TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > Main TiVo Forums > TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-21-2014, 01:24 PM   #121
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
Those that can't will be allowed to stay with U-verse but with limited internet speeds.
The really sad thing is that AT&T is more than willing to sell you the more expensive U-verse internet speeds even though it is physically impossible for you to actually receive those speeds. Most customers never know the difference because they never run a speed test.
tarheelblue32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2014, 01:37 PM   #122
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 24,474
Yeah with VDSL the speeds drop quickly as wire length increases.The truly fast speeds require less then 1000'. Most people are further and can only get 25Mbps at best.
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2014, 02:12 PM   #123
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
Yeah with VDSL the speeds drop quickly as wire length increases.The truly fast speeds require less then 1000'. Most people are further and can only get 25Mbps at best.
My house is about 2600' from the VRAD, so U-verse is a non-starter for me. With the tall trees surrounding my house, I couldn't even get satellite if I wanted it. My choices are Time Warner Cable or nothing. My only hope is that Google Fiber will one day come to my doorstep somewhere around the time that CableCards are completely phased out. If I ever have to go back to Time Warner's cable boxes I think I may have to shoot myself.

Last edited by tarheelblue32 : 05-21-2014 at 02:19 PM.
tarheelblue32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2014, 04:02 PM   #124
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 24,474
I'm stuck with cable too. Around here AT&T DSL is only 6Mbps so cable is the only option for decent internet speeds.
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2014, 05:21 PM   #125
MikeAndrews
Registered abuser
 
MikeAndrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Northern Illinois (Dn Nr WI)
Posts: 11,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
The really sad thing is that AT&T is more than willing to sell you the more expensive U-verse internet speeds even though it is physically impossible for you to actually receive those speeds. Most customers never know the difference because they never run a speed test.
Ya think so? The installer runs a speed test and will tell you if you can't get that level of service. NO customers ever run a speed test?
__________________
1) Series 4 Premiere - Lifetime
2) Series 3 OLED - Lifetime.
2) Series 2 DT 500GB
Mac Mini NAS with 9 7 x 2TB drives.
UVerse and OTA

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MikeAndrews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2014, 05:30 PM   #126
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by trip1eX View Post
AGain I think that's cause they don't have the money to expand. It isn't that they don't have "room."

They like money. IF they were making a decent return on the capital they deployed in the fiber to the home build out then you think they would do more of it.

The only other thing that makes sense to me is they see how wireless would become a good substitute for much less capital deployed.

Or in ATTs case maybe it has something to do with DirectTV being a much more cost effective way for them to deliver video content.
They absolutely have the money to do it, they just don't have the will to actually spend the money. That's the reason they didn't just do fiber in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
Nothing guaranteeing they wont just say FU to those people and dump U-verse TV completely. Although since U-verse is pure IP it wouldn't really hurt them to keep both around. Unless there is some business issue with maintaining both sides.
They don't want to lose a big market that they have worked hard to build up. They also can offer a larger, and more localized channel selection on U-Verse than they can on DirecTV. The only situation I could see them pushing people over is people who want faster internet packages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
The big problem Verizon faces with FiOS expansion is the huge cost of stringing new cable. Obtaining right of way rights is difficult to negotiate and towns wring every last cent they can from the company. Add in the extremely high labor and material costs and you end up needing some pretty serious revenue to justify the expense. So far, that revenue has not materialized. Verizon sells phone and internet to many more FiOS customers than they sell TV service to. I'm willing to bet that AT&T has seen the same thing, only amplified since FiOS is far more attractive than Uverse.
They actually both sell TV to a really good percentage of their total subscriber base. FIOS internet-only is priced so insanely that DirecTV and DISH subs are more likely to either go with slow DSL or get cable for internet, as the de-bundling penalty is far smaller than with FIOS.

FIOS is expensive to build out, but it's MUCH cheaper to maintain than the mess of copper that AT&T has built up. If you drive from a U-Verse area to a FIOS area (near me there are both, in what amounts to the same city that's 3/4 in one state, and 1/4 in another), and you notice that Verizon has a small fraction of the amount of copper up on the poles that AT&T does. It looks to me like they've added more to support U-Verse, although at best, they haven't taken anything down since the days of virtually every house having two phones lines. Verizon's combined FIOS and copper lines are FAR smaller than AT&T's mess of copper.

Quote:
As far as AT&T moving towards using DirecTV and phasing out Uverse video, it has been suggested that there are some that can't or won't accept satellite TV. Let's look at the places where satellite doesn't seem to work...

Apartment buildings: DirecTV currently has a substantial business in apartment (MDU) installations. They are also developing a new distribution system (a variation of their current SWiM system) that runs over the existing cable in any centrally wired building.

Line of sight problems: These are usually more of a problem in urban areas where a tall building be the obstacle. I've seen very densely wooded lots be able to find a spot for a dish. There are also creative ways to deal with this (see below).

The "ugly dish" sentiment: This can be driven by the homeowner or a neighborhood covenant. Often the issue is being able to see the dish from the street, which is easily handled most of the time. But again, this can be addressed.

The solution to both line of site and "dish-phobia" problems is to move the dish to a central location. AT&T could build a hybrid DSS/copper system where the satellite dish is located at a central neighborhood location and the signal is then delivered to the home via copper. This could use a dedicated pair, or coax if available, freeing the Uverse pair for broadband only. Again, DirecTV already has the technology to support this sort of installation.
That is great for some MDUs that have deal with DirecTV, or where they allow individual dishes, like one that I used to live in. It doesn't help for a lot of others, where AT&T already have the right to be in the building as the incumbent telco, and if they really wanted to make big moves, could put a VRAD immediately near the complex to get fiber as close as possible.

Some wooded areas can get dishes installed, some can't. Ironically, here in CT, we have big problem with DirecTV because of how low 119 is, how far north we are, and how many trees we have, and AT&T is trying to sell us off to Frontier.

The dishes being ugly thing is a fictitious pile of BS, but there are a LOT of people who subscribe to it, and have an irrational fear of pizza-size dishes. There is no way to get over this irrational behavior because it's irrational. Also, while no HOA or covenant can ban dishes smaller than 1 meter, many people don't know their federally protected rights under OTARD.

Quote:
More speculatively, as more and more broadband traffic moves to wireless, there are some interesting possibilities in the use of DirecTV's spectrum. For example, over the next 10 years DirecTV will phase out their SD distribution. This will require replacing a lot of legacy receivers that are incompatible with the newer HD signals, but it will happen eventually. That will release the entire DBS spectrum at 101WL and the portions that DirecTV owns at 110WL and 119WL. Then there is the newly licensed RDBS spectrum at 99WL and 103WL. Added together, that's about equal to all of the spectrum currently in use for HD distribution. What they could do with all that spectrum is quite intriguing.
Hmmm, I didn't know that. They could increase the HD lineup and start doing 4K and other stuff with all that extra capacity. U-Verse has an incredible lineup now due to the IPTV technology, albeit missing AJAM for no apparent reason, but it doesn't have the bandwidth for better quality HD or 4k.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
I doubt they will use dishes at the VRAD as they have fiber to those already and it has more then enough bandwidth to handle all of their customers. The choke point is the copper running to each house. I'm sure that once they are up and running they will start to push customers toward using DSS for TV so they can offer them higher internet speeds. Those that can't will be allowed to stay with U-verse but with limited internet speeds.
Exactly. That concept makes absolutely no sense. The VRADs have fiber running to them, and dishes wouldn't work on so many levels!

They may do that for customers who want more internet speed, although with QoS, they can do both with U-Verse, and the internet just slows down a bit while watching TV like it does now.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2014, 06:52 PM   #127
Johncv
Registered User
 
Johncv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chula Vista, CA
Posts: 1,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
The big problem Verizon faces with FiOS expansion is the huge cost of stringing new cable. Obtaining right of way rights is difficult to negotiate and towns wring every last cent they can from the company. Add in the extremely high labor and material costs and you end up needing some pretty serious revenue to justify the expense. So far, that revenue has not materialized. Verizon sells phone and internet to many more FiOS customers than they sell TV service to. I'm willing to bet that AT&T has seen the same thing, only amplified since FiOS is far more attractive than Uverse.

As far as AT&T moving towards using DirecTV and phasing out Uverse video, it has been suggested that there are some that can't or won't accept satellite TV. Let's look at the places where satellite doesn't seem to work...

Apartment buildings: DirecTV currently has a substantial business in apartment (MDU) installations. They are also developing a new distribution system (a variation of their current SWiM system) that runs over the existing cable in any centrally wired building.

Line of sight problems: These are usually more of a problem in urban areas where a tall building be the obstacle. I've seen very densely wooded lots be able to find a spot for a dish. There are also creative ways to deal with this (see below).

The "ugly dish" sentiment: This can be driven by the homeowner or a neighborhood covenant. Often the issue is being able to see the dish from the street, which is easily handled most of the time. But again, this can be addressed.

The solution to both line of site and "dish-phobia" problems is to move the dish to a central location. AT&T could build a hybrid DSS/copper system where the satellite dish is located at a central neighborhood location and the signal is then delivered to the home via copper. This could use a dedicated pair, or coax if available, freeing the Uverse pair for broadband only. Again, DirecTV already has the technology to support this sort of installation.

These are all mid to long term developments that may or may not happen. Near term, AT&T gains a few important benefits. First, they get a big cash flow, improving their performance which will drive the stock price up. Secondly, the biggest single ongoing expense for cable and satellite operators is the cost of content. Growing from 6 million to over 26 million subscribers will allow AT&T to cut deals that make their TV operations more profitable. Finally, they go from being a 22 state operation to a 50 state operation (plus Puerto Rico and Latin America).

More speculatively, as more and more broadband traffic moves to wireless, there are some interesting possibilities in the use of DirecTV's spectrum. For example, over the next 10 years DirecTV will phase out their SD distribution. This will require replacing a lot of legacy receivers that are incompatible with the newer HD signals, but it will happen eventually. That will release the entire DBS spectrum at 101WL and the portions that DirecTV owns at 110WL and 119WL. Then there is the newly licensed RDBS spectrum at 99WL and 103WL. Added together, that's about equal to all of the spectrum currently in use for HD distribution. What they could do with all that spectrum is quite intriguing.
Woman, you know your stuff. Do you work in this industry, if so what do you do. More important is where in god good earth do find the time to edit this at 5:23am.
__________________
Johncv

HDTiVo
27-inch iMac with i7 quad core processor
Johncv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2014, 06:52 PM   #128
trip1eX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
They absolutely have the money to do it, they just don't have the will to actually spend the money. That's the reason they didn't just do fiber in the first place.

Laying fiber is no guarantee of profit. Verizon did FttH and they stopped expanding too. ATT and VZ need to make sure they can cover their debt. And since VZ, at least, has had ftth in many areas for many years now I think they have a good idea of their returns.

I don't see why they wouldn't have the will to spend the money to deploy more ftth if the returns were decent.

Last edited by trip1eX : 05-22-2014 at 12:40 AM.
trip1eX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2014, 07:26 PM   #129
Johncv
Registered User
 
Johncv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chula Vista, CA
Posts: 1,320
AT&T's Stephens: DirecTV deal will create synergies in set-top boxes, advertising and content

Read more: AT&T's Stephens: DirecTV deal will create synergies in set-top boxes, advertising and content - FierceCable http://www.fiercecable.com/story/att...#ixzz32OnaSr00
Subscribe at FierceCable

Have to vent: "Stephens didn't provide specifics about the video product that AT&T is envisioning, but said that the company would try to take the best of AT&T's U-verse product and DirecTV's satellite product and create an offering that makes both products better."

Really, crappy1 + crappy2 = crapper3 as far as I am concern. Why can't the stupid people in charge just use TiVo? Both AT&T and DriectTV are paying TiVo now. Hell I would pay them more money to use a TiVo Roamio. End vent.
__________________
Johncv

HDTiVo
27-inch iMac with i7 quad core processor
Johncv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2014, 08:12 PM   #130
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by trip1eX View Post
Laying fiber is no guarantee of profit. Verizon did FttH and they stopped expanding too. ATT and VZ need to make sure they can cover their debt. And so far returns on capital deployed haven't been there and so they slowed down.
AT&T and Verizon are both making tons of money off of wireless. There is no reason why they can't use the profits from wireless to subsidize the buildout of FTTH. FTTH does have a good projected return on capital, it's just the returns are over 50+ years, and neither company seems willing to wait past the next quarter.
tarheelblue32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2014, 09:10 PM   #131
moedaman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
AT&T and Verizon are both making tons of money off of wireless. There is no reason why they can't use the profits from wireless to subsidize the buildout of FTTH.
And this is the exact reason why both ATT and Verizon quit expansion of those networks. Wireless offers higher margins, less regulation, less infrastructure maintenance and a non-union workforce. All wins in the their eyes. Neither one is going to dump wireless profits into fiber unless they have to.
Quote:
FTTH does have a good projected return on capital, it's just the returns are over 50+ years, and neither company seems willing to wait past the next quarter.
Everyone needs to remember that stock options are a large part of CEO compensation. Rising stock prices and dividends, while important to all shareholders, are extra important to upper executives who aren't going to be there in 50+ years. Once they get paid and retire, they couldn't care less if that company sticks around that long. Until stock options are removed from the equation of compensation, short-term thinking won't go away.
moedaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2014, 09:42 PM   #132
murgatroyd
Don't stop believin'
 
murgatroyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Berkeley CA
Posts: 22,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
The really sad thing is that AT&T is more than willing to sell you the more expensive U-verse internet speeds even though it is physically impossible for you to actually receive those speeds. Most customers never know the difference because they never run a speed test.
AT&T is more than willing to sell you U-verse whether it is physically possible for you to get it or not. So I'm not surprised.
__________________
"The capacity of human beings to disappoint me is never ending." -- Ereth
murgatroyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2014, 10:22 PM   #133
randian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by trip1eX View Post
Laying fiber is no guarantee of profit. Verizon did FttH and they stopped expanding too. ATT and VZ need to make sure they can cover their debt. And so far returns on capital deployed haven't been there and so they slowed down.
How much does it cost per subscriber? I wonder exactly what they mean by "returns aren't there".
randian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 12:12 AM   #134
trip1eX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
How much does it cost per subscriber? I wonder exactly what they mean by "returns aren't there".
Well if you borrow $1 million to buy a McDonalds and you only get back $10k every year you probably won't be taking out another loan to buy a second McDs anytime soon. Your return wouldn't be there.

But if you made $100k a year from your $1 million investment then its like well maybe I should buy another.

I can't see another reason except wireless why they wouldn't continue the build out. Everything I remember reading,from the very beginning of VZ's buildout, always mentioned concern about VZ never making back the initial investment or it taking too long.

Last edited by trip1eX : 05-22-2014 at 10:18 AM.
trip1eX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 12:16 AM   #135
trip1eX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
AT&T and Verizon are both making tons of money off of wireless. There is no reason why they can't use the profits from wireless to subsidize the buildout of FTTH. FTTH does have a good projected return on capital, it's just the returns are over 50+ years, and neither company seems willing to wait past the next quarter.
good projected returns on capital don't mean waiting 50+ years.

Last edited by trip1eX : 05-22-2014 at 12:27 AM.
trip1eX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 12:44 AM   #136
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by trip1eX View Post
good projected returns on capital don't mean waiting 50+ years.
So I guess that means I should quit my long-term investing and just switch to day trading.
tarheelblue32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 08:24 AM   #137
slowbiscuit
FUBAR
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 2,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johncv View Post
Have to vent: "Stephens didn't provide specifics about the video product that AT&T is envisioning, but said that the company would try to take the best of AT&T's U-verse product and DirecTV's satellite product and create an offering that makes both products better."

Really, crappy1 + crappy2 = crapper3 as far as I am concern. Why can't the stupid people in charge just use TiVo? Both AT&T and DriectTV are paying TiVo now. Hell I would pay them more money to use a TiVo Roamio. End vent.
Not following how DirecTV has a crappy TV product, they arguably have the best pic quality and channel selection. You can quibble about whether their Genie DVR setup is crappy or not compared to Tivo, but D* is far superior to U-Verse for example.
slowbiscuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 09:13 AM   #138
MikeAndrews
Registered abuser
 
MikeAndrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Northern Illinois (Dn Nr WI)
Posts: 11,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
AT&T and Verizon are both making tons of money off of wireless. There is no reason why they can't use the profits from wireless to subsidize the buildout of FTTH. FTTH does have a good projected return on capital, it's just the returns are over 50+ years, and neither company seems willing to wait past the next quarter.
Yeah, lord knows why AT&T spent $6 billion over 3 years to build out U-Verse.
__________________
1) Series 4 Premiere - Lifetime
2) Series 3 OLED - Lifetime.
2) Series 2 DT 500GB
Mac Mini NAS with 9 7 x 2TB drives.
UVerse and OTA

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MikeAndrews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 09:48 AM   #139
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johncv View Post
Woman, you know your stuff. Do you work in this industry, if so what do you do. More important is where in god good earth do find the time to edit this at 5:23am.
Thanks! I'm not in this industry (I work in enterprise software sales) but I have been around for quite a while. I was a moderator on DBSDish.com, the first satellite TV site back in the 90's, then started a new site with the DBSDish founder called DBSForums that I ran for several years. We switched from Dish Network to DirecTV in 2001 specifically to get the Series 1 DirecTivos. At one point we had 5 Series 2 DirecTivos running, all with dual drives and hacked to support MRV and running TivoWeb Plus.

Oh, and I'm on the east coast, so it was 8:23am for me.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 09:51 AM   #140
trip1eX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
So I guess that means I should quit my long-term investing and just switch to day trading.
Well if that's your conclusion then you might want to quit investing.

Last edited by trip1eX : 05-22-2014 at 10:04 AM.
trip1eX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 10:11 AM   #141
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
...They actually both sell TV to a really good percentage of their total subscriber base. FIOS internet-only is priced so insanely that DirecTV and DISH subs are more likely to either go with slow DSL or get cable for internet, as the de-bundling penalty is far smaller than with FIOS....
I currently (for another 2 months) subscribe to DirecTV for TV and have FiOS for internet and phone. The "unbundled" price for FiOS is less than the unbundled price for the same service from my local cable provider, Cablevision. I personally know about 50 families in my town with FiOS and only about 10 of them get FiOS TV (the rest use one of two satellite providers).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
...That is great for some MDUs that have deal with DirecTV, or where they allow individual dishes, like one that I used to live in. It doesn't help for a lot of others, where AT&T already have the right to be in the building as the incumbent telco, and if they really wanted to make big moves, could put a VRAD immediately near the complex to get fiber as close as possible...
Or, a dish on the roof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
...Some wooded areas can get dishes installed, some can't. Ironically, here in CT, we have big problem with DirecTV because of how low 119 is, how far north we are, and how many trees we have, and AT&T is trying to sell us off to Frontier.......
Only foreign language programming is on 119 these days. All of DirecTV's English language programming comes from 101 (SD) or 99 & 103 (HD).

The low sight lines on the east coast for 119 is why Dish Network runs two completely separate satellite constellations, one for the Eastern US (at 61.5, 72.7 and 77) and one for the Western US (at 110,119 and 129).
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 10:48 AM   #142
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
So I guess that means I should quit my long-term investing and just switch to day trading.
Running a business isn't an investment, it is a job - the job of the CEO. His job description is to run the business as efficiently as possible to maximize the return to the investors.

If you bought a stock that wasn't going to return an increase in value or a dividend for 50 years, you'd probably move on to another stock. Stockholders want returns this month, not way down the road.

Let's say Verizon were to do exactly what has been proposed - take wireless profits and plow that into a massive fiber expansion. The resulting drop in quarterly profits would cause their stock price to fall, which would cause investors to sell the stock, causing the price to fall more. Keep that up for a few quarters and the CEO will be out of a job.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 11:43 AM   #143
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
Running a business isn't an investment, it is a job - the job of the CEO. His job description is to run the business as efficiently as possible to maximize the return to the investors.

If you bought a stock that wasn't going to return an increase in value or a dividend for 50 years, you'd probably move on to another stock. Stockholders want returns this month, not way down the road.

Let's say Verizon were to do exactly what has been proposed - take wireless profits and plow that into a massive fiber expansion. The resulting drop in quarterly profits would cause their stock price to fall, which would cause investors to sell the stock, causing the price to fall more. Keep that up for a few quarters and the CEO will be out of a job.
Then for-profit businesses obviously cannot be entrusted to build and manage this country's wired internet infrastructure. The states or federal government should use eminent domain to nationalize all wired infrastructure and take the decisions about its future out of the hands of CEOs and shareholders that can't think past the next quarter.
tarheelblue32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 11:57 AM   #144
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
...The states or federal government should use eminent domain to nationalize all wired infrastructure and take the decisions about its future out of the hands of CEOs and shareholders that can't think past the next quarter.
There is certainly a rationale for that sentiment. The current state of affairs is like relying upon the car companies and oil refiners to build roads. If we had used that model we would have 12 lane highways between the major cities and dirt paths to rural communities (sort of exactly what we have in broadband today). The only time letting the service provider manage the building of the medium over which the service is delivered has worked has been in heavily regulated utilities. The telephone network was built by AT&T when it was THE Phone Company and had no competition, and the power grid was built when the power industry was vertically integrated and more closely regulated, with geographic exclusivity. In both of these cases, by removing exclusive franchises/statutory monopolies the continued expansion and upgrade of the networks has been ignored.

The fact is that broadband internet should be seen by government as being a public utility whose expansion to serve every single citizen is a key goal, just like electric and telephone service was seen in the last century. In exchange for keeping their networks open and neutral to the source of the traffic, and building out broadband service to serve every single household, the providers should be granted exclusive franchises by geographic area.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 12:39 PM   #145
stevel
Dumb Blond
 
stevel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 24,296
TC CLUB MEMBER
Diana is also a respected member at dbstalk.com. I always learn something from her posts there.
__________________
Steve
stevel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 12:44 PM   #146
slowbiscuit
FUBAR
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 2,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
The fact is that broadband internet should be seen by government as being a public utility whose expansion to serve every single citizen is a key goal, just like electric and telephone service was seen in the last century. In exchange for keeping their networks open and neutral to the source of the traffic, and building out broadband service to serve every single household, the providers should be granted exclusive franchises by geographic area.
Agree 100% but we're way too far down the payoff/revolving door road for this to happen (sans some massive public uprising, but if we don't care how the NSA is raping us I'm not seeing how we're going to care about getting fleeced for HSI).

Even if the FCC wants to go common carrier for ISPs, the massive number of lawyers involved will make sure it gets tied up in the courts forever.
slowbiscuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 04:02 PM   #147
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by trip1eX View Post
Laying fiber is no guarantee of profit. Verizon did FttH and they stopped expanding too. ATT and VZ need to make sure they can cover their debt. And since VZ, at least, has had ftth in many areas for many years now I think they have a good idea of their returns.

I don't see why they wouldn't have the will to spend the money to deploy more ftth if the returns were decent.
Fiber is very profitable if you amortize it over an appropriate amount of time, like 30 years. And Verizon isn't even doing a good job with FIOS. If they switched to MPEG-4 to be able to offer an even better channel lineup, and they offered a gigabit internet product, they would be that much more competitive with cable. They are price competitive, but not enough so. They should get more aggressive, and they will get more of the market. Instead, they are finding creative ways to nickel and dime their subscribers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
AT&T and Verizon are both making tons of money off of wireless. There is no reason why they can't use the profits from wireless to subsidize the buildout of FTTH. FTTH does have a good projected return on capital, it's just the returns are over 50+ years, and neither company seems willing to wait past the next quarter.
Right, Wall Street, the investors, and the executives all have the attention span of a 2-year-old, and scream "I WANT IT NOW!". Telcos should be thinking over a 30-year span, as infrastructure takes at least that long to pay for itself. When thinking over that time period, there is no way to justify NOT putting in gigabit fiber to every customer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
I currently (for another 2 months) subscribe to DirecTV for TV and have FiOS for internet and phone. The "unbundled" price for FiOS is less than the unbundled price for the same service from my local cable provider, Cablevision. I personally know about 50 families in my town with FiOS and only about 10 of them get FiOS TV (the rest use one of two satellite providers).
I'd like to know what pricing you have on FIOS internet. From what I've seen on their site, they charge $80-$90/mo for internet only, depending on which tier you get, which is completely insane. I'm not familiar with CableVision's pricing scheme, but on Comcast, it appears to be $55-$65, depending on tier. I'm in a relatively unique position in that we have a local overbuilder in addition to Comcast and AT&T that offers 55/10 for $60/mo, although that's only a few $ less than Comcast.

Quote:
Or, a dish on the roof.
A lot of MDUs aren't physically set up for that to work, and in other cases, the owner wouldn't allow it. AT&T had a legal right to be in the buildings via copper, and they can upgrade that to VDSL simply by sticking a VRAD near the MDU they are trying to serve.

Quote:
Only foreign language programming is on 119 these days. All of DirecTV's English language programming comes from 101 (SD) or 99 & 103 (HD).

The low sight lines on the east coast for 119 is why Dish Network runs two completely separate satellite constellations, one for the Eastern US (at 61.5, 72.7 and 77) and one for the Western US (at 110,119 and 129).
Hartford-New Haven's SD locals are on 119, and thus *I think* Hartford-New Haven is required to have an SL5, not an SL3, even though the locals are available in HD on 99c or 103c. I'm not positive that they still *require* an SL5, but I very, very rarely see an SL3 around here, so it probably requires a special exception or something to install one.

DISH was kind of forced to, since 129, where they have a lot of HD stuff, is nearly impossible to get on the east coast, as is 61.5 on the west coast. It also helped them a LOT with locals. You'd basically have to be living under a forest to not be able to get DISH EA in CT, however, it's irrelevant, as they have chosen to effectively not compete in the NYC DMA or all of the state of CT due to their lack of YES and SNY.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
There is certainly a rationale for that sentiment. The current state of affairs is like relying upon the car companies and oil refiners to build roads. If we had used that model we would have 12 lane highways between the major cities and dirt paths to rural communities (sort of exactly what we have in broadband today). The only time letting the service provider manage the building of the medium over which the service is delivered has worked has been in heavily regulated utilities. The telephone network was built by AT&T when it was THE Phone Company and had no competition, and the power grid was built when the power industry was vertically integrated and more closely regulated, with geographic exclusivity. In both of these cases, by removing exclusive franchises/statutory monopolies the continued expansion and upgrade of the networks has been ignored.

The fact is that broadband internet should be seen by government as being a public utility whose expansion to serve every single citizen is a key goal, just like electric and telephone service was seen in the last century. In exchange for keeping their networks open and neutral to the source of the traffic, and building out broadband service to serve every single household, the providers should be granted exclusive franchises by geographic area.
That's a good point. They talk of "competition", but until there are multiple companies who want to build out (and it may not make sense to have 3-4 providers in every area), then they should be regulated as the monopolies that they are.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 05:15 PM   #148
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
...I'd like to know what pricing you have on FIOS internet. From what I've seen on their site, they charge $80-$90/mo for internet only, depending on which tier you get, which is completely insane. I'm not familiar with CableVision's pricing scheme, but on Comcast, it appears to be $55-$65, depending on tier. I'm in a relatively unique position in that we have a local overbuilder in addition to Comcast and AT&T that offers 55/10 for $60/mo, although that's only a few $ less than Comcast...
I pay $59.99/month for 75 down/35 up service. If I switched back to Cablevision, they would change me $49.95 for 15 down/3 up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
...Hartford-New Haven's SD locals are on 119, and thus *I think* Hartford-New Haven is required to have an SL5, not an SL3, even though the locals are available in HD on 99c or 103c. I'm not positive that they still *require* an SL5, but I very, very rarely see an SL3 around here, so it probably requires a special exception or something to install one.

DISH was kind of forced to, since 129, where they have a lot of HD stuff, is nearly impossible to get on the east coast, as is 61.5 on the west coast. It also helped them a LOT with locals. You'd basically have to be living under a forest to not be able to get DISH EA in CT, however, it's irrelevant, as they have chosen to effectively not compete in the NYC DMA or all of the state of CT due to their lack of YES and SNY...
Forgot about the SD locals. AFAIK, the SL3 feedhorn assembly is the standard for HD installs everywhere. If you still have an SD TV they usually still hook it up to an HD receiver. The only SL5 installs happening anymore are all SD installs in markets where the SD locals are on 119 spotbeams, or for foreign language packages. They are, however, planning to stop to doing SD only installs if they have not done so already.

Of course, it wasn't just look angles that drove Dish to a dual arc system. They only had 22 transponder licenses at 119 (which is where they started) and 29 at 110 (acquired from MCI and News Corp, ironically enough) with no other assets in the area. DirecTV on the other hand, had all 32 transponders at 101, 3 at 110 and 10 at 119, plus had full slot Ka licenses at 99 and 103. Each Ka slot has twice the total bandwidth of a Ku DBS slot, so DirecTV has a massive amount of bandwidth within a 20 degree arc, most it within a 4 degree arc.

There was no way Dish could do HD on their 110/119 assets, so they cut a deal with Rainbow's Voom all HD service to acquire their 61.5 assets and cut a deal with Angel Broadcasting to get their 61.5 licenses. That let them get into HD, but as you point out, it was barely above the horizon from the West Coast. To solve that problem they leased the entire slot at 129 from the Canadians and stuck Echostar-V there until the Canadian Ciel Satellite Group launched Ciel-2. Dish also uses a Canadian satellite (Nimiq-5) at 72.5 and a Mexican one (QuetzSat-1) at 77. Thus, the 2 arc solution was born, at the cost of higher operating expenses (twice the uplinks) and paying satellite lease fees.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 06:41 PM   #149
Jed1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Frackville, PA.
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
There is certainly a rationale for that sentiment. The current state of affairs is like relying upon the car companies and oil refiners to build roads. If we had used that model we would have 12 lane highways between the major cities and dirt paths to rural communities (sort of exactly what we have in broadband today). The only time letting the service provider manage the building of the medium over which the service is delivered has worked has been in heavily regulated utilities. The telephone network was built by AT&T when it was THE Phone Company and had no competition, and the power grid was built when the power industry was vertically integrated and more closely regulated, with geographic exclusivity. In both of these cases, by removing exclusive franchises/statutory monopolies the continued expansion and upgrade of the networks has been ignored.

The fact is that broadband internet should be seen by government as being a public utility whose expansion to serve every single citizen is a key goal, just like electric and telephone service was seen in the last century. In exchange for keeping their networks open and neutral to the source of the traffic, and building out broadband service to serve every single household, the providers should be granted exclusive franchises by geographic area.
I have been looking to relocate to Chattanooga, TN and the city has set up their own fiber optic network using their Electric Power Board.
I was looking at getting work at the new Volkswagen plant and in my research I found out about the Electric Power Board. I see that Comcast tried to sue them to prevent them from doing this as if Comcast had any aspirations to do this themselves.
They are advertising $69.99/month for 1 gig speeds.
https://epbfi.com/gigsupport/

http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/20/tech...Latest+News%29

https://epbfi.com/
https://www.epb.net/
__________________
I apologize in any delays responding to PM's or posts as I do not receive any email notifications. And no I do not use Gmail as I do not want Google in my life.
Jed1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 07:41 AM   #150
murgatroyd
Don't stop believin'
 
murgatroyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Berkeley CA
Posts: 22,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
Then for-profit businesses obviously cannot be entrusted to build and manage this country's wired internet infrastructure. The states or federal government should use eminent domain to nationalize all wired infrastructure and take the decisions about its future out of the hands of CEOs and shareholders that can't think past the next quarter.
And the government isn't much better -- they don't think past the next election cycle.
__________________
"The capacity of human beings to disappoint me is never ending." -- Ereth
murgatroyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVoŽ is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:03 AM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |