Comcast Bastards

[mhendo]

@Dewey_Finn

Competition would be nice, but I’m not sure how many companies would be interested in building out the infrastructure. I think what is important is that the broadband providers like Comcast, AT&T Uverse and Verizon Fios have to treat all content equally, so that they’re offering true “network neutrality”. Otherwise, Comcast might choose to throttle Netflix, Amazon or Hulu’s service to encourage people to stick with Comcast’s cable service instead.

I definitely agree with the neutrality argument.

As for competition, if they’re not interested in it, then they should either be forced into it, or they should have their rates overseen and regulated by the government. I would prefer the “unbundling” option, as described in the report i linked in my earlier post:

Open access policies require that incumbent broadband providers offer to lease capacity on their networks to new entrants selling competing Internet services to consumers. They have been critical in creating a robust competitive marketplace in Japan and France, where new upstarts such as Yahoo BB and Free were able to compete with the telephone incumbents and now offer 100 mbps+ Internet connections at competitive prices. Moreover, contrary to criticisms of open access policies, many of the companies that got their start leasing access from incumbent providers have since invested substantially in building their own network infrastructure.

[TBG]

@Morbo

[li]There is only one Live buffer - you can’t switch between two shows and go backwards - only the channel you’re on. Archaic.[/li]

Not true at all on the Comcast DVR I’ve had since Nov 2005. Both tuners have fully functional buffers. You have to use the swap button to switch between tuners, are you maybe just pushing last channel or something like that?

[Zeriel]

@Dewey_Finn

Competition would be nice, but I’m not sure how many companies would be interested in building out the infrastructure. I think what is important is that the broadband providers like Comcast, AT&T Uverse and Verizon Fios have to treat all content equally, so that they’re offering true “network neutrality”. Otherwise, Comcast might choose to throttle Netflix, Amazon or Hulu’s service to encourage people to stick with Comcast’s cable service instead.

Right now, as part of the NBCU merger, Comcast HAS to obey strict net neutrality as a condition, even with net neutrality rules gutted generally. That’s approximately the only reason I’m not hugely concerned about the merger–Comcast is already under a hell of a lot of official scrutiny from the FCC for any hint of tampering with other providers’ content.

[elucidator]

Many local governments, counties, municipalities, made deals early on to get that infrastructure built, in ages long past, decades ago in some cases. They promised that if the cable companies put out that investment, they would be solemnly promised whatever profit they could gouge forever.

It would be wrong to renege on such a clear bargain, and I do not advocate such action for my local community. If someone else brings it up, I will raise my voice against such irresponsible hooliganism. Unless I’m really busy. Or something.

[Leaper]

@Zeriel

Right now, as part of the NBCU merger, Comcast HAS to obey strict net neutrality as a condition, even with net neutrality rules gutted generally. That’s approximately the only reason I’m not hugely concerned about the merger–Comcast is already under a hell of a lot of official scrutiny from the FCC for any hint of tampering with other providers’ content.

Yeah, but I’ve read that clause only lasts until 2018.

[Wesley_Clark]

@Dewey_Finn

Chattanooga’s fiber network was built by the city. Provo’s fiber network was built by a public-private partnership, which basically went out of business and was bought by Google. And the Kansas City fiber network was built by Google. IN other words, all three examples were subsidized. It’s not clear that any for-profit company would have created a fiber network in any of those places (although I doubt it).

Now it may make long-term sense for the cities to build these networks if they attract residents and businesses but it’s difficult to justify on its own. (Sort of like the way that the interstate highways cost a vast amount of public money but have encouraged economic activity.)

I’m having trouble following these graphs, but here is the jist I’m getting.

It's Surprisingly Inexpensive For Google To Build Its Cable-Destroying Google...

It costs 84 million initially to establish the infrastructure to connect 149,000 households, or about $563 per household.

For google fiber it costs about $464 to wire a household up (I assume this is on top of the $563 cost). Google charges a $300 construction fee (which it waives with a commitment).

So a little over a thousand split about evenly between the initial infrastructure and adding a household to the network.

Of each $70/month fee for broadband, about $47 goes to profit with the other $23 going into overhead.

Google Fiber has cost less than $100 million to launch so far

The analysts estimate that if Google were to build out a fiber network over the next five years to cover another 20 million homes, it could cost the company an upwards of $11 billion even before connecting a single house

An $11 billion investment to connect 20 million homes (which is about what, 50-70 million people) isn’t that expensive. You still have another $400-500 to add each household I assume, but that is not insurmountable for the public sector.

I’m sure a lot of people will end up sharing their connection across households (like in apartment complexes) which would cut into profits. Most people don’t need 1Gbps speeds.

Of course if it were this easy (spend an initial outlay of about $1000 to wire up a house, then charge them $70/month for internet of which $47 is profit) you’d assume another company would enter the market. But why create a new infrastructure project when you can just use the existing cable network and charge $70 for inferior products.

[Dewey_Finn]

Here is an article from August 2008 about Verizon FiOS, their fiber optic network. The article says that the budget was $23 billion to run fiber past 19 million homes. The article says the estimated cost per customer is $4,000.

Now, some of this cost is necessary. I’ve read that the old-fashioned copper-based POTS telephone service is basically obsolete and needs to be replaced. But can they recoup the $4,000 per customer cost?

[Darth_Panda]

This could actually be a good thing in some small way, re net neutrality.

Now, the proposed acquisition gives the commission additional leverage to act—and may even force its hand—on the issue, also known as “net neutrality,” as well as a host of other policy matters. The decision could further a trend in which regulators make telecommunications policy on merger approvals rather than through traditional rulemaking processes.

As they review the merger, regulators must address the question of whether the combined company would hold so much power in the marketplace that it could favor certain content providers and limit consumers’ choices.

To limit that power, the FCC and antitrust regulators could allow the deal while subjecting it to a slew of conditions designed to protect competition and public interest, telecom lawyers and analysts say. And regardless of whether the deal is ultimately approved, the review process will force regulators to take positions that will dictate the future of nascent industries like online video.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303704304579383470188363010?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303704304579383470188363010.html

[elucidator]

…But can they recoup the $4,000 per customer cost?

Won’t happen that way. First thing they’ll do, is start calling it an investment in infrastructure, like the bridges, highways and schools that they will continue to short change. Well, doesn’t an investment in infrastructure deserve some tax credits, to ease the burden on our job creators? Ease the burden on our investors?

Wire up the schools first! Course, the schools will need to be located in those districts with a more robust base in property taxes. Not that anybody favors the higher bracketed schools, or anything, it just makes good economic sense to start there and branch out to the less affluent neighborhoods. Gradually. These things take time, don’t want to rush anything.

Then, of course, it will make sense to protect the investment by a careful structuring of fees for delivering profitable entertainment when you can show how internet piracy hurts our inner city schools. And they will show that. Guaranteeing a given company a monopoly on such delivery in a given area is a proven winner, shown with statistics that prove that customers prefer their internet and cable provider over none at all, by huge majorities…

Giving us the business. As usual.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Wah! I want my cable TV to be faster!
[/QUOTE]

Like in the rest of the First World, yes. Compared to most other developed industrialized countries, internet/TV bundles in the United States are slow and limited as to programming availability.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Chimera

Jerry determined that Comcast was blocking the password reset emails.

:smack:

Did Comcast give any reason? Although I am fully aware that if I had been doing Jerry’s job, I would have been so flummoxed on discovering this that I would certainly forget to ask them.

[Chimera]

I have not asked them. This wasn’t true after the hack incident, when I had no issue receiving a password reset email.

[Wesley_Clark]

@Dewey_Finn

Here is an article from August 2008 about Verizon FiOS, their fiber optic network. The article says that the budget was $23 billion to run fiber past 19 million homes. The article says the estimated cost per customer is $4,000.

Now, some of this cost is necessary. I’ve read that the old-fashioned copper-based POTS telephone service is basically obsolete and needs to be replaced. But can they recoup the $4,000 per customer cost?

That article also says about $1400 to both build the infrastructure and wire up a house, slightly more than Googles $1000~, but roughly in the same ballpark.

The cost to run the fiber through neighborhoods is also falling below $760 per home passed, Verizon’s initial estimate. (The company spends an extra $650 in equipment and labor to hook up each house ordering the service.)

Does the $4000 per customer figure come from the expected customer base (ie a 23 billion investment will result in a supposed 6 million customers)?

This article states you need a 20-30% subscription rate in areas with fiber access for it to be profitable, and that 10% of people with fiber access pre-registered for Google fiber. I have no idea if Google ever got to the 20-30% mark.

[Morbo]

@TBG

Not true at all on the Comcast DVR I’ve had since Nov 2005. Both tuners have fully functional buffers. You have to use the swap button to switch between tuners, are you maybe just pushing last channel or something like that?

If I am recording those shows, yes - not if they’re live channels.

[Saint_Cad]

@elucidator

Would that be “Fightin’ Joe” Lieberman, the ex-Senator? Who’s name is not mentioned in the cited article? Some other Lieberman, who’s name is also not mentioned?

What the hell are you talking about?

This

[elucidator]

What, a ninja cite?

[lance_strongarm]

@Saint_Cad

Lieberman better not take Comcast’s side or the junior Senator from Minnesota will shut him down like last time.

Since Lieberman retired from the Senate last year, I think he’s safe.

[lance_strongarm]

@Dewey_Finn

Here is an article from August 2008 about Verizon FiOS, their fiber optic network. The article says that the budget was $23 billion to run fiber past 19 million homes. The article says the estimated cost per customer is $4,000.

Now, some of this cost is necessary. I’ve read that the old-fashioned copper-based POTS telephone service is basically obsolete and needs to be replaced. But can they recoup the $4,000 per customer cost?

Good question. Their strategy is to start with wiring wealthier neighborhoods and rely on Comcast to continue sucking.

[mhendo]

I know this thread’s been dormant for a couple of weeks, but i thought that people might be interested to see the National Broadband Map, where you can search for a variety of different aspects of broadband provision in the United States.

The website allows you to see coverage offered by different providers. I’ve put together a couple of maps for San Diego that show how the two main providers (Cox and Time-Warner) essentially divide the city and the county up among themselves.

San Diego city

San Diego County

The red area is Cox, and the blue area is Time-Warner, with a few patches of purple where they actually compete. The Consumerist has some more examples from other cities in this article.

[Chimera]

@Dewey_Finn

Here is an article from August 2008 about Verizon FiOS, their fiber optic network. The article says that the budget was $23 billion to run fiber past 19 million homes. The article says the estimated cost per customer is $4,000.

Is their plan to ‘suck at math’?

$23 billion, 19 million houses = $1210 per house.