
I agree with bsoft See Profile. When you try to dicate HOW MUCH your users can and cannot use... well, it never ends well for the same reasons you don't want your government telling you what you can and can't do.

said by fiberguy:

One last point.. again, people forget.. it's MUCH easier to throw up some servers, turn on some data lines and offer a product on the net.. it can take a few years to fully upgrade a last mile system and millions and millions of dollars.. the pace at which content is thrown on the net is MUCH faster than they operators can keep up.. again.. grow up.
We live in one of the richest, most profitable countries in the world. Other countries ISPs who have income spectrums that are nearly flat (rich do not make that much more over the average line) seem to have no problem keeping up with demand. We can't? To quote a famous author.. well maybe not so famous:

said by fiberguy:

Give me a break! ... again.. grow up.

--

- "Techie" Jim

bsoft

join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO
Thanks, Jim.

Interestingly enough, a new article just hit the front page that confirms what I've been saying about the mythical bandwidth hog:

»The Bandwidth Hog Does Not Exist

fiberguy apparently believes that the current problems facing cable operators are due to "bandwidth hogs", when in reality a number of studies have shown that it's Internet video (mostly YouTube and Hulu) and not p2p that's driving traffic. The problem isn't a few TOS-violating "hogs" that pose a network management issue, it's a substantial increase in bandwidth usage by a wide range of people.

I'm not saying that US ISPs don't face different challenges from those in (for example) Japan or South Korea. But when you see cable execs pointing to record profits one day and complaining about insufficient network capacity the next day, you wonder whether they spent the right amount on network upgrades in the past. As (if) Internet video displaces conventional TV, we'll see whether their investments will be enough to keep up with the competition.

jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH
said by bsoft:

I'm not saying that US ISPs don't face different challenges from those in (for example) Japan or South Korea. But when you see cable execs pointing to record profits one day and complaining about insufficient network capacity the next day, you wonder whether they spent the right amount on network upgrades in the past. As (if) Internet video displaces conventional TV, we'll see whether their investments will be enough to keep up with the competition.
Agreed. I seem to see this a lot lately, not just in broadband either. It's almost like the companies complain that they are running out of money and need to jerk customers around all while standing in front of giant graphs showing profits the likes of which they have never seen. That kind of greed needs to stop.

I have actually heard from some local companies as well as read online from a few sources that techs at many ISPs use "heavy users" as testers for the next generation. Essentially they let the top 1-5% use what they like (top techs at a couple of companies have told me that the cost to the network -- both in terms of dollars and performance degradation -- overall is typically negligible) and use the stats and performance data to make sure their network can handle what will be average demand in a few years. With the shift to video, HD, gaming, and eventual cloud OSes this data is surely very helpful.
--

- "Techie" Jim

jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH
reply to jimbo2150
said by jimbo2150:

said by fiberguy:

... with that comes grand increased use of one service, while a decrease in another product. These operators need to make a certain amount of money to operate.. if their cable division slows down, and it's going to over time, that means the value and cost of providing internet will and MUST go up in price.. not down.. (think of how the dollar is valued and it changes consumer prices) but this is a fact that you will obviously over look.
So you're saying because I choose not to use their video service I must subsidize their video service to use the internet service? Actually, every business class and management class and everyone I talked to about this said it's bogus. Typically, when a business has a department that is not doing to good they either change to meet customers expectations or DROP THAT DEPARTMENT. They don't use a excelling department to subsidize a failing one... unless they have the dumbest managers and accountants out there.
An excellent example:
... Gustavo Prilick, CEO of the small cable provider Broadstripe. He explained how he’s investing more in his broadband services (he offers a 15/2 package) than in providing cable channels because his subscribers now care more about getting their TV online. ...

--

- "Techie" Jim