dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
14
share rss forum feed


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to fifty nine

Re: Something has to give.

said by fifty nine:

While I don't agree with regulating them as broadcasters, if internet streaming continues to require ISPs to upgrade to handle the additional traffic, we can't simply expect ISPs to eat the costs without either raising prices or charging back the content providers.

Problem is that we as consumers have expected "free" or "cheap" from the internet since forever. Level 3 vs Comcast showed exactly that, that consumers expect that Comcast should simply eat the cost of more infrastructure to handle netflix.

ISPs eat the cost???? Really?
ISPs are not eating any costs. In 99% of the US broadband ISPs are monopolies. Their customers pay plenty to pay for the networks and for upgrades. Online streaming is not hurting the ISP business.

FYI, the content providers like google and netflix already pay their ISPs for access to the internet. Only an idiot would even think that google and netflix should pay for other ISP customers internet connections.

$40+ a month is not cheap for internet.
My cable company sells cable for $50 a month and internet for $50 a month. They make a much smaller profit off the tv after they pay content providers than when they sell internet which requires no payment to content providers. They make a killing off internet.

If they want netflix to be a broadcaster than Shaw would have to pay netflix for their customers to access it. So instead of Shaw getting free content to sell internet connections they will have to pay for it.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

"ISPs are not eating any costs. In 99% of the US broadband ISPs are monopolies"

You clearly have absolutely no idea as to what you are taking about. Please show us where A. ISPs are not taking a hit on this and B. where 99% of broadband ISPs are monopolies.



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to r81984

ISPs are being told they have to eat the cost. Read Comcast's letter to the FCC regarding Level 3.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Right... because what Comcast says is oh so on the up and up.

ISP's do not have to eat any cost. They run an internet service, that requires them to deliver packets their consumers request. This has cost associated with it. Cost they make up for in their rates they charge their subscribers. If they are paying more then they are receiving then they need to raise their rates to their subscribers to make up that difference.

The fight between L3 and Comcast has nothing to do with peering as Comcast claims. It is simply them trying to leverage their large user base against yet another one of their core providers. One person that explains the "issue" very well without picking sides is here. »www.voxel.net/blog/2010/12/peeri···-and-you

I suggest you read that so you actually know what you are talking about. You will also see how Comcast is trying to get Tata into one of their "peering agreements" by choking their access to Comcast customers.



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

said by Skippy25:

Right... because what Comcast says is oh so on the up and up.

It's because what Comcast says is the truth, and Level 3 is yet to deny any of their claims. Instead, they're deflecting from the facts with the "evil comcast is protecting their video revenue" claims.

ISP's do not have to eat any cost. They run an internet service, that requires them to deliver packets their consumers request. This has cost associated with it. Cost they make up for in their rates they charge their subscribers. If they are paying more then they are receiving then they need to raise their rates to their subscribers to make up that difference.

Based on the above, I suggest you take your own advice:

I suggest you read that so you actually know what you are talking about.



Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA
reply to battleop

said by battleop:

"ISPs are not eating any costs. In 99% of the US broadband ISPs are monopolies"

You clearly have absolutely no idea as to what you are taking about. Please show us where A. ISPs are not taking a hit on this and B. where 99% of broadband ISPs are monopolies.

ISPs CLEARLY gouge customers as the WHOLESALE costs of bandwidth has been on the DECLINE for a DECADE and providers FAITHFULLY increase fees twice yearly..You sir clearly have no idea...oh and not to mention NO COMPETITION
--
»davescustompc.com


Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
reply to battleop

As far as B is concerned, most areas in the US have only one or two broadband ISPs to choose from. You have the phone company or the cable company. These two "compete" but just enough to maintain their duopoly. Less lucky areas only have one ISP and people have a choice of going with the only broadband ISP or not having broadband Internet. (Still less lucky areas have no broadband ISPs, but I think that's a different discussion.) Very few areas in the US have 3 or more ISP choices.
--
-Jason Levine



swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS
reply to battleop

said by battleop:

You clearly have absolutely no idea as to what you are taking about.

Oh hey you must be new here.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

backness

join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
reply to Jason Levine

and if somebody is dumb enough to challenge them and open a third service, they promptly upgrade the area and lower prices to kill the new guys margins.



swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS

said by backness:

and if somebody is dumb enough to challenge them and open a third service, they promptly upgrade the area and lower prices to kill the new guys margins.

Well gee whiz...that sounds an awful lot like...how business works?
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

LostInWoods

join:2004-04-14

1 recommendation

If you have a monopoly, it does. You can afford to lower prices for awhile in a small area to kill off new competitors. Then you and raise the prices back again once the blood dries.

I really don't understand some of the people on here who reflexively root against municipal broadband offerings as "unfair government interference in the free market" when the local monopoly or duopoly got established by government franchises with guaranteed rates of return. The removal of those franchises doesn't remove the enormous advantage the original entrenched players have.

When there are only two "competitors", there really is no free market for a local government to meddle in.



Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA

And, in some cases, those municipal broadband offerings are in areas the duopoly isn't servicing, but the duopoly opposes it because they might one day decide to enter that market and, if/when they do, they don't want to "compete with the government." So the people continue to get no access and the duopoly ISPs get to keep promising access... sometime... maybe... we'll see.
--
-Jason Levine



r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to battleop

said by battleop:

"ISPs are not eating any costs. In 99% of the US broadband ISPs are monopolies"

You clearly have absolutely no idea as to what you are taking about. Please show us where A. ISPs are not taking a hit on this and B. where 99% of broadband ISPs are monopolies.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Your monthly fee pays for your internet connection.
How much do you think the physical cable to your house and the routing equipment costs??? Paying $50 a month to to your ISP is almost all profit for them. If it was not then they would go under after paying tv content provider with $50 a month cable plans.

Google/netflix pays their monthly fees to their ISP.
ISPs get money from everyone to pay for the network and can basically charge any price since broadband ISPs are monopolies.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else.


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS

said by r81984:

How much do you think the physical cable to your house and the routing equipment costs???

Not sure, can you please tell us? How much does the pole rental cost throughout an entire plant, the line maintenance techs and all the equipment including truck and gas, call center buildings, staff, remote buildings for CMTS and associated equipment, advertisements, peering costs to offload the traffic and the list goes on and on and on.

This isnt just stringing a piece of CAT 5 to each house and plugging it into a 80 dollar Linksys router you know.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to fifty nine

I am going to assume you did not read the linked article as you are still spewing nonsense. You should read it, there are even pretty pictures with color and all to help you understand better.

This has absolutely nothing to do with peering and thus has nothing to do with what Comcast is trying to claim. Comcast is NOT a peering company. They are trying to be more of a CDN just as Level 3 is, but that is not relevant to any of this beyond the fact that Comcast is attempting to profit from others being CDN's to companies they are not by charging a "toll" to have traffic delivered to their customers.

I am not going to continue to dispute this with you. The facts are out there, not just the he said / she said stuff. You trying to ignore them for the benefit of your argument is not going to change that.



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to r81984

said by r81984:

My cable company sells cable for $50 a month and internet for $50 a month. They make a much smaller profit off the tv after they pay content providers than when they sell internet which requires no payment to content providers.

In Canada the cable companies don't pay what we call the "conventional channels" providers (major Canadian networks, the 4 US networks, etc). However the cableco's do have to pay the freight to get the content to their NOC.

When it comes to the specialty channels, the Cableco's also hold all the cards, most channels do no require mandatory carriage, so each "broadcaster" has to negotiate withe Cableco's for carriage, and trust me if they get more then 50c/subscriber I'd be quite surprised.

The cablecos up here are also the major internet providers and at the same time own substantial broadcasting properties. Americans talk about concentration of the media, trust me, it's much worse in Canada.
--
Jake: "Four fried chickens, and a coke" Elwood: "And some dry white toast, please"


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to swintec

said by swintec:

said by r81984:

How much do you think the physical cable to your house and the routing equipment costs???

Not sure, can you please tell us? How much does the pole rental cost throughout an entire plant, the line maintenance techs and all the equipment including truck and gas, call center buildings, staff, remote buildings for CMTS and associated equipment, advertisements, peering costs to offload the traffic and the list goes on and on and on.

This isnt just stringing a piece of CAT 5 to each house and plugging it into a 80 dollar Linksys router you know.

I guess you did not read my post.
Providing internet is cheaper than providing cable tv, but yet they basically charge the same per month for each service.
Their plant is already paid for from the cable TV, internet is just a bonus.
They make a fortune off the internet.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to r81984

Just wondering. How long have your worked in the ISP industry at a level where you are part of the decision making process?


gruntlord6

join:2010-06-10
Barrie, ON
reply to battleop

said by battleop:

"ISPs are not eating any costs. In 99% of the US broadband ISPs are monopolies"

You clearly have absolutely no idea as to what you are taking about. Please show us where A. ISPs are not taking a hit on this and B. where 99% of broadband ISPs are monopolies.

ISPs are NOT eating the cost. You obviously do not understand canadian broadband. The lowest tier plans have a 2gb cap, the highest having a 175gb cap. In the case of UBB with wholesalers its even worse. The wholesaler pays the ISP for bandwidth, provides thier own network after the initial transit, and then the consumer gets billed by the wholesaler and the ISP for overages.

Tell me how that is "eating the cost"


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

"You obviously do not understand canadian broadband."

Very true, seeing as how I don't work for a Canadian ISP and this statement was about "US broadband ISPs are monopolies"