Comcast Agrees to Buy Time Warner Cable

Remit_sl said:

The old target the 5% who use 95% is dead. That is what caps used to hit, the torrenters and useneters of the old internet. Now you would be hitting 40+% of your customers, and I think that is just bad for business.

Click to expand...

Many people far more tech saavy than I including at least one retired Google engineer (she wanted to raise the kids in Boston, not Cali - so is part of some other internet projects now) and plenty of MIT grads that are in various internet related fields consider your thoughts to be "full of shit" on the topic, just as an FYI.

To quote her primarily, and she was just at a massive conference on the subject within the past few weeks in/near DC - 95% of traffic is still pretty much a handful of people still, below 5% - because while the average consumption has gone up the highend users have gone up pretty much in line with it and the old number was inflated anyhow and was closer to 2-3% that was consuming previously. Additionally due to who provides what and how the cost structure works out including TAX BREAKS the idea that we're remotely near the point where throttling is sensible or anything is horseshit - sure it's not a 10000% profit anymore and closer to 500% profit on traffic, but that's still an astronomic profit on being nothing but a "gateway service".

Edit Addition: She added something else to FB as I finished up relaying - we do have to worry about hitting a cap eventually but with current market growth of consumption and CURRENT TECH available assuming everyone upgraded properly you're looking at about 20 years for your worries to become a thing. It's not impossible it's a problem for YOU because your supplier is being cheap about upgrading to try to gouge YOU and indirectly your customers by proxy. This is not indicative of the system as a whole.
Hell, to quote her on your concept that "Google Fiber isn't sustainable nationwide" - Google fiber is only a SLIGHT loss for Google at this point besides the install costs which they mostly swallow - the actual service costs are close to breaking even at this point with how things have started to adjust as of the last few months, and due to the basic infrastructure costs might actually just be a matter of getting a larger installed base (didn't think to ask her how much of the current loss is because of the core infrastructure costs - just theorizing that myself here...). There's no math out there that supports that it can't occur with appropriate hardware upgrades throughout the system - hell the servers she's working with these days are supposed to increase traffic managed by a factor of 100 or something ridiculous like that.

The biggest issue I have with bandwidth caps and throttling is that companies like comcast are stifling competition with them in favor of their own services, which proves that the bandwidth caps and throttling are just bullshit excuses to charge customers more and stop people from using rival services. That's why we need true net neutrality in this country.

The other issue is cable and phone companies buying off state and local politicians to enact laws that will prevent municipalities from building their own fiber networks. You can see this in North Carolina and now Kansas. Laws in North Carolina go so far as to limit down to the street level where municipal owned networks can service customers. That's completely anti-competitive.

Time Warner Cable Monopoly Protection Act Heads to North Carolina Governor | community broadband networks

But then there are places like Tenn, where a community owned fiber network is connecting people with 1gbps connections. So it can be done and cost effectively
Connected Tennessee Notes 5.3% of State Now Has Access to 1Gbps Broadband, Thanks to EPB Fiber | Stop the Cap!

Vaclav_sl said:

Many people far more tech saavy than I including at least one retired Google engineer (she wanted to raise the kids in Boston, not Cali - so is part of some other internet projects now) and plenty of MIT grads that are in various internet related fields consider your thoughts to be "full of shit" on the topic, just as an FYI.

Click to expand...

Did you even read what you posted? Nice percentages and contradictions though

That google saying it will bring 10gigabit in 3 years.

BrutulTM_sl said:

I don't know shit about this stuff, but I do know there are still tons of people subscribing to the internet and doing next to nothing with it. Pretty much everyone I know over 40 just uses facebook and literally nothing else or maybe Facebook and Gmail. I was talking to a guy yesterday that has cable internet just so he can download books to his kindle. He doesn't even have a damn computer. I told him that he could just go to Starbucks or McDonald's or something and do that but he doesn't know how and is afraid of screwing something up (he's in his 60s). Younger folks are using shitloads of Netflix but I know plenty of people that could probably get by with a 2 gig cap including my mother and grandmother.

I also think a lot of torrent people wouldn't download half the shit that they do if it cost them something. I know people with 30,000 songs and more movies stored on hard drives than they could ever watch. It's some sort of sick data hoarding and has nothing to do with how much content they actually consume.

Click to expand...

This is true to a point. Most customers over 40 are not heavy users. However, as soon as they buy that new smart TV, they still stream 4+ hours a day.

Harfle_sl said:

That google saying it will bring 10gigabit in 3 years.

Click to expand...

They already brought it. Still wont be profitable though.

Government money, IE tax breaks and grants, will be given to rural broadband expansion in the future, not bringing city folk 1Gbps upgrades to 10Gbps. Just because Google can doesnt mean ANYONE else will, or that Google will do it in more than a handful of cities. I'm in a meeting right now with the FCC on broadband expansion funding.

Target speeds for application are network communities without ubiquitous 3Mbps down/768kbps up today. This is SLOWER than the last round in 2011 of funding which was shooting for 4Mbps down/1Mbps up.

Remit_sl said:

Did you even read what you posted? Nice percentages and contradictions though

Click to expand...

I was relaying - its possible I glitched something but on a basic glance over it and FB not seeing a contradiction in what I was relaying. I do sometimes use odd phrasings myself and put in clauses and the like that do confuse others, grammar is not a strong suit of mine in the least. [And keep in mind she's been involved with internet work since before most of us had heard of it - she was at MIT working on her engineering degree that she applies to internet work 30 years ago now... so while you might not think those profit margins she threw out (like as "quick and dirty numbers") are legitimate she's likely referencing a MUCH larger window than you are]

She's been with Google, British Telecom and now the IETF working on the internet backbone itself to some degree the entire time - it's possible I misphrased something there or put a number grammatically backwards from what I'm relaying but someone deep on the inside definitely considers your worries to be something that's a "far down the line, assuming communication tech doesn't continue to improve" thing not a "OMG this has to be done today! Tech isn't keeping up!" thing like you're trying to claim.

It's a potential worry much further down the line IF tech tops out. And AVERAGE consumption is up but not to any degree that is unsustainable - while there's still a pocket few that use drastically more than the rest even with all the improvements that occurred.

I've got the feeling you, as a micro-ISP or equivalent, are seeing a very select market and not realizing what the effect your small market actually means in the real world of the internet as a whole and assuming your customer base of 0.01% or less of America (frankly likely needs many more 0's) is indicative of general use. I'm sure if I check with our local micro-ISPs that their numbers would be off as well, because due to their nature they're not going to appeal to the mass market. The random grandmother than wants a huge pipe to just do emails isn't going to go hunting around with solo providers, she's going to go with her TV provider.

As a niche market you're going to get the more hardcore users by and far, because the benefits of going with a Micro-ISP only really apply to the hardcore by and far.

Vaclav_sl said:

I was relaying - its possible I glitched something but on a basic glance over it and FB not seeing a contradiction in what I was relaying. I do sometimes use odd phrasings myself and put in clauses and the like that do confuse others, grammar is not a strong suit of mine in the least. [And keep in mind she's been involved with internet work since before most of us had heard of it - she was at MIT working on her engineering degree that she applies to internet work 30 years ago now... so while you might not think those profit margins she threw out (like as "quick and dirty numbers") are legitimate she's likely referencing a MUCH larger window than you are]

She's been with Google, British Telecom and now the IETF working on the internet backbone itself to some degree the entire time - it's possible I misphrased something there or put a number grammatically backwards from what I'm relaying but someone deep on the inside definitely considers your worries to be something that's a "far down the line, assuming communication tech doesn't continue to improve" thing not a "OMG this has to be done today! Tech isn't keeping up!" thing like you're trying to claim.

It's a potential worry much further down the line IF tech tops out. And AVERAGE consumption is up but not to any degree that is unsustainable - while there's still a pocket few that use drastically more than the rest even with all the improvements that occurred.

I've got the feeling you, as a micro-ISP or equivalent, are seeing a very select market and not realizing what the effect your small market actually means in the real world of the internet as a whole and assuming your customer base of 0.01% or less of America (frankly likely needs many more 0's) is indicative of general use. I'm sure if I check with our local micro-ISPs that their numbers would be off as well, because due to their nature they're not going to appeal to the mass market. The random grandmother than wants a huge pipe to just do emails isn't going to go hunting around with solo providers, she's going to go with her TV provider.

As a niche market you're going to get the more hardcore users by and far, because the benefits of going with a Micro-ISP only really apply to the hardcore by and far.

Click to expand...

She is using oversell ratios as profit margins and saying that if you just "eat the cost of infrastructure" anything is possible. No shit.

The technology is not the problem. The problem is a change in usage of the average user causing a reduction of oversell ratio, with customer ignorance to the increase in costs involved with this change.

As a "micro-ISP", of course my data is anecdotal. However, it is in no means niche. WISP carriers are the standard in rural America. I also talk with much much larger ISPs on a daily basis (some of whom are even non ILEC FTTH carriers). My points still stand.

BrutulTM_sl said:

I also think a lot of torrent people wouldn't download half the shit that they do if it cost them something. I know people with 30,000 songs and more movies stored on hard drives than they could ever watch. It's some sort of sick data hoarding and has nothing to do with how much content they actually consume.

Click to expand...

I used to do that, I have cut that shit out though. I would download crazy shit just because it was there so why not. I think maybe that had something to do with it being relatively new. About 10 years ago it was a new thing and everything was interesting. Now there are niches serving every type of person.

Cad_sl said:

My parents have Fios and do nothing but email and light browsing. They also subscribe to all the movie networks and DVR their content. They use shit for bandwidth on the internet. I'm sure for every power user there are 20 of her.

Click to expand...

Of course there are users like your parents. That is the only reason that you can have $50 internet. The point is these customers are reducing at a staggering rate. See 100:1 to 4:1. Huge Huge ILECs probably can get away with 10:1, but that happened over a period of 3 years.

EDIT: And nobody reply with insider info on what Google's FTTH oversell is. It doesnt fucking apply and you know it.

Remit_sl said:

She is using oversell ratios as profit margins and saying that if you just "eat the cost of infrastructure" anything is possible. No shit.

The technology is not the problem. The problem is a change in usage of the average user causing a reduction of oversell ratio, with customer ignorance to the increase in costs involved with this change.

As a "micro-ISP", of course my data is anecdotal. However, it is in no means niche. WISP carriers are the standard in rural America. I also talk with much much larger ISPs on a daily basis (some of whom are even non ILEC FTTH carriers). My points still stand.

Click to expand...

Saying it is the standard in rural areas is by definition saying it is a niche market.

I really, really doubt what you're saying about the average using streaming 10 hours of streaming content per day. I have three young kids and my wife is a stay at home mom, and I'm betting we cap out at maybe 5 on high volume days. And we are definitely not the average user. Other people in my neighborhood do light browsing and email, like Cad said about his parents. And they pay an outrageous amount for their cable, because more channels brah. I would be absolutely shocked if Verizon wasn't printing money in the DC area. Shocked to the point that the only explanation could be mismanagement.

chaos_sl said:

Saying it is the standard in rural areas is by definition saying it is a niche market.

Click to expand...

While I could accept this, since we are discussing cost of infrastructure, I think 90% of America is probably statistically significant.

chaos_sl said:

I really, really doubt what you're saying about the average using streaming 10 hours of streaming content per day. I have three young kids and my wife is a stay at home mom, and I'm betting we cap out at maybe 5 on high volume days. And we are definitely not the average user. Other people in my neighborhood do light browsing and email, like Cad said about his parents. And they pay an outrageous amount for their cable, because more channels brah. I would be absolutely shocked if Verizon wasn't printing money in the DC area. Shocked to the point that the only explanation could be mismanagement.

Click to expand...

So what is keeping further competition out of comcast's footprint, instead of just building FTTH as Verizon did in your area? After all, print money. The whole point of this thread is null.

We are talking about servicing population. Less than 20% of the population is a niche. Really that number is much less considering how many have access to other means of broadband.

chaos_sl said:

We are talking about servicing population. Less than 20% of the population is a niche. Really that number is much less considering how many have access to other means of broadband.

Click to expand...

I would say its 10%, and obviously the most expensive to serve. Nobody, including the government and competitors, cares that city folk are unhappy with their service. Nobody is building to you, because it is too expensive for what you expect, because you already have the best infrastructure in the country.

Remit_sl said:

So what is keeping further competition out of comcast's footprint, instead of just building FTTH as Verizon did in your area? After all, print money. The whole point of this thread is null.

Click to expand...

Don't be a shit. Maybe if other companies had their infrastructure subsidized by state and local governments in the way that Verizon did they would find it easier to put out their own infrastructure. The infrastructure is an investment, which was paid for in part by taxpayers. I really don't understand what your point is with that.