 | | IP Cable Providers AT&T is looking at streaming TV services. Time Warner Cable already released a Roku channel so you can stream TV if you are a TWC subscriber. How long until one of them decides to allow people to sign up for a "streaming cable only" and thus expand their subscriber base to the entire USA?
--
-Jason Levine | |
|
 | | | Re: IP Cable Providers Probably never. As long as there are caps and the infrastructure not updated/upgraded, if it happens it will be a long time.
--
Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian. Robert Orben
| |
|
| | | | Re: IP Cable Providers I think the bigger issue will be that the coverage area gains cut both ways. While Time Warner Cable could launch an IP Cable product to expand into Comcast's neighborhood, they know that it wouldn't be long before Comcast did the same and got into previously "safe" Time Warner Cable areas. Any competitive advantage of being the first would be short lived and the "disadvantage" of suddenly having to compete for TV customers in areas where they previously held a virtual monopoly would be severe.
--
-Jason Levine | |
|
| | Caps anyone Doesn't AT&T also have some relatively low caps on Uverse VDSL.
What would be the point of paying $5 for the service and $10 for overages. | |
|
| | | Re: Caps anyone Only on paper. They're not (yet) enforcing the 250GB cap on Uverse.
/M | |
|
| | Without usage charges? What do they mean by "without usage charges"?
Does that mean it doesnt go against the silly caps they have?
If so, I think we are venturing into the land of neutrality violations.
And before the silly arguments begin, dont even start with the stupid on network/off network angle as that does not make a bit of difference in last mile (their real concern) and whether or not they are picking winners and losers. | |
|
| | | Re: Without usage charges? With good lawyers, they could beat net neutrality rules by saying they have a cap on internet usage, but not on intranet usage. That is essentially what they will do with their existing video service assuming they start enforcing the caps. | |
|
| | | | Re: Without usage charges? The internet from the public's view and perceptions starts at the modem/router that sits at their home and I would agree with that 100%.
It is also marketed and sold as such by every single ISP out there which is the exact meaning of ISP (internet service provider).
If the traffic comes across that modem/router in an IP form, then it is internet traffic regardless of where it originated or where its destined.
They can try to use smoke and mirrors to create their dream of little intertubes and toll ways and a lot of less intelligent people will fall for it, I however will not. | |
|
| | No more boxes They could be looking at something that would eliminate the non dvr STB's. You could have a choice bring your own, use a computer, ipad, android tablet or rent one from AT&T. This would be a price enhancement over cable where every TV has to have a rented box, remember Comcast just announced they are going to start charging everyone a fee for each box, including the ones they already installed that where no fee boxes. While ATT would be giving up profit from the box rental racket they also dont have to screw with setting up all those extra boxes.
Maybe there $14 a month wireless box is not doing as well as they had planned. That box is a screw job on their installers, when I originally was getting Uverse the installers talked about wireless boxes coming and they would not have to run cables a lot of the time. By charging a fee above and beyond the normal box fee for wireless no one probably wants it. We actually move one of the STB's between one of our bedrooms and the garage since the garage is used in the summer and the bedroom is used more in the winter, both have CatV. | |
|
|
|
|
·
·
·