Cost Of Providing Broadband Dropping It's the television market where margins are tight... Tipped by Bob61571 
Saul Hansell of the New York Times keeps poking the cable industry's numbers, finding that Time Warner's claims that flat-rate billing isn't viable remains unjustified. Hansell notes that at Time Warner Cable, the cost of providing broadband services dropped 18% in Q1 from a year ago. Overall Capex costs also dropped, while the price of providing modems and settops dropped 19% from a year ago. Those costs don't include network upgrades, though DOCSIS 3.0 provides a significant leap in capacity for relatively little money (particularly when compared to FTTH deployments), and TWC hasn't exactly been rushing to get DOCSIS 3.0 to market. Where Hansell says budgets are stretched is when it comes to TV services, the costs of programming (particularly sports) constantly skyrocketing.
|
  ParogadiWhat? Stop Looking At Me Like ThatPremium
join:2003-03-31
Racine, WI | Lay FTTH and then do streaming TV instead of broadcasting it offer the cables, problem solved. | |
|  | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: Lay FTTH Are you suggesting IPTV? If so I do not think they would do that as they would no longer be able to have caps, it would violate net neutrality. A costumer could only watch like 100GB of hulu or youtube, but could watch all the TW internet video they wanted so IF they went all IPTV and had a cap they would be crushed under lawsuits. | |
| | | ParogadiWhat? Stop Looking At Me Like ThatPremium
join:2003-03-31
Racine, WI | Re: Lay FTTH With fios they can deliver 1Gbps lines to everyone and sell on demand tv, to hell with the constant broadcast. the distrobution chokes go away quite quickly when everyone just watches whatever show they want to whenever they want to.
They either do that or will be eaten alive by online services.
Even Ala Carte networks aren't worth it, take scifi for example, I watched Eureka and Battle Star Galactica, nothing else in the last 3 years on ther network, Comedy Central? Only Colbert and Daily Show, South Park isn't funny anymore and none of ther other shows where ever funny. Discovery/science channel? now that I actually watch a bit on, between Mythbusters, Doing Da Vinci and Time Warp with a sprinkling of their weekly specials.
I don't watch much else and nor does anyone else that lives here, yet its download or pay for a service their that actually has all of the channels we watch, which you guessed it, is only their most expensive tier due to how they disperse the channels. | |
|
|  sapoCruising Down Memory LanePremium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | How does that address the issue of the rising costs of TV programs? Having the hardware is the easy part. | |
| |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Unicast-based streaming video actually creates a whole new set of distribution problems.
Existing broadcast TV options are a single feed with many viewers, so your efficiency improves with every additional viewer.
Unicast IP-based streaming video (ala ATT's U-Verse solution) has infrastructure that needs to grow with each and every viewer, and comes with significantly limitations.
Verizon is using FiOS to push traditional broadcast video, delivering QAM signaling on copper coax at the subscriber household fed from the ONT. You can hook up as many TVs as you want, and install DVRs like TiVo or Moxi. There is no limitation on the number of channels you can tune.
ATT U-verse's IP-based delivery, on the other hand, is limited to 2 HD streams per household total. | |
| | | | | Re: Lay FTTH said by espaeth:ATT U-verse's IP-based delivery, on the other hand, is limited to 2 HD streams per household total. Correct, U-Verse is nothing but a Fancy'd up DSL Line...
And just for heads up, AT&T actually trained their salespeoples to lie to customers to tell them AT&T's infrastructure is pure FIBER. | |
| | | |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: Lay FTTH if you don't include the last mile, then it's true that their infrastructure is fiber.
Time Warner Cable has been doing this kind of advertising (on tv and radio no less) for years. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lay FTTH said by tiger72:if you don't include the last mile, then it's true that their infrastructure is fiber. Time Warner Cable has been doing this kind of advertising (on tv and radio no less) for years. So basically all modern cable systems are "fiber" too.
Difference is that AT&T has somehow gotten the reviewers to classify their service as a "fiber" service when it is FTTN with VDSL as the last few hundred feet. | |
|
| | | | |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by espaeth:Unicast-based streaming video actually creates a whole new set of distribution problems. Existing broadcast TV options are a single feed with many viewers, so your efficiency improves with every additional viewer. Unicast IP-based streaming video (ala ATT's U-Verse solution) has infrastructure that needs to grow with each and every viewer, and comes with significantly limitations. If you make your LAN Network IPv6 (as opposed to the current IPv4 with Network10 addressing used for the STB <--> Headend communication) you can use IPv6 Multicast for the Broadcast Channels and get the same single feed result that you get now. This also gives you the SDV capability that you get for those Broadcast Channels that you only want to send as needed as opposed to the 24/7 availability of the more popular channels. The only time you would need to use Unicast is for VOD type usage (where each STB gets its own private copy of the stream) since the content, unlike Broadcast, is not a synchronized stream. | |
| | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Lay FTTH said by RARPSL:If you make your LAN Network IPv6 (as opposed to the current IPv4 with Network10 addressing used for the STB <--> Headend communication) you can use IPv6 Multicast for the Broadcast Channels and get the same single feed result that you get now. This also gives you the SDV capability that you get for those Broadcast Channels that you only want to send as needed as opposed to the 24/7 availability of the more popular channels. The only time you would need to use Unicast is for VOD type usage (where each STB gets its own private copy of the stream) since the content, unlike Broadcast, is not a synchronized stream. Wouldn't it just be easier to use existing SDV hardware and VoD equipment, rather than spending a bunch of money to redevelop something new and end up with the same functional solution? | |
|
| |  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by espaeth:Unicast-based streaming video actually creates a whole new set of distribution problems. Existing broadcast TV options are a single feed with many viewers, so your efficiency improves with every additional viewer. Unicast IP-based streaming video (ala ATT's U-Verse solution) has infrastructure that needs to grow with each and every viewer, and comes with significantly limitations. Verizon is using FiOS to push traditional broadcast video, delivering QAM signaling on copper coax at the subscriber household fed from the ONT. You can hook up as many TVs as you want, and install DVRs like TiVo or Moxi. There is no limitation on the number of channels you can tune. ATT U-verse's IP-based delivery, on the other hand, is limited to 2 HD streams per household total. I think your post was a bit disingenuous. While HFC is absolutely a better solution to deliver video, U-Verse is only limited to 2 HD streams because of the bandwidth of the delivery mechanism. It's not a limitation of IP delivery whatsoever.
Expanding upon that, isn't the move to SDV a very similar thing to IPTV? It's a digital stream that is sent on-demand to each STB, rather than being multicasted (or whatever the appropriate cable terminology is) to all customers at all times. | |
| | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Lay FTTH said by Matt:I think your post was a bit disingenuous. While HFC is absolutely a better solution to deliver video, U-Verse is only limited to 2 HD streams because of the bandwidth of the delivery mechanism. It's not a limitation of IP delivery whatsoever. U-Verse is a best-case scenario for IPTV. It's all contained with the access vendor's network, delivered over multicast, and still you are limited to more compressed HD feeds than your OTA HD sources.
This article was about Web to TV, or Internet based video. Compared to U-Verse, the scenarios are only going to go downhill because multicast isn't widely supported by Internet carriers, leaving unicast delivery being the only viable Internet delivery option.
said by Matt:Expanding upon that, isn't the move to SDV a very similar thing to IPTV? It's a digital stream that is sent on-demand to each STB, rather than being multicasted (or whatever the appropriate cable terminology is) to all customers at all times. SDV is basically dynamic channel assignment. Rather than broadcasting all channels on the wire at the same time, SDV allows channels to be dynamically added to the broadcast group when requested. SDV and multicast have quite a bit in common. Cable QAM SDV, however, doesn't have the IP framing overhead of multicast, and the hardware used to interface with the cable plant is cheaper to manufacture than equivalent IP network hardware. | |
|
| sapoCruising Down Memory LanePremium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | The delivery system is not the issue, tons of people to do that job if they need it. The issue is the cost of content, think of a solution for that otherwise your arguing technologies is pretty useless.
--
CA is Superior. | |
|
 DataDocMy avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC
 ·Suddenlink
| Offer channels a la carte Instead of making us pay for those we don't watch. This could work with any set top box where you pick which channels to show in your schedule lineup. Choose a channel, increase your bill; drop one, you save.
--
Every Kurt has his Courtney. You need a Yoko to do it right.
| |
| | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: Offer channels a la carte If every TV provide did that I think the TV industry would be un MUCH better shape. | |
| | | | That's the obvious and rational way to go, but it will take regulators to force it on the cablecos. The more we have to pay for the 90 percent of stuff we never watch, the more free money they get.
I've started wondering if the whole concept of cable TV was one of those big mistakes we'll pay for for lifetimes. I've yet to find an explanation as to why we're paying so much just to have a cable coming to our house when digital broadcast still manages to do it for free. I mean, it sure ain't like we're not deluged with ads on cable, so where does all that money go? | |
| | |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: Offer channels a la carte said by davey :
That's the obvious and rational way to go, but it will take regulators to force it on the cablecos. The more we have to pay for the 90 percent of stuff we never watch, the more free money they get.
I've started wondering if the whole concept of cable TV was one of those big mistakes we'll pay for for lifetimes. I've yet to find an explanation as to why we're paying so much just to have a cable coming to our house when digital broadcast still manages to do it for free. I mean, it sure ain't like we're not deluged with ads on cable, so where does all that money go?
But you are blaming the wrong industry for not having a la carte. It isn't cable or telco that causes the problem, but the Hollywood TV & Movie studios. If the FCC wants to solve this make Hollywood give up bundled offerings of networks. Disney is the worst abuser with their ABC, Disney, A&E, Lifetime, SOAPnet, Family, & 1/2 dozen ESPN channels, etc all bundled together. »corporate.disney.go.com/news/med···rks.html
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Offer channels a la carte precisely.
If cable companies complain that no one watches Lifetime and Family, then ABC responds by threatening to withhold ESPN - one of the biggest selling networks on cable. So the cable co's pay up for Lifetime because they can't not have ESPN.
for a PERFECT example of how viewers turn on a company when they withhold a channel because of EXTREMELY high pricing and absurd disparities between contracts, see: NFL NETWORK vs TIME WARNER CABLE.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
| | | | DannyZGentoo FanboyPremium
join:2003-01-29 | The cable companies have indeed assisted the content creators in making sure this system continues. They want me to pay for Disney on expanded basic even if I don't watch it because it makes them money.
You can bet the execs have looked at a la carte and if it were to be more profitable, they would fight for it. The current arrangement of forced bundling is simply more profitable to the cable companies and that is the real reason we will never see a la carte without regulation.
Seriously, if Comcast and Time Warner stood strong, they would break the content creators in no time. They simply have no incentive to.
--
Out the 10BaseT, through the modem, down the co-ax, over the fiber, across the backhaul, past the edge router, off the network...nothing but net | |
| | | | | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: Offer channels a la carte said by DannyZ:Seriously, if Comcast and Time Warner stood strong, they would break the content creators in no time. They simply have no incentive to. You are wrong. Like a poster mentioned above. Every time that a cable company stands firm, the whiners come out in full force and pols get involved demanding that the cable companies cave in, especially where sports bundles are concerned. And the pols cave in because they know the media companies can crucify them when re-election time comes along.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | | DannyZGentoo FanboyPremium
join:2003-01-29 | Re: Offer channels a la carte Can you show me instances of the pols getting involved in these kind of negotiations? I'm unaware of it happening. | |
| | | | | | | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: Offer channels a la carte said by DannyZ:Can you show me instances of the pols getting involved in these kind of negotiations? I'm unaware of it happening. Here is one. But I remember many more. I am just not going to spend all day on Google finding them for you.
The MASN/Orioles/Nationals issue where Congress held hearings to make sure cable did a deal with MASN:
»www.misschatter.com/janf/index.p···asn-mlb/
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | | DannyZGentoo FanboyPremium
join:2003-01-29
2 edits | Re: Offer channels a la carte By "these kind of negotiations" I meant pols getting involved when cable companies try to force content providers to unbundle. That is what we were discussing after all.
The link you provided is apparently a situation where Comcast wanted the Nationals team to break their contract with MASN so the game could be televised on Comcast SportsNet. Not quite the same as negotiating with content providers concerning bundling channels. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlant···_lawsuit
The pols were not worried about the media companies "crucify(ing) them" in that example. I really doubt politicians fear a regional sports channel owned by the Orioles.
--
Out the 10BaseT, through the modem, down the co-ax, over the fiber, across the backhaul, past the edge router, off the network...nothing but net | |
|
| | | | | | Cable companies would fight the Content providers if they could. How long could a cable company do with out ESPN in a dispute with ABC/Disney? Maybe a few days to a week before Dish/Direct would see a surge in new customers. The only way it will ever be forced is via FCC order or by seeing Cable and Satellite working together in a boycott. The latter will never happen because they won't work together and the contact expirations are spread out so that the Content Providers are never negotiating at the same time. They pretty much know they can leverage an exodus of customers when they are negotiating. | |
| | | | | | DannyZGentoo FanboyPremium
join:2003-01-29 | Re: Offer channels a la carte It is my assertion that is will never happen because the cable and satellite companies have an interest in seeing the current situation continue. It creates a great scapegoat to point at when ever they raise rates.
If it was really in their interest to do it, they would find a way. It simply isn't in their financial interest to unbundle channels and offer them a la carte.
--
Out the 10BaseT, through the modem, down the co-ax, over the fiber, across the backhaul, past the edge router, off the network...nothing but net | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Offer channels a la carte They will pretty much make the same one way or another. The first one that can figure out how to do it will be the one that gains the most because of the number of people that will jump ship to whomever can offer a la carte. | |
|
| DannyZGentoo FanboyPremium
join:2003-01-29 | But see, they want us to subsidize all of our neighbors' viewing habits, but not their internet habits... | |
| | |  major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | Re: Offer channels a la carte said by DannyZ:But see, they want us to subsidize all of our neighbors' viewing habits, but not their internet habits... LMAO. Nobody is "subsidizing" anyone else's habits, Internet or otherwise. The 1,000 pound elephant in the room that you apparently don't want to acknowledge is that jacking the price for Internet is a naked cash grab by TWC that will result in two things: (1) Bigger bottom line and (2) Ensuring that VOD services like Hulu do not compete with cable TV services. Period.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
| |
| | | | DannyZGentoo FanboyPremium
join:2003-01-29 | Re: Offer channels a la carte Subsidizing internet usage is Time Warner's own words in an attempt to justify a move to usage based billing. I was merely trying to point out the hypocrisy of TW.
I know their attempt at caps is to eliminate the threat of online video. That should be obvious to anyone.
--
Out the 10BaseT, through the modem, down the co-ax, over the fiber, across the backhaul, past the edge router, off the network...nothing but net | |
|
| tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | Assuming the content providers went through with that, your price per channel would be about 2$+. To equal what cable typically costs today, you would only get 25 channels before you hit the $50/mo price mark for basic. Depending on how big your family is and their viewing habits, that's not a bargain at all.
A la carte is not going to happen anyways, though.
Networks like NBCU aren't going to give up a dedicated contract with guaranteed revenues in favor of highly variable revenues, and a decrease in ad revenue from lost subscribers that a la carte would offer.
Of all of the below networks that NBC currently sells as part of a contract to cable and satellite companies, they'd lose MY revenue and viewership on all but 3 stations:
A&E Television Networks
Bravo
Chiller
CNBC
MSNBC
Mun2
NBC
Oxygen
SCI FI
ShopNBC
Sleuth
Telemundo Internacional
The Weather Channel
Universal HD
USA Network
Universal Sports
Really, who would *pay* for ShopNBC?
NBC uses their leverage of their strong stations to negotiate contracts which include their smaller stations. The more stations NBC can sell to cable and satellite, the more advertising revenue they can sell. They're not going to let that bargaining chip go easily into the night.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
| | |  TimePremium
join:2003-07-05 | Re: Offer channels a la carte ShopNBC would get more viewers than MSNBC does.
Ha! | |
| | | DataDocMy avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | Not all channels would cost the same, like HBO, but using your $2 each, I could easily get by with 25 channels. I just don't want to help pay for ESPN (for example) so everyone else gets it cheaper. Let them pay $10/mo for sports. | |
| | | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Offer channels a la carte said by DataDoc:Not all channels would cost the same, like HBO, but using your $2 each, I could easily get by with 25 channels. I just don't want to help pay for ESPN (for example) so everyone else gets it cheaper. Let them pay $10/mo for sports. I personally could get by with my OTA antenna and a couple cable networks (Sci Fi, UniversalHD, ESPN, Comedy Central, HDNet) if i could do a la carte, but once I add my girlfriend's demands (Bravo, FX, etc.) things start adding up quickly.
So instead i've simply chosen to cancel satellite, and just use Usenet, Vista Media Center and PlayOn for all my media needs.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | | | Which is precisely why this fair and rational change will only happen when the dreaded government regulators make them do it. As they should have a long time ago. | |
| | | | TimePremium
join:2003-07-05 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Offer channels a la carte said by davey :
Which is precisely why this fair and rational change will only happen when the dreaded government regulators make them do it. As they should have a long time ago.
Unfortunately, that's not happening with this administration. | |
|
 pokesphIt Is Almost FastPremium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | costs I think cable TV needs to go back to the old Model.. the one where the cable network PAID the MSO to offer their channel.
This ever increasing 'cost' of programming is going to (if it hasn't already) reach the breaking point and make cable an overly expensive option that no one will be willing to use.
If you can't sell your commercial spots, stay out of the TV business. (IOW, don't make US pay for your bad channels or inability to get sponsors)
--
Webmaster - Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»www.1-gb.net
»www.ppnstudio.com | |
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| Telling us what we already know.... ... Raising prices on broadband to help prop up profits, to help the bottom line or cover costs.
As I said before, Broadband Internet services are the best profit margin product Cable companies sell.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | Cost Of Providing Broadband Dropping Can you please change that tittle to Cost Of Providing Broadband Dropping everywhere except Canada where the prices just keeps on rising and rising even for renting modems. | |
|
2 edits | Saul isn't looking at reality I've spoken to Saul, and his attitude is that of a crusader who is convinced that ISPs are evil and are exploiting consumers. He doesn't seem to be concerned with the facts, even though I as someone in the industry tried to explain them to him. This bias means that one must discount his conclusions. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·