| reply to RcP
Re: Netflix Open Connect CDN Request Make it so. |
|
|
|
| reply to RcP
They should do it cause it would make good business sense. The higher the definition, the faster people would reach and exceed their caps, the more Mediacom would get in overages. Brilliant!!!
--
Vonage user since Mar 2004. |
|
| reply to RcP
Add my request to the list also, for the Cedar Rapids Mediacom market. |
|
| reply to strange_69
Yes but that additional income is nothing compared to the cable TV side income. Mediacom does not want to be internet only provider.
--
I speak for myself, not my employer. |
|
| im sure if you looked mediacom already has more customers that are internet only than you think. around me there are only 3 people on a street of 25 houses that have mediacom cable all the others either have medicom broadband or dsl |
|
| If needed Mediacom can always adjust their internet pricing. If they wanted to they could bundle two services together.
--
I speak for myself, not my employer. |
|
| reply to Anonymous
said by Anonymous: Mediacom does not want to be internet only provider.
Maybe but here is Mediacom's big problem:
They have much competition in the TV providers arena. Mediacom simply does (can) not compete with providers like Dish or Directv. Mediacom's TV services are priced higher, have less channels, and provide outdated poor DVR equipment.
No one in their right mind would have Mediacom Telephone service no matter how cheap. 
On the other hand they can compete in Internet service where the most likely competition is DSL........... |
|
1 edit | reply to RcP
From a business sense, I don't see any reason for Mediacom to add this. Most of their competitors are DSL, as has been mentioned. A lot of those DSL competitors are not even going to be fast enough to offer the higher def Netflix and the ones that are fast enough might not be after users start using it. With competition like Windstream, Mediacom has little to worry about.
Why offer something your competition can't, when all it will really do is compete with your own offerings? |
|
| reply to RcP
Please add my request too. |
|
| reply to RcP
Please add my request for this Netflix service also. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
| reply to RcP
Honestly this would only be a good thing if netflix opened up what they have available for streaming. Which currently isn't really that great of a selection. If they would open their entire catalog, this would be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Until than, it's a waste. |
|
| reply to Anonymous
said by Anonymous:If needed Mediacom can always adjust their internet pricing. If they wanted to they could bundle two services together.
the easiest way to see if a cable provider has bad tv service is count the dishes in the area your moving to. |
|
 BAINCHPremium,VIP,MVM
join:2003-04-02
Middletown, NY
kudos:10 | reply to Nedim
Just to note, this is NOT free to Mediacom. Netflix has agreed, for the moment, not to charge anything extra for it. That is a big difference than "free" in two important ways.
1. It is at Mediacom's cost to build out to Open Connect. They don't come to you. And as you might guess, Open Connect isn't in Iowa or close to most of the places we do business. So this would mean building out or leasing additional network to Chicago or NY or LA etc.
2. There is no promise they won't charge for it tomorrow. We've seen this before with content owners. "Just put up our channel, its free, how could it hurt?" Then a couple years later after we've helped them build up an audience they come back with, "Our channel has all this value you aren't paying for. Time to start paying. Just do a rate increase on your customers to pay for it."
Always remember, in the FCC's infinite wisdom Net Neutrality only goes one way. ISPs can't block or give preferential treatment to anyone. Content owners like Netflix have no such restrictions. |
|
 drslashGoya AsmaPremium
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA | said by BAINCH:Just to note, this is NOT free to Mediacom. Netflix has agreed, for the moment, not to charge anything extra for it. That is a big difference than "free" in two important ways. 1. It is at Mediacom's cost to build out to Open Connect. They don't come to you. And as you might guess, Open Connect isn't in Iowa or close to most of the places we do business. So this would mean building out or leasing additional network to Chicago or NY or LA etc. 2. There is no promise they won't charge for it tomorrow. We've seen this before with content owners. "Just put up our channel, its free, how could it hurt?" Then a couple years later after we've helped them build up an audience they come back with, "Our channel has all this value you aren't paying for. Time to start paying. Just do a rate increase on your customers to pay for it." Always remember, in the FCC's infinite wisdom Net Neutrality only goes one way. ISPs can't block or give preferential treatment to anyone. Content owners like Netflix have no such restrictions. Thanks for your input.
My comment on #2 above, from my perspective as a customer that seems to be the way Mediacom has done business in the past and will likely continue in to the future. What's special or different about Netflix as opposed to The Big Ten Network, free OTA stations that are bilking Mediacom via retransmission consent agreements, the many flavors of ESPN channels that are outrageously expensive? The practices with those content providers is business as usual with no end in sight; providers jack up the cost of the content and require that they remain in the expanded basic tier. I have always maintained that the sports specialty channels should be in their own tier where those who want them pay for them. The OTA stations should be left to die off if they can't support themselves from advertising to the people who watch them via OTA. There is absolutely no reason alternate network affiliate content can't be retransmitted at a lower cost if it is available. It's not available because of greed and regulations brought about by interests to protect their greed. Forgive me but I am very skeptical when you say that Mediacom is trying to protect the customer. Nothing in Mediacom's past gives me any assurance from what you said.
--
Save water...drink beer!
--
#occupytheworkplace
--
Obama...it's junior high school all over again!
--
Democrats don't mind raising taxes because democrats don't pay taxes. |
|
2 edits | reply to BAINCH
said by BAINCH:Just to note, this is NOT free to Mediacom. Netflix has agreed, for the moment, not to charge anything extra for it. That is a big difference than "free" in two important ways. 1. It is at Mediacom's cost to build out to Open Connect. They don't come to you. And as you might guess, Open Connect isn't in Iowa or close to most of the places we do business. So this would mean building out or leasing additional network to Chicago or NY or LA etc. You don't have to peer to use their storage servers do you?
said by drslash:My comment on #2 above, from my perspective as a customer that seems to be the way Mediacom has done business in the past and will likely continue in to the future. What's special or different about Netflix as opposed to The Big Ten Network, free OTA stations that are bilking Mediacom via retransmission consent agreements, the many flavors of ESPN channels that are outrageously expensive? The practices with those content providers is business as usual with no end in sight; providers jack up the cost of the content and require that they remain in the expanded basic tier. I have always maintained that the sports specialty channels should be in their own tier where those who want them pay for them. The OTA stations should be left to die off if they can't support themselves from advertising to the people who watch them via OTA. There is absolutely no reason alternate network affiliate content can't be retransmitted at a lower cost if it is available. It's not available because of greed and regulations brought about by interests to protect their greed. Forgive me but I am very skeptical when you say that Mediacom is trying to protect the customer. Nothing in Mediacom's past gives me any assurance from what you said.
Netflix's whole goal is to replace existing TV services. That's probably one of the biggest differences. OTA stations just want more money. Netflix wants their competitors to let them ride on their networks free of charge and on Netflix's terms. That doesn't benefit ISPs when it competes with your own product offering. It also puts substantial stress on the network, requiring upgrades that Netflix won't be footing the bill for.
Netflix has gotten big enough that they are trying to push ISPs around. That's dangerously bad for customers. Say a few years down the road Netflix decides that ISPs need to pay them or they will cut service to that ISP... That ISP has to pay it. That would set a dangerous precedent that will only hurt everyone because there are no laws protecting against it. If ISPs don't stand up to Netflix now, the future could be uncertain at best. TNetflix has to pay those studios money for exclusive films to crush their competition somehow. |
|
BAINCHPremium,VIP,MVM
join:2003-04-02
Middletown, NY
kudos:10 | said by silbaco:You don't have to peer to use their storage servers do you?
Well, again it is yes and no. So they don't charge for the storage servers. That doesn't mean they'll agree to provide storage servers however. There is a market size issue. So if we are talking Comcast Chicago, they are happy to fork over storage servers. If it was say Eveleth, MN or Gibson City, IL of Milton, FL the answer is more likely no. Additionally these servers have to go someplace, be powered and be kept cool (even in the winter those rooms get hot.) And of course that is provided by the ISP. |
|
BAINCHPremium,VIP,MVM
join:2003-04-02
Middletown, NY
kudos:10 | reply to drslash
said by drslash:My comment on #2 above, from my perspective as a customer that seems to be the way Mediacom has done business in the past and will likely continue in to the future. What's special or different about Netflix as opposed to The Big Ten Network, free OTA stations that are bilking Mediacom via retransmission consent agreements, the many flavors of ESPN channels that are outrageously expensive? The practices with those content providers is business as usual with no end in sight; providers jack up the cost of the content and require that they remain in the expanded basic tier. I have always maintained that the sports specialty channels should be in their own tier where those who want them pay for them. The OTA stations should be left to die off if they can't support themselves from advertising to the people who watch them via OTA. There is absolutely no reason alternate network affiliate content can't be retransmitted at a lower cost if it is available. It's not available because of greed and regulations brought about by interests to protect their greed. Forgive me but I am very skeptical when you say that Mediacom is trying to protect the customer. Nothing in Mediacom's past gives me any assurance from what you said.
We can't retransmit OTA content from outside the area, even with another channel's permission. It is against the law.
A few things in Mediacom's past to note however:
1. Chairman and CEO Rocco Commisso has repeatedly offered to freeze all Mediacom cable rates to its customers if the programmers would do the same.
2. Profits on video customers have either been flat or declined every year for the past decade. It is in the public earnings reports from 2000 to 2011.
An interesting industry note:
Name another industry (other than Cable/Pay TV) where the adjusted rate of service is substantially higher AFTER several competitors (Echostar, DirecTV, AT&T and Verizon) enter the market? The answer is known to everyone inside the industry. While distribution has diversified, content ownership has consolidated and created effective monopolies. |
|
BAINCHPremium,VIP,MVM
join:2003-04-02
Middletown, NY
kudos:10 | One other note from Mediacom's history.
Mediacom launched HSD in 1999. The speed was 1.5meg down, 128k up. Cost was $39.95. Now if you adjust that forward to 2012 based on national inflation data (I used inflationdata.com) then the current price, just with inflation, would be $55.09. Again for 1.5meg down. So today we sell 15meg down for substantially less than that. So how does a company increase the speed 10x and sell it for less than the rate of inflation?
1. Well, competition is a piece of that of course. But we don't have more competition for HSD than we have say for video.
2. The cost of providing HSD service has come down. That is a huge piece really, and what separates HSD from Video.
Now I'm not suggesting Mediacom get some special consideration for what has happened with HSD. I will note however that you can take a single company over the same time frame and compare how a product developed and was priced when most elements were the same except one. In video, content owners have monopolized and skyrocketed their rates. In HSD, the "content" is still mostly free and the primary costs to provide are network aggregation, distribution and support.
Now if content owners/aggregators like Netflix can get their claws into the internet, look out. If you think they won't try to charge for access you are kidding yourselves. And if they do, HSD pricing of the past 10years will be fond memory like $1 gas or an effective Congress. |
|
drslashGoya AsmaPremium
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA | reply to BAINCH
said by BAINCH:said by drslash:My comment on #2 above, from my perspective as a customer that seems to be the way Mediacom has done business in the past and will likely continue in to the future. What's special or different about Netflix as opposed to The Big Ten Network, free OTA stations that are bilking Mediacom via retransmission consent agreements, the many flavors of ESPN channels that are outrageously expensive? The practices with those content providers is business as usual with no end in sight; providers jack up the cost of the content and require that they remain in the expanded basic tier. I have always maintained that the sports specialty channels should be in their own tier where those who want them pay for them. The OTA stations should be left to die off if they can't support themselves from advertising to the people who watch them via OTA. There is absolutely no reason alternate network affiliate content can't be retransmitted at a lower cost if it is available. It's not available because of greed and regulations brought about by interests to protect their greed. Forgive me but I am very skeptical when you say that Mediacom is trying to protect the customer. Nothing in Mediacom's past gives me any assurance from what you said.
We can't retransmit OTA content from outside the area, even with another channel's permission. It is against the law. A few things in Mediacom's past to note however: 1. Chairman and CEO Rocco Commisso has repeatedly offered to freeze all Mediacom cable rates to its customers if the programmers would do the same. 2. Profits on video customers have either been flat or declined every year for the past decade. It is in the public earnings reports from 2000 to 2011. An interesting industry note: Name another industry (other than Cable/Pay TV) where the adjusted rate of service is substantially higher AFTER several competitors (Echostar, DirecTV, AT&T and Verizon) enter the market? The answer is known to everyone inside the industry. While distribution has diversified, content ownership has consolidated and created effective monopolies. I know the law and I basically said the law was put in place to protect greed. There is no technical reason or business reason for not retransmitting. If you don't like the law and would like to provide better content for your customers then work to change the law. I have been and maybe you should work on it too on behalf of your customers.
#1. That's pretty funny. Rocco makes a promise to customers he knows he doesn't have to keep. That's just ridiculous and it is even more ridiculous that you would pawn that off on an intelligent audience in this forum.
#2. Profits schmofits...I know how accounting works and what capital intensive companies do to keep profits low. Mediacom is now privately owned and Rocco can rake it in or sell it off now that he is the owner. Another silly thing to try and pawn off on forum participants.
Re: interesting industry note. You would prefer to not have distribution competition so you could charge more, right? Of course. Don't blame the content providers while running Mediacom like a dinosaur with bloated expenses, brittle wiring, and horrible customer premise equipment (if it is even available).
--
Save water...drink beer!
--
#occupytheworkplace
--
Obama...it's junior high school all over again!
--
Democrats don't mind raising taxes because democrats don't pay taxes. |
|
BAINCHPremium,VIP,MVM
join:2003-04-02
Middletown, NY
kudos:10 | 1. Perhaps programmers were unlikely to accept but you'd never catch them making a similar offer, every distributor would jump at the opportunity.
2. The net profit scenario was pre-CapX.
The industry note isn't specific to Mediacom. While you may feel that our management is poor, I don't see that your argument explains why an entire industry has this issue. |
|
