Yes, you've got "some of the largest Internet companies as customers". Because you told them "if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you". Then you throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument. Nick
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, McElearney, Kevin < kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > Upgrades/buildout are happening every day. They are continuous to keep > ahead of demand and publicly measured by SamKnows (FCC measuring > broadband), Akamai, Ookla, etc > > What is not well known is that Comcast has been an existing commercial > transit business for 15+ years (with over 8000 commercial fiber customers). > Comcast also has over 40 balanced peers with plenty of capacity, and some > of the largest Internet companies as customers. > > - Kevin > > 215-313-1083 > > > On May 15, 2014, at 10:19 AM, "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > > > Oh, please do explicate on how this is inaccurate… > > > > Owen > > > >> On May 14, 2014, at 2:14 PM, McElearney, Kevin < > kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > >> > >> Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate "sound bite" > >> > >> - Kevin > >> > >> 215-313-1083 > >> > >>> On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new > >>> ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in > upgrades > >>> or additional buildout any more than absolutely necessary. > >>> > >>> Owen > >>> > >>> On May 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Hugo Slabbert <h...@slabnet.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart > >>>>>> competition any way they can. > >>>> No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources > of > >>>>> revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets and > >>>>> aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin). > >>>> > >>>> Sure they are (seeking new sources of revenue). They're not > necessarily > >>>> creating new products or services, i.e. actually adding any value, > but they > >>>> are finding ways to extract additional revenue from the same pipes, > e.g. > >>>> through paid peering with content providers. > >>>> > >>>> I'm not endorsing this; just pointing out that you two are actually in > >>>> agreement here. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Hugo > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:23 AM, <char...@thefnf.org> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2014-05-14 02:04, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> They have the money. They have the ability to get more money. > *They see > >>>>>>> no reason to spend money making customers happy.* They can make > more > >>>>>>> profit without it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There is the issue of control over the market. But also the pressure > >>>>>> from shareholders for continued growth. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes. That is true. Except that it's not. > >>>>> > >>>>> How do service providers grow? Let's explore that: > >>>>> > >>>>> What is growth for a transit provider? > >>>>> > >>>>> More (new) access network(s) (connections). > >>>>> More bandwidth across backbone pipes. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> What is growth for access network? > >>>>> More subscribers. > >>>>> > >>>>> Except that the incumbent carriers have shown they have no interest > in > >>>>> providing decent bandwidth to anywhere but the most profitable rate > >>>>> centers. I'd say about 2/3 of the USA is served with quite terrible > access. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> The problem with the internet is that while it had promises of wild > >>>>>> growth in the 90s and 00s, once penetration reaches a certain level, > >>>>>> growth stabilizes. > >>>>> > >>>>> Penetration is ABYSMAL sir. Huge swaths of underserved americans > exist. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> When you combine this with threath to large incumbents's media and > media > >>>>>> distribution endeavours by the likes of Netflix (and cat videos on > >>>>>> Youtube), large incumbents start thinking about how they will be > able to > >>>>>> continue to grow revenus/profits when customers will shift spending > to > >>>>>> vspecialty channels/cableTV to Netflix and customer growth will not > >>>>>> compensate. > >>>>> > >>>>> Except they aren't. Even in the most profitable rate centers, they've > >>>>> declined to really invest in the networks. They aren't a real > business. You > >>>>> have to remember that. They have regulatory capture, natural/defacto > >>>>> monopoly etc etc. They don't operate in the real world of > >>>>> risk/reward/profit/loss/uncertainty like any other real business has > to. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart > >>>>>> competition any way they can. > >>>>> > >>>>> No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources > of > >>>>> revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets and > >>>>> aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin). > They did > >>>>> a bit of an advertising campaign of "smart home" offerings, but that > seems > >>>>> to have never grown beyond a pilot. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> The current trend is to "if you can't fight them, jon them" where > >>>>>> cablecos start to include the Netflix app into their proprietary > set-top > >>>>>> boxes. The idea is that you at least make the customer continue to > use > >>>>>> your box and your remote control which makes it easier for them to > >>>>>> switch between netflix and legacy TV. > >>>>> True. I don't know why one of the cablecos hasn't licensed roku, > added > >>>>> cable card and made that available as a "hip/cool" set top box > offering and > >>>>> charge another 10.00 a month on top of the standard dvr rental. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Would be interesting to see if those cable companies that are > agreeing > >>>>>> to add the Netflix app onto their proprietary STBs also play > peering > >>>>>> capacity games to degrade the service or not. > >>>>> > >>>>> So how is the content delivered? Is it over the internet? Or is it > over > >>>>> the cable plant, from cable headends? > > >
