Owen, I've seen a vast difference between Comcast and others in the "marketplace". Right now, if I had the choice between Comcast and a "legacy" telco, I would pick Comcast hands-down for:
a) performance b) IPv6 support c) willingness to work on issues - Jared On May 14, 2014, at 5:14 PM, McElearney, Kevin <kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate "sound bite" > > - Kevin > > 215-313-1083 > >> On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> >> Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new >> ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in upgrades >> or additional buildout any more than absolutely necessary. >> >> Owen >> >> On May 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Hugo Slabbert <h...@slabnet.com> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart >>>>> competition any way they can. >>> No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources of >>>> revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets and >>>> aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin). >>> >>> Sure they are (seeking new sources of revenue). They're not necessarily >>> creating new products or services, i.e. actually adding any value, but they >>> are finding ways to extract additional revenue from the same pipes, e.g. >>> through paid peering with content providers. >>> >>> I'm not endorsing this; just pointing out that you two are actually in >>> agreement here. >>> >>> -- >>> Hugo >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:23 AM, <char...@thefnf.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2014-05-14 02:04, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote: >>>>> >>>>> They have the money. They have the ability to get more money. *They see >>>>>> no reason to spend money making customers happy.* They can make more >>>>>> profit without it. >>>>> >>>>> There is the issue of control over the market. But also the pressure >>>>> from shareholders for continued growth. >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes. That is true. Except that it's not. >>>> >>>> How do service providers grow? Let's explore that: >>>> >>>> What is growth for a transit provider? >>>> >>>> More (new) access network(s) (connections). >>>> More bandwidth across backbone pipes. >>>> >>>> >>>> What is growth for access network? >>>> More subscribers. >>>> >>>> Except that the incumbent carriers have shown they have no interest in >>>> providing decent bandwidth to anywhere but the most profitable rate >>>> centers. I'd say about 2/3 of the USA is served with quite terrible access. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> The problem with the internet is that while it had promises of wild >>>>> growth in the 90s and 00s, once penetration reaches a certain level, >>>>> growth stabilizes. >>>> >>>> Penetration is ABYSMAL sir. Huge swaths of underserved americans exist. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> When you combine this with threath to large incumbents's media and media >>>>> distribution endeavours by the likes of Netflix (and cat videos on >>>>> Youtube), large incumbents start thinking about how they will be able to >>>>> continue to grow revenus/profits when customers will shift spending to >>>>> vspecialty channels/cableTV to Netflix and customer growth will not >>>>> compensate. >>>> >>>> Except they aren't. Even in the most profitable rate centers, they've >>>> declined to really invest in the networks. They aren't a real business. You >>>> have to remember that. They have regulatory capture, natural/defacto >>>> monopoly etc etc. They don't operate in the real world of >>>> risk/reward/profit/loss/uncertainty like any other real business has to. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart >>>>> competition any way they can. >>>> >>>> No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources of >>>> revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets and >>>> aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin). They did >>>> a bit of an advertising campaign of "smart home" offerings, but that seems >>>> to have never grown beyond a pilot. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> The current trend is to "if you can't fight them, jon them" where >>>>> cablecos start to include the Netflix app into their proprietary set-top >>>>> boxes. The idea is that you at least make the customer continue to use >>>>> your box and your remote control which makes it easier for them to >>>>> switch between netflix and legacy TV. >>>> True. I don't know why one of the cablecos hasn't licensed roku, added >>>> cable card and made that available as a "hip/cool" set top box offering and >>>> charge another 10.00 a month on top of the standard dvr rental. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Would be interesting to see if those cable companies that are agreeing >>>>> to add the Netflix app onto their proprietary STBs also play peering >>>>> capacity games to degrade the service or not. >>>> >>>> So how is the content delivered? Is it over the internet? Or is it over >>>> the cable plant, from cable headends? >>
