- This topic has 38 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 12 months ago by
kcal09.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 10, 2014 at 1:17 PM #779991November 10, 2014 at 1:19 PM #779993
CDMA ENG
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=doofrat]
If you like watching spectator sports, you won’t get that, and some content is delayed or not available, so it’s not for everyone, but with more people cutting cable, I think it’s inevitable that everything goes to streaming. IMHO complaining about Cable is like complaining about milk delivery or land line phone service, it’s an old technology that’s past it’s prime.[/quote]The problem is somebody has to build out the infrastructure to support everybody streaming. That costs a lot of money. If you cut the cord you might get a little bit ahead right now, but in the future your internet bill is going to be the same $150/mo it costs to have a bundle now. It actual costs more money to deliver everyone their own separate stream then it does to send everybody the same stream at the same time. Cord cutting only works better right now because not that many people are doing it and those that don’t are subsidizing those that do. I.e. they pay the same price for internet but use much less bandwidth.[/quote]
Ding Ding Ding…
Cali hits it right on the head!
CE
November 10, 2014 at 1:23 PM #779995FlyerInHi
GuestLandline are a waste of time.
When on a smart phone, with headsets you can do other things while talking. Clean the house, run errands… I would feel trapped sitting and holding the landline handset.
$.02 or $.10 is still money. Why pay when you get it for free?
November 10, 2014 at 1:31 PM #779997spdrun
ParticipantIf I’m having a conversation, I don’t want to have it in a store or on the street where I have to shout like a deranged maniac for all to hear.
As far as moving around one’s home, there’s always speaker phone.
November 10, 2014 at 1:45 PM #780002livinincali
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]livinincali, the US is one now one of the markets where consumers pay the highest price for internet service. I think that Canada is the most expensive.
Same goes for cell phone service.
Providers charge more because they can. I don’t think your infrastructure argument flies when compared to other countries.
[/quote]And how does that change the fact that there are a limited number of internet providers? To compete in providing broadband internet services you have to spend a lot of money. The cable companies are going to get their pound of flesh no matter what. No country’s internet infrastructure is designed to have everybody streaming 10+Mb/s. If you watch 40 hours of TV per month that’s 120GB of streaming data at HD quality. Right now most people use a couple GBs per month. You talking about a factor of 50-100x increase in internet usage.
November 10, 2014 at 2:08 PM #780008ParticipantOn the other hand, the cable firms could dump their parallel signal distribution infrastructure, which would result in some cost saving.
November 10, 2014 at 3:12 PM #780013Doofrat
ParticipantI expect prices to rise as people cut cable, but not drastically, here’s why:
First: History. Remember that when cable internet came out in the late 90s (almost 20 years ago) speeds were about 50-100 times slower than they are today, yet the price has remained about the same even though that $50-$60 you’re paying now would be even less back then. And now Google’s fiber is supposedly 50 – 100 times faster than the current infrastructure, so I think the Internet speeds will catch up to usage as it builds.
Second: Streaming is cached locally near the clients, so when you’re watching Big Bang theory or whatever through a streaming service, it’s probably coming from a caching service like Akamai and your connection is probably never leaving San Diego. It’s not travelling through the middle of America’s Internet from New York to San Diego.
Third: There’s more competition (at least for now) in Internet providers than there is in Cable providers, with more coming. In a metropolitan area, you might only have one “choice” of cable TV provider, but you can choose between several Internet providers (sure, they’re not all so great), but at least there is competition.
November 10, 2014 at 4:05 PM #780015GuestBarriers to entry.
There a patchwork of local regulation that each competitor much wade in order to enter a market.
I read that google fiber is also paying a lot more for content. And right now, content is needed so gain subscribers. Content will be less relevant in the future.
Also providers are not required to lease their connections to thr consumers thereby reducing competition.
November 10, 2014 at 6:49 PM #780016ParticipantBugger content. Just give me a big fat firehose to the content outlet of my choice.
November 10, 2014 at 11:48 PM #780017utcsox
ParticipantTime Warner customers in San Diego will get free speed boost in early 2015. Standard service (up to 15 Mbps) will increase to (up to 50 Mbps). Ultimate Plan (up to 100 Mbps) will increase to (up to 300 Mbps). More detail can be found on the link below:
November 11, 2014 at 6:45 AM #780020scaredyclassic
ParticipantKill your tv.
November 11, 2014 at 1:12 PM #780024Guest[quote=utcsox]Time Warner customers in San Diego will get free speed boost in early 2015. Standard service (up to 15 Mbps) will increase to (up to 50 Mbps). Ultimate Plan (up to 100 Mbps) will increase to (up to 300 Mbps). More detail can be found on the link below:
I think they should give the same speed to everyone. And charge more for people who use it more.
On a highway, you pay for miles driven, not speed limit.
November 11, 2014 at 1:56 PM #780026an
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=utcsox]Time Warner customers in San Diego will get free speed boost in early 2015. Standard service (up to 15 Mbps) will increase to (up to 50 Mbps). Ultimate Plan (up to 100 Mbps) will increase to (up to 300 Mbps). More detail can be found on the link below:
I think they should give the same speed to everyone. And charge more for people who use it more.
On a highway, you pay for miles driven, not speed limit.[/quote]If we do that, we’ll have slow speed like the speed limit and congestion. Some providers are already doing exactly what you’re proposing and charge extra by imposing data cap. Thanks, but no thanks.
November 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM #780027Participant[quote=AN]If we do that, we’ll have slow speed like the speed limit and congestion. Some providers are already doing exactly what you’re proposing and charge extra by imposing data cap. Thanks, but no thanks.[/quote]
I really don’t know what the correct solution is but it really boils down to who is going to pay for the infrastructure build out that is required to have the bulk of customers on a streaming model.
1) The content providers have to pay to get their content collocated near the ISP last mile hubs. I.e. Netflix is going to need to install server farms closer to it’s customers so that the ISPs can deliver the traffic down the last mile. This mean Netflix customers will pay more and the barrier to entry in the streaming market will be much higher.
2) We continue with the all you can eat model we have now and as the ISPs have to build out the infrastructure to handle the increased load and everybody pays somewhat more. In this scenario the light users are effectively subsidizing the heavy users, but it will certainly be more expensive than it is now. Maybe $100/mo, maybe more.
3) We go towards utility model where it’s heavily regulated and heavy users have to pay more than light users. This is pretty much how I expect things to end up in a Net Neutrality world with heavy government regulation.
Net neutrality sounds pretty good until you consider scenarios like this.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229585
[quote]
You may think this is of benefit to you but it is not. It is not of benefit to you because you may not want to buy Netflix service, but if this mandate is imposed you will be forced to pay for the transport of their bits over your ISPs pipe whether you buy their service or not!Now you may say “but I want Netflix so I win — and **** you!”
Ok.
Tomorrow, if this mandate is imposed, I am going to start a 50Mbps 3d-porno service that will serve up virtual pornography to you on demand. It will, of course, require very high quality Internet connections, all of which I can force to be provided over this “open Internet on which there are no tolls and no discrimination” and your bill will be forced higher to pay for my ability to get those bits to anyone who wants it, whether you subscribe to my service or not!
Still think this is a good idea?
[/quote]November 11, 2014 at 7:41 PM #780028Guestlivinincali, remember the telecom regulation regime of the 1990s? That’s what allowed the internet to develop so fast in the US vs. the rest of the world.
Back then, you could dial up and nail your connection (within the local zone) for hours.
In those days, I was traveling a lot; and overseas, it was impossible to find a cheap internet service that we enjoyed back in the States.
It was serendipity that US regulations made it possible to have unlimited local dialing. Since then, the rest of the world has caught up and surpassed the US in Internet and wireless infrastructure.
My point is that regulations have to match the goals and the technology. We just have to implement what works when the free markets won’t provide it.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.