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 06-05-2014, 12:20 AM   #181
Series3Sub
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
What the heck are the Canadians going to do with 129? It's so far west, it can't serve Toronto or Montreal, so it can really only serve Vancouver. They'll keep leasing to DISH. For east coast markets, EA is a big deal, and I doubt that they're going to let it go anywhere.

DirecTV has Spanish language stuff on 119, I thought 110 is empty now? They had HD up until 2008 when it moved over to 99c/103c.
Canadian politicians have a problem with the USA. They current lease to Echostar at 129 was good business for Ciel Sat Group and so the Canadian govt. "gave in." However, the Canadian Govt. allowed the lease of a Canadian asset to a US company at 129 ONLY on the condition that the slot be used for use in Canada ("the people of Canada) at the end of the 15 year lease. Given how Canadian politicians don't like USA and their past behavior on patriotic issues, it is NOT going to be leased for an additional 15 years. It is a principal to them that is truly something we Americans, capitalists to the hilt, can't get our heads around. For us it is always the $$ and forever economics, but for our neighbors to the north they see Canadian assets differently. Further, Dish doesn't NEED 129 by the end of the lease. Perhaps even less so as Dish's OTT service via internet to be launched this year matures on the years to come. "If I were building Dish (Network) today, I would not be investing in satellites," was Charlie Ergen's quote during a quarterly earnings conference call just a few years ago. He really is the wizard who has and still sees into the future better than any CEO (Chairman) in the TV biz today. Also, Canadian slot 118 will also merely finish its 15 year lease and no longer be needed by Dish as they are in the process of moving their entire International offerings to IPTV and Dish World streamed on devices like Roku. It's just hard for us to see into the future, but Ergen not only sees it, he has spent money on it and built the path for it from tons of servers for his OTT service coming this year, to his spectrum buys that have the two arcs being unnecessary a decade from today.
Series3Sub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 11:56 AM   #182
cram501
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
Wireless is not just cellular. You continue to insist that the it will be years and years before anything faster than LTE is available. Of course, faster wireless options exist today. While the implementation costs is probably as high as fiber to the home, 802.11ad can deliver over 6 gigabits/per second. You seem to be stuck thinking of wireless as strictly one session per channel. There are so many ways to slice up a channel, without reducing effective throughput on any session, to list them all would take pages.

Sorry, you are wrong...you can push that much bandwidth through the air, and you can do it today (at a price). The only challenge is to make it economical and consumer oriented - neither of which are years long processes.
It really doesn't matter if it's cellular or some new wireless technology. You will have a connection that is less clean, less responsive, and more prone to issues. When going over the air, you will have interference. That makes it less reliable. They can create protocols to work around the issues, decrease response time so it's less noticeable, but it's there. As use goes up, the problems go up and it's hard to expand to a spectrum that doesn't exist.

I disagree on the time frame. When they have a technology that is economically feasible, make it widely available, get devices that can communicate and utilize it, and not charge me ridiculous prices for reasonable bandwidth, it will be years. Eventually I think they will come up with a solution but I believe they are jumping the gun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
So, how many multi-billion dollar telecommunications companies have you run? It is easy to play Monday morning quarterback. AT&T did what they could with they what had and the resources they were willing to spend. Last time I checked, AT&T as a whole was doing rather well. Their business doesn't start and end with UVerse. At the rate people are dropping traditional POTS service AT&T could probably solve a lot of their last mile problems bonding multiple pairs together. Even with their problems, UVerse is growing, while the cable companies that are "torturing" them continue to lose subscribers.

But they and Verizon have both, independently, come to the conclusion that wireless transmission of some form will have better ROI than pulling more cable. You may think you're smarter that they are, and smarter than the rest of us, and you may be right...but I wouldn't bet on it.
Both Verizon and AT&T have both come to the realization that, right now, they make more money from wireless. It doesn't mean they'll make more money for internet access via wireless and they seem incapable of separating the two. The technology isn't there yet and I'll be surprised if they can pull it off in the next decade (not that they are looking that far ahead).

My belief is that both Verizon and AT&T will start expanding and upgrading their physical networks again when they come to that realization OR sell off land lines all together.
cram501 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 12:48 PM   #183
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,439
Well, technical issues aside (we'll have to agree to disagree there) nobody is doing FTTH anytime soon (except Google, who is doing it slowly, bribing local officials and doing it all in the first place just to shame the ISPs) until it has a decent ROI. As I said in the part of my post you didn't quote:

...the ROI on fiber to the premises is poor...less that could be earned by simply putting the money in the bank.
__________________
Current Setup: 2 Roamio Pros, 5 Minis on FiOS (all with lifetime)

Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 03:03 PM   #184
cram501
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 70
Technological problems will be an issue with any wireless communications systems. The extent all depends on the environment and how close they get to capacity.

ROI for infrastructure is always initially poor. It takes years to make it worthwhile. Verizon and AT&T are focused on wireless purely for short term profits, it's short term growth potential, and to get around regulation. Because of their short sighted goals, they most likely will suffer for it in the long run. I don't think it has anything to do with long term ROI. Management will let the next guy deal with the lack of investment.

It would be nice to have a reliable, low latency wireless avenue. It will probably happen eventually but it's vapor ware until it's implemented in a real world scenario.
cram501 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 03:46 PM   #185
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 6,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
I think a lot of the conversation has been focused on the wrong issues. When talking about wireless, we seem to be discussing 4G LTE as the "state of the art." It is not.

LTE as currently implemented by Verizon, AT&T, etc., is a rushed to market version of "real" LTE, which is just now being rolled out as LTE-Advanced.

Beyond LTE-Advanced there are newer spectrum bands (at higher frequencies) that are being developed. While the higher frequencies can support higher bit rates, they don't penetrate buildings as well, making them undesirable for mobile uses but just fine for "pole to home" purposes. Add in some of spectrum manipulation tricks that Artemis and companies like them are building to deliver each user within a cell the full capacity of the link, and there is no longer any need for a wire of any kind running into the home in order to deliver a gigabit connection.

..........
I like that kind of talk! Run the signal up the pole with fiber (or maybe cable in the short term), then see if a wireless pole-to-home system will salute it! I hope your futuristic technical intuition is correct! There is a strong wave of anti-wi-fi sentiment currently because streaming over home networks is usually more reliable with wired ethernet. But I'm optimistic about technical advances and I sure would like that "drop ship me an internet transceiver" world compared to my current cable modem and its truck rolls.
__________________

"It must be swell to be so perfect and odor-free" -- Del Griffith


VideoReDo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

pyTivo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dlfl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 04:02 PM   #186
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
First of all, you don't "amortize" an asset, you amortize debt. You depreciate an asset. Both have very specific rules under GAAP. However, neither are what is relevant here. What you are calling "amortization" is actually Return On Investment (ROI). ROI is calculated using a variety of factors including cost of money, opportunity cost and others. Again, there are accounting rules - companies, particularly public ones like Verizon, can't just make this stuff up. The fact is that the ROI on fiber to the premises is poor...less that could be earned by simply putting the money in the bank.
Maybe it's not amortized for tax purposes, but it effectively is for accounting purposes, since you have to figure out how much it costs over a given period of time, like a year. If you want to call it ROI, fine. The ROI on FTTH is excellent, if you use the right time periods. It's not going to get a good ROI or an ROI at all if you think in terms of 5 or 10 years, because that's a ridiculously short period of time for infrastructure. There's a reason that house mortgages are amortized over 30 years, and that's just one little house.

Quote:
Wireless is not just cellular. You continue to insist that the it will be years and years before anything faster than LTE is available. Of course, faster wireless options exist today. While the implementation costs is probably as high as fiber to the home, 802.11ad can deliver over 6 gigabits/per second. You seem to be stuck thinking of wireless as strictly one session per channel. There are so many ways to slice up a channel, without reducing effective throughput on any session, to list them all would take pages.
Wifi isn't going to help build a network that can do what GPON fiber can do. Wifi is limited to a few hundred feet at best. Sure, you can slice and dice one way or another, but at some point, you're going to just run out of bandwidth. Even U-Verse's pathetic bandwidth looks rather large compared to AT&T's wireless network. And U-Verse is already behind the game compared to cable.

Quote:
Sorry, you are wrong...you can push that much bandwidth through the air, and you can do it today (at a price). The only challenge is to make it economical and consumer oriented - neither of which are years long processes.
You can push gigabits through the air, yes. However, it does not scale. There is no way that you could push enough bandwidth through the air to even offer U-Verse wirelessly today, no matter what technology and how much spectrum you used. Even a dense grid of wireless sites would have thousands of subscribers on each site in urban areas.

To bring it back to the thread topic, what would be economical in rural areas would be for AT&T to use LTE for phone and data, and offer reasonable home internet packages, and bundle the TV with DirecTV.

Quote:
So, how many multi-billion dollar telecommunications companies have you run? It is easy to play Monday morning quarterback. AT&T did what they could with they what had and the resources they were willing to spend. Last time I checked, AT&T as a whole was doing rather well. Their business doesn't start and end with UVerse. At the rate people are dropping traditional POTS service AT&T could probably solve a lot of their last mile problems bonding multiple pairs together. Even with their problems, UVerse is growing, while the cable companies that are "torturing" them continue to lose subscribers.
It's not Monday morning quarterbacking. I was saying the same thing when AT&T started their idiotic U-Verse program. It was obvious back then that FIOS, at least the fiber part, was the right way to go. Whether Verizon should have gone IPTV is up for debate, as their system today is completely out of capacity for additional video channels. However, since they are running BPON and GPON, it wouldn't be hard at all to slap an IPTV system on top of their existing product, and over time phase out QAM, or run a hybrid system and not tri-mux anything on the QAM system, with the less popular content on the IPTV system. In fact, I think they might have the ability to do that today, except for CableCard support for the non-QAM material...

U-Verse has no long-term viability. They've found some customers who hate the cable company and will try anything that's not Comcast or TWC or whoever. However, over time, as their bandwidth needs grow, and U-Verse can't deliver, they will go back to cable, unless AT&T start running a huge amount of fiber.

Quote:
But they and Verizon have both, independently, come to the conclusion that wireless transmission of some form will have better ROI than pulling more cable. You may think you're smarter that they are, and smarter than the rest of us, and you may be right...but I wouldn't bet on it.
They're two different businesses, and if they had competent leadership, would be run basically separately, with each getting the upgrades that it needs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Series3Sub View Post
Canadian politicians have a problem with the USA.
So they're going to take back 129, which can basically only serve Vancouver, just to spite us? That makes no sense. OTT plays aren't going to replace DBS anytime soon. Many DBS subscribers either have slow DSL, or can't get good internet access at all, so that approach makes little sense. I'm sure DirecTV will be eager to suck up several million customers if Charlie Ergen drives them away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cram501 View Post
My belief is that both Verizon and AT&T will start expanding and upgrading their physical networks again when they come to that realization OR sell off land lines all together.
Yeah, they have to do one or the other. Hopefully, they do the former, since they have the deep pockets to do massive fiber build-outs that smaller telcos don't have, especially after the deals are made worse by creative accounting by the incumbent selling the lines off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
...the ROI on fiber to the premises is poor...less that could be earned by simply putting the money in the bank.
ROI on fiber is good... if you account for it properly. Verizon should also get back in the game, offer $70/mo gigabit, and switch to MPEG-4 on the QAM side to just blow the cable companies out of the water on channel selection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cram501 View Post
ROI for infrastructure is always initially poor. It takes years to make it worthwhile. Verizon and AT&T are focused on wireless purely for short term profits, it's short term growth potential, and to get around regulation. Because of their short sighted goals, they most likely will suffer for it in the long run. I don't think it has anything to do with long term ROI. Management will let the next guy deal with the lack of investment.

It would be nice to have a reliable, low latency wireless avenue. It will probably happen eventually but it's vapor ware until it's implemented in a real world scenario.
Exactly. They are falling farther and farther behind on the wireline side as a result of their focus only on short-term profits. Gee, that sounds like a lot of businesses, as well as government in the US.

No one has ever made wireless that's as reliable as wireline, and probably never will. Cisco's dual-band enterprise Wifi gear comes close, but even then, it's just not as reliable and consistent as Ethernet.
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 07:37 PM   #187
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
Maybe it's not amortized for tax purposes, but it effectively is for accounting purposes, since you have to figure out how much it costs over a given period of time, like a year. If you want to call it ROI, fine. The ROI on FTTH is excellent, if you use the right time periods. It's not going to get a good ROI or an ROI at all if you think in terms of 5 or 10 years, because that's a ridiculously short period of time for infrastructure. There's a reason that house mortgages are amortized over 30 years, and that's just one little house...
"Tax purposes" is accounting. Again, there is no such thing as using "the right time periods" when calculating ROI. There are rules about how is calculated and the the time period over which the analysis is done. Let's take an example of a delivery company buying a bigger truck. While the bigger truck will allow the company to take on larger jobs, and may increase revenue by, say 10% and that 10% pays for cost of the truck in 3 years, it may not be a wise investment. You need to not only look at the cost of the truck and the revenue, but also the increased fuel cost of a larger truck when moving smaller jobs that don't fill the truck (decreasing profitability), the opportunity cost (what other useful things could you do with that money if you didn't buy the truck, and which you can't do if you do buy it), and factor in inflation. If inflation is 3%/year, then your revenue increase is only 7% because your total revenue is worth 3% less each year than the year before. Over a 30 year period inflation become a major factor. If an investment costs $1 million dollars, and inflation is 3%, then over a 30 year period you need to generate about $2.5 million just to break even, never mind make money. Then you have the actual cost of money - that's what you would earn by not spending the money at all, but rather investing it in a instrument with a guaranteed return (different finance department have different values, but they all have one). Technically, CFOs don't even look at ROI, they look at internal rate of return, which is very similar in concept, but more rigorous.

So, it is not as simple as "spend a billion now to make 10 billion in 30 years." That COULD be a good investment, but it could just as easily be like throwing the money away.

Note to any accountants that read this: I know I have grossly oversimplified the subject, but I have done that in the interest of brevity, and really am just trying to the make the point that this is not a simple calculation.
__________________
Current Setup: 2 Roamio Pros, 5 Minis on FiOS (all with lifetime)

Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 11:14 PM   #188
unitron
Registered User
 
unitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: semi-coastal NC
Posts: 13,591
Tax purposes is 99% of the reason for 99% of the accounting.
__________________
(thisismysigfile)


"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Darth TiVo, 14 February, 2011
unitron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2014, 04:18 PM   #189
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
"Tax purposes" is accounting. Again, there is no such thing as using "the right time periods" when calculating ROI. There are rules about how is calculated and the the time period over which the analysis is done. Let's take an example of a delivery company buying a bigger truck. While the bigger truck will allow the company to take on larger jobs, and may increase revenue by, say 10% and that 10% pays for cost of the truck in 3 years, it may not be a wise investment. You need to not only look at the cost of the truck and the revenue, but also the increased fuel cost of a larger truck when moving smaller jobs that don't fill the truck (decreasing profitability), the opportunity cost (what other useful things could you do with that money if you didn't buy the truck, and which you can't do if you do buy it), and factor in inflation. If inflation is 3%/year, then your revenue increase is only 7% because your total revenue is worth 3% less each year than the year before. Over a 30 year period inflation become a major factor. If an investment costs $1 million dollars, and inflation is 3%, then over a 30 year period you need to generate about $2.5 million just to break even, never mind make money. Then you have the actual cost of money - that's what you would earn by not spending the money at all, but rather investing it in a instrument with a guaranteed return (different finance department have different values, but they all have one). Technically, CFOs don't even look at ROI, they look at internal rate of return, which is very similar in concept, but more rigorous.

So, it is not as simple as "spend a billion now to make 10 billion in 30 years." That COULD be a good investment, but it could just as easily be like throwing the money away.

Note to any accountants that read this: I know I have grossly oversimplified the subject, but I have done that in the interest of brevity, and really am just trying to the make the point that this is not a simple calculation.
If they're looking at fiber over a 5- or 10-year period of time, they're definitely doing something wrong. The ONTs and PON switches and whatnot are probably a 5- or 10-year item, but the actual fiber that's in the ground or on the poles is a 30-year investment, if not longer.

In the case of FIOS, when you account for other costs and benefits, you also have to look at cost avoidance, which is huge by thinning out the copper plant and going to fiber.
__________________
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 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 04:13 AM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |