dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
139
share rss forum feed

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
reply to espaeth

Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges

I might agree, but hasn't Comcast kept the same cap for years? I mean if that is the case, then the D3 upgrade didn't make any bit of difference?

In my neck of the woods, Time Warner nor FIOS have caps and both stream at max rates all the time, especially FIOS. And I only pay $110 for 50/25 and extreme. I think that is perfectly reasonable, and I use about 200-400GB a month (depending upon the kids streaming habits). I would not be happy in a capped world.

What they have to worry about is simple: I drop cable and do only internet. Now I use 600-700GB a month because streaming becomes the only method for getting video. Right now outside of broadcast only 5-10% of the viewing comes from cable. Wife has finally given me the go-ahead to drop cable and save $50/mo.

Also infrastructure costs are often shared w/ the other services (most people actually run TV), so in that case outside the HSI equipment costs, baked into the cost of cable and phone are infrastructure costs.

As we know transit costs (if they have any) --look @ CDN have been plummeting.

So the cost is clearly going down, so why does the price go up every year? Profit, nothing more, nothing less. I don't blame them, they can get away with it for now.

If too many people start dropping cable, then it will start eating into their margins because equipment was sized for distributing cable too. Phone cost is minimal.... That is the balancing act, keeping you signed up for the triple play....



espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP

said by elefante72:

I might agree, but hasn't Comcast kept the same cap for years? I mean if that is the case, then the D3 upgrade didn't make any bit of difference?

It started off a decade ago as a "soft" cap where they kicked heavy users off the system. In 2008 it was defined to be a 250GB cap, and then this year they started to expand the cap / look at strategies for being able to use more capacity for a larger monthly fee. See: »Exclusive: Some Comcast Users Will See 500 GB Cap

I think the problem is that infrastructure updates take years, and our culture is now exclusively focused on short term goals/results.


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
Reviews:
·Charter

The problem is that the caps are mostly arbitrary and used in an anti-competitive way to limit competition from streaming content. If the caps were at least updated annually or on a rolling schedule based on average consumption increases then this wouldn't matter.



espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP

said by morbo:

The problem is that the caps are mostly arbitrary and used in an anti-competitive way to limit competition from streaming content.

Yeah, yeah. We've all heard the blanket statement repeated over and over again on this site.

How many services really compete head to head?

At best, online services chip away at sections of what is available via broadcast TV, but there is not a wholesale replacement option. It's not because of bandwidth caps; it's because anyone with a clue about how that infrastructure is built knows that you can't scale to 100+ million simultaneous Internet video feeds using technology available today.

Caps aren't the reason that service doesn't exist, no matter how badly you want that to be cause.

said by morbo:

If the caps were at least updated annually or on a rolling schedule based on average consumption increases then this wouldn't matter.

Technology refresh cycles are 3-5 years, which is about the rate you're seeing access speed increases and bandwidth cap increases.

Crusty

join:2008-11-11
Sanger, TX
Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
·CenturyLink

said by espaeth:

said by morbo:

The problem is that the caps are mostly arbitrary and used in an anti-competitive way to limit competition from streaming content.

Yeah, yeah. We've all heard the blanket statement repeated over and over again on this site.

How many services really compete head to head?

At best, online services chip away at sections of what is available via broadcast TV, but there is not a wholesale replacement option. It's not because of bandwidth caps; it's because anyone with a clue about how that infrastructure is built knows that you can't scale to 100+ million simultaneous Internet video feeds using technology available today.

Caps aren't the reason that service doesn't exist, no matter how badly you want that to be cause.

said by morbo:

If the caps were at least updated annually or on a rolling schedule based on average consumption increases then this wouldn't matter.

Technology refresh cycles are 3-5 years, which is about the rate you're seeing access speed increases and bandwidth cap increases.

I haven't seen a speed increase in nearly 7yrs and I'm forced to either have zero internet or just use one ISP or move across the street.

But yet, my costs rise each year........


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
reply to espaeth

said by espaeth:

Technology refresh cycles are 3-5 years, which is about the rate you're seeing access speed increases and bandwidth cap increases.

Um.. Sure the speed increases, but the cap doesn't for most providers.


OSUGoose

join:2007-12-27
Columbus, OH
reply to espaeth

We look short term because there were times were we were hyped that fixes were coming for years to only have them be canceled or deployed half-cocked, I'm looking at you AT&T U-Verse.