Topic '... but surely' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: ... but surely

Fri, 14 Mar 2014 17:08:50 EDT

BiggA posted : There are no significant capacity limitations. There is the shared last-mile of an HFC system, but even there, some basic throttling and traffic management during peak hours will solve the issue, no need for bandwidth limits. Those are purely anti-competitive or to rip the customer off.

Sure, they have a responsibility to make money. I guess you could fault the regulators for not being tough enough on them. As a monopoly that runs through a franchise agreement, the city or state that grants the franchise agreement should be regulating prices and services very tightly, but they aren't.

Re: ... but surely

Fri, 14 Mar 2014 13:50:57 EDT

JimMcCoy posted : I would argue that data caps are due to ever increasing amount of data being requested down the pipes leading to over-saturation (akin to trying to pump too much water, too fast down a rubber hose and having it explode) and competition from other video services. Of course, I guess one could help their competition bury them (wouldn't be smart or sane, but its viable).

And no, I believe that a for profit business's (especially a public one) primary goal is to maximize the intrinsic value for the shareholder. In fact, they have a fiduciary duty to do so. Yes, people go into business for many reasons, but to dismiss wanting maximum profitability as simply "greed" is a bit disingenuous.

Re: ... but surely

Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:27:34 EDT

Riusaki posted : You can install XBMC on a Ouya which costs $99

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:53:53 EDT

BiggA posted : Yeah, as it is, a lot of good content is tied up on cable.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:44:44 EDT

anon posted : You really believe for a second that the price for internet service is so high and the imposition of data caps is due to piracy?

I'll give you a clue. Prices for broadband are high because the companies are greedy and want the maximum profitability humanly possible and will set the prices as high they can without customers leaving en masse due to the lack of competition in wired broadband. They are still going to want their $65+ dollars for standalone internet service and hike rates 6% per year even if the average internet usage remained at 5 GB and data usage did not increase from year to year. Remember, numbers go up to infinite and corporations won't be happy until they they achieve infinite profits.

Data caps are due to LEGAL paid for video streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Streaming becoming mainstream and competing against their own video services. Thanks to vertical integration, the very same MSO's also own or have significant financial interests in cable networks that people are increasingly no longer watching.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:04:13 EDT

jjeffeory posted : They're going to try like hell for sure.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:22:28 EDT

JimMcCoy posted : No, science doesn't back me up... Math does however.

If I design a service (called foo service x) that is designed to bring in x amount of revenue in order for me to earn y amount of profit (profit = price - fixed costs - variable costs).

In order for me to make the same amount of revenue I can either (a) increase prices or (b) lower costs. (FTR - yes I could lower prices to attract more customers, however given that this does not decrease costs and in most cases, will lead to an increase in costs, i.e. lowering revenues).

It is easier to increase prices; and in the case of piracy that just leads to more and more increases.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:47:57 EDT

Kearnstd posted : Also every million spent on capex is another million they can write off in very limited taxes they already pay.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:51:47 EDT

motorola870 posted :

said by smcallah:

You forget that it takes hardware, very expensive hardware, to deliver bandwidth as well. The bits themselves, cheap, we all know that.

But cutting down customers' usage certainly helps the bottomline. If a cable company has a node that needs fiber added to it because customers are using a lot of bandwidth, that's a fixed capital cost. If they can get the customers to cut back, then they may not need to add that fiber.

Or say they have a 40gig link between 2 routers that is running at 80%, and the next logical thing to do is to add another 40gig linecard, transponder card, etc. Or upgrade it to 100gig linecards and transponders. That's at least a few hundred thousand dollars of fixed capital costs. If they can get customers to cut back, maybe they'll be down to 50-60% of that 40gigs and won't need to upgrade the link for a while longer.

To say that customers' usage has no bearing on costs is ridiculous and short sighted. All network bandwidth upgrades are customer's bandwidth usage driven. If Netflix didn't add HD video, customers' bandwidth usage wouldn't have gone up, and ISP's wouldn't have had to upgrade at the same level they have been.

still that is nothing to compared to their profits as they already budget upgrades into the Capex each quarter. Honestly the problem TWC is having with getting people to accept caps is that people with TWC have seen what goes on with providers that do cap and don't want any part of it. I am pretty sure a lot of the Comcast customers have told family that live in TWC areas how bad the caps were if they were getting letters lol and when TWC offered faster internet for caps people spoke up and said no! This is probably going to happen again with the MAXX upgrades watch if they try to cap the internet people will speak with their pocket book as did many last year with the CBS debacle. I am shocked TWC is trying to still do these types of games after they are trying to reinvent their image. Honestly it is a problem with any of the major corporations they tout upgrades that get people excited about and then make remarks about how they can charge even more to the customer for something they already have paid for which is generating a profit. At&t, TWC, Comcast, Verizon, etc. are all bad about it.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:41:07 EDT

ITALIAN926 posted :

quote:
You can make claims all you want based on your opinion, but again stick with the facts and if you don't know them, then shut the hell up and stay out of the conversation. I am not sure why you have a hard time with that but it certainly seems to be a battle for you.

Fact is, a friend of mine sells TV ad space and they charge more today then they did last year EVEN WITH THE DVR.

WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME TO SHUT UP ?

Well a friend of mine who works in the advertizing division of a major corporation TOLD ME that he has been paying less and less each year for the typical commercial spot. How you like them apples Mr. Heresay?

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:40:02 EDT

smcallah posted : You forget that it takes hardware, very expensive hardware, to deliver bandwidth as well. The bits themselves, cheap, we all know that.

But cutting down customers' usage certainly helps the bottomline. If a cable company has a node that needs fiber added to it because customers are using a lot of bandwidth, that's a fixed capital cost. If they can get the customers to cut back, then they may not need to add that fiber.

Or say they have a 40gig link between 2 routers that is running at 80%, and the next logical thing to do is to add another 40gig linecard, transponder card, etc. Or upgrade it to 100gig linecards and transponders. That's at least a few hundred thousand dollars of fixed capital costs. If they can get customers to cut back, maybe they'll be down to 50-60% of that 40gigs and won't need to upgrade the link for a while longer.

To say that customers' usage has no bearing on costs is ridiculous and short sighted. All network bandwidth upgrades are customer's bandwidth usage driven. If Netflix didn't add HD video, customers' bandwidth usage wouldn't have gone up, and ISP's wouldn't have had to upgrade at the same level they have been.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:37:10 EDT

ITALIAN926 posted : Does a DVR come standard with a roof antenna? What percentage of minority of people who have roof antennas (due to costs) buy a DVR?

IF, love when people do that.

IF everyone switched to Aereo, would commericial spots have any value whatsoever? ............ NO !

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:29:04 EDT

smcallah posted : How is using DVR service through Aereo any different than if I put up an antenna at my house and record OTA onto my own DVR?

Same channels, same ads, same skipping of the ads.

Not different.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:27:18 EDT

Skippy25 posted : You can make claims all you want based on your opinion, but again stick with the facts and if you don't know them, then shut the hell up and stay out of the conversation. I am not sure why you have a hard time with that but it certainly seems to be a battle for you.

Fact is, a friend of mine sells TV ad space and they charge more today then they did last year EVEN WITH THE DVR.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:27:14 EDT

smcallah posted : How is Aereo like piracy? You are only able to buy an Aereo account in your service area, and they only send you the feeds for the OTA channels that you can receive with your own antenna at home.

So you'd be watching the same thing either way.

It's no more piracy than if I put up an antenna at my house and receive it directly.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:26:37 EDT

Bengie25 posted :

said by JimMcCoy:

You do realize that the "sharing" your talking about is one of the main reasons why the price is so high?

Science doesn't back you up. People who share culture are also most likely to consume culture.

There is a very high correlation with the amount of piracy and the mount of money spent. More piracy = more money

The opposite seems to also be true. Every time there was a log drop in piracy, there was also an immediate drop in spending.

Piracy isn't the problem, it is just a reflection of the demand and has no negative affect, if anything, it has a positive affect on earnings.

Except in the case of commercial piracy. Casual piracy is beneficial, and is typically a symptom of no good way to purchase.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:24:58 EDT

smcallah posted : There would be no need for broadband because you just watch video over it? There are plenty of other things to do with broadband Internet besides watch TV shows and movies. Many people were doing a lot with broadband before those things were mainstream.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:44:19 EDT

Bengie25 posted : Metered billing cannot compete in a market against unmetered. The overhead of managing the metered and handling customers out-weighs the money "saved".

Bandwidth is such a cheap part of the cost, that reducing a customer's usage has almost no bearing on the costs.

Yes, most ISPs have a lovely mono/duopoly, but competition is slowly spreading. Metered billing will be a temporary situation, except where communications is hard.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:33:18 EDT

JimMcCoy posted : You do realize that the "sharing" your talking about is one of the main reasons why the price is so high?

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:31:21 EDT

Majestik posted : People on here said that the iPad and iPhone AT&T grandfathered unlimited plan would be a thing of the past.It's four years later and I still have both. $30/mo. on a 4g LTE iPad and not worrying about caps on my iPhone 5 is a wonderful thing. And on top of that I own many shares of AT&T.

I doubt OTA is going away. Also cutting the cord can mean doing other activities such as book reading. Personally I'm not addicted to watching movies,TV shows,and sports.
--
The adventure continues...Sanctuary....

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:22:15 EDT

ITALIAN926 posted : I was talking more along the form of a Set Top Box piece of hardware.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:12:47 EDT

blackice posted : Even better than XBMC: Popcorn Time.
»torrentfreak.com/open-so ··· -140308/

At least until some lawsuits take care of it.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:01:21 EDT

ITALIAN926 posted : OK Skip, the existence of DVR's make commercials spots more valuable?? . SMH.

From a personal standpoint as a DVR owner, the ONLY commercials I have watched on TV in the last 365 days has been on the Super Bowl. I must be the only one, right? All the debate over Dish Networks ad skipping tech, and Im not even a customer ! What a silly debate that is, huh?

Thanks to Skippy, today I learned that companies pay more for TV ads as more people adopt DVR technology.

What is this, Opposite Day?

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:46:21 EDT

Skippy25 posted : Well the single person I know whom sells ads for TV is charging more now then he was last year and the year before that and the year before that.

So again, you speak with no actual knowledge just opinion which seems to be a trend of yours.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:21:04 EDT

TechyDad posted : That's true too. My boys enjoy playing games on their tablets as much as they enjoy watching a TV show. When they do watch TV shows, it's almost always via an "on demand" method (Netflix, another Roku channel, DVR, etc.) Watching live TV is a rarity for them. Whenever we bring up the subject of cancelling cable, they complain that they'd miss it, but I honestly think they'd forget all about it a week or two in.

That's the next generation of content consumers right there. Able to get their "content fix" from many different sources and rarely settling for taking the content that the cable company provides when they provide it. Definitely NOT the kind of consumers that the current cable companies are ready for.
--
-Jason Levine

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:14:06 EDT

buzz_4_20 posted : Actually, I don't think cord cutting will be a thing of the past, just TV watching.

A lot of cord cutters just don't have the money, and services like Netflix and Hulu ETC are filling the gap.
When getting TV via broadband be it legal or illegal is no longer an option, people will just stop watching, the money will go elsewhere.
And when you can't stream video on that internet connection, it's value drops fast too. Without piracy and streaming why would most consumers bother paying for faster service?
You can't get blood from a stone.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:03:15 EDT

buzz_4_20 posted : Many users would agree that stripping the ads from show is actually adding value.
Imagine if Hulu charged $50 a month, but offered EVERYTHING they have access to without commercials, at airtime. It'd be a great deal.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:01:05 EDT

fatal posted : Arffff ahoy Maty

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:34:13 EDT

ITALIAN926 posted : You read me wrong, I didnt say Aereo injects. Aereo includes standard DVR SERVICE which makes advertising basically worthless. You know that DVR's exist for the MSO's as well, right?
With Aereo bending the rules, and the MSO's likely to follow suit, the Networks would increase injected advertisements into the content, blatantly obvious, which would annoy a lot of people. I dont want to see actors step out of role to talk about Pepsi !

You dont actually believe advertisers pay as much with the existence of DVR's, do you? The value has decreased, and it seems the only time people actually watch commercials is for the Super Bowl.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:18:48 EDT

elefante72 posted : Your causality is incorrect. Aereo is providing a service to a questionable condition for OTA. They are simply providing a quality link (arguably) to something that is provided for no charge. Piracy is downloading content that is not free and not paying for it. And Aereo does no injection, and if you knew anything about broadcast rules that would REALLY get them shut down. They don't modify the stream one bit, they are simply a service provider. So read up or shut up.

As I have said retrans fees are backward. Operators should be charging content providers because they bring quality programming to the masses, not the content providers. Content providers charging operators makes no business sense other than they are taking advantage of a 30 year old outdated law. Stupidity.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:16:38 EDT

axus posted : Why is advertising shown on Aereo worthless? How is it any different from an antenna?

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:13:13 EDT

elefante72 posted : Go take a look at the operators 10-Q. In EVERY case video has the lowest margins and may be 2-3x less than internet and again 2x less than phone.

They will cannabalize it, because they are not stupid and the only thing they need to protect is their stock price. Outside of Comcast the other operators are not fully in the content business. For sat providers, they are screwed BIG TIME. They have no way out, except for say live TV or think of this:

DirectTV pipes their local channels to their transponder to a land-based multicast platform and ties up with a wireless provider to deliver these channels OTA. Now this may be short-term because Comcast has the last mile and can and will just make this difficult.

In any case the result of it will be higher bills and it won't necessarily come from your internet line item, but everything you access ON the internet. Make no mistake they will keep raising your rate (as it gets cheaper for them to deliver) because they can due to lack of competition. Caps are just a way to slow down the transition, not the end game.

Case in point, wireless providers are now lowering per GB fees to stimulate more usage, so they can start taxing the content providers--that is the game plan.

It's much easier to tax on the backend than in you face, or at lease do both. That is more profitable, right?

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:12:30 EDT

Riusaki posted : A Torrent box already exists: XBMC

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:11:18 EDT

Riusaki posted : I was replying to kdwycha's post.

If the networks all decide to end OTA and required everyone to get cable/sat service then piracy is going to rise for sure. You are now telling people to pay for something you legally got for free. As with all products, a black market will emerge and with digital content that black market has been in place for a long time.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:59:56 EDT

TechyDad posted : I disagree. The bigger threat to cord cutters (who get their content online) are ISPs who impose draconian caps and overage fees in an attempt to protect their own video services. Use Internet video = go over your caps = pay more. Suddenly, cable video is cheaper to use.
--
-Jason Levine

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:51:19 EDT

ITALIAN926 posted :

quote:
OTA TV is not going anywhere. Broadcast networks (NBC, FOX, CBS, ABC) get paid via advertising and cutting it off would reduce the number of eyeballs which in turn reduces what they can charge advertisers.

You understand that Piracy and Aereo are very much related in that BOTH dont pay the networks, and both have worthless advertising spots. (unless its injected directly into the content which would annoy the crap outve me)
When the MSO's in turn duplicate Aereos delivery method, in order to circumvent carraige fee's, you would be some kind of idiot to think there are no MAJOR CHANGES AHEAD, including the possibility of the Networks leaving OTA.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:35:49 EDT

elefante72 posted : I highly disagree. I think metered plans will go the way of the dodo bird as content shifts from broadcast to multicast/unicast, and here's why:

1. Net neutrality is a cancer patient in Stage III and have been given 2 weeks to live
2. Consolidation of operators makes for the perfect storm for:
3. Concentration of power will lead to various tolls and monetization schemes to lead to indirect taxing. Make no mistake your internet bill will still be ridiculous, however now they will be taxing providers (out of your sight) on the backend to play, and so now say Netflix will need to go to $12 to pay that tax and we go after them.
4. Since may operators happen to be wireless purveyors this makes for effective use of regional multicast to take care of sports, and the rest can go on demand IP. And don't think I'm full of shit.
5. DirectTV and Dish may survive, but in a multicast format only. Probably to be purchased by Comcast who doesn't have the wireless footprint. They WILL NEED IT. Will need to get a sat iphone tho...

As to the $5 discount, TW has already gone to ghetto tier and you can get a 2/1 link for $20, why would you pay $50 for 30GB?

If Aereo prevails (and probably should because retrans fees are bs), OTA is dead because providers will just shift to cable or more likely OTT.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:29:00 EDT

ITALIAN926 posted :

quote:
Cord cutting will be a thing of the past as most content providers now require you to have video services with a multichannel video distributor in order to access their content. Eventually all content licensing with Netflix and Amazon for instance will be cutoff and it will be a requirement to have cable video services in order to get the content online. OTA signals will be cutoff once the wheels are greased with the politicians and the only way you will be able to get video content will be with cable TV.

Not entirely sure what you mean when Verizon and DishNetwork are toying with the idea of providing such services. Even if those possibilities are halted, people will still resort to piracy when little is being done about it, there are ways to circumvent snooping eyes, and people still try to cut costs in a bad economy.

Im simply waiting for someone to manufacture a kind of "Torrent box", one that connects directly to the TV. Hell the creators of Aereo might have the patents to such a thing. Then when released, the same people defending their ideas will then defend the box thats just plastic, metal and electrical components

All headlines, all topics of debate, lead to capped/metered billing. We can just put our heads in the sand and believe the MSO's and studios/neteworks will simply accept the BILLIONS in lost revenues.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:24:16 EDT

Riusaki posted : Your theory will push piracy to a whole new level. If content providers think piracy is a problem now, just imagine how much worse they will make it with this theory.

OTA TV is not going anywhere. Broadcast networks (NBC, FOX, CBS, ABC) get paid via advertising and cutting it off would reduce the number of eyeballs which in turn reduces what they can charge advertisers. The OTA signal is the same whether there is one person using it or a million.

This would be like Starbucks, McDonalds, Burger King, etc., charging you a fee just to be able to open the door to walk into one of their establishments.
--

Make the homies say HO and the girlies wanna SCREAM!

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:22:46 EDT

egilbe posted : Then there would be no need for broadband services, would there? I mean, I pay for the service so I can use it to watch what I want to watch, when I want to watch it. I'm not beholden to some arbitrary schedule that doesn't fit my needs. I got rid of cable because there was nothing on it worth watching at my convenience. If everything I want to watch is no longer available to me, I no longer will need an internet provider that offers broadband.

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:21:41 EDT

desarollo posted : They would like that, but it would be an arguable instance of using a tying contract to keep out others. And eventually, they'd answer for it.

»www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ ··· angement

Re: ... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:12:26 EDT

kdwycha posted :

said by ITALIAN926:

Piracy, people SLOWLY cutting the cord, Aereo, people sharing Netflix accounts, people sharing WIFI passwords, companies like Verizon experimenting with the idea of offering Live TV services over another providers internet services.

YES, METERED BILLING IS COMING MY FRIENDS.

Cord cutting will be a thing of the past as most content providers now require you to have video services with a multichannel video distributor in order to access their content. Eventually all content licensing with Netflix and Amazon for instance will be cutoff and it will be a requirement to have cable video services in order to get the content online. OTA signals will be cutoff once the wheels are greased with the politicians and the only way you will be able to get video content will be with cable TV.

... but surely

Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:09:10 EDT

ITALIAN926 posted : Piracy, people SLOWLY cutting the cord, Aereo, people sharing Netflix accounts, people sharing WIFI passwords, companies like Verizon experimenting with the idea of offering Live TV services over another providers internet services.

YES, METERED BILLING IS COMING MY FRIENDS.