This is AWFUL
Feb 14th 2014, 7:46 pm
#31
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Dixie, ex UK
Posts: 52,442
Re: This is AWFUL
Well you, I and Google know that ain't gonna happen. YouTube is 99.9% utter crap, and Google might as well shut YouTube down if they "needed" to charge for it. Paying for cable TV is one thing, but nobody in their right mind would pay for YouTube.
Feb 14th 2014, 7:52 pm
#32
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2011
Location: "LA LA Land"
Posts: 2,448
Re: This is AWFUL
http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...et?CMP=ema_565
Note the comments from Netflix.
Note the comments from Netflix.
Horrorshow
And note this:
http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/usa
Note Time Warner standing on the graph
then....
Note Comcast's
so do we rise to the top...or sink to the buffering bottom?
Feb 15th 2014, 9:03 am
#33
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 13,110
Re: This is AWFUL
I'm completely disgusted with what I have to pay for cable service (data and tv/content), and I'm actively exploring alternatives such as netflix, Hulu, etc.
What seems to make most sense to me, from a consumer and business perspective, is to have 'data transport' companies that do nothing but install and maintain the basic networking infrastructure, and then have completely separate 'content providers' that provide the content you desire. Thus, you would pay $x per month for 'y megabits per sec' (which could be metered or flat rate, as suits the vendor), and then you would pay '$z per month for HBO, or a sports package, or whatever.
In this model, the 'transport' guys have no interest in 'what' they are carrying - data is data - and they are just billing you on what you use. It's that 'usage' that costs them money anyway - if everyone in your street starts streaming high def movies, they're going to saturate that network segment and need to upgrade it, which costs them money - so I don't see any problem with paying for metered service. The local transport companies will in turn have to pay 'national backbone' carriers and they would be metered at the interconnects.
In my mind, there are a lot of parallels to the electric power delivery system. In the 'old days', the local utility installed and maintained the physical infrastructure (the power lines in your street), AND generated the power you consumed. Nowadays, the local utilities have been forced to open their 'networks' to other 'providers', so you can buy power from 'wind farm x' and have it brought to your house by your local utility. The local utility either charges the provider, or you, for the 'use' of their facilities.
Whether we will trend towards what I'm suggesting remains to be seen ...
What seems to make most sense to me, from a consumer and business perspective, is to have 'data transport' companies that do nothing but install and maintain the basic networking infrastructure, and then have completely separate 'content providers' that provide the content you desire. Thus, you would pay $x per month for 'y megabits per sec' (which could be metered or flat rate, as suits the vendor), and then you would pay '$z per month for HBO, or a sports package, or whatever.
In this model, the 'transport' guys have no interest in 'what' they are carrying - data is data - and they are just billing you on what you use. It's that 'usage' that costs them money anyway - if everyone in your street starts streaming high def movies, they're going to saturate that network segment and need to upgrade it, which costs them money - so I don't see any problem with paying for metered service. The local transport companies will in turn have to pay 'national backbone' carriers and they would be metered at the interconnects.
In my mind, there are a lot of parallels to the electric power delivery system. In the 'old days', the local utility installed and maintained the physical infrastructure (the power lines in your street), AND generated the power you consumed. Nowadays, the local utilities have been forced to open their 'networks' to other 'providers', so you can buy power from 'wind farm x' and have it brought to your house by your local utility. The local utility either charges the provider, or you, for the 'use' of their facilities.
Whether we will trend towards what I'm suggesting remains to be seen ...
Feb 18th 2014, 5:48 pm
#34
Grumpy Know-it-all
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 8,928
Re: This is AWFUL
How it would work is that Google would get charged, but they've got to pass that charge on somehow. Perhaps not on a subscription basis but on some basis they'll have to.
Feb 18th 2014, 5:54 pm
#35
Grumpy Know-it-all
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 8,928
Re: This is AWFUL
What seems to make most sense to me, from a consumer and business perspective, is to have 'data transport' companies that do nothing but install and maintain the basic networking infrastructure, and then have completely separate 'content providers' that provide the content you desire. Thus, you would pay $x per month for 'y megabits per sec' (which could be metered or flat rate, as suits the vendor), and then you would pay '$z per month for HBO, or a sports package, or whatever.
So given that Hulu was a failure, Part A of the plan to screw-you-over was to get the net neutrality regulations overturned, which they have now done, thereby allowing them to charge content providers such as Netflix to use their network. Part B is to take over the network thereby maximizing profits and creating a monopoly situation, which is why they want to take over Time-Warner.
So who has the most network wins, from the standpoint of being a shareholder. And I'm a Comcast shareholder.
They aren't just going to let you cancel your cable/satellite and pay Netflix $8 a month for content.
Feb 18th 2014, 11:53 pm
#36
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 872
Re: This is AWFUL
Advertisers reportedly paid Google about $5.6B for YouTube ads last year - Google isn't just going to shut that down. Comcast will try and do a deal for some of that revenue in return for giving YouTube good QoS through its network.
Feb 19th 2014, 12:20 am
#37
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: West Sussex - did 3 years in the US...
Posts: 577
Re: This is AWFUL
I'm completely disgusted with what I have to pay for cable service (data and tv/content), and I'm actively exploring alternatives such as netflix, Hulu, etc.
What seems to make most sense to me, from a consumer and business perspective, is to have 'data transport' companies that do nothing but install and maintain the basic networking infrastructure, and then have completely separate 'content providers' that provide the content you desire. Thus, you would pay $x per month for 'y megabits per sec' (which could be metered or flat rate, as suits the vendor), and then you would pay '$z per month for HBO, or a sports package, or whatever.
In this model, the 'transport' guys have no interest in 'what' they are carrying - data is data - and they are just billing you on what you use. It's that 'usage' that costs them money anyway - if everyone in your street starts streaming high def movies, they're going to saturate that network segment and need to upgrade it, which costs them money - so I don't see any problem with paying for metered service. The local transport companies will in turn have to pay 'national backbone' carriers and they would be metered at the interconnects.
In my mind, there are a lot of parallels to the electric power delivery system. In the 'old days', the local utility installed and maintained the physical infrastructure (the power lines in your street), AND generated the power you consumed. Nowadays, the local utilities have been forced to open their 'networks' to other 'providers', so you can buy power from 'wind farm x' and have it brought to your house by your local utility. The local utility either charges the provider, or you, for the 'use' of their facilities.
Whether we will trend towards what I'm suggesting remains to be seen ...
What seems to make most sense to me, from a consumer and business perspective, is to have 'data transport' companies that do nothing but install and maintain the basic networking infrastructure, and then have completely separate 'content providers' that provide the content you desire. Thus, you would pay $x per month for 'y megabits per sec' (which could be metered or flat rate, as suits the vendor), and then you would pay '$z per month for HBO, or a sports package, or whatever.
In this model, the 'transport' guys have no interest in 'what' they are carrying - data is data - and they are just billing you on what you use. It's that 'usage' that costs them money anyway - if everyone in your street starts streaming high def movies, they're going to saturate that network segment and need to upgrade it, which costs them money - so I don't see any problem with paying for metered service. The local transport companies will in turn have to pay 'national backbone' carriers and they would be metered at the interconnects.
In my mind, there are a lot of parallels to the electric power delivery system. In the 'old days', the local utility installed and maintained the physical infrastructure (the power lines in your street), AND generated the power you consumed. Nowadays, the local utilities have been forced to open their 'networks' to other 'providers', so you can buy power from 'wind farm x' and have it brought to your house by your local utility. The local utility either charges the provider, or you, for the 'use' of their facilities.
Whether we will trend towards what I'm suggesting remains to be seen ...
The problem is that the transport side is becoming commodity and no-one is making any money at a time when vast levels of investment are needed.
Look at BT - they think it will take twice as much again simply to put broadband into the last 20% of under or un-served locations as it did to serve the rest. And this is at a time when broadband prices are dropping rapidly. Most countries are investing public money into their national infrastructure - either directly through nationalisation or through tax breaks and grants as in the UK.
The US isn't. The Broadband America forum was put-on-hold, and there is a belief that market-driven competition will provide service. This failed massively with telephone and electricity in the US where the basic networks are extraordinarily fragile (the power grid especially so) - there is no reason to believe that it will work for broadband. But there is a strong ideological element that has failed to rationalise that other countries are prepared to invest and do understand long-term returns on infrastructure (the UK is not one of those really.....) and it will be America's loss.
Meantime, expect to pay way over the odds for pis*-poor service from broadband providers using out-of-date technology installed to very poor standards (slung up in the air mostly where it can be blown around and break).
You should also look at the investment models of Huawei (not allowed to operate in the US) and ZTE in terms of LTE roll-out - rather than just selling equipment to networks, they operate an invest/operate model whereby they sign 30-year concessions with national governments to build and run country-wide 4G networks. This leaves operators free to provide competing "services" but all on one infrastructure. In Africa, it has lead to rapid 4G roll-out - in Europe, it's helped to clear the blight caused by multiple transmission masts which have been strongly contested, especially in rural areas where there are an eyesore and depress house prices.
Again, the US believes itself to be immune from this because a) the US manufacturers have an advantage in the home market b) the financing of US companies is such that they can't plan 3 months ahead, let alone 30 years.
Feb 19th 2014, 12:47 am
#38
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Dixie, ex UK
Posts: 52,442
Re: This is AWFUL
That was the subtext to my point, that everybody loses if YouTube gets whacked, and there is enough money at stake that deals will be done to keep YouTube free for the viewer, otherwise Comcast would be left with no fee income from a shut-down YouTube.
Last edited by Pulaski; Feb 19th 2014 at 12:53 am.
Feb 19th 2014, 1:09 am
#39
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Re: This is AWFUL
Yes - this makes a lot of sense and is effectively the system that exists in most other places of the world.
The problem is that the transport side is becoming commodity and no-one is making any money at a time when vast levels of investment are needed.
Look at BT - they think it will take twice as much again simply to put broadband into the last 20% of under or un-served locations as it did to serve the rest. And this is at a time when broadband prices are dropping rapidly. Most countries are investing public money into their national infrastructure - either directly through nationalisation or through tax breaks and grants as in the UK.
The US isn't. The Broadband America forum was put-on-hold, and there is a belief that market-driven competition will provide service. This failed massively with telephone and electricity in the US where the basic networks are extraordinarily fragile (the power grid especially so) - there is no reason to believe that it will work for broadband. But there is a strong ideological element that has failed to rationalise that other countries are prepared to invest and do understand long-term returns on infrastructure (the UK is not one of those really.....) and it will be America's loss.
Meantime, expect to pay way over the odds for pis*-poor service from broadband providers using out-of-date technology installed to very poor standards (slung up in the air mostly where it can be blown around and break).
You should also look at the investment models of Huawei (not allowed to operate in the US) and ZTE in terms of LTE roll-out - rather than just selling equipment to networks, they operate an invest/operate model whereby they sign 30-year concessions with national governments to build and run country-wide 4G networks. This leaves operators free to provide competing "services" but all on one infrastructure. In Africa, it has lead to rapid 4G roll-out - in Europe, it's helped to clear the blight caused by multiple transmission masts which have been strongly contested, especially in rural areas where there are an eyesore and depress house prices.
Again, the US believes itself to be immune from this because a) the US manufacturers have an advantage in the home market b) the financing of US companies is such that they can't plan 3 months ahead, let alone 30 years.
The problem is that the transport side is becoming commodity and no-one is making any money at a time when vast levels of investment are needed.
Look at BT - they think it will take twice as much again simply to put broadband into the last 20% of under or un-served locations as it did to serve the rest. And this is at a time when broadband prices are dropping rapidly. Most countries are investing public money into their national infrastructure - either directly through nationalisation or through tax breaks and grants as in the UK.
The US isn't. The Broadband America forum was put-on-hold, and there is a belief that market-driven competition will provide service. This failed massively with telephone and electricity in the US where the basic networks are extraordinarily fragile (the power grid especially so) - there is no reason to believe that it will work for broadband. But there is a strong ideological element that has failed to rationalise that other countries are prepared to invest and do understand long-term returns on infrastructure (the UK is not one of those really.....) and it will be America's loss.
Meantime, expect to pay way over the odds for pis*-poor service from broadband providers using out-of-date technology installed to very poor standards (slung up in the air mostly where it can be blown around and break).
You should also look at the investment models of Huawei (not allowed to operate in the US) and ZTE in terms of LTE roll-out - rather than just selling equipment to networks, they operate an invest/operate model whereby they sign 30-year concessions with national governments to build and run country-wide 4G networks. This leaves operators free to provide competing "services" but all on one infrastructure. In Africa, it has lead to rapid 4G roll-out - in Europe, it's helped to clear the blight caused by multiple transmission masts which have been strongly contested, especially in rural areas where there are an eyesore and depress house prices.
Again, the US believes itself to be immune from this because a) the US manufacturers have an advantage in the home market b) the financing of US companies is such that they can't plan 3 months ahead, let alone 30 years.
Feb 19th 2014, 9:01 am
#40
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 13,110
Re: This is AWFUL
Yes - this makes a lot of sense and is effectively the system that exists in most other places of the world.
The problem is that the transport side is becoming commodity and no-one is making any money at a time when vast levels of investment are needed.
Look at BT - they think it will take twice as much again simply to put broadband into the last 20% of under or un-served locations as it did to serve the rest. And this is at a time when broadband prices are dropping rapidly. Most countries are investing public money into their national infrastructure - either directly through nationalisation or through tax breaks and grants as in the UK.
The US isn't. The Broadband America forum was put-on-hold, and there is a belief that market-driven competition will provide service. This failed massively with telephone and electricity in the US where the basic networks are extraordinarily fragile (the power grid especially so) - there is no reason to believe that it will work for broadband. But there is a strong ideological element that has failed to rationalise that other countries are prepared to invest and do understand long-term returns on infrastructure (the UK is not one of those really.....) and it will be America's loss.
Meantime, expect to pay way over the odds for pis*-poor service from broadband providers using out-of-date technology installed to very poor standards (slung up in the air mostly where it can be blown around and break).
You should also look at the investment models of Huawei (not allowed to operate in the US) and ZTE in terms of LTE roll-out - rather than just selling equipment to networks, they operate an invest/operate model whereby they sign 30-year concessions with national governments to build and run country-wide 4G networks. This leaves operators free to provide competing "services" but all on one infrastructure. In Africa, it has lead to rapid 4G roll-out - in Europe, it's helped to clear the blight caused by multiple transmission masts which have been strongly contested, especially in rural areas where there are an eyesore and depress house prices.
Again, the US believes itself to be immune from this because a) the US manufacturers have an advantage in the home market b) the financing of US companies is such that they can't plan 3 months ahead, let alone 30 years.
The problem is that the transport side is becoming commodity and no-one is making any money at a time when vast levels of investment are needed.
Look at BT - they think it will take twice as much again simply to put broadband into the last 20% of under or un-served locations as it did to serve the rest. And this is at a time when broadband prices are dropping rapidly. Most countries are investing public money into their national infrastructure - either directly through nationalisation or through tax breaks and grants as in the UK.
The US isn't. The Broadband America forum was put-on-hold, and there is a belief that market-driven competition will provide service. This failed massively with telephone and electricity in the US where the basic networks are extraordinarily fragile (the power grid especially so) - there is no reason to believe that it will work for broadband. But there is a strong ideological element that has failed to rationalise that other countries are prepared to invest and do understand long-term returns on infrastructure (the UK is not one of those really.....) and it will be America's loss.
Meantime, expect to pay way over the odds for pis*-poor service from broadband providers using out-of-date technology installed to very poor standards (slung up in the air mostly where it can be blown around and break).
You should also look at the investment models of Huawei (not allowed to operate in the US) and ZTE in terms of LTE roll-out - rather than just selling equipment to networks, they operate an invest/operate model whereby they sign 30-year concessions with national governments to build and run country-wide 4G networks. This leaves operators free to provide competing "services" but all on one infrastructure. In Africa, it has lead to rapid 4G roll-out - in Europe, it's helped to clear the blight caused by multiple transmission masts which have been strongly contested, especially in rural areas where there are an eyesore and depress house prices.
Again, the US believes itself to be immune from this because a) the US manufacturers have an advantage in the home market b) the financing of US companies is such that they can't plan 3 months ahead, let alone 30 years.
With technology changing so rapidly, I can imagine companies are very wary of big investments when that investment could be rendered obsolete by some new technology - this is an area of extensive R&D. And for that reason, I'm not sure if the government can play a meaningful role, other than by setting standards of service and regulating costs.
I do appreciate that any company providing network access to a residential home needs to be able to recoup their costs. But the 'network transport' providers (eg, Comcast) already charge me $50/mo for that service, so it's not clear to me whey they are also wanting to charge content providers for the right to travel over their networks (I understand the 'greed'/competition aspect; I'm wondering if they have any other semi-legitimate arguments).
One thing is very clear to me - the 'network' is going to be king in the future. As more and more services move away from 'on premise' to 'in the cloud', the reliance on high quality, high capacity networks is growing rapidly and is the one thing that no one can get rid of. I've been doing some small-business consulting of late, and these days, small businesses no longer want (or need) on premise phone systems, file servers, mail servers, etc. You can locate just about everything in the cloud, but to access it, you must have solid and fast internet access.
Feb 19th 2014, 9:11 am
#41
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 13,110
Re: This is AWFUL
I find YouTube to be surprisingly useful and entertaining. Want to watch that episode of 'Mork and Mindy' where he said (something)? Simply google it and then watch it on You Tube. Want to see Simon and Garfunkel sing 'Sounds of Silence'? It's on YouTube. What does the hike down into the Grand Canyon look like? What does the road from Reno, NV to Bishop, CA look like? How do I fix a leaking valve under my sink? How do I replace the battery in my iPhone? ... all these things, and many more, are right there for the asking in YouTube. I daresay I'd pay for YouTube if I had to ...! It's one of my top 10 destinations on the internet ...
Feb 19th 2014, 12:24 pm
#42
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Dixie, ex UK
Posts: 52,442
Re: This is AWFUL
I find YouTube to be surprisingly useful and entertaining. Want to watch that episode of 'Mork and Mindy' where he said (something)? Simply google it and then watch it on You Tube. Want to see Simon and Garfunkel sing 'Sounds of Silence'? It's on YouTube. What does the hike down into the Grand Canyon look like? What does the road from Reno, NV to Bishop, CA look like? How do I fix a leaking valve under my sink? How do I replace the battery in my iPhone? ... all these things, and many more, are right there for the asking in YouTube. I daresay I'd pay for YouTube if I had to ...! It's one of my top 10 destinations on the internet ...
) balloon arch for little Miss P's birthday party. ..... Put in the wrong search terms however, and you will find yourself wading through a swamp of dross, extremely poor quality video, and songs dubbed over a slide show, or even a single still image. 
This is the result, though the top got a bit squished where we had to bend it over to make an arch under our 8' ceilings. One balloon at the bottom leaked air overnight, after we made the column.
Last edited by Pulaski; Feb 19th 2014 at 1:05 pm.
Feb 19th 2014, 7:23 pm
#43
Banned
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,154
Re: This is AWFUL
No it's not. Verizon have already said they have no interest in expanding their FIOS service beyond where it currently is. Plus, ATT is fundamentally shit in pretty much every consumer service they offer.
Feb 19th 2014, 8:10 pm
#44
Account Closed
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,570
Re: This is AWFUL
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/b...r-phoenix.html
Feb 19th 2014, 8:18 pm
#45
Account Closed
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,570
Re: This is AWFUL
I find YouTube to be surprisingly useful and entertaining. Want to watch that episode of 'Mork and Mindy' where he said (something)? Simply google it and then watch it on You Tube. Want to see Simon and Garfunkel sing 'Sounds of Silence'? It's on YouTube. What does the hike down into the Grand Canyon look like? What does the road from Reno, NV to Bishop, CA look like? How do I fix a leaking valve under my sink? How do I replace the battery in my iPhone? ... all these things, and many more, are right there for the asking in YouTube. I daresay I'd pay for YouTube if I had to ...! It's one of my top 10 destinations on the internet ...
Whats it like driving into an Arizona Haboob?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vQMuwRjI6s
(sorry i can never figure out how to embed any picture or video links properly so they show up in the post rather than just the physical link)