|
Don Lapre posted:Yea, stop thinking of them as competitors. Just because you are in the same business does not mean you compete with each other. Its easier to just buy out a company if you had intended to compete in that area though. In this case if Comcast wanted to expand into areas where TWC has service it would be another competitor and should yield a better market for the consumer; by buying out TWC both halves get the benefit of not having to compete and being able to arbitrarily set a price to what ever suites them, generally higher because its easier on the bottom line. In the end the only thing that wins here is Comcast unless the FCC declares internet a utility.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Largo Usagi posted:Its easier to just buy out a company if you had intended to compete in that area though. Except comcast wouldn't have moved into TWC areas. Cable companies have agreements with the local governments to build out their network in exchange for the rights to be the only cable provider. Its not like Comcast would setup shop and start using TWC cable lines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Largo Usagi posted:Its easier to just buy out a company if you had intended to compete in that area though. Comcast was never going to spend billions to do a cable network overbuild, when even buying the various local cable territories piecemeal would be cheaper. Comcast, as a matter of corporate policy, essentially swore off overbuild in favor straight buyouts back in the late 90s/early 2000s. PS Comcast and Time Warner Cable already have the benefit of not having to compete. Like seriously, none of the major cable providers are in the business of attempting to do overbuild and take on customers that way. The only cable companies that do overbuild have overbuild as almost their entire business model, usually alongside being a general fiber optic provider as their main business - like RCN or Grande. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
brothertim posted:There should be no reason anyone's internet activities are affecting others. Don't offer a 100Mbit service if your infrastructure can't handle it. Seems as arbitrary as being forced to pay extra to use your cell phone as a hotspot when you already have a data plan. Service providers always oversubscribe their lines, just ask anyone who owns a cell phone inside of a major city. That's why they get you with the "SPEEDS OF UP TO" line. DOCSIS is a pretty outdated technology, but good luck convincing Comcast et al to switch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
psydude posted:Service providers always oversubscribe their lines, just ask anyone who owns a cell phone inside of a major city. That's why they get you with the "SPEEDS OF UP TO" line. DOCSIS is a pretty outdated technology, but good luck convincing Comcast et al to switch. I'd LOVE to hear why you think DOCSIS 3.0 is outdated!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:I'd LOVE to hear why you think DOCSIS 3.0 is outdated! Because FTTH doesn't have the same shared bandwidth or symmetry issues and is becoming much more widespread than it was even 5 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Anything that doesn't allow a possibly subsidised infrastructure to be further milked isn't a technology that cable companies are interested in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Google actually got creative in that regard by utilizing existing utility conduit and piggybacking on new installations. It's what allowed them to keep their rollout costs and times so low.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
psydude posted:Service providers always oversubscribe their lines, just ask anyone who owns a cell phone inside of a major city. That's why they get you with the "SPEEDS OF UP TO" line. DOCSIS is a pretty outdated technology, but good luck convincing Comcast et al to switch. If the entire feed for a neighborhood is capable of 1gbps, I don't want to have only 1/50th of the max because I am sharing with 50 others who probably aren't using it at the same time -- I want the capability to use a large percentage when my neighbors are sleeping, and a more fair share when they are looking at pictures of their grandkids. Not everyone understands that but providing a baseline of service with bursting when others are idle is an importing piece of todays networking and virtualization strategies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
psydude posted:Service providers always oversubscribe their lines, just ask anyone who owns a cell phone inside of a major city. This does not apply to cable, or at least I've never seen a shred of evidence that it does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
I used to live in a neighborhood where I was practically the only person on the local loop and actually enjoyed speeds well above what I was supposedly paying for. On the other hand, when I moved to an apartment building in a densely populated urban area I quickly saw the other side of the coin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
psydude posted:Because FTTH doesn't have the same shared bandwidth or symmetry issues and is becoming much more widespread than it was even 5 years ago. Again, explain why it's outdated. Please don't tell me you think they run coax all the way from the cable central office to your door! DOCSIS 3.0 is currently capable of 1 gigabit per subscriber from the node to the house. None of the cable companies currently implement it at that, because they haven't run sufficient fiber capacity to the nodes, but it's right there ready to be used.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Again, explain why it's outdated. Please don't tell me you think they run coax all the way from the cable central office to your door! Technically docsis 3 is only limited by the number of channels the cable company wants to allocate. There is no max defined in the spec. The only limit right now is that modems only go up to 24 down stream channels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Technically docsis 3 is only limited by the number of channels the cable company wants to allocate. There is no max defined in the spec. The only limit right now is that modems only go up to 24 down stream channels. That's what I'm talking about, modems are currently available using DOCSIS 3 for about a gigabit down, it could be rolled out tomorrow with sufficient connections to the node.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
After reading this thread, I'm still at a loss of what me, as an individual, can do to help prevent this from going through. Is there anything I can do?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
rebelEpik posted:After reading this thread, I'm still at a loss of what me, as an individual, can do to help prevent this from going through. Is there anything I can do? Why do you want it to not go through, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Why do you want it to not go through, exactly? An assfucking is an assfucking, it's true. The concern is that they'll shift from only assfucking their customers to assfucking the content producers and the customers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
thelightguy posted:An assfucking is an assfucking, it's true. If the FCC handles this well they have quite a bit of leverage and can make demands to approve the merger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Why do you want it to not go through, exactly? Honestly, I don't agree with the way Comcast has been running, especially with the data caps, and I believe that allowing this to go through will only promote the false idea that data caps are needed. That, and one company shouldn't have such a large % of the market to itself. It stifles innovation and reduces the amount of people/companies who could potentially get into those markets and make it more fair to the consumers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:If the FCC handles this well Seeing as how they made a good decision for net neutrality let's hope it keeps up. (not being sarcastic)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
rebelEpik posted:Honestly, I don't agree with the way Comcast has been running, especially with the data caps, and I believe that allowing this to go through will only promote the false idea that data caps are needed. That, and one company shouldn't have such a large % of the market to itself. It stifles innovation and reduces the amount of people/companies who could potentially get into those markets and make it more fair to the consumers. So you're not aware that Time Warner Cable is the one that's had consistently worse performance, Time Warner Cable is the one that's tried much more onerous data caps, Time Warner Cable is in general a lot worse and the only reason you don't hear as much anger about them online is that they have fewer customers? Also, again, what innovation? There hasn't been any real innovation in cable systems in a good decade, you can't stifle what none of the big companies have even bothered to try. Don Lapre posted:If the FCC handles this well they have quite a bit of leverage and can make demands to approve the merger. I suppose that special net neutrality thing they made Comcast agree to when they bought NBC would at the least now apply to the former TWC systems. thelightguy posted:An assfucking is an assfucking, it's true. If they were going to do that they'd already do that, what with being the largest ISP, cable TV provider, and owning the second largest media production org. And again, TWC treats everything worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Another thing to consider when you talk about bandwidth rates, ISP's have no interest in catering to the 2% of their population that utilize 95% of their bandwidth. ISP's love when these users leave them to the competition. When more of the population does need a higher upstream/downstream, they will run more fiber, but for now it's not economical to cater to these people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Why do you want it to not go through, exactly? What? Why would anyone WANT it to go through? How can it possibly be any sort of benefit to the cable subscribing public as a whole?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Sepist posted:Another thing to consider when you talk about bandwidth rates, ISP's have no interest in catering to the 2% of their population that utilize 95% of their bandwidth. ISP's love when these users leave them to the competition. When more of the population does need a higher upstream/downstream, they will run more fiber, but for now it's not economical to cater to these people. As someone that's in a TWT market, my concern isn't faster, it's the retarded 250gb a month limit comcast has. I don't give a poo poo about gigabit downstream when you're going to be stuck with a 250gb a month cap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:What? Why would anyone WANT it to go through? How can it possibly be any sort of benefit to the cable subscribing public as a whole? Fishmech wants it to go through because he's fishmech. It offers no benefit at all - the most benefit to the public would be to cut up comcast and TWC along state lines and make independent companies out of them all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:What? Why would anyone WANT it to go through? How can it possibly be any sort of benefit to the cable subscribing public as a whole? There's no benefit to not having it happen. There's no benefit to have another company buy TWC instead. And Comcast has been objectively performing better for internet and TV services than TWC, so really what we have going on here is nothing changing for consumers at the worst and maybe some better performance at best. TWC currently is very open to being bought in general since they're kinda having bad business lately. They're currently offering service that's doing middling performance among national cable systems at best. And Comcast's the only national cable ISP with any effective net neutrality terms upon them, as part of the terms allowing them to buy NBC. TWC isn't subject to that as is, but they would be once merged in. thelightguy posted:Fishmech wants it to go through because he's fishmech. It offers no benefit at all - the most benefit to the public would be to cut up comcast and TWC along state lines and make independent companies out of them all. That will literally never happen, and also wouldn't provide any benefit. You're just cargo culting some vague idea of competition with that.. But those baby cables would never compete.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:so really what we have going on here is nothing changing for consumers at the worst and maybe some better performance at best. Uhh, I would say that personally, my own service would go to poo poo if it were run by Comcast, and I have had accounts for long periods with both companies. I am not at all excited about the idea of sacrificing even the illusion of competition on the idea that MAYBE somehow, magically, this merger will make things better. If anything, Google Fiber coming in has taught us that competition has entrenched companies making GBS threads their pants and we need more of that. Oh, hello upgrade from 50Mb to 100Mb for ~$8/mo. Thanks for that thing that wasn't even possible a year ago, but now you're desperate to keep people from jumping ship.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Uhh, I would say that personally, my own service would go to poo poo if it were run by Comcast, and I have had accounts for long periods with both companies. It wouldn't go to poo poo, you'd have the same local cable operator actually handling operations. And Comcast has been statistically shown in continuous monitoring to better deliver advertised service than TWC, it'd be out of expectations for it to work worse than TWC. There was never ever the illusion of competition in cable with these two companies. Less than 1% of households have access to multiple independent cable systems, for everyone else the "competition" is between cable/satellite/maybe fiber for TV and between cable/DSL/maybe fiber for internet. That you could move 100 miles to switch between Comcast and TWC was never a serious consideration. And here's the thing, these two companies not merging can never provide the incentive for either to boost speeds. That can only be done by actually having other options, like all fiber companies, or the very rare cable overbuild companies like RCN. Surely you've noticed that Google Fiber was made by, well, Google and not an out of territory cable company trying to muscle in on someone else's turf?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:That will literally never happen, and also wouldn't provide any benefit. You're just cargo culting some vague idea of competition with that.. But those baby cables would never compete. It worked just fine with Ma Bell and it would make it literally impossible for them to assrape content providers or engage in anticompetitive lobbying to the degree that they are currently doing so. corgski fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
thelightguy posted:It worked just fine with Ma Bell and it would make it literally impossible for them to assrape content providers or engage in anticompetitive lobbying to the degree that they are currently doing so. It didn't work with the Baby Bells. The baby bells did not compete, they had and have designated operating areas. They also bought each other and outside carriers like GTE. The competition that did exist was completely unrelated companies to any AT&T successor, using the phone lines - though it's worth noting that most consumers remained with their designated Baby Bell rboc. Incidentally a few of those Baby Bells started off with shares of the phone market the same proportion as Comcast plus twc would be in cable, or nearly as much. And the 2 of the remaining 3 are significantly bigger than that, of course. Basically learn your history of telecommunications.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:And here's the thing, these two companies not merging can never provide the incentive for either to boost speeds. That can only be done by actually having other options, like all fiber companies, or the very rare cable overbuild companies like RCN. Surely you've noticed that Google Fiber was made by, well, Google and not an out of territory cable company trying to muscle in on someone else's turf? Yes, so we need more competition and not more monolithic cable companies. This merger does not further anything remotely resembling a customer serving agenda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:It didn't work with the Baby Bells. The baby bells did not compete, they had and have designated operating areas. They also bought each other and outside carriers like GTE. GTE lasted well into the 90s, maybe the early 2000s, before being sucked up by verizon, and I didn't realize I was still renting my home phone. The breakup of Ma Bell made it easier for other companies to compete, as well as removing their ability to collude as effectively. They didn't have to compete with each other, other companies came in and engaged them in competition - more effectively now that they were not a nationwide asset-laden behemoth of a telecom company. corgski fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
I'm actually extremely sad about this merger. Just recently TWC rolled out 100mbps (for free as I was paying for 50 and they just bumped it up) to my area, and are looking into supplying 300mbps service. I have no competition, I can't get FiOS as its not in my area, and my bill inexplicably is low as TWC allows me to use my own docsis 3 modem. So I pay 50 dollars for 100mbps. Yes my upload is a pathetic 5mbps. I don't care. My concern is comcast coming in with its higher fees, and stupid datacaps. TWC may be poo poo for cable, but as an ISP they are giving me the best deal in NYC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
All I know is that I pray every day that they stay the gently caress away from RCN.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Yes, so we need more competition and not more monolithic cable companies. This merger does not further anything remotely resembling a customer serving agenda. It actually does, Comcast is the only major cable ISP with any kind of still standing FCC net neutrality rule, which is in place as it was part of the agreement to have NBC bought. TWC is currently subject to nothing in that manner. weaaddar posted:I'm actually extremely sad about this merger. Just recently TWC rolled out 100mbps (for free as I was paying for 50 and they just bumped it up) to my area, and are looking into supplying 300mbps service. Comcast also has similar services and is looking to supplying similar services. P Yes you have no competition now so nothing is going to change. I'm using my own DOCSIS 3 modem on Comcast as a matter of fact! Plus you're worried about enforced data caps now when TWC's the one who has historically been far more willing to try them? Of course they're giving you the best deal. It'd be impossible for anyone else to give you a better one. demonachizer posted:All I know is that I pray every day that they stay the gently caress away from RCN. Attempting to buy RCN would actually be likely to result in a flat blocking of the purchase, because most of RCN's territory is overbuild on Comcast territory. thelightguy posted:GTE lasted well into the 90s, maybe the early 2000s, before being sucked up by verizon, and I didn't realize I was still renting my home phone. The breakup of Ma Bell made it easier for other companies to compete, as well as removing their ability to collude as effectively. They didn't have to compete with each other, other companies came in and engaged them in competition - more effectively now that they were not a nationwide asset-laden behemoth of a telecom company. Dude you don't understand anything about the Baby Bells if you think the breakup ended renting phones! As a matter of fact, there are still people paying rental fees for phones to this very day, primarily because they're old people who never changed it. The breakup of Ma Bell did nothing to make it "easier to compete", that was solely down to the separate rules mandating opening the local loop - which didn't come about for several years afterwards. Like seriously, every single thing in your post is wrong, except that eventually other companies came in to compete. And you got the causation of that wrong because the things that mandated opening to long distance carrier changes and opening the local loop came years seperate. Edit: PS the right for customers to attach their own phones, and thus no longer pay phone rentals if they did so, was given in 1977. Edit again: Essentially, the big "AT&T Breakup" is one of the most egregious examples of supposed competition created, while resulting in almost no real competition for the average consumer. The only thing that really brought local phone access choice was individual states mandating CLEC-type access starting in the early 90s and made national by the 1996 Telecommunications Act - prior to this "competitive" local phone service only existed in companies, almost exclusively in the largest cities, building separate fiber networks in the business districts for phone service. And even after this, the Baby Bell companies kept in their own territories. So from 1984 when the "split" officially took effect to about 1994 or so, you didn't have any local competition, and you only had minimal long distance competition (essentially picking from your regional bell's rebranded AT&T long distance, direct AT&T long distance, Sprint, and a few more minor carriers). Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
thelightguy posted:An assfucking is an assfucking, it's true. Comcast already owns NBCU. That ship sailed a while ago. Given my parents pay TWC the same price for 15/1 when I get 25/5 even Comcast would be an upgrade for them. I don't really want it to go through because I don't think a comcast with more buying power is necessarily good, but I don't think the downside is /so/ huge. Again, I think comcast owning a ton of media companies is probably worse off for the average consumer. Now they have a vested interest in stopping cord cutters on both the cable and content provider side, on top of owning a large stake in hulu. MrBond fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
As a cursory glance comcast is offering 105mbps for about 90/month for only 12 months plus tax. Inexplicably TWC is offering 100mbps to me and others at 50/mo flat with tax included. I'm of course concerned with price hikes. TWC while not the best provider is willing to bend over backwards to keep customers. I'm concerned that a comcast with a 33% marketshare desiring to lose 3% market share will not give two shits about customers who complain about higher bills. TWC has never had a datacap in the NYC area, but comcast has datacaps throughout the country. Yes, I have no choice. That's the nature of cable. I hope that verizon FiOS expands to my area so that I have competition, but its not likely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
weaaddar posted:I hope that verizon FiOS expands to my area so that I have competition, but its not likely. Especially since Verizon's announced they're not doing any more FIOS buildout.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Google just announced a bunch of potential fiber cities so you may have that going for you. http://www.slashgear.com/google-fiber-spread-34-cities-in-9-metro-areas-up-for-bid-19317448/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews Thankfully im on the list.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
In related news, Comcast and Netflix reached a financial agreement whereby Netflix will pay Comcast a premium as a part of a peering and interconnect agreement for better handling of their content, effectively circumventing the net neutrality agreement Comcast signed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 08:51
|
|