Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects
20 views
Skip to first unread message
SMS
May 22, 2012, 12:14:45 PM5/22/12
to
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-chairman-supports-broadband-data-caps-amid-netflix-protests/2012/05/22/gIQAfdN9hU_blog.html>
While I understand Netflix's desire to piggyback their streaming service
over broadband unlimited data, Comcast's lowest tier is 300GB/month.
This translates to about 150 hours of the highest quality video
available from Netflix. Is anyone watching five hours of HD video per
day, or doing anything else that would get them up to 300GB? I suppose
you could have a household with a lot of people doing multiple streams
at the same time that would get you there, and there are tiers to
support that model.
Still, it's not like what Pandora is running into with tiered pricing
for wireless data. There you have users regularly running into their
limit, whether it's 100MB, 200MB, 300MB, 1GB, or 2GB/month, and probably
deciding to find another source for music to save their data for more
important tasks. Storing audio files on an iPod or smart phone, rather
than doing wireless streaming, is a bit more of a hassle but not an
undue hardship.
What Netflix is worried about is the misperception that cable
subscribers may have about data usage, and that the users may decide to
drop Netflix streaming as a result.
You have to wonder about a business model that relies on another company
continuing to provide an unlimited service.
While I understand Netflix's desire to piggyback their streaming service
over broadband unlimited data, Comcast's lowest tier is 300GB/month.
This translates to about 150 hours of the highest quality video
available from Netflix. Is anyone watching five hours of HD video per
day, or doing anything else that would get them up to 300GB? I suppose
you could have a household with a lot of people doing multiple streams
at the same time that would get you there, and there are tiers to
support that model.
Still, it's not like what Pandora is running into with tiered pricing
for wireless data. There you have users regularly running into their
limit, whether it's 100MB, 200MB, 300MB, 1GB, or 2GB/month, and probably
deciding to find another source for music to save their data for more
important tasks. Storing audio files on an iPod or smart phone, rather
than doing wireless streaming, is a bit more of a hassle but not an
undue hardship.
What Netflix is worried about is the misperception that cable
subscribers may have about data usage, and that the users may decide to
drop Netflix streaming as a result.
You have to wonder about a business model that relies on another company
continuing to provide an unlimited service.
Justin
May 22, 2012, 12:52:22 PM5/22/12
to
SMS wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 09:14:45 -0700]:
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-chairman-supports-broadband-data-caps-amid-netflix-protests/2012/05/22/gIQAfdN9hU_blog.html>
>
> While I understand Netflix's desire to piggyback their streaming service
> over broadband unlimited data, Comcast's lowest tier is 300GB/month.
> This translates to about 150 hours of the highest quality video
> available from Netflix. Is anyone watching five hours of HD video per
> day, or doing anything else that would get them up to 300GB? I suppose
That's only 2.5 hours per day for Mom & Dad watching one thing and
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-chairman-supports-broadband-data-caps-amid-netflix-protests/2012/05/22/gIQAfdN9hU_blog.html>
>
> While I understand Netflix's desire to piggyback their streaming service
> over broadband unlimited data, Comcast's lowest tier is 300GB/month.
> This translates to about 150 hours of the highest quality video
> available from Netflix. Is anyone watching five hours of HD video per
> day, or doing anything else that would get them up to 300GB? I suppose
kids watching another. Or stay at home Mom watching 5 hours a day.
That's assuming all you do is Netflix. There are many other uses for
the internet like online backup, downloading games seems to be where the
market is going for all gaming devices, concoles and PCs. One game is 4-20GB
Let's not forget it's TOTAL usage they count, so you uploading photos
to grandma also counts as well as downloading stuff.
> What Netflix is worried about is the misperception that cable
> subscribers may have about data usage, and that the users may decide to
> drop Netflix streaming as a result.
of Netflix or Hulu
> You have to wonder about a business model that relies on another company
> continuing to provide an unlimited service.
Bhairitu
May 22, 2012, 2:57:15 PM5/22/12
to
data caps. And you can't in a lot of areas have two companies with a
monopoly over broadband. Fiber now needs to be in the commons not the
cash cow for a bunch of fat investors. We are already behind many
countries as far as broadband goes just to suit a bunch of US suits.
They want things in "the cloud" but seem to be unwilling to make it
happen or available 24/7 no data caps.
D. Peter Maus
May 22, 2012, 3:03:14 PM5/22/12
to
Chairman of ATT was commenting on the proposed Net Neutrality rules
being discussed in the blogosphere, at the time. He proposed the
ending of all unlimited data plans, not only for wireless, but for
wired carriers, as well, because he was unwilling to let someone
else use his pipe to make money that he didn't get a cut. Tiered
plans were his recommendations as the only 'fair' solution. After
all, business phone system and line rates have been prorated and
linked to gross annual revenue of the subscriber since AG Bell. Only
residential phones were flat rate.
Almost immediately, other carriers distanced themselves from this
blunt commentary, but they didn't dispute his point. And considering
that consumer level internet is used more often than not to connect
to for-profit sources, the commercial phone model can easily be
applied to internet usage.
But the data limits as imposed are less intended to prevent
freerides on someone else's service, as much as they are
protectionist measures in favor of the carriers' own content
services, which, often, do NOT contain what the viewer/user is
interested in. In this way, the carrier profits from the use of
someone else's services, when their own do not meet the consumer's
needs.
In other words, the moves are intended to induce consumer choice
limits...which is kind of antithetical to the intent of the internet.
David Kaye
May 22, 2012, 3:33:10 PM5/22/12
to
"Bhairitu" <nooz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> If things are going to move forward in this country then you can't have
> data caps. And you can't in a lot of areas have two companies with a
> monopoly over broadband.
This is why we need government regulation. This scenario is exactly why the
Libertarian philosophy doesn't work. In an unregulated field there is
little/no room for small entrepreneurs. The big guys gobble up all the
worthwhile competitors and the little guys get squashed. I'm still amazed
it hasn't happened to Sonic.net yet, though I'm sure AT&T and Comcast are
looking for ways to do it before they get too big.
> If things are going to move forward in this country then you can't have
> data caps. And you can't in a lot of areas have two companies with a
> monopoly over broadband.
Libertarian philosophy doesn't work. In an unregulated field there is
little/no room for small entrepreneurs. The big guys gobble up all the
worthwhile competitors and the little guys get squashed. I'm still amazed
it hasn't happened to Sonic.net yet, though I'm sure AT&T and Comcast are
looking for ways to do it before they get too big.
David Kaye
May 22, 2012, 3:52:13 PM5/22/12
to
"D. Peter Maus" <dpete...@att.net> wrote
> But the data limits as imposed are less intended to prevent freerides on
> someone else's service, as much as they are protectionist measures in
> favor of the carriers' own content services [....]
Prior to the Reagan era there used to be anti-trust laws which told
companies that not only could they not buy up all the competition, but they
also could not "vertically integrate", that is, control all levels of
service such as production, distribution, and end-user retailing.
In the 1950s this led to the breakup of the movie studios. No longer could
they provide content AND run movie theaters. They had to do one or the
other. This saved the small mom'n'pop movie theaters from extinction
because they were able to bid on first-run movies on a level playing field.
Since the studios were allowed to get back into the theater business a few
years ago, movies have been distributed mostly to owned chains and the
little mom'n'pop theaters are dropping out of business like flies. In SF,
the Metro, Roxie, and Balboa have gone non-profit, the Castro is dark 1 or 2
nights a week, and thousands of theaters have closed across America.
And yet, the movie theater model is not dead. China's theaters are growing
by leaps and bounds and they've just announced the purchase of AMC Theaters
here. In order to secure product for their theaters, the new Wanda/AMC will
co-produce movies with Disney. And when the movies are released they will
likely appear first at AMC and then maybe by the 4th month at indie
theaters, if anybody wants to see them by then.
Well, so too, the problem with Comcast (now majority co-owner of NBC, don't
forget). I can see a time when Comcast will give preference to NBC-related
programming (CNBC, MSNBC, Syfy, Telmundo, G4, Hulu, etc) such as maybe
making it all basic tier, while competing programming (CNN, Discovery,
History, Biography, Univision, etc) are relegated to higher-priced tiers.
Anti-trust regulation is the only way out of this mess.
> But the data limits as imposed are less intended to prevent freerides on
> someone else's service, as much as they are protectionist measures in
Prior to the Reagan era there used to be anti-trust laws which told
companies that not only could they not buy up all the competition, but they
also could not "vertically integrate", that is, control all levels of
service such as production, distribution, and end-user retailing.
In the 1950s this led to the breakup of the movie studios. No longer could
they provide content AND run movie theaters. They had to do one or the
other. This saved the small mom'n'pop movie theaters from extinction
because they were able to bid on first-run movies on a level playing field.
Since the studios were allowed to get back into the theater business a few
years ago, movies have been distributed mostly to owned chains and the
little mom'n'pop theaters are dropping out of business like flies. In SF,
the Metro, Roxie, and Balboa have gone non-profit, the Castro is dark 1 or 2
nights a week, and thousands of theaters have closed across America.
And yet, the movie theater model is not dead. China's theaters are growing
by leaps and bounds and they've just announced the purchase of AMC Theaters
here. In order to secure product for their theaters, the new Wanda/AMC will
co-produce movies with Disney. And when the movies are released they will
likely appear first at AMC and then maybe by the 4th month at indie
theaters, if anybody wants to see them by then.
Well, so too, the problem with Comcast (now majority co-owner of NBC, don't
forget). I can see a time when Comcast will give preference to NBC-related
programming (CNBC, MSNBC, Syfy, Telmundo, G4, Hulu, etc) such as maybe
making it all basic tier, while competing programming (CNN, Discovery,
History, Biography, Univision, etc) are relegated to higher-priced tiers.
Anti-trust regulation is the only way out of this mess.
Todd Allcock
May 22, 2012, 3:55:38 PM5/22/12
to
At 22 May 2012 09:14:45 -0700 SMS wrote:
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-chairman-
supports-broadband-data-caps-amid-netflix-
It's a two-way street. Services like Pandora and Hulu are why many of us
can justify spending what we spend on broadband internet. If I just
wanted a little web browsing and email, I could still be using a sub-
$10/month dialup account. The sole purpose of an ISP is to connect us to
the internet to use the variety of services available, otherwise we could
go back to the walled gardens of circa-1985 AOL and Compuserve.
In my own case, I was perfectly happy with my provider's 1Mb/s
(eventually 3Mb/s) budget tier of service, but I upgraded to 7Mb/s for
$10/month more solely for Netflix's $8/month streaming package to work
acceptably. They're making more from my Netflix usage than Netflix is!
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-chairman-
supports-broadband-data-caps-amid-netflix-
can justify spending what we spend on broadband internet. If I just
wanted a little web browsing and email, I could still be using a sub-
$10/month dialup account. The sole purpose of an ISP is to connect us to
the internet to use the variety of services available, otherwise we could
go back to the walled gardens of circa-1985 AOL and Compuserve.
In my own case, I was perfectly happy with my provider's 1Mb/s
(eventually 3Mb/s) budget tier of service, but I upgraded to 7Mb/s for
$10/month more solely for Netflix's $8/month streaming package to work
acceptably. They're making more from my Netflix usage than Netflix is!
D. Peter Maus
May 22, 2012, 4:51:30 PM5/22/12
to
On 5/22/12 14:52 , David Kaye wrote:
> I can see a time when Comcast will give preference to NBC-related
> programming (CNBC, MSNBC, Syfy, Telmundo, G4, Hulu, etc) such as maybe
> making it all basic tier, while competing programming (CNN, Discovery,
> History, Biography, Univision, etc) are relegated to higher-priced tiers.
They already do.
> I can see a time when Comcast will give preference to NBC-related
> programming (CNBC, MSNBC, Syfy, Telmundo, G4, Hulu, etc) such as maybe
> making it all basic tier, while competing programming (CNN, Discovery,
> History, Biography, Univision, etc) are relegated to higher-priced tiers.
AJL
May 22, 2012, 5:01:37 PM5/22/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:55:38 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>The sole purpose of an ISP is to connect us to
>the internet to use the variety of services available,
The ISP is a business, not a charity. The *sole purpose* is to make
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>The sole purpose of an ISP is to connect us to
>the internet to use the variety of services available,
shareholders happy (if a public company).
>otherwise we could
>go back to the walled gardens of circa-1985 AOL and Compuserve.
>In my own case, I was perfectly happy with my provider's 1Mb/s
>(eventually 3Mb/s) budget tier of service, but I upgraded to 7Mb/s for
>$10/month more solely for Netflix's $8/month streaming package to work
>acceptably. They're making more from my Netflix usage than Netflix is!
everyone else here. Pay the price and bitch about it... ;)
David Kaye
May 22, 2012, 5:29:12 PM5/22/12
to
> They already do.
I'm on Comcast and they don't give preference to NBC programming. Discovery
is on channel 15, which is basic cable. Faux News, CNN, MSNBC, et al are
all gathered together on basic and look comparable to the customer.
Likewise, Comcast also offers History, Biography, and similar channels on
basic.
What I'm saying is that there'll come a time when Comcast offers a "basic
basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
and local brodcasters. I'd bet that you won't be seeing Biography, History,
Discovery, CNN, or Weather on that service.
I'm on Comcast and they don't give preference to NBC programming. Discovery
is on channel 15, which is basic cable. Faux News, CNN, MSNBC, et al are
all gathered together on basic and look comparable to the customer.
Likewise, Comcast also offers History, Biography, and similar channels on
basic.
What I'm saying is that there'll come a time when Comcast offers a "basic
basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
and local brodcasters. I'd bet that you won't be seeing Biography, History,
Discovery, CNN, or Weather on that service.
John Higdon
May 22, 2012, 5:23:23 PM5/22/12
to
In article <jpgntj$mdp$1...@dont-email.me>,
versa. Note the sonic.net has comparable rates to Comcastf, but does not
impose limits.
Sonic.net is not a content provider. Funny thing, that.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
"D. Peter Maus" <dpete...@att.net> wrote:
> In other words, the moves are intended to induce consumer choice
> limits...which is kind of antithetical to the intent of the internet.
Which is why content providers should not be data carriers and visa
> In other words, the moves are intended to induce consumer choice
> limits...which is kind of antithetical to the intent of the internet.
versa. Note the sonic.net has comparable rates to Comcastf, but does not
impose limits.
Sonic.net is not a content provider. Funny thing, that.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
(null)
May 22, 2012, 5:42:35 PM5/22/12
to
In article <jph0dn$gmr$1...@dont-email.me>,
It's called "Limited Basic" and you have to ask for it since it isn't
widely advertised. I pay ~$15/month for it. In addition to the locals,
this is what I get on it (as of the last time I did a scan of the
PAT/CAT/PMT tables and SCTE65 data):
WGN-HD (717)
HSN-HD (718)
Discover (29)
CSPAN (22)
CSPAN2 (109)
HSN (11)
QVC (23)
Local (99)
History (62)
HGTV (75)
CAL Channel (108)
CHNSB - Comcast Hometown Network South Bay (104)
Educational Access (27)
Public Access 1 (15)
community (30)
Government Access 1 (26)
TVGC (111)
OnDemand commercial
color bars (998)
GEMS TV (77)
CSNBP-FSN+/Jewlry TV (116)
WGN (33)
JWLTV (28)
David Kaye <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"D. Peter Maus" <dpete...@att.net> wrote
>> They already do.
>
>...
>"D. Peter Maus" <dpete...@att.net> wrote
>> They already do.
>
>What I'm saying is that there'll come a time when Comcast offers a "basic
>basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
>and local brodcasters. I'd bet that you won't be seeing Biography, History,
>Discovery, CNN, or Weather on that service.
They already do.
>basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
>and local brodcasters. I'd bet that you won't be seeing Biography, History,
>Discovery, CNN, or Weather on that service.
It's called "Limited Basic" and you have to ask for it since it isn't
widely advertised. I pay ~$15/month for it. In addition to the locals,
this is what I get on it (as of the last time I did a scan of the
PAT/CAT/PMT tables and SCTE65 data):
WGN-HD (717)
HSN-HD (718)
Discover (29)
CSPAN (22)
CSPAN2 (109)
HSN (11)
QVC (23)
Local (99)
History (62)
HGTV (75)
CAL Channel (108)
CHNSB - Comcast Hometown Network South Bay (104)
Educational Access (27)
Public Access 1 (15)
community (30)
Government Access 1 (26)
TVGC (111)
OnDemand commercial
color bars (998)
GEMS TV (77)
CSNBP-FSN+/Jewlry TV (116)
WGN (33)
JWLTV (28)
Neil
May 22, 2012, 5:50:16 PM5/22/12
to
"property" in the Comcast/NBC-Universal stable. (You can trace the start
of TWC's decline to the day NBC got its paws on it.)
Neil
May 22, 2012, 5:51:29 PM5/22/12
to
Comcast nor AT&T can say with a straight face.
D. Peter Maus
May 22, 2012, 5:53:17 PM5/22/12
to
already, here.
iBiquity Fraudsters
May 22, 2012, 6:06:28 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 5:53 pm, "D. Peter Maus" <dpeterm...@att.net> wrote:
> On 5/22/12 16:29 , David Kaye wrote:
>
>
>
> > "D. Peter Maus" <dpeterm...@att.net> wrote
> On 5/22/12 16:29 , David Kaye wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
By constantly attacking cell phone streaming, this is SMS's indirect
way of promoting OTA HD Radio.
Todd Allcock
May 22, 2012, 5:46:45 PM5/22/12
to
At 22 May 2012 14:01:37 -0700 AJL wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:55:38 -0600, Todd Allcock
> <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> >The sole purpose of an ISP is to connect us to
> >the internet to use the variety of services available,
>
> The ISP is a business, not a charity. The *sole purpose* is to make
> shareholders happy (if a public company).
True, but they chose their business, and they don't own the internet.
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:55:38 -0600, Todd Allcock
> <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> >The sole purpose of an ISP is to connect us to
> >the internet to use the variety of services available,
>
> The ISP is a business, not a charity. The *sole purpose* is to make
> shareholders happy (if a public company).
They're making money leeching off of established infrastructure just like
Netflix and Pandora are. Just as every brick and mortar store is
dependent on roads they didn't build. As I said, it's a two-way street-
we pay Comcast, Verizon, et al for access to the content they're trying
to prevent us from accessing.
> >otherwise we could
> >go back to the walled gardens of circa-1985 AOL and Compuserve.
>
> Really? You could go back? Do the walled gardens still exist?
content. My point was that ISPs now want to favor their own proprietary
content over third-party content, just like AOL over a quarter-century ago.
> >In my own case, I was perfectly happy with my provider's 1Mb/s
> >(eventually 3Mb/s) budget tier of service, but I upgraded to 7Mb/s for
> >$10/month more solely for Netflix's $8/month streaming package to work
> >acceptably. They're making more from my Netflix usage than Netflix is!
>
> Simple. If you're displeased vote with your wallet. Or else do like
> everyone else here. Pay the price and bitch about it... ;)
understand I need a fast enough connection to stream Netflix, and I'm
willing to pay for it. My point was that the access to the third-party
services that the ISPs think are "leeching" their bandwidth and profits
are actually what we're paying the ISP for- not whatever pathetic excuse
for content they're cobbling up themselves.
When it becomes too expensive for me to use Netflix (or Hulu, or whatever)
either because of speed tiers or usage caps, I'll drop my service to a
slower, cheaper, tier. I don't need 7Mb/s for email, web browsing, or
Facebook. I dropped to 256kbps (from 1Mbps) one year because they
wouldn't extend some promo rate I had that expired, and I took a speed
hit rather than a price increase.
Justin
May 22, 2012, 6:43:34 PM5/22/12
to
weather?
Justin
May 22, 2012, 6:44:51 PM5/22/12
to
AJL wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 14:01:37 -0700]:
>
>>In my own case, I was perfectly happy with my provider's 1Mb/s
>>(eventually 3Mb/s) budget tier of service, but I upgraded to 7Mb/s for
>>$10/month more solely for Netflix's $8/month streaming package to work
>>acceptably. They're making more from my Netflix usage than Netflix is!
>
> Simple. If you're displeased vote with your wallet. Or else do like
> everyone else here. Pay the price and bitch about it... ;)
Most of us don't have that option, we're relegated to at most 3 choices
>
>>In my own case, I was perfectly happy with my provider's 1Mb/s
>>(eventually 3Mb/s) budget tier of service, but I upgraded to 7Mb/s for
>>$10/month more solely for Netflix's $8/month streaming package to work
>>acceptably. They're making more from my Netflix usage than Netflix is!
>
> Simple. If you're displeased vote with your wallet. Or else do like
> everyone else here. Pay the price and bitch about it... ;)
and only one being acceptable.
Todd Allcock
May 22, 2012, 6:48:37 PM5/22/12
to
and hear music...
AJL
May 22, 2012, 7:37:36 PM5/22/12
to
On 5/22/2012 2:46 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 22 May 2012 14:01:37 -0700 AJL wrote:
>> The ISP is a business, not a charity. The *sole purpose* is to make
>> shareholders happy (if a public company).
>
> True, but they chose their business, and they don't own the internet.
Nobody owns the Internet. And...lots of people do.
> At 22 May 2012 14:01:37 -0700 AJL wrote:
>> The ISP is a business, not a charity. The *sole purpose* is to make
>> shareholders happy (if a public company).
>
> True, but they chose their business, and they don't own the internet.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/who-owns-internet1.htm
>They're making money
Hopefully. Otherwise it's bankruptcy.
>leeching off of established infrastructure
business agreements between the corporations (and the mom and pops too).
>just like Netflix and Pandora are.
action to control the load. But my guess is that eventually there will
be a business agreement with these sites too
> we pay Comcast, Verizon, et al for access to the content they're trying
> to prevent us from accessing.
through their pipes.
>My point was that ISPs now want to favor their own proprietary
>content over third-party content,
compete with $8/mo movies when Netflix gets to use their pipes for free.
>just like AOL over a quarter-century ago.
Internet at large, you certainly weren't trapped in AOL's walled garden.
> I'm not displeased. My ISP (CenturyLink) doesn't have caps (yet.)
the way the free market works.
>My point was that the access to the third-party
> services that the ISPs think are "leeching" their bandwidth and profits
> are actually what we're paying the ISP for-
your TOS but I'll bet there is fine print.
The ISPs could offer the 'illusion' of unlimited service as long as most
people used an average amount of data. That went along fine until video
sites started to ramp up that average. Something has to give, they can't
just keep providing more and more data service without raising prices or
decreasing service.
I get my phone service for $17/mo. No talk limit as far as I know,
though there's probably some fine print there too. But if everybody
started talking 10 hours a day you know there would be some changes.
Too much load on the phone lines actually happened in the AOL days if
you'll remember. The phone companies were scrambling to keep up with the
increased load of dial-up. It actually crashed the lines in my area a
few times.
> When it becomes too expensive for me to use Netflix (or Hulu, or whatever)
> either because of speed tiers or usage caps, I'll drop my service to a
> slower, cheaper, tier.
that $19.95/mo for 5 year promotion. When enough people vote with their
wallet things change, often for the better...
Message has been deleted
Justin
May 22, 2012, 10:06:54 PM5/22/12
to
AJL wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700]:
> On 5/22/2012 2:46 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 22 May 2012 14:01:37 -0700 AJL wrote:
>
>
>>just like Netflix and Pandora are.
>
> Netflix (and ilk) may be leeching for now, and causing ISPs to take
> action to control the load. But my guess is that eventually there will
> be a business agreement with these sites too
Netflix is not leeching anything, they are paying someone to get their data
> On 5/22/2012 2:46 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 22 May 2012 14:01:37 -0700 AJL wrote:
>
>
>>just like Netflix and Pandora are.
>
> Netflix (and ilk) may be leeching for now, and causing ISPs to take
> action to control the load. But my guess is that eventually there will
> be a business agreement with these sites too
into the internet
>> we pay Comcast, Verizon, et al for access to the content they're trying
>> to prevent us from accessing.
>
> They're just trying to get paid for Netflix's water that's flowing
> through their pipes.
to deliver it.
>>My point was that ISPs now want to favor their own proprietary
>>content over third-party content,
>
> I think they're just trying to level the playing field. They can't
> compete with $8/mo movies when Netflix gets to use their pipes for free.
the network. Customers pay to receive it.
> I get my phone service for $17/mo. No talk limit as far as I know,
> though there's probably some fine print there too. But if everybody
> started talking 10 hours a day you know there would be some changes.
one for voice and one for dialup. I used hundreds of hours a month of dialup
and never heard a peep.
tlvp
May 22, 2012, 11:33:11 PM5/22/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:55:38 -0600, Todd Allcock wrote:
> ... If I just
Todd, Todd, how many days would the next Patch Tuesday Windows Updates take
you then, at such dial-up speeds? Add browser and Adobe updates, and you'd
never get to your email for a week at a stretch. At least, contemplate
$15/month Basic rate DSL :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
> ... If I just
> wanted a little web browsing and email, I could still be using a sub-
> $10/month dialup account ...
Todd, Todd, how many days would the next Patch Tuesday Windows Updates take
you then, at such dial-up speeds? Add browser and Adobe updates, and you'd
never get to your email for a week at a stretch. At least, contemplate
$15/month Basic rate DSL :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Todd Allcock
May 22, 2012, 11:44:55 PM5/22/12
to
At 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700 AJL wrote:
> On 5/22/2012 2:46 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> >just like Netflix and Pandora are.
>
> Netflix (and ilk) may be leeching for now, and causing ISPs to take
> action to control the load. But my guess is that eventually there will
> be a business agreement with these sites too
Perhaps, but there shouldn't have to be. The free market tends to sort
> On 5/22/2012 2:46 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> >just like Netflix and Pandora are.
>
> Netflix (and ilk) may be leeching for now, and causing ISPs to take
> action to control the load. But my guess is that eventually there will
> be a business agreement with these sites too
these things out. If Comcast can't provide sufficient access, some other
provider (hopefully) will.
> > we pay Comcast, Verizon, et al for access to the content they're
trying
> > to prevent us from accessing.
>
> They're just trying to get paid for Netflix's water that's flowing
> through their pipes.
If I rent a piece of real estate to open a sandwich shop, the landlord is
entitled to rent- not a cut of my business (though I realize some malls
negotiate a percentage of gross sales, ostensibly to cover advertising,
etc.)
With an ISP, I'm renting the pipes, not the water.
> >My point was that ISPs now want to favor their own proprietary
> >content over third-party content,
>
> I think they're just trying to level the playing field. They can't
> compete with $8/mo movies when Netflix gets to use their pipes for free.
accepting the premise that they are a significant cause of every ISP's
congestion problems (what's that stat floating around? That Netflix is
responsible for 20-30% of North American internet traffic?), how does
Netflix find the bandwidth to send all of these bits to all of us?
Obviously Netflix pays for the bandwidth to send all that data out. Why
doesn't Comcast or Cox have the bandwidth to receive it and distribute it
to us? If anything, the ISPs with ties to video content owners should
have an easier time. Who probably has a better chance of securing, say,
NBC content: Comcast or Netflix?
Just like the cell phone guys, ISPs have no problem selling access to
anyone and everyone who wants to sign up, then whining they're using too
much service. When a restaurant doesn't have enough tables on a Friday
night, they don't crowd six families in one booth, they make you take a
number and wait. If you don't have the infrastructure to support your
customers, you can buy more infrastructure, or stop adding customers!
Degrading service isn't the only option.
I was always impressed by Wildblue, the satellite internet company. Not
by the service itself, but by their policy of suspending sales in certain
areas when that area's assigned satellite transponder was "full". They
didn't want to oversell the service. They allowed X# customers for a
certain amount of infrastructure and that was that.
Have you ever heard a wired ISP tell you or anyone else, "gee, we'd love
to sign you up, but the node in your area is full. If you'd like to
leave us your number or email address, we'll contact you when we can take
on more customers in your area..."
> >just like AOL over a quarter-century ago.
>
> Not so. I was on AOL also. You just brought up a browser and went to
> the Internet at large, you certainly weren't trapped in AOL's walled
> garden.
so if you count their predecessors Q-Link (for Commodore 64s) or PC-Link
(for PCs.) AOL didn't get a browser until version 2.5 or 3.0 in the mid
90s, and even then there was a plethora of content available without ever
launching the browser. That seems to be the model the Comcasts of the
world want to return to; you don't need Netflix, Youtube, or Hulu-
there's Xfinity video! And Xfinity video usage won't count toward your
caps or cause those nasty overage charges like those other services will!
> > I'm not displeased. My ISP (CenturyLink) doesn't have caps (yet.)
>
> I abandoned CL for a better deal at Cox. I voted with my wallet. That's
the way the free market works.
that's a differentiator to entice users to use them instead of Comcast,
that's the free market at work.
> >My point was that the access to the third-party
> > services that the ISPs think are "leeching" their bandwidth and
profits
> > are actually what we're paying the ISP for-
>
> But of course you're not really paying for unlimited use. I don't know
> your TOS but I'll bet there is fine print.
board like Broadband Reports has complained CL has threatened them.
> The ISPs could offer the 'illusion' of unlimited service as long as
> most people used an average amount of data. That went along fine until
> video sites started to ramp up that average. Something has to give,
> they can't just keep providing more and more data service without
> raising prices or decreasing service.
was forced to over the last few years? Or AOL had to nearly 20 years ago
when their first unlimited dialup plan resulted in nothing but busy
signals during peak periods?
> I get my phone service for $17/mo. No talk limit as far as I know,
> though there's probably some fine print there too. But if everybody
> started talking 10 hours a day you know there would be some changes.
>
> Too much load on the phone lines actually happened in the AOL days if
> you'll remember. The phone companies were scrambling to keep up with
> the increased load of dial-up. It actually crashed the lines in my area
> a few times.
load fine. It was AOL who didn't have the infrastructure to handle the
incoming calls.
> > When it becomes too expensive for me to use Netflix (or Hulu, or
whatever)
> > either because of speed tiers or usage caps, I'll drop my service
to a
> > slower, cheaper, tier.
>
> As I said vote with your wallet. Cox was killing CL here so now CL has
> that $19.95/mo for 5 year promotion. When enough people vote with their
> wallet things change, often for the better...
stealth campaign to turn customers against each other by creating
bogeymen like "data hogs". You talk about voting with your wallet, but
you're really hoping your provider successfully rounds up all of those
"abusers", that if left unchecked, will steal your fair share of the
service. Then you expect once they kick them awful "data hogs" out of
Dodge, they'll reward you with lower rates and better service.
It's a fairy tale. As Paul pointed out, the total usage isn't a problem,
and caps aren't the solution. Peak congestion is the issue, and punishing
the guy downloading OS service packs or using an online backup service at
3AM for his data consumption won't fix congestion at 8PM. Why do you
think cell companies started offering free nights and weekends way back
when? Because it was a huge perceived value perk for consumers that cost
carriers essentially nothing to provide- the network infrastructure was
in place and ran at a tiny fraction of capacity outside business hours.
There are no "data hogs" at 3AM on your ISP. Just sleepy users occupying
a minute fraction of essentially unused infrastructure.
Justin
May 23, 2012, 12:03:52 AM5/23/12
to
Todd Allcock wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 21:44:55 -0600]:
> At 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700 AJL wrote:
>> On 5/22/2012 2:46 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> >just like Netflix and Pandora are.
>>
>> Netflix (and ilk) may be leeching for now, and causing ISPs to take
>> action to control the load. But my guess is that eventually there will
>> be a business agreement with these sites too
>
>
> Perhaps, but there shouldn't have to be. The free market tends to sort
> these things out. If Comcast can't provide sufficient access, some other
> provider (hopefully) will.
The market isn't free. The cable companies are given a monopoly for a fee
> At 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700 AJL wrote:
>> On 5/22/2012 2:46 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> >just like Netflix and Pandora are.
>>
>> Netflix (and ilk) may be leeching for now, and causing ISPs to take
>> action to control the load. But my guess is that eventually there will
>> be a business agreement with these sites too
>
>
> Perhaps, but there shouldn't have to be. The free market tends to sort
> these things out. If Comcast can't provide sufficient access, some other
> provider (hopefully) will.
> there's Xfinity video! And Xfinity video usage won't count toward your
> caps or cause those nasty overage charges like those other services will!
Todd Allcock
May 23, 2012, 12:28:58 AM5/23/12
to
At 22 May 2012 23:33:11 -0400 tlvp wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:55:38 -0600, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > ... If I just
> > wanted a little web browsing and email, I could still be using a sub-
> > $10/month dialup account ...
>
> Todd, Todd, how many days would the next Patch Tuesday Windows Updates
> take you then, at such dial-up speeds?
Who'd need them? The connection would be too slow to download a virus! ;)
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:55:38 -0600, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > ... If I just
> > wanted a little web browsing and email, I could still be using a sub-
> > $10/month dialup account ...
>
> Todd, Todd, how many days would the next Patch Tuesday Windows Updates
> take you then, at such dial-up speeds?
> Add browser and Adobe updates,
> and you'd never get to your email for a week at a stretch. At least,
> contemplate $15/month Basic rate DSL :-) .
You do realize you're talking to a guy who still uses free "unlimited"
> and you'd never get to your email for a week at a stretch. At least,
> contemplate $15/month Basic rate DSL :-) .
14.4kbps QNC data on his circa-2004 PagePlus smartphone as a backup for
his T-Mo 3G phone. My cheapness knows no bounds! ;)
I call my PagePlus phone, a Samsung i730 (as thick as a brick, and twice
as heavy), the "$2.50/month email machine", because it costs me $10 every
four months to keep it active.
And yes, I've even tethered my netbook to it in a pinch, when I was way
off the beaten path and it was my only source of internet access!
Todd Allcock
May 23, 2012, 12:54:37 AM5/23/12
to
At 23 May 2012 04:03:52 +0000 Justin wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 21:44:55 -0600]:
> > At 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700 AJL wrote:
> >> On 5/22/2012 2:46 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> >
> >> >just like Netflix and Pandora are.
> >>
> >> Netflix (and ilk) may be leeching for now, and causing ISPs to take
> >> action to control the load. But my guess is that eventually there
will
> >> be a business agreement with these sites too
> >
> >
> > Perhaps, but there shouldn't have to be. The free market tends to sort
> > these things out. If Comcast can't provide sufficient access, some
other
> > provider (hopefully) will.
>
> The market isn't free. The cable companies are given a monopoly for a
fee
Depends on the market. Some cities have tried opening up cable to
> Todd Allcock wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 21:44:55 -0600]:
> > At 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700 AJL wrote:
> >> On 5/22/2012 2:46 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> >
> >> >just like Netflix and Pandora are.
> >>
> >> Netflix (and ilk) may be leeching for now, and causing ISPs to take
> >> action to control the load. But my guess is that eventually there
will
> >> be a business agreement with these sites too
> >
> >
> > Perhaps, but there shouldn't have to be. The free market tends to sort
> > these things out. If Comcast can't provide sufficient access, some
other
> > provider (hopefully) will.
>
> The market isn't free. The cable companies are given a monopoly for a
fee
multiple providers. When I used to live in Omaha, we had a choice of two
cable companies; Cox, and a local startup. The startup even gave a
lifeline tier for free, figuring if they got their wire to your house
before Cox did, they'd be more likely to get a subscription from you.
As it turned out, the experiment failed. Omaha just wasn't big enough to
support two competing cable cos, and Cox bought out their competitor.
Even with cable monopolies, there is still some competitive pressure from
DSL, satellite, Wireless ISPs ("WISPs"; we have a lot of that in rural
Colorado), WiMax and cellular broadband.
> > there's Xfinity video! And Xfinity video usage won't count toward
your
> > caps or cause those nasty overage charges like those other services
will!
>
> It gets a higher packet priority, too
video service in dele self contained in their network. Just as I'd expect
better performance shuffling files between my PCs over my home LAN vs.
the internet at large, can we fault an ISP for providing better service
with their own "WAN" content vs. content from outside their own
infrastructure?
Personally, I believe in dumb pipes. Separating content owners from the
distribution chain is far better for consumers.
AJL
May 23, 2012, 1:34:03 AM5/23/12
to
On 5/22/2012 8:44 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700 AJL wrote:
>The free market tends to sort these things out.
I couldn't agree more.
> At 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700 AJL wrote:
>The free market tends to sort these things out.
>I'm paying them [ISP] for use of the pipes, not the water.
Well I've never seen an ISP that charged for use of their infrastructure
(pipes). They always charge for data (water). Be it (limited) unlimited
data or 100MB of data.
> If I rent a piece of real estate to open a sandwich shop, the
Sorry but I'm completely lost in this analogy. Who is the renter? Who is
getting the cut? Comcast? Netflix?
>If we're
> accepting the premise that they are a significant cause of every ISP's
> congestion problems (what's that stat floating around? That Netflix is
> responsible for 20-30% of North American internet traffic?), how does
> Netflix find the bandwidth to send all of these bits to all of us?
their users can pay the actual video data costs. When those users see
what the video is actually costing, they might even slow down a bit.
This will ease the system load, and maybe even lower costs for the rest
of us... ;)
> Just like the cell phone guys, ISPs have no problem selling access to
> anyone and everyone who wants to sign up, then whining they're using
>too much service.
without increasing the capacity to handle them. That costs money.
>If you don't have the infrastructure to support your
> customers, you can buy more infrastructure, or stop adding customers!
> Degrading service isn't the only option.
degrading the service IMO.
> Noob! ;) AOL predates consumer browsers like Netscape or IE.
> Absolutely. CL, at least here in Denver, has no limits or caps. If
> that's a differentiator to entice users to use them instead of
>Comcast, that's the free market at work.
faster service and less wait time. But still at 40GB/mo average I'm a
long way from 200GB (Cox's unenforced limit). So unlimited would not
enter into my reason to change. But then I'm not a data hog... ;)
> you're really hoping your provider successfully rounds up all of those
> "abusers", that if left unchecked, will steal your fair share of the
> service.
>Then you expect once they kick them awful "data hogs" out of
> Dodge, they'll reward you with lower rates and better service.
because they don't have to feed the data hogs and have money to work on
infrastructure.
>punishing
> the guy downloading OS service packs or using an online backup
>service at 3AM for his data consumption won't fix congestion at 8PM.
real problem. If they want to go to timed tiers to balance the load that
would seem reasonable. Maybe help out the graveyard data hogs... ;)
tlvp
May 23, 2012, 2:17:39 AM5/23/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:44:55 -0600, Todd Allcock wrote:
> Have you ever heard a wired ISP tell you or anyone else, "gee, we'd love
> to sign you up, but the node in your area is full. If you'd like to
> leave us your number or email address, we'll contact you when we can take
> on more customers in your area..."
Absolutely. That was the norm in Warsaw in the '70's and '80's -- wait-list
> Have you ever heard a wired ISP tell you or anyone else, "gee, we'd love
> to sign you up, but the node in your area is full. If you'd like to
> leave us your number or email address, we'll contact you when we can take
> on more customers in your area..."
times as long as seven *years* in most cases. Once they upgraded to 7-digit
switches from the prior 6, they could suddenly handle all the pent-up
demand and the backlist got cut back to virtually zero in short order :-) .
tlvp
May 23, 2012, 2:30:02 AM5/23/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 22:28:58 -0600, Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 22 May 2012 23:33:11 -0400 tlvp wrote:
>>
>> Todd, Todd, how many days would the next Patch Tuesday Windows Updates
>> take you then, at such dial-up speeds?
>
> Who'd need them? The connection would be too slow to download a virus! ;)
Don't be so sure -- the Blaster worm got me over dial-up when it did get
> At 22 May 2012 23:33:11 -0400 tlvp wrote:
>>
>> Todd, Todd, how many days would the next Patch Tuesday Windows Updates
>> take you then, at such dial-up speeds?
>
> Who'd need them? The connection would be too slow to download a virus! ;)
me, years ago, before I'd heard of Zone Alarm Free :-) .
>> Add browser and Adobe updates,
>> and you'd never get to your email for a week at a stretch. At least,
>> contemplate $15/month Basic rate DSL :-) .
>
> You do realize you're talking to a guy who still uses free "unlimited"
> 14.4kbps QNC data on his circa-2004 PagePlus smartphone as a backup for
> his T-Mo 3G phone. My cheapness knows no bounds! ;)
ran through only $9 of its first $10 PIN in its first 120 days, and is on
track to use no more than that on its second :-) .
> I call my PagePlus phone, a Samsung i730 (as thick as a brick, and twice
> as heavy), the "$2.50/month email machine", because it costs me $10 every
> four months to keep it active.
> And yes, I've even tethered my netbook to it in a pinch, when I was way
> off the beaten path and it was my only source of internet access!
David Kaye
May 23, 2012, 4:07:53 AM5/23/12
to
"Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote
> Depends on the market. Some cities have tried opening up cable to
> multiple providers. When I used to live in Omaha, we had a choice of two
> cable companies; Cox, and a local startup.
San Francisco once was totally open but only CBS Cable (which became Viacom,
which was sold to AT&T, which was sold to Comcast) had built any
infrastructure here. They hadn't built out the city, only the more densely
populated residential areas. Harry Britt, then city/county supervisor,
carried an ordinance to give Viacom Cable an exclusive franchise in exchange
for building out 95+% of the residential parcels in the city. Otherwise, I
guess, nobody would have built out the city. This was prior to home
satellite services like Dish.
As it stands now, there are areas of SF that cannot get cable nor any kind
of internet, such as parts of Treasure Island, the 3rd Street Dogpatch
corridor, parts of the Excelsior and Ingleside districts. People who need
internet usually go through Hughes. Two of my tech customers use Hughes.
>
> As it turned out, the experiment failed. Omaha just wasn't big enough to
> support two competing cable cos, and Cox bought out their competitor.
Yeah, that can happen. Portland (the big one) once did not give monopolies
to power companies. Thus Portland General Electric ran wires down one side
of the street and Pacific Power & Light ran wires down the other side.
After some decades they petitioned the city to allow them monopolies with
PGE getting the downtown/inner city areas and PPL getting the suburbs. I
think both are happy now.
>
> Personally, I believe in dumb pipes. Separating content owners from the
> distribution chain is far better for consumers.
I'm a strong believer in government-owned internet and cable. After all, we
have government owned water and sewer services in many cities, which do much
better in quality of service than the private companies. And cities that
provide city-owned power (such as Alameda and Los Angeles) provide their
customers with better service and lower rates than the profit-making
companies that operate nearby. Time for Phil Kane to chime in here...
> Depends on the market. Some cities have tried opening up cable to
> multiple providers. When I used to live in Omaha, we had a choice of two
> cable companies; Cox, and a local startup.
which was sold to AT&T, which was sold to Comcast) had built any
infrastructure here. They hadn't built out the city, only the more densely
populated residential areas. Harry Britt, then city/county supervisor,
carried an ordinance to give Viacom Cable an exclusive franchise in exchange
for building out 95+% of the residential parcels in the city. Otherwise, I
guess, nobody would have built out the city. This was prior to home
satellite services like Dish.
As it stands now, there are areas of SF that cannot get cable nor any kind
of internet, such as parts of Treasure Island, the 3rd Street Dogpatch
corridor, parts of the Excelsior and Ingleside districts. People who need
internet usually go through Hughes. Two of my tech customers use Hughes.
>
> As it turned out, the experiment failed. Omaha just wasn't big enough to
> support two competing cable cos, and Cox bought out their competitor.
to power companies. Thus Portland General Electric ran wires down one side
of the street and Pacific Power & Light ran wires down the other side.
After some decades they petitioned the city to allow them monopolies with
PGE getting the downtown/inner city areas and PPL getting the suburbs. I
think both are happy now.
>
> Personally, I believe in dumb pipes. Separating content owners from the
> distribution chain is far better for consumers.
have government owned water and sewer services in many cities, which do much
better in quality of service than the private companies. And cities that
provide city-owned power (such as Alameda and Los Angeles) provide their
customers with better service and lower rates than the profit-making
companies that operate nearby. Time for Phil Kane to chime in here...
Justin
May 23, 2012, 7:42:40 AM5/23/12
to
AJL wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 22:34:03 -0700]:
> On 5/22/2012 8:44 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> > At 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700 AJL wrote:
>
> >I'm paying them [ISP] for use of the pipes, not the water.
>
> Well I've never seen an ISP that charged for use of their infrastructure
> (pipes). They always charge for data (water). Be it (limited) unlimited
> data or 100MB of data.
I never saw a dialup ISP that charged per byte that wasn't AOL
> On 5/22/2012 8:44 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> > At 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700 AJL wrote:
>
> >I'm paying them [ISP] for use of the pipes, not the water.
>
> Well I've never seen an ISP that charged for use of their infrastructure
> (pipes). They always charge for data (water). Be it (limited) unlimited
> data or 100MB of data.
> >punishing
> > the guy downloading OS service packs or using an online backup
> >service at 3AM for his data consumption won't fix congestion at 8PM.
>
> The tiers will (hopefully) stop the 8 PM video data hogs which are the
> real problem. If they want to go to timed tiers to balance the load that
> would seem reasonable. Maybe help out the graveyard data hogs... ;)
A monthly cap won't help at all.
D. Peter Maus
May 23, 2012, 8:05:42 AM5/23/12
to
On 5/23/12 06:42 , Justin wrote:
> AJL wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 22:34:03 -0700]:
>> On 5/22/2012 8:44 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>>> At 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700 AJL wrote:
>>
>>> I'm paying them [ISP] for use of the pipes, not the water.
>>
>> Well I've never seen an ISP that charged for use of their infrastructure
>> (pipes). They always charge for data (water). Be it (limited) unlimited
>> data or 100MB of data.
>
> I never saw a dialup ISP that charged per byte that wasn't AOL
Prodigy charged per e-mail, though the connection to the website
> AJL wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 22:34:03 -0700]:
>> On 5/22/2012 8:44 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>>> At 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700 AJL wrote:
>>
>>> I'm paying them [ISP] for use of the pipes, not the water.
>>
>> Well I've never seen an ISP that charged for use of their infrastructure
>> (pipes). They always charge for data (water). Be it (limited) unlimited
>> data or 100MB of data.
>
> I never saw a dialup ISP that charged per byte that wasn't AOL
and the rest of the service was a flat rate.
(PeteCresswell)
May 23, 2012, 9:31:14 AM5/23/12
to
Per Todd Allcock:
Something like the regulated electric companies of days past
whose only role is to maintain the physical wires.
Then let power suppliers and internet providers compete as they
lease the wires.
Dunno how that works out technologically.... and I've got to
wonder about the pace of innovation (would we have fiber running
to our house?).... but the concept seems to be more amenable to
higher efficiency of use and true competition.
Or does it?
Maybe somebody who actually knows something (as opposed to Yours
Truly) can comment?
--
Pete Cresswell
>Personally, I believe in dumb pipes. Separating content owners from the
>distribution chain is far better for consumers.
I always wondered if there shouldn't be a "Keeper Of The Lines".
>distribution chain is far better for consumers.
Something like the regulated electric companies of days past
whose only role is to maintain the physical wires.
Then let power suppliers and internet providers compete as they
lease the wires.
Dunno how that works out technologically.... and I've got to
wonder about the pace of innovation (would we have fiber running
to our house?).... but the concept seems to be more amenable to
higher efficiency of use and true competition.
Or does it?
Maybe somebody who actually knows something (as opposed to Yours
Truly) can comment?
--
Pete Cresswell
SMS
May 23, 2012, 10:34:57 AM5/23/12
to
On 5/22/2012 6:15 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<LcudncWzW77cviHS...@giganews.com>,
Avenue Q had it right...
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiFD6EFVsTg>
> In article<LcudncWzW77cviHS...@giganews.com>,
> AJL<346723...@please-nomail.com> wrote:
>
>> The ISPs could offer the 'illusion' of unlimited service as long as most
>> people used an average amount of data. That went along fine until video
>> sites
>
> you misspelled "porn"
>
>> The ISPs could offer the 'illusion' of unlimited service as long as most
>> people used an average amount of data. That went along fine until video
>> sites
>
Avenue Q had it right...
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiFD6EFVsTg>
Bhairitu
May 23, 2012, 2:57:27 PM5/23/12
to
On 05/22/2012 12:52 PM, David Kaye wrote:
> "D. Peter Maus"<dpete...@att.net> wrote
>
>> But the data limits as imposed are less intended to prevent freerides on
>> someone else's service, as much as they are protectionist measures in
>> favor of the carriers' own content services [....]
>
> Prior to the Reagan era there used to be anti-trust laws which told
> companies that not only could they not buy up all the competition, but they
> also could not "vertically integrate", that is, control all levels of
> service such as production, distribution, and end-user retailing.
>
> In the 1950s this led to the breakup of the movie studios. No longer could
> they provide content AND run movie theaters. They had to do one or the
> other. This saved the small mom'n'pop movie theaters from extinction
> because they were able to bid on first-run movies on a level playing field.
>
> Since the studios were allowed to get back into the theater business a few
> years ago, movies have been distributed mostly to owned chains and the
> little mom'n'pop theaters are dropping out of business like flies. In SF,
> the Metro, Roxie, and Balboa have gone non-profit, the Castro is dark 1 or 2
> nights a week, and thousands of theaters have closed across America.
>
Add the Park in Lafayette in that list too. But I suspect they all
shared one problem: the old almost flat auditorium. A number of times I
went to the Park someone 6'5" would plop down in front of me making the
viewing experience poor. Some of these older theaters did remodel to
stadium seating eliminating that problem.
Second the growth of home theater. I would just as soon wait to see a
film that I can watch and pause on my home theater system with a large
screen and surround system. And my own healthier snacks not to mention
better popcorn. And some indie films are available before and in
theatrical release. I often see the films that way as I would have to
drive quite a ways to see that film in a remaining art house and
probably still risk having a 6'5" dude plop down in the seat in front of me.
> "D. Peter Maus"<dpete...@att.net> wrote
>
>> But the data limits as imposed are less intended to prevent freerides on
>> someone else's service, as much as they are protectionist measures in
>> favor of the carriers' own content services [....]
>
> Prior to the Reagan era there used to be anti-trust laws which told
> companies that not only could they not buy up all the competition, but they
> also could not "vertically integrate", that is, control all levels of
> service such as production, distribution, and end-user retailing.
>
> In the 1950s this led to the breakup of the movie studios. No longer could
> they provide content AND run movie theaters. They had to do one or the
> other. This saved the small mom'n'pop movie theaters from extinction
> because they were able to bid on first-run movies on a level playing field.
>
> Since the studios were allowed to get back into the theater business a few
> years ago, movies have been distributed mostly to owned chains and the
> little mom'n'pop theaters are dropping out of business like flies. In SF,
> the Metro, Roxie, and Balboa have gone non-profit, the Castro is dark 1 or 2
> nights a week, and thousands of theaters have closed across America.
>
Add the Park in Lafayette in that list too. But I suspect they all
shared one problem: the old almost flat auditorium. A number of times I
went to the Park someone 6'5" would plop down in front of me making the
viewing experience poor. Some of these older theaters did remodel to
stadium seating eliminating that problem.
Second the growth of home theater. I would just as soon wait to see a
film that I can watch and pause on my home theater system with a large
screen and surround system. And my own healthier snacks not to mention
better popcorn. And some indie films are available before and in
theatrical release. I often see the films that way as I would have to
drive quite a ways to see that film in a remaining art house and
probably still risk having a 6'5" dude plop down in the seat in front of me.
Bhairitu
May 23, 2012, 3:04:53 PM5/23/12
to
>> They already do.
>
> I'm on Comcast and they don't give preference to NBC programming. Discovery
> is on channel 15, which is basic cable. Faux News, CNN, MSNBC, et al are
> all gathered together on basic and look comparable to the customer.
> Likewise, Comcast also offers History, Biography, and similar channels on
> basic.
>
> What I'm saying is that there'll come a time when Comcast offers a "basic
> basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
> and local brodcasters. I'd bet that you won't be seeing Biography, History,
> Discovery, CNN, or Weather on that service.
>
>
When I called to canceled Showtime because the promo period was over
>
> I'm on Comcast and they don't give preference to NBC programming. Discovery
> is on channel 15, which is basic cable. Faux News, CNN, MSNBC, et al are
> all gathered together on basic and look comparable to the customer.
> Likewise, Comcast also offers History, Biography, and similar channels on
> basic.
>
> What I'm saying is that there'll come a time when Comcast offers a "basic
> basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
> and local brodcasters. I'd bet that you won't be seeing Biography, History,
> Discovery, CNN, or Weather on that service.
>
>
they offered the "second tier" for $10 a month and a free premium
channel for a year. Since I would have signed up for HBO in time for
"True Blood" at a similar promo price I accepted. However the extra
channels in the second tier including IFC and MGM have been less than
impressive.
The thing is a lot working people just pay the bill and don't think
about how much they are paying for entertainment and entertainment they
don't watch. Back in the 1970s at most I saw a film a week and those
were mostly foreign because I lived in Seattle which had a number of
theaters with those (the rain made movie going popular there). And
because I was playing music 6 nights a week I watched almost NONE of the
popular TV shows of the era. Sunday nights off could be droll on TV
because the networks hadn't yet discovered that people were staying home
that night because Monday was a work day.
Bhairitu
May 23, 2012, 3:13:00 PM5/23/12
to
On 05/22/2012 10:34 PM, AJL wrote:
> On 5/22/2012 8:44 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> > At 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700 AJL wrote:
>
> >The free market tends to sort these things out.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
>
Really? You let the dogs of capitalism run wild and you wind up with
> On 5/22/2012 8:44 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> > At 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700 AJL wrote:
>
> >The free market tends to sort these things out.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
>
about two monopolies running things. That's not a "free market" by any
means.
Phil Kane
May 23, 2012, 3:24:35 PM5/23/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:03:14 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"
<dpete...@att.net> wrote:
>After
>all, business phone system and line rates have been prorated and
>linked to gross annual revenue of the subscriber since AG Bell. Only
>residential phones were flat rate.
Ummm.,....for the years that I had an office in a commercial office
building, my Pac*Bell business phone rates were never related to my
gross revenue, only a flat rate.
---
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR
<dpete...@att.net> wrote:
>After
>all, business phone system and line rates have been prorated and
>linked to gross annual revenue of the subscriber since AG Bell. Only
>residential phones were flat rate.
Ummm.,....for the years that I had an office in a commercial office
building, my Pac*Bell business phone rates were never related to my
gross revenue, only a flat rate.
---
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR
D. Peter Maus
May 23, 2012, 3:48:45 PM5/23/12
to
Secondly, the dogs of capitalism rarely run wild. In today's
market, there are too many regulations to prevent it. But, that
said, one of the companies, for instance, that threatened to become
a monopoly in the computer industry, was Microsoft. After some
pretty hairy game playing, crushing defeats of rivals for market
share, manipulation of vendors and computer manufacturers to
include, preemptively, Internet Explorer, MS came under pressure
from competitors' lawsuits, and improved competitor products, as
well as customer demands. With resultant competitive OS's,
applications, and dozens of browser products entering, and staying
in, the market. MS still has the Lion's share of the market (sorry,
I couldn't resist) but they are not by far a monopoly, and their
further attempts to curtail competition have resulted in new
product, companies, and innovation for the consumer benefit.
And what near monopolies MS still has, is, in part, a result of
gamesmanship with legislators by playing to the most extreme letter
of, rather than the spirit, of laws resulting from governmental
intervention in the market.
It's hard today, to understand that the Darwinist nature of the
free market is little different than the Darwinist nature of
species' survival in nature. And that interference in the process,
ultimately results in less, not more, successful businesses, and
less, not more, broad and diverse customer satisfaction.
The wolves of Yellowstone should serve as an object lesson about
the dangers of intervention in the Darwinian process.
The explosive burgeoning of Google while MS was dealing with
potential regulatory straitjacketing should serve as an object
lesson in the dangers of intervention in the market.
spamtrap1888
May 23, 2012, 4:04:13 PM5/23/12
to
On May 23, 12:24 pm, Phil Kane <Phil.K...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:03:14 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"
>
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:03:14 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"
>
> <dpeterm...@att.net> wrote:
> >After
> >all, business phone system and line rates have been prorated and
> >linked to gross annual revenue of the subscriber since AG Bell. Only
> >residential phones were flat rate.
>
> Ummm.,....for the years that I had an office in a commercial office
> building, my Pac*Bell business phone rates were never related to my
> gross revenue, only a flat rate.
While not proportional to revenue, I remember that business rates were
> >After
> >all, business phone system and line rates have been prorated and
> >linked to gross annual revenue of the subscriber since AG Bell. Only
> >residential phones were flat rate.
>
> Ummm.,....for the years that I had an office in a commercial office
> building, my Pac*Bell business phone rates were never related to my
> gross revenue, only a flat rate.
higher than residential for the same service, because my parents ran a
small business out of our home, and for the occasional business-
related phone call did not want to pay the higher business rate. They
did pay for a business phone at our biggest customer, so that my
mother could get hold of my father if she needed to -- that phone
lacked a dial, to keep expenses down.
D. Peter Maus
May 23, 2012, 4:26:12 PM5/23/12
to
St Louis. I hadn't heard of it, either. When I asked, I was told
that since the phone was necessary to conduct business, that AT&T
was a defacto partner, and therefore entitled to a higher rate. So
phone rates were tied to annual business revenue.
I asked how that was measured, and was told it was a line item
on the application form for phone service, which could be taken over
the phone, orally, or in writing, in person, at the center. When I
pointed out that revenue was no one's business but the business
owner and Uncle Sam, I was told, 'that's too bad. You want a phone,
you have to pay.'
Later when I opened my own business, and ordered a phone, one of
the items requested was annual revenue. When I said 'no.' The
Service Rep responded, "oh, that's all right, we'll compute that for
you...What type of business is this?"
Now, this was all prior to divestiture. And it was in St Louis
which was served by Southwestern Bell, at the time.
Phil Kane
May 23, 2012, 7:27:56 PM5/23/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:01:37 -0700, AJL <123...@no--mail.com> wrote:
>The ISP is a business, not a charity. The *sole purpose* is to make
>shareholders happy (if a public company).
The "sole purpose" is to provide a product or service to customers at
>The ISP is a business, not a charity. The *sole purpose* is to make
>shareholders happy (if a public company).
a fair and equitable rate which will make everyone happy and most
important, keep the customers coming back. That is the only way to
make the shareholders happy in the long run.
Phil Kane
May 23, 2012, 7:30:59 PM5/23/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:23:23 -0700, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
wrote:
>Which is why content providers should not be data carriers and visa
>versa.
The FCC's standard for common carriers was 50%. I don't know whether
they care any more.
wrote:
>Which is why content providers should not be data carriers and visa
>versa.
The FCC's standard for common carriers was 50%. I don't know whether
they care any more.
Phil Kane
May 23, 2012, 7:34:40 PM5/23/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:29:12 -0700, "David Kaye"
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What I'm saying is that there'll come a time when Comcast offers a "basic
>basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
>and local brodcasters.
IIRC that's what one gets with their Digital Transport Adapter, their
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What I'm saying is that there'll come a time when Comcast offers a "basic
>basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
>and local brodcasters.
name for the gizmo (technical term) that allows continued use of
analog TV receivers connected to their cable network.
Phil Kane
May 23, 2012, 8:05:09 PM5/23/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 01:07:53 -0700, "David Kaye"
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Yeah, that can happen. Portland (the big one) once did not give monopolies
>to power companies. Thus Portland General Electric ran wires down one side
>of the street and Pacific Power & Light ran wires down the other side.
>After some decades they petitioned the city to allow them monopolies with
>PGE getting the downtown/inner city areas and PPL getting the suburbs. I
>think both are happy now.
PGE has the area west of the Willamette River as well as the
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Yeah, that can happen. Portland (the big one) once did not give monopolies
>to power companies. Thus Portland General Electric ran wires down one side
>of the street and Pacific Power & Light ran wires down the other side.
>After some decades they petitioned the city to allow them monopolies with
>PGE getting the downtown/inner city areas and PPL getting the suburbs. I
>think both are happy now.
industrial/business area of the east side, and PPL (now known as
Pacific Power) has the residential area on the east side. Both are
happy.
Phil Kane
May 23, 2012, 8:06:57 PM5/23/12
to
>I'm a strong believer in government-owned internet and cable. After all, we
>have government owned water and sewer services in many cities, which do much
>better in quality of service than the private companies. And cities that
>provide city-owned power (such as Alameda and Los Angeles) provide their
>customers with better service and lower rates than the profit-making
>companies that operate nearby. Time for Phil Kane to chime in here...
I vote yes on that.
>have government owned water and sewer services in many cities, which do much
>better in quality of service than the private companies. And cities that
>provide city-owned power (such as Alameda and Los Angeles) provide their
>customers with better service and lower rates than the profit-making
>companies that operate nearby. Time for Phil Kane to chime in here...
SMS
May 24, 2012, 10:15:04 AM5/24/12
to
On 5/23/2012 1:04 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
> While not proportional to revenue, I remember that business rates were
> higher than residential for the same service, because my parents ran a
> small business out of our home, and for the occasional business-
> related phone call did not want to pay the higher business rate. They
> did pay for a business phone at our biggest customer, so that my
> mother could get hold of my father if she needed to -- that phone
> lacked a dial, to keep expenses down.
Who needed a dial to make calls in the days of pulse dialing? And
> While not proportional to revenue, I remember that business rates were
> higher than residential for the same service, because my parents ran a
> small business out of our home, and for the occasional business-
> related phone call did not want to pay the higher business rate. They
> did pay for a business phone at our biggest customer, so that my
> mother could get hold of my father if she needed to -- that phone
> lacked a dial, to keep expenses down.
remember those dial locks that went into one of the finger holes.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/tillmans_collection/3902981587/>
I never recall business phone rates being tied to revenue, but the rates
were always quite a bit higher. I also seem to remember that there was
no unlimited local calling for business lines, but I could be wrong
about that.
SMS
May 24, 2012, 12:56:23 PM5/24/12
to
not at a "fair and equitable" rate. In reality the pricing is determine
more by what the competition charges than anything else.
The shareholders don't care about "the long run."
I'm amazed that Sonic is allowed to continue to exist by AT&T and the
cable companies. If Comcast offered $40/month broadband instead of
$63/month, Sonic would be in serious trouble. I'd get an Ooma box for my
phone service, and use Comcast which would be much faster. I hope Sonic
succeeds in its efforts to bring fiber to the home, but they're going to
need a lot of capital to do that in a large area.
Phil Kane
May 24, 2012, 2:00:22 PM5/24/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:56:23 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:
>> The "sole purpose" is to provide a product or service to customers at
>> a fair and equitable rate which will make everyone happy and most
>> important, keep the customers coming back. That is the only way to
>> make the shareholders happy in the long run.
>
>Oh please, the goal is to price the product for maximum profitability,
>not at a "fair and equitable" rate. In reality the pricing is determine
>more by what the competition charges than anything else.
>
>The shareholders don't care about "the long run."
As you may gather, I am not a fan of unfettered free enterprise.
Ethics and fairness are part of my way of life. The shareholders of
the non-publicly-traded corporation - whose roots go back almost 100
years - of which I am an officer and director are not of the "what
have you done for me this quarter" variety - they surely are in it for
the long run. What we sell is our name and reputation in the
industry.
wrote:
>> The "sole purpose" is to provide a product or service to customers at
>> a fair and equitable rate which will make everyone happy and most
>> important, keep the customers coming back. That is the only way to
>> make the shareholders happy in the long run.
>
>Oh please, the goal is to price the product for maximum profitability,
>not at a "fair and equitable" rate. In reality the pricing is determine
>more by what the competition charges than anything else.
>
>The shareholders don't care about "the long run."
Ethics and fairness are part of my way of life. The shareholders of
the non-publicly-traded corporation - whose roots go back almost 100
years - of which I am an officer and director are not of the "what
have you done for me this quarter" variety - they surely are in it for
the long run. What we sell is our name and reputation in the
industry.
AJL
May 24, 2012, 3:27:42 PM5/24/12
to
>The shareholders don't care about "the long run."
Shareholders are not homogeneous. Some are mutual funds, retirement
systems, day traders, ect. with quite different goals. In my case I
have held most of my individual stocks (and mutual funds) for over 20
years now. But I keep them for the dividend income, not necessarily
for the capital gains. Although when my kids eventually inherit them
they may enjoy those as well...
AJL
May 24, 2012, 3:41:42 PM5/24/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 07:15:04 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:
>Who needed a dial to make calls in the days of pulse dialing? And
>remember those dial locks that went into one of the finger holes.
>
><http://www.flickr.com/photos/tillmans_collection/3902981587/>
I'm surprised anyone even used these locks since many (most?) knew how
to defeat them. Roy57 put it well in the link's comments section:
"This brings back some good memories for me, my mum put one of those
on our phone in the 70s ithink it was. But we could still use the
phone by taking up the hand set and tapping the number out on the
phone. 0 was ten taps. try it it works."
wrote:
>Who needed a dial to make calls in the days of pulse dialing? And
>remember those dial locks that went into one of the finger holes.
>
><http://www.flickr.com/photos/tillmans_collection/3902981587/>
to defeat them. Roy57 put it well in the link's comments section:
"This brings back some good memories for me, my mum put one of those
on our phone in the 70s ithink it was. But we could still use the
phone by taking up the hand set and tapping the number out on the
phone. 0 was ten taps. try it it works."
Bhairitu
May 24, 2012, 3:41:20 PM5/24/12
to
getting pretty cheap though I don't understand why 32" (the equivalent
image height of a old 27" set) aren't down to $150 (or far less than
those 27" sets sold). The manufacturers did get in trouble for some
price fixing regarding LCD screens. Today's $225 32" is likely to be
LED rather than the cheaper non-LCD. Those use to carry a premium
price. They probably aren't making the non-LED ones anymore.
Bhairitu
May 24, 2012, 3:47:38 PM5/24/12
to
what you find in most of the Bay Area with Comcast on cable and AT&T on
DSL. Not the OS monopoly or windfall that Microsoft has.
AJL
May 24, 2012, 3:53:02 PM5/24/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:41:20 -0700, Bhairitu <nooz...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>One wonders how fast the use of analog TVs is dwindling?
Surprisingly my cable company (Cox) still supplies 70 analog channels.
It's great because I can supply my lesser watched sets (6) without
needing (read paying for) extra cable boxes. I'm holding my breath as
to how long this will last...
wrote:
>One wonders how fast the use of analog TVs is dwindling?
It's great because I can supply my lesser watched sets (6) without
needing (read paying for) extra cable boxes. I'm holding my breath as
to how long this will last...
Paul Miner
May 24, 2012, 3:57:01 PM5/24/12
to
market by market. My area will go all digital on June 5th of this year
and Comcast has been robocalling and sending flyers in the mail to
make sure I'm aware.
In my area, Comcast offers three DTA's at no charge.
--
Paul Miner
Justin
May 24, 2012, 4:13:23 PM5/24/12
to
Todd Allcock
May 24, 2012, 5:24:29 PM5/24/12
to
state capitol. We stayed overnight in a Ramada, and they locked the
phones in the students' rooms. We were warned that breaking off the locks
would get us sent home early, so I took the phone apart and removed the
little mental guard that stopped your finger (or the lock!) as you
dialed. The lock then just spun helplessly around the dial, and you just
had to manually stop your finger at the right point to dial correctly.
I learned the dial-by-tap method later, which came in handy in college.
We had "courtesy" public phones that allowed local calls only. They had
touch-tone keypads that blocked long distance calls by preventing the "1"
from being the first digit in any number dialed, and silencing after
seven digits. We used to just flash the switchhook for our "1" and area
code, and then dial the last seven on the pad.
John Higdon
May 24, 2012, 5:28:09 PM5/24/12
to
In article <vfwvr.662$0x2...@newsfe13.iad>,
metro area) to find out how good you have it for connectivity. In
Pahrump, NV, you have literally two choices: slow Internet from the
cable company (not Comcast) or even slower Internet from AT&T. That's it.
In the Bay Area, there are literally dozens of providers. The big
misconception is that AT&T and Comcast is all there is. Not true. But
you do have to think out of the box.
In Pahrump, I'm going to have to put in my own Internet, hauled in from
Las Vegas.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
Bhairitu <nooz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> We're talking broadband and telecoms here and my "two monopolies" are
> what you find in most of the Bay Area with Comcast on cable and AT&T on
> DSL. Not the OS monopoly or windfall that Microsoft has.
All it takes is to go somewhere outside the Bay Area (or any other major
> We're talking broadband and telecoms here and my "two monopolies" are
> what you find in most of the Bay Area with Comcast on cable and AT&T on
> DSL. Not the OS monopoly or windfall that Microsoft has.
metro area) to find out how good you have it for connectivity. In
Pahrump, NV, you have literally two choices: slow Internet from the
cable company (not Comcast) or even slower Internet from AT&T. That's it.
In the Bay Area, there are literally dozens of providers. The big
misconception is that AT&T and Comcast is all there is. Not true. But
you do have to think out of the box.
In Pahrump, I'm going to have to put in my own Internet, hauled in from
Las Vegas.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
Paul Miner
May 24, 2012, 5:57:25 PM5/24/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:28:09 -0700, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
wrote:
>In Pahrump, I'm going to have to put in my own Internet, hauled in from
>Las Vegas.
What will that look like?
--
Paul Miner
wrote:
>In Pahrump, I'm going to have to put in my own Internet, hauled in from
>Las Vegas.
--
Paul Miner
John Higdon
May 24, 2012, 6:16:40 PM5/24/12
to
In article <elbtr71p5c63chc9m...@4ax.com>,
Two hops (with a mountain in the middle) to a big Internet hub.
Paul Miner
May 24, 2012, 7:00:48 PM5/24/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 15:16:40 -0700, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
projects like this.
--
Paul Miner
wrote:
>In article <elbtr71p5c63chc9m...@4ax.com>,
> Paul Miner <pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:28:09 -0700, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In Pahrump, I'm going to have to put in my own Internet, hauled in from
>> >Las Vegas.
>>
>> What will that look like?
>
>Two hops (with a mountain in the middle) to a big Internet hub.
Microwave, WiFi, or something else? I hope it works out. I like to see
>In article <elbtr71p5c63chc9m...@4ax.com>,
> Paul Miner <pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:28:09 -0700, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In Pahrump, I'm going to have to put in my own Internet, hauled in from
>> >Las Vegas.
>>
>> What will that look like?
>
>Two hops (with a mountain in the middle) to a big Internet hub.
projects like this.
--
Paul Miner
sms88
May 25, 2012, 2:03:42 AM5/25/12
to
On 5/24/2012 12:47 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
> We're talking broadband and telecoms here and my "two monopolies" are
> what you find in most of the Bay Area with Comcast on cable and AT&T on
> DSL. Not the OS monopoly or windfall that Microsoft has.
You have two different cables to your house, but there are choices of
> We're talking broadband and telecoms here and my "two monopolies" are
> what you find in most of the Bay Area with Comcast on cable and AT&T on
> DSL. Not the OS monopoly or windfall that Microsoft has.
which provider to use over those cables. I.e., over the copper pair you
can have U-Verse, AT&T DSL, Sonic DSL, and several other DSL choices.
No one ever granted Microsoft the kinds of monopoly granted to the Bell
System or to the cable companies. The copper and broadband cable
infrastructure was installed basically at public expense due to the
rates they were allowed to charge captive customers.
Bhairitu
May 25, 2012, 2:59:52 PM5/25/12
to
D. Peter Maus
May 26, 2012, 11:08:39 AM5/26/12
to
monopolies. It's a matter of definition. And ONE monopoly is eventually
dethroned by competition, as the market finds alternatives. Alternative
strategies. Alternative products. Even alternative technologies.
Copper is giving way to cable and wireless. Cable is yielding ground
to wireless and satellite.
Monopolies, in a market environment are short-lived at best. Only in
a government protected environment, do monopolies exist.
Justin
May 26, 2012, 12:20:59 PM5/26/12
to
D. Peter Maus wrote on [Sat, 26 May 2012 10:08:39 -0500]:
>
> Copper is giving way to cable and wireless. Cable is yielding ground
> to wireless and satellite.
Cable is only yielding in TV, not internet and it's picking up speed in
>
> Copper is giving way to cable and wireless. Cable is yielding ground
> to wireless and satellite.
telecom
Anthony
May 28, 2012, 2:26:35 AM5/28/12
to
existing infrastructure (which seems to be second only to telephone) and
relative ease to work with, but a coaxial cable is still copper, and
will eventually max out on bandwidth, as ATT found back in the day with
their Long Lines department, which used large Coaxial cables, but just
didn't have enough bandwidth, and eventually gave way to Fiber Optics
and Satellites.
0 new messages