I don’t disagree. However, given the choice between Comcast and broadband services in NL, Chatanooga, or Seoul, just to name a few, Comcast loses badly.
Choosing between Comcast and a legacy Telco is like choosing between legionnaire’s disease and SARS. Owen On May 14, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Jared Mauch <ja...@puck.nether.net> wrote: > 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? >>>
