Arative
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 3,090
- 4,828
Comcast Agrees to Buy Time Warner Cable
- Thread starter Tuco
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Without a one of the other variables changing, no. Fundamental use, cost, or funding would need to change. In some areas it might today be profitable, but not in the future.
- 17,085
- 8,089
Does that count as competition? I wouldn't put DSL and cable in the same class.
Only places I've ever known to have competition are places that Verizion decided to do FIOS, that's it. And guess what, prices are lower there!
If Comcast NEEDS government subsidies to handle next gen traffic(which I still think is bullshit), then the internet just needs to be a utility. But that won't happen(oh, wait, look, there's that corruption again). Can you guys(well, mainly Remit) please come up with arguments that aren't total shit already?
Only places I've ever known to have competition are places that Verizion decided to do FIOS, that's it. And guess what, prices are lower there!
If Comcast NEEDS government subsidies to handle next gen traffic(which I still think is bullshit), then the internet just needs to be a utility. But that won't happen(oh, wait, look, there's that corruption again). Can you guys(well, mainly Remit) please come up with arguments that aren't total shit already?
Arative
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 3,090
- 4,828
Then municipalities should be free to build their own fiber to the home networks, where they don't have to worry about profit, except the cable and phone companies are buying off politicians to prevent that from happening so they can continue to gouge their customers with inferior service.
Here is what TWC customers can expect from Comcast
]http://stopthecap.com/2014/02/13/fro...mcast-buyout/]
Noodleface
A Mod Real Quick
- 38,516
- 16,505
I've been waiting years to have a second-source option for internet/cable and haven't seen shit - you see plenty of FIOS commercials but they aren't anywhere near me. We get Comcast or nothing, and I don't live in the sticks; I live in a city.
I personally know small businesses with FTTH deployments in large cities. You don't see them due to fiber costs, not government corruption. Fiber burial subs are far more profitable.
I already covered this, but its due to customer's perceived value and cost of infrastructure (or barrier to entry). Deathwing already stated that he wouldnt compare DSL to cable, cable municipality doesnt work (shared infrastructure) and fiber is too expensive.
I have 4 competitors in a town of 800 houses due to WISPs being a viable option.
- 17,085
- 8,089
No you won't. You'll continue to make these little arguments ignorant of the overall picture. I give zero fucks if it truly does cost Comcast too much to upgrade to the next tier of infrastructure. They pissed away their profits instead of planning for the future, I have no sympathy for them. And that's exactly what you sound like when you try to explain that we'll have deal with caps, throttling, or reduced speeds...because poor wittle comcast!
And please stop using your rinky dink little town as anecdotal evidence. No one gives a fuck how a town of less than 1k gets its internet. No one cares about how my city gets its internet, and Ithaca has 100x your population.
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
13 providers available here including non-broadband options. 5 when you go to "broadband only" (2 little guys, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T) and I think a few of the small guys have started upgrading to broadband tier as well, but I'm not up on them. [Note: Not that pricing has gotten much better with the competition - they're definitely complicit on what they charge with each other or something - moving the FL soon and with the SAME provider we'll be paying half as much after the move just because of the region change]
I dont care about Comcast. You seem to be missing the point that nobody cares about YOU since you have some of the best infrastructure in the nation.
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
So maybe some local governments are corrupt? Again tons of providers in Maryland. Maybe not in the general know of people (I talk to many people that only know of VZ and Comcast as options) but they're certainly available if you know to look.
BTW Remit: You never answered if you happen to be with QIS? I'm guessing not, but the "meeting" coinciding with his is interesting. (I seriously doubt it though after your mention of your area, Westminster was bigger than that 20-30 years ago)
BTW Remit: You never answered if you happen to be with QIS? I'm guessing not, but the "meeting" coinciding with his is interesting. (I seriously doubt it though after your mention of your area, Westminster was bigger than that 20-30 years ago)
Sorry I missed that part. No, I am not with QIS. I am by no means an expert, but I do have a better understanding of the internet than 99% of posters, so I figured I would finally speak my piece. I've lived in large cities and had cable and bitched about it constantly. And then I started an ISP, and realized it isnt as easy as it seems. My data is anecdotal, but I am in touch with providers all over the country.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 49,096
- 85,993
Let's keep this discussion civil. There's no reason for Remit to come in here and try to defend ISPs, he's just offering his opinion and information.
From what I can tell he's looking at it the same way any ISP would look at it: profitability for the business.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Businesses are run to make a profit. However in a field where competition is stifled by such a large entrance free to provide service there's a huge barrier to prevent someone from entering the field with a lower-profit model and stealing all the old dinosaur's customers. This results in ISPs maximizing quarterly profits by minimizing the infrastructure improvement they give because there's no pressure for them to do so.
I have something like $50 a month 30mb down service from AT&T and I'm very happy with it, but I still hope that technology improvements, competition shifts and federal requirements pressure ISPs to make the infrastructure upgrades necessary to get at least 100mb down service.
From what I can tell he's looking at it the same way any ISP would look at it: profitability for the business.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Businesses are run to make a profit. However in a field where competition is stifled by such a large entrance free to provide service there's a huge barrier to prevent someone from entering the field with a lower-profit model and stealing all the old dinosaur's customers. This results in ISPs maximizing quarterly profits by minimizing the infrastructure improvement they give because there's no pressure for them to do so.
I have something like $50 a month 30mb down service from AT&T and I'm very happy with it, but I still hope that technology improvements, competition shifts and federal requirements pressure ISPs to make the infrastructure upgrades necessary to get at least 100mb down service.
- 17,085
- 8,089
How is my infrastructure the best in the nation? I pay $70/month for a 30/5. I think that's below average for the nation and certainly poor compared to other nations.
You imply sympathy for Comcast and other ISPs when your only answers are dealing with restrictions on our bandwidth instead of fixing the problems. This is like the RIAA crying foul about people downloading music, and you come in here saying we're just going to have to pay more for music!
I guess you missed where I proposed the only solutions that I can see. And no, one of them was not "less corruption"
Anything beyond what I have posted is going to be pulling numbers out of a hat, which is exactly what I will do right now. 30/5 for $70 is what I would consider right in line with a sustainable pricing tier for an area of 50k-500k population with possibility of upgrades within a 3-5 year time frame.
Also, national averages and speed test results mean nothing. Smaller ISPs are much more guilty of this, but TONS of ISPs burst speed tests, hijack DNS queries of "speed test" to local servers, or recommend that you use their internal server for speed testing. Internal speeds are easy to fix and you can make them look way higher than they actually are. Upstream could be way oversold but traffic to the edge looks great.
Also, national averages and speed test results mean nothing. Smaller ISPs are much more guilty of this, but TONS of ISPs burst speed tests, hijack DNS queries of "speed test" to local servers, or recommend that you use their internal server for speed testing. Internal speeds are easy to fix and you can make them look way higher than they actually are. Upstream could be way oversold but traffic to the edge looks great.
- 17,085
- 8,089
I refuse to believe that. There's no way most of the world beats us on internet speeds and pricing and it's ALL just because of government subsidies. He's basing way too much on his bumfuck town. What's more simple, infrastructure just conveniently costs too much to upgrade(btw, what's the rule for technology costs as time increases?) or greedy corporations just being dicks?
And yes, there is a reason for him to defend ISPs, he runs one. You wouldn't defend whatever company you work for? Or if I started shit talking robot programmers?