said by 65194623:said by cepnot4me:Realizing that 2% of the customers are using 97% of the bandwidth is part of everything.
Except it isn't and the fallacy isn't true. It's not even possible.
said by cepnot4me:If Rogers offered 1gbps, only 2% of the customers would use it, and the bandwidth they would use would cost a fortune, so the other 98% of customers would need to foot the bill for that 2. Usage. That's why Rogers will only ever offer a little more than Bell. Only offer what you need to, in order to claim and Market yourself as the "fastest".
It would cost a fortune because they choose to charge a fortune not because it costs them a fortune, it doesn't at all.
The only reason they're offering any options for additional traffic allowances is because of independent ISPs offering competition. Without competition there is no incentive to change anything, but that's painfully obvious.
said by cepnot4me:There is a lot of excitement around "Fibre" everyone wants a fiber line. However the joke about it all is that most people can't even properly utilize the capability of fiber. I can't tell you how many hundreds of houses I've gone out to on service orders for "slow speeds" and the issue is almost always the restrictions of the customers equipment, their OS on their computer, their LAN card, etc.
Fiber has various short term and long term benefits. Such as being able to offer speeds DOCSIS even with 3.1 cannot match and long term is easier to maintain at the cable plant level and reduces truck rolls for issues.
said by cepnot4me:Interestingly enough, I think I read an article that showed the current Docsis 3 HFC network is potentially capable of delivering 500 mbps. People want fiber cause it sounds better, cooler. But they don't "need" it. The reason Rogers never went to fiber to the home sooner was it was just an unnecessary liability.
That 500 Mbps is shared over the node, not per user. No they haven't moved to fiber sooner because they didn't want to spend the money, this is pretty straightforward.
said by cepnot4me:If or when your feed line is cut, coax is repaired for about $75. This is $74 to send a guy, $1 worth of materials to repair it. Worst case, $150 to run a new line to the house.
Now you dig a garden, you cut your fiber line. That's expensive. I don't know how much, but ive heard different costs, $500 being the lowest, $15000+ being the highest. That is why Rogers never wanted fiber straight to the house. Imagine the cost. Ontario ice storm brought down 10,000+ feed lines. Regular construction and yard work cuts 25,000 lines/year. Since one way or another YOU the customer are paying for that, would you prefer to pay $75? Or $500?
$15,000? So much nonsense. Either way the relative exception not the norm is a very weak excuse not to move forward. No, they are not using fiber to the home because it costs a lot of money to replace the cable plant with fibre.
said by cepnot4me:Fiber is cool, but the more lines run, the more will get damaged by regular seasonal activities, then the higher everyone's bill gets.
Except it doesn't work like that.
said by cepnot4me:Just because you can order 350mbps, or even 50mbps, doesn't mean your hardware can use it. To even utilize 1gbps you need the latest technology.
Any system relatively modern could take advantage of and benefit from the faster speeds.
said by cepnot4me:It's like filling your Dodge Neon with Jet fuel, then complaining it's not as fast as an indy car.
Awful analogy that doesn't make sense.
said by cepnot4me:All of that being said, Bell has made fiber popular. So Rogers need to respond to compete in the market. In my opinion the big reason behind the Fiber Internet plans, is not for Internet speeds or services, cause they can do those speeds on the existing platform. It's because the Fiber internet is the groundwork for the Rogers IPTV product in development. Customers who order the tier, are just unknowingly agreeing to be the guinea pigs for IPTV. You are only testing the backbone for them.
The existing platform can't compete. The existing infrastructure is just fine for their IPTV roll out and most of their IPTV customers will be over DOCSIS.
Some studies need to be done about this 1% 2%. I believe with the advent of netflix those numbers have changed a bit to 3% and 90%.
Rogers doesn't need FTTH for iptv. They just need multicast and lots of bandwidth to each customer on the internet side. Bell is doing just fine with FTTN in toronto providing 25mbit to houses over dsl. Rogers was caught with it's pants down when bell announced the iptv service, and then again with the wireless tv. Rogers' only saving grace thus far has been bell can't keep up with network upgrades necessary to support the customers and many converts switch back to rogers.
Rogers has had the lionshare of internet customers for years and has spent millions on their network upgrades to ensure they have fast speeds even during peak hours. They just need to get their ducks in a row in regards to the switch to iptv and their plans regarding that (they should provide a similar route as bell ensuring data downloaded for iptv doesn't count towards their usage cap) and they will be fine. FTTH has been at the forefront because it introduces new things to the equation such as more reliable service (you can pretty much say good bye to intermittent problems related to the rogers network), faster upload speeds, and bragging rights to TRUE fiber to the house. None of this bell rhetoric sales tactics "we bring fiber to your house" when it's clearly a telephone line.