dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
690
share rss forum feed


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to f1sushi2

Re: More on the new 1500/192kbps reality...

I'm on a TeraLink system, but if that applies to these, then that would go a long way to explain it, even if they've provisioned it for 1.5 down.

I wanna new Modem on a new CMTS!

Stuart



tymex

join:2002-06-10
canada
reply to Friendol

said by Friendol:

1) Whether @home was billing Rogers at "about" $30/month was questionable and spectulative on your part.
The exactly amount is in the @home MDA (master distribution agreement) which is confidential.

Quote from »www.dotcomscoop.com/article.php?sid=10

"27. The cable companies provide this network pursuant to the MDAs. The MDAs include an original distribution agreement entered into in June 1996 with Cox, Comcast, and TCI (the "Original MDA"), and later amendments. See At Home Corp., 5/16/1997 Form S-1, 62-67. Under the MDAs, At Home collects a share of subscription revenues paid by the subscribers to the cable companies. At Home generally receives 35% of the fees paid by the subscribers to the cable companies in the United States, and 20% of the fees paid by subscribers to the cable companies in Canada. See id. at 6; see also Debtors¡¯ Emergency Motion for Order Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. ¡ì 365(a) Authorizing Rejection of Unexpired Leases of Nonresidential Real Property, 4."

20% of of $40.xx is about $8-$9 canadian dollar, it was such a good deal that no MSO would want to renegotiate it.

Now, I don't know where the $30 guesstimate came from though.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13

I saw it reported in the press at that. I suspect that they actually paid more than that, and that 20% covers one part of the service.

If it was only 20%, there's no way that @home could make money! Not a hope in hell.



tymex

join:2002-06-10
canada

said by sbrook:
I saw it reported in the press at that. I suspect that they actually paid more than that, and that 20% covers one part of the service.

If it was only 20%, there's no way that @home could make money! Not a hope in hell.
You need a better argument in the face of "Pertinent facts" filed before a court than just saying "no way" and add more speculation without backing it up. I suggest the $30 is what the canadian cable companies pocketed base on the above information.

Note that they got better deals with US MSO's.

You are right that there is no way @home could make anything, they never made their first dime, perhaps the company wasn't setup to make money. ATT being had the biggest stake and was quite willing to see it went down in flames and tried to buy the carcass at rock bottom price. Everyone knew who got the short end of the stick.

Friendol

join:2001-11-20
Vancouver, BC

Thanx tymex for the info. Come to think of it, your estimation of say $10/month/Canadian subscriber went to @Home sounds accurate enough. I vaguely remember there was a discussion on that in Cnet.com back a year ago.

One more question....

When @Home was at it's full swing...there were also a lot of other US and Canadian ISPs NOT affiliated with @Home in any way. A lot of them are still around. They apparently were operating ok then and still thriving. These days, except for Symapatico in the East, I didn't even hear a beep from any of them complaining. No caps are suggested as yet. Stuart did posted a link which mentioned a few US based ISPs namely Cox, Charter (formerly associated with @Home) and AT&T Broadband may be thinking along that line. So far, only Charter has introduced tiered pricing based on speed of service. Not a bit cap. Going into their respective forum, I failed to notice any discussion at all on this topic. That is very un-American like.

In Canada, the only ISPs that are screaming, except for Sympatico, are basically ISPs that were affiliated with @Home before. Rogers is one, Cogeco is another and Shaw is trailing. I have yet to hear anything from Telus. If Rogers is hurting so badly, then why not rr.com or Verizon etc. before and now?? These people are still charging a flat fee with no caps whatsoever. Now both rr.com and Verizon were around at @Home's time. They thrive then and they are still in business and doing reasonably well now. Of course, all could change if Sympatico succeeded in holding it's subscriber ransom and gets away with it.

Infrastructure costs are normally amortized over a number of years and nobody can recover these in a short time. The most important element is still one's installed base...... u and I. If the new pricing structure of Sympatico can be used as a model for things to come, these Canadian ISPs are in fact out to get the public. This got very little to do with self-preservation!!

Hmmm..I suspect Stuart's explanation based on the @Home's failed business model doesn't explain everything.

Anybody has any further thoughts on this?? Stuart, what is your thought on this??



tymex

join:2002-06-10
canada

The excite@home case

»www.dotcomscoop.com/athmchronicle.html

IMHO, it is a venture not set out to make money, but to serve the interest of certain MSOs at the detriment of investors.

You can see that the bankruptcy court judge is no dummy and see through all this.

Prior to @home's demise, the ISP aspect of the service was handled by @home, after that everybody have to learn to become ISPs, it is obviously that we have to pay their tuition fees, the post @home economy of scale or the lack there of.

We also have the most clueful insider who bought these at over $10USD/S while almost every other @home insider was selling.

»moneycentral.msn.com/investor/in···bol=ATHM

[text was edited by author 2002-06-16 21:12:36]


f1sushi2

join:2002-05-30
Nepean, ON

The second link is priceless! Regardless of the mechanism between @home and Rogers, the customer is left with higher prices (acceptable given the current reality), and half the bandwidth (not acceptable + cloak and dagger approach to customer relations).

It's clearly in Rogers' best interest not to disseminate the half-bandwidth measure and let it filter out to the masses slowly. We'll see if they let customers in on this new "feature" or maintain the cloak and dagger posture...

Interesting to note that my neighbor's DSL connection is now faster in both directions at any given time.



dirtyjeffer
Anons on ignore, but not due to fear.
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
reply to f1sushi2

man, you like to say "cloak and dagger" a lot!!
--
Better. Faster. First.


f1sushi2

join:2002-05-30
Nepean, ON

I like to call a spade a spade. Just don't accuse me of saying "spade" a lot...



mau108
Mau
Premium
join:2001-10-07
Thornhill, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to f1sushi2

2002-06-17 21:05:23 EST: 2242 / 165
Your download speed : 2242912 bps, or 2242 kbps.
A 273.7 KB/sec transfer rate.
Your upload speed : 165084 bps, or 165 kbps.
Seems like broadband .. above the 1mbit barrier!

dey capped my upload
--
...:::M.A.U.1.0.8:::...



skillton

join:2000-09-14
Scarborough, ON
reply to f1sushi2

lol
2002-06-17 21:12:19 EST: 2397 / 353
Your download speed : 2397807 bps, or 2397 kbps.
A 292.7 KB/sec transfer rate.
Your upload speed : 353877 bps, or 353 kbps.
Seems like broadband .. above the 1mbit barrier!

i dont think ur upload is capped mau... i think its just congestion



tymex

join:2002-06-10
canada
reply to f1sushi2

said by F1Sushi:
The second link is priceless! Regardless of the mechanism between @home and Rogers, the customer is left with higher prices (acceptable given the current reality), and half the bandwidth (not acceptable + cloak and dagger approach to customer relations).
I should have added a disclaimer, I do not imply there is any relation between the gentleman's personal 30-40 million dollars loss and Rogers recent cost cutting measures.

What I wanted to say is we don't know whether this is driven by economics or incompetence or a bit of both. The gentleman's judgement of @home's value is a example of the latter.


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21

2002-06-17 22:32:13 Speed test (nyc.speakeasy.net) 2242/371 kbps

still not capped here.... wonder when they'll actually hit my area.
--
Thanks Leafs for a great season & playoffs.



sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable

"They're coming to take my speed away Ha! Ha!"

After a week, I'm still going way slow on the download.

It's a good moment right now, most high school kids are studying for final exams tomorrow! 609k/180k on a 1.5M/192K line. Last night this time it was about 300/160!

Rogers have raised a ticket for all its worth.



Uriel3

join:2001-11-26
reply to f1sushi2

What about the possible 3000/640kbps reality, words a-buzzing that Sympatico's ULTRA is out, 10GB U/D Bit-Cap and 3000dn/640up speed cap... only $70 per month. If so, we can probably expect a Rogers Ultra-ME2 coming to a theater near you?


f1sushi2

join:2002-05-30
Nepean, ON

I'm considering adopting a pseudo-Amish lifestyle instead. I don't think I can do without the cellphone, but the cable might have to go...



Uriel3

join:2001-11-26

said by F1Sushi:
...the cable might have to go...
If the above proves to be true I will definitely be forced to join you. A friend told me about the Ultra and then I noticed a Petitioner No. 100340 posted here who appeared legit; »www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/···arrick&1

f1sushi2

join:2002-05-30
Nepean, ON

I'm getting a real kick out of some of the comments. This move by ISPs is starting to get some real publicity. Only time will tell if it was worth it, though...