dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
23
share rss forum feed

xtachx

join:2005-11-19
canada
Reviews:
·voip.ms
reply to zod5000

Re: Shaw no support new Super HD from Netflix, boo!

said by zod5000:

It depends on your point of view. Why would a cableco want to make it easier for people to use an alternative video service? It's supporting the competition? I'm not surprised shaw isn't in a rush to support it. Let's spend extra many to setup this infrastructure to make netflix better so people have an even bigger reason not to use our cable services... lol

Shaw doesnt care. You have to take cable from them anyways to get their Internet. They got their share already.
--
Bell Canada: It is “Preposterous" that consumers should get content they want on their cellphones.


Jumpy

@shawcable.net

said by xtachx:

...You have to take cable from them anyways to get their Internet...

Actually, no. I have Shaw internet at home without any Cable TV service. You don't even have to do anything special, just sign up for internet...that's it. If you don't ask for TV you don't get TV.

zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to xtachx

said by xtachx:

said by zod5000:

It depends on your point of view. Why would a cableco want to make it easier for people to use an alternative video service? It's supporting the competition? I'm not surprised shaw isn't in a rush to support it. Let's spend extra many to setup this infrastructure to make netflix better so people have an even bigger reason not to use our cable services... lol

Shaw doesnt care. You have to take cable from them anyways to get their Internet. They got their share already.

That was my point (and I do think cableco's would care). This would save them pennies a gig (they still have to use their infrastructure to deliver, but it would save them the bulk bandwidth internet costs). What's that going to save shaw on average? 10 bux a month for netflix customers? Do you think they'd rather have your 50-60 dollars cable subscription or save 10 bux on bulk bandwidth? hmmm....

The last thing Shaw wants is people to only subscribe for internet.. lol.

edit: ok 2nd last thing. the last thing they'd want is for you to not use any of their services.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

said by zod5000:

That was my point (and I do think cableco's would care). This would save them pennies a gig (they still have to use their infrastructure to deliver, but it would save them the bulk bandwidth internet costs). What's that going to save shaw on average? 10 bux a month for netflix customers? Do you think they'd rather have your 50-60 dollars cable subscription or save 10 bux on bulk bandwidth? hmmm....

The last thing Shaw wants is people to only subscribe for internet.. lol.

edit: ok 2nd last thing. the last thing they'd want is for you to not use any of their services.

People will do that anyway. This doesn't make it any "easier". They can choose to be stupid and not take advantage of a cost cutting measure or do so and make a smart business decision.

Also its a lot more than 10 bucks a month on bulk bandwidth. They're consuming at least a few 10Gb links worth of bandwidth for Netflix alone.