PDA

View Full Version : I'm so happy that Time Warner and Comcast are merging! Yay!



Gags
February 20th, 2014, 11:29 AM
Now, many places will have one option for their internet and TV. And...These f-ckers will continue to raise prices. Why? Because they can.

Oh...There I go again with my bigoted views of Corporations...

The Man With The Plan
February 20th, 2014, 11:41 AM
Right, cuz satellite providers aren't an option?

Steve
February 20th, 2014, 11:45 AM
Right, cuz satellite providers aren't an option?

And phone companies don't provide internet service.

Leave Gags alone, it's two big companies combining, so it MUST be evil.

colombiapunk
February 20th, 2014, 11:45 AM
C'mon GOOGLE fiber!!!!!!

goofyjumper
February 20th, 2014, 11:45 AM
I didn't know there were places where you could choose between Time Warner or Comcast.... Everywhere I have lived it was one or the other for cable.

DaJudge
February 20th, 2014, 12:00 PM
Companies & Industries

Comcast-Time Warner Merger Is Good for Competition—and Consumers (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-18/comcast-time-warner-merger-good-for-competition-and-consumers)

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-18/comcast-time-warner-merger-good-for-competition-and-consumers

By Larry Popelka February 18, 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members of Congress are lining up to criticize the proposed Comcast (CMCSA)-Time Warner (TWC) merger announced last week, threatening a careful antitrust review. This is a great example of how U.S. antitrust policy has turned into a political game instead of a serious attempt to encourage competition and consumer choice.

With all their flaws, cable companies present an easy target for politicians, and the pending antitrust review provides a forum to score points with constituents. None of this chest-pounding will lower cable bills or improve service. It may actually hurt honest competition in the long run.

The Sherman Antitrust Act was created to prevent monopolistic activities that diminish consumer choice or competition; the Comcast-Time Warner deal will do neither. The two companies’ footprints are in completely separate geographies. They don’t compete over a single customer, so the merger isn’t going to eliminate choice for anyone.

Story: A Comcast-Time Warner Cable Merger May Be Just Fine With Regulators (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-13/a-comcast-time-warner-cable-merger-may-be-just-fine-with-regulators)

More important, both companies are limping along, victims of big changes in the television industry that may make them irrelevant within a decade. Only about 40 percent of homes in the combined Comcast-Time Warner geography still subscribe to cable TV service, according to investment research firm Morningstar, due to inroads from satellite TV, IPTV (Internet offerings such as those of AT&T (T) U-verse, and Verizon (VZ) FiOS) and subscription video-on-demand services like those of Netflix (NFLX), Hulu Plus, and Amazon (AMZN) Prime.

Morningstar also reports that total cable TV subscribers across all cable operators declined 10 percent in past four years; Time Warner was down 6 percent last year alone. Many analysts expect cloud-based on-demand services to take over a large portion of the industry in the next several years, enabling virtually unlimited content to be viewed anytime, anywhere. Many younger households known as “cord cutters” are walking away from cable and satellite TV for these online services, which offer more content, fewer ads, and lower prices.

The cable TV industry has no answer for this, although Comcast is the one company making an effort. It is investing in technology to provide its own cloud-based, on-demand service to subscribers. This helped Comcast perform better than rest of the cable industry last year, though it still lost 1 per cent of its TV subscribers.

Story: Three Ways Comcast Can Win the Future of TV (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-14/3-reasons-why-comcast-is-now-better-positioned-to-win-the-future-of-tv)

Merging with Time Warner Cable will increase Comcast’s subscriber base by 50 percent, from 22 million to 33 million homes, giving it access to about 70 percent of U.S. households and a bigger base over which to spread its on-demand investment. For perspective, Netflix has 29 million subscribers in the U.S. and 44 million worldwide.

Unlike Comcast, Netflix doesn’t have the burden of owning and maintaining a clunky cable wiring system to deliver its product, so its capital requirements are low and it can invest more in proprietary content such as the popular show, House of Cards.

While some have theorized that Comcast’s control of the physical cables that deliver Internet service to millions of homes might give the company an unfair advantage, AT&T, Verizon Communications, and Dish Network (DISH) all offer high-speed broadband and are poised to capture dissatisfied Comcast users. Meanwhile, Google (GOOG) is testing an option —Google Fiber—that could provide speeds up to 100 times faster than Comcast.

Story: Comcast's Ambitions Go Beyond Cable—to Digital (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/comcasts-ambitions-go-beyond-cable-to-digital)

If Comcast and Time Warner are guilty of anything, it is poor public relations. Most cable consumers hate their operators because of years of price increases, and many members of Congress are playing to this. But these pricing actions were generally driven by content providers.

Six months ago, CBS (CBS) demanded that Time Warner pay more for CBS content, from 50˘ to $2 per subscriber. Time Warner chose to go without CBS for a month but lost 300,000 subscribers in the debacle. CBS came out of it with nary a blemish. A stronger Comcast with greater bargaining power would make it more difficult for content providers to extract additional payments, which might keep cable TV prices in check. Expect content providers to be vocal opponents of this merger.

Further opposition will come from bureaucrats who still use the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) to evaluate monopoly status. The HHI is a dated metric that looks solely at market share and fails to take into account any other competitive factors. For this reason, Comcast is offering to divest 3 million Time Warner subscribers, a silly move designed solely to keep Comcast below a mythical 30 percent HHI market share threshold.

Story: Six Takeaways from the Comcast-Time Warner Cable Deal (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-13/six-takeways-from-the-comcast-time-warner-cable-deal)

If government regulators are serious about increasing competition in the TV business, they need to look beyond old metrics and political motivations. If they did, they might actually encourage Comcast to buy up all of the remaining cable operators to give the cable business a fighting chance at competing over the next decade.

Story: Three Reasons Comcast's Mega-Deal Could End Up in Court (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-14/three-reasons-comcasts-mega-deal-could-end-up-in-court)

Wulf
February 20th, 2014, 12:21 PM
Cable Market share in the USA before and after Comcast buyout of Time Warner Cable

http://i.imgur.com/CP8MrZt.png

creepycrawler
February 20th, 2014, 12:53 PM
I didn't know there were places where you could choose between Time Warner or Comcast.... Everywhere I have lived it was one or the other for cable.

Shush it. This is no place to state reason or logic.

Clod Hopper
February 20th, 2014, 01:20 PM
I didn't know there were places where you could choose between Time Warner or Comcast.... Everywhere I have lived it was one or the other for cable.

And now there is no longer a need to agonize over that lack of choice, because everywhere you go it will just be Comcast.

The Man With The Plan
February 20th, 2014, 01:27 PM
I really don't see what the hubbub is about. I had comcast before, I have DirecTV now, I like satellite better, price is about the same. If you don't like TimeWarner/Comcast, just go satellite. :confused:

cheftyler
February 20th, 2014, 01:37 PM
Now, many places will have one option for their internet and TV. And...These f-ckers will continue to raise prices. Why? Because they can.

Oh...There I go again with my bigoted views of Corporations...


Right, cuz satellite providers aren't an option?


And phone companies don't provide internet service.

Leave Gags alone, it's two big companies combining, so it MUST be evil.


C'mon GOOGLE fiber!!!!!!

My issue is what this means for Internet.
First thing's first, phone companies CAN'T provide comparable internet speeds, at least not on the upload side of things.
Second, this is about two shitty companies combining to make one ginormous shitty company that will raise prices and lower service.
Third, Google Fiber (the only serious competitor to cable companies for data speeds) isn't going to be offered in nearly enough places to make a difference and put a hurt on Comcast.

Make no mistake, this is BAD for consumers.

goofyjumper
February 20th, 2014, 02:00 PM
Make no mistake, this is BAD for consumers.

Honestly, I think this is GREAT for consumers. This will be another nail in the coffin for Comcast. We really do have a choice for high speed internet and those choices are rapidly getting better with technology. I left Comcast's high speed internet three years ago in favor of Century Link's mid-level DSL service which is more than cable of providing quality internet to the house with a couple of user's and stream Netflix simultaneously.

We are not far off from high speed wireless internet and city wide hot spots. Comcast will never be able to compete with those systems using their capital intensive cable system.

Steve
February 20th, 2014, 02:06 PM
Make no mistake, this is BAD for consumers.

We don't use either company, and have never used either company, so it's not bad for us. As others have pointed out there are alternatives for everything they provide so it's not a big deal. Don't like 'em? Don't use em.

Clod Hopper
February 20th, 2014, 02:28 PM
So is Comcast chasing an antiquated system? Is Time-warner dumping a dated technology or just not as good at it as Comcast? Is the classic wired cable industry headed for scrap heap?

scottycards
February 20th, 2014, 02:35 PM
Interesting to see people framing this around television- that didn't even occur to me.

I see satellite as far superior to cable for television.

My only thought on this was for internet. Sat internet is dial-up slow, and I've been down the DSL road, which also sucks (at least where I'm located).

I have no option other than cable for internet service. No FIOS here, no G Fiber.

Our static-IP business line from Comcast has slowed down by about 50% in the last 18 months. We still pay the same.

No comment, just what we're experiencing. Time Warner isn't in our area, so the merger is a non-issue from a competition standpoint, as there is no competition. If I want even reasonably fast internet, it's Comcast.

I'd love to see some competition come in. I'd pay for fiber.

cheftyler
February 20th, 2014, 02:42 PM
Honestly, I think this is GREAT for consumers. This will be another nail in the coffin for Comcast. We really do have a choice for high speed internet and those choices are rapidly getting better with technology. I left Comcast's high speed internet three years ago in favor of Century Link's mid-level DSL service which is more than cable of providing quality internet to the house with a couple of user's and stream Netflix simultaneously.

We are not far off from high speed wireless internet and city wide hot spots. Comcast will never be able to compete with those systems using their capital intensive cable system.

The last time I checked (within the last month) the highest upload speed I could get from Century Link was 768kbps. That is precisely 7.5% of the upload speed I get with Comcast. Centurylink is NOT a valid option. Also, can't get Centurylink's highest tier speed class where I currently live because...well it's an antiquated POS system that requires I live close to a central office.


So is Comcast chasing an antiquated system? Is Time-warner dumping a dated technology or just not as good at it as Comcast? Is the classic wired cable industry headed for scrap heap?

It's the EXACT same system Comcast is using currently, it's a play for more users.

cheftyler
February 20th, 2014, 02:43 PM
We don't use either company, and have never used either company, so it's not bad for us. As others have pointed out there are alternatives for everything they provide so it's not a big deal. Don't like 'em? Don't use em.

Others are wrong. There aren't 1:1 alternatives for the consumer.
I used Dish for TV for two years, hated that.

Clod Hopper
February 20th, 2014, 02:45 PM
I'm on low level DSL. Generally it is enough to stream a roku and a couple tablets all together, or two rokus. Except on the weekend when all the neighbors are using it too. Weekend evenings can really throttle down.

As more and more people go to internet versions of TV and add additional internet computing, the shared use options are going to suck more and more. That includes DSL and cable.

The existing technologies are getting dated fast simply due to the volume of use that is steadily increasing. I don't see the existing wired systems continuing unless some revolutionary communication method using that same wire is invented. Kind of what DSL did for phone lines. Other than that happening, to me it seems more likely that an internet supplier would pitch into a super high speed cell tower system or other wireless concept. Less network hardware, and most users are already accessing to something wirelessly, so no huge leaps and bounds in end user equipment.

I foresee communication wires to your house going the way of the dodo. Just as the land line telephone is quickly disappearing.

Steve
February 20th, 2014, 02:46 PM
Super fast internet service will be the next "right" that every citizen is entitled to, even if they can't afford it. We'll soon have Obamaweb, about which Nancy Pelosi will state "I know it's some computer thingy, but we'll have to pass the bill to know what's in it." Every citizen will be required to buy it, but the .gov will subsidize it if you don't make more than Obama's recommended $10.10/h minimum wage. If you don't buy it you'll be fined by the NSA because they can't track your web use as effectively.

After this is completed they'll tackle the basic Constitutional right of every American to have 200+ HD TV channels.

It's a brave new world we live in. :spit:

cheftyler
February 20th, 2014, 02:49 PM
Super fast internet service will be the next "right" that every citizen is entitled to, even if they can't afford it. We'll soon have Obamaweb, about which Nancy Pelosi will state "I know it's some computer thingy, but we'll have to pass the bill to know what's in it." Every citizen will be required to buy it, but the .gov will subsidize it if you don't make more than Obama's recommended $10.10/h minimum wage. If you don't buy it you'll be fined by the NSA because they can't track your web use as effectively.

After this is completed they'll tackle the basic Constitutional right of every American to have 200+ HD TV channels.

It's a brave new world we live in. :spit:

Well played, Steve :thumbsup:

colombiapunk
February 20th, 2014, 02:58 PM
I think city-wide wifi is the answer.

I had town provided wi-fi where I live, I wanted it to work so bad. It was a great concept but the wireless-G 1.5mbps speeds were too low for streaming. I paid $9.99 for it. I told them I would happily pay $100/mo if they could deliver 50mbps speeds... They said the technology isn't out there.

...Now that's not true... the tech is out there, but I understand the tech has been moving too fast, a/b/g/n/ac etc... has been too fast a move for them to make a large capital investment. Once wireless slows down a little in advancement then this will become viable and will be the future.

The same cable lines that gave us 1.5mbps more than a decade ago are giving us 60+ mbps now... when wireless is able to do that with infrastructure, cable AND fiber will die.

Clod Hopper
February 20th, 2014, 03:04 PM
I think city-wide wifi is the answer.

I had town provided wi-fi where I live, I wanted it to work so bad. It was a great concept but the wireless-G 1.5mbps speeds were too low for streaming. I paid $9.99 for it. I told them I would happily pay $100/mo if they could deliver 50mbps speeds... They said the technology isn't out there.

...Now that's not true... the tech is out there, but I understand the tech has been moving too fast, a/b/g/n/ac etc... has been too fast a move for them to make a large capital investment. Once wireless slows down a little in advancement then this will become viable and will be the future.

The same cable lines that gave us 1.5mbps more than a decade ago are giving us 60+ mbps now... when wireless is able to do that with infrastructure, cable AND fiber will die.

You spend the whole post describing how fast everything is advancing with technology improvements, and have been doing so for a while at an ever increasing pace..... and then you state that at some point, for no particular reason, the technological advancement for wireless will slow down simply to aid implementation? Doubt it.

scottycards
February 20th, 2014, 03:04 PM
Yep, city-wide.......heck, country-wide high speed data connectivity would be a huge business/economic advantage for the United States.

Clod Hopper
February 20th, 2014, 03:07 PM
country-wide high speed data connectivity

One single huge bamph mother-fricken tower! :)

cheftyler
February 20th, 2014, 03:12 PM
I think city-wide wifi is the answer.

I had town provided wi-fi where I live, I wanted it to work so bad. It was a great concept but the wireless-G 1.5mbps speeds were too low for streaming. I paid $9.99 for it. I told them I would happily pay $100/mo if they could deliver 50mbps speeds... They said the technology isn't out there.

...Now that's not true... the tech is out there, but I understand the tech has been moving too fast, a/b/g/n/ac etc... has been too fast a move for them to make a large capital investment. Once wireless slows down a little in advancement then this will become viable and will be the future.

The same cable lines that gave us 1.5mbps more than a decade ago are giving us 60+ mbps now... when wireless is able to do that with infrastructure, cable AND fiber will die.

City wide wifi is NOT the answer. Talk about a lack of even the hint of having a secure network.
Cable and Fiber will never die (gotta have something to feed those wifi nodes).

goofyjumper
February 20th, 2014, 03:28 PM
City wide wifi is NOT the answer. Talk about a lack of even the hint of having a secure network.
Cable and Fiber will never die (gotta have something to feed those wifi nodes).

We are virtually there with phone networks. Think of all of the wireless data transmitted every day from everyone's smart phones and tablets. Hell, you can get little USB transmitters for your laptops and other devices to be on these networks. Years ago (2006) I lived in a small mining town in Nevada and we had a city-wide hot spot. $10 a month for wireless internet. Town of 15,000 people and you could get high speed internet anywhere in town.

cheftyler
February 20th, 2014, 03:31 PM
We are virtually there with phone networks. Think of all of the wireless data transmitted every day from everyone's smart phones and tablets. Hell, you can get little USB transmitters for your laptops and other devices to be on these networks. Years ago (2006) I lived in a small mining town in Nevada and we had a city-wide hot spot. $10 a month for wireless internet. Town of 15,000 people and you could get high speed internet anywhere in town.

You're thinking about it wrong.
I have a network in my house, I don't use it just to consume data from external sources. I use it to push content from my various devices to my Apple TV, backup my Apple products to my Time Machine drive, transfer files between computers, host install files, etc...can't do ANY of that, securely, on a citywide network.

colombiapunk
February 20th, 2014, 03:34 PM
Chef, "secure" will become a thing of only corporate locations and backbones. I don't care if you have cables all over the place, as soon as you put it through your wi-fi router I can get in just as easily as I can across "city" wifi )which typically goes to a home accesspoint and into a home router...

Yes, we will always have backbones, but the days of cable going through the streets to every home, and even being routed within a home will die.

scottycards
February 20th, 2014, 03:35 PM
I lived in a small mining town in Nevada and we had a city-wide hot spot.

Not Ely, by chance, was it?

DaJudge
February 20th, 2014, 03:35 PM
So is Comcast chasing an antiquated system? Is Time-warner dumping a dated technology or just not as good at it as Comcast? Is the classic wired cable industry headed for scrap heap?

See the Business Week I posted above.

goofyjumper
February 20th, 2014, 03:36 PM
You're thinking about it wrong.
I have a network in my house, I don't use it just to consume data from external sources. I use it to push content from my various devices to my Apple TV, backup my Apple products to my Time Machine drive, transfer files between computers, host install files, etc...can't do ANY of that, securely, on a citywide network.

Actually, you misread me... the idea is that you have a wireless hub in your house that connects to the city-wide network and you keep a fire walled network in your house. Many wireless router's are capable of this nowadays.

goofyjumper
February 20th, 2014, 03:37 PM
Not Ely, by chance, was it?

LOL, nope, Elko (one step up as far as NV towns go). Though my buddy just moved to Ely.

Clod Hopper
February 20th, 2014, 03:45 PM
Apart from Vegas and Reno, Elko is a damn metropolis compared to most NV towns. Typically it is amazing to have wifi that actually works at hotels in NV, much less the whole town.


Fookin Tonopah, Battle Mtn, etc.

Steve
February 20th, 2014, 03:48 PM
Downtown Spokane has had public wifi for years. Note the date on the story is almost 10 years ago.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5280501/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/city-installs--block-wifi-hot-zone/

Every time I've been through or to (yes, to) Battle Mtn, NV I wonder why on earth somebody decided to start a town there. :barf:

Gags
February 20th, 2014, 03:50 PM
See the Business Week I posted above.

That was a good article! It changed my thinking a bit.

scottycards
February 20th, 2014, 03:52 PM
LOL, nope, Elko (one step up as far as NV towns go). Though my buddy just moved to Ely.

Used to go out there a couple times a year. Same for Elko and Battle Mountain.

Have friends in Elko.

Clod Hopper
February 20th, 2014, 03:55 PM
Every time I've been through or to (yes, to) Battle Mtn, NV I wonder why on earth somebody decided to start a town there. :barf:

Simply because is happened to be near a God-forsaken hole in the ground some schlub was trying to dig while entertaining some far-fetched hope of becoming rich.

cheftyler
February 20th, 2014, 04:12 PM
Chef, "secure" will become a thing of only corporate locations and backbones. I don't care if you have cables all over the place, as soon as you put it through your wi-fi router I can get in just as easily as I can across "city" wifi )which typically goes to a home accesspoint and into a home router...

Yes, we will always have backbones, but the days of cable going through the streets to every home, and even being routed within a home will die.

You'd have a hard time getting anything useful from my wireless network, but you're welcome to try.
The only city-wifi crap I've seen requires each device to connect, but then I never use that because of the total lack of security.


Actually, you misread me... the idea is that you have a wireless hub in your house that connects to the city-wide network and you keep a fire walled network in your house. Many wireless router's are capable of this nowadays.

Fawk that noise.

goofyjumper
February 20th, 2014, 04:17 PM
Downtown Spokane has had public wifi for years. Note the date on the story is almost 10 years ago.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5280501/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/city-installs--block-wifi-hot-zone/

Every time I've been through or to (yes, to) Battle Mtn, NV I wonder why on earth somebody decided to start a town there. :barf:

Multi-billion dollar gold mining industry. The mine I worked at (just north of Carlin) moved 300,000 tons of material a day. Our pit was deeper than the empire state building is tall and nearly a mile across. That being said, the neighboring mine was twice as big. When you have that much money being pumped through such a small community finding money to update infrastructure such as internet services is pretty easy.

Walt
February 20th, 2014, 04:18 PM
Right, cuz satellite providers aren't an option?

Not for internet

scottycards
February 20th, 2014, 04:57 PM
The mine I worked at (just north of Carlin)......

Lol if I told you we drove from Carlin to Eureka at an average speed of 187.5mph would you believe me?

GM4X4LOVER
February 20th, 2014, 05:00 PM
I have sat internet. I actually really like it. Its way faster than dial up and I still can stream.

cheftyler
February 20th, 2014, 05:08 PM
I have sat internet. I actually really like it. Its way faster than dial up and I still can stream.

What's your downlink speed?
How bout up? Oh, up is slower than dialup? Pass.

birddog59
February 20th, 2014, 05:23 PM
Super fast internet service will be the next "right" that every citizen is entitled to, even if they can't afford it. We'll soon have Obamaweb, about which Nancy Pelosi will state "I know it's some computer thingy, but we'll have to pass the bill to know what's in it." Every citizen will be required to buy it, but the .gov will subsidize it if you don't make more than Obama's recommended $10.10/h minimum wage. If you don't buy it you'll be fined by the NSA because they can't track your web use as effectively.

After this is completed they'll tackle the basic Constitutional right of every American to have 200+ HD TV channels.

It's a brave new world we live in. :spit:

Pass the Soma.

Does anyone read a book anymore? Even an e-book?

Zed Mikey
February 20th, 2014, 05:32 PM
Does anyone read a book anymore? Even an e-book?
http://mashable.com/2013/04/11/ebooks-23-percent-publisher-revenue/

Hrmm... $7.1 billion in revenue in 2012. Nah... nobody reads books anymore. Not even e-books.

Trango
February 20th, 2014, 05:32 PM
We don't use either company, and have never used either company, so it's not bad for us. As others have pointed out there are alternatives for everything they provide so it's not a big deal. Don't like 'em? Don't use em.

Actually, all inputs to a market that you may only patronize through one vendor will nonetheless have some impact on the way you source offerings from that market. The very nature of a competitive market means that you are a beneficiary of vendor attempts to neutralize, differentiate, and optimize, whether or not you have any inkling of what is happening.

And, the role of especially anti-trust legislation is to protect consumers. This is another place where the Invisible Hand is too weak to do anything. Left to their own devices and within a regulatory environment beholden to lobbying, the natural path of a services provider would be to regulatorily eliminate all competition, and then price their offering at the point of the supply/demand curve that offers the highest gross volume.

That said, one could easily argue that cable and other pretend-monopolies are anachronistic, but that's a huge topic for another discussion.

etcetera etcetera. No man is an island, and that also goes for everything you buy in a competitive market.

Digger
February 20th, 2014, 05:42 PM
What's your downlink speed?
How bout up? Oh, up is slower than dialup? Pass.

12mbps down 3mbps up with mine. Sucky part is the 15G cap per mo. though, unlimited between 12am-5am

It's satellite or nothing for me.

birddog59
February 20th, 2014, 05:43 PM
http://mashable.com/2013/04/11/ebooks-23-percent-publisher-revenue/

Hrmm... $7.1 billion in revenue in 2012. Nah... nobody reads books anymore. Not even e-books.

You are preaching to the choir. Love my Kindle. I was kidding.

birddog59
February 20th, 2014, 05:45 PM
It's satellite or nothing for me.

Cities are great, but some people are intended to live in the country.

lilgreenjeepyj
February 20th, 2014, 05:47 PM
Right, cuz satellite providers aren't an option?


For internet???? HAHAHAHA is that a serious question....?????


Oh and TV... Yeah, the internet is better at that too....

lilgreenjeepyj
February 20th, 2014, 05:47 PM
C'mon GOOGLE fiber!!!!!!

We got missed again... :(

Steve
February 20th, 2014, 06:02 PM
That said, one could easily argue that cable and other pretend-monopolies are anachronistic, but that's a huge topic for another discussion.

I was waiting to see who went there first. When a municipality will only allow one cable provider, there is effectively no competition. :shrug:

cheftyler
February 20th, 2014, 06:11 PM
Pass the Soma.

Does anyone read a book anymore? Even an e-book?

Every day ;)


We got missed again... :(

:kicksrocks:

Digger
February 20th, 2014, 06:14 PM
For internet???? HAHAHAHA is that a serious question....?????


Oh and TV... Yeah, the internet is better at that too....

There are slight shortcomings to satellite, as mentioned above, but what is so laughable? I can stream, VoIP, browse, game... ping is a little high @ ~650, but hey.. it's ALL better than having nothing.

Trango
February 20th, 2014, 06:25 PM
I was waiting to see who went there first. When a municipality will only allow one cable provider, there is effectively no competition. :shrug:

Not to get all Clayton Christensen on you, but do not discount disruptive technology such as Roku and AppleTV.

Then again, if we fritter away net neutrality, then honestly, **** it.

goofyjumper
February 20th, 2014, 07:51 PM
Lol if I told you we drove from Carlin to Eureka at an average speed of 187.5mph would you believe me?

I would believe you.... That IS the only way to traverse NV efficiently!

bsaunder
February 20th, 2014, 09:00 PM
-

bsaunder
February 20th, 2014, 09:03 PM
My issue is what this means for Internet.
First thing's first, phone companies CAN'T provide comparable internet speeds, at least not on the upload side of things.


Hum, my centurylink dsl is 38Mbps down, 17Mbps up while my comcast is 15Mbps down and 8Mbps up -bith are the max I can get without going business class. With comcast, it only goes down from there during evening hours as others jump on while my centurylink stays consistent. And centurylink actually knows correct TCP/IP networking.

- on the flip side, comcast hasn't gone down for me in 14 yrs and Centurylink goes down any time it rains hard...

bsaunder
February 20th, 2014, 09:14 PM
Chef, "secure" will become a thing of only corporate locations and backbones. I don't care if you have cables all over the place, as soon as you put it through your wi-fi router I can get in just as easily as I can across "city" wifi )which typically goes to a home accesspoint and into a home router...

Yes, we will always have backbones, but the days of cable going through the streets to every home, and even being routed within a home will die.

If you can get on other people's main networks via their wifi, then it's on them for their own lack of security.
There is a reason I have hard wire run in my house and will in my next house (that and it's just plain faster).

The cost for fast, long range wifi would have to come down a lot (and get a lot better) before it can compete with hard lines. As people are continually upping their consumption rate and volume, it'll have to leapfrog Fibre in a hurry to be viable.

cheftyler
February 20th, 2014, 09:15 PM
Hum, my centurylink dsl is 40Mbps down, 20Mbps up while my comcast is 15Mbps down and 8Mbps up (and it only goes down from there during evening hours as others jump on while my centurylink stays consistent) .. And centurylink actually knows correct TCP/IP networking.

- on the flip side, comcast hasn't gone down for me in 14 yrs and Centurylink goes down any time it rains hard...

Interesting, when I called they told me, repeatedly, that their max UL speed is 768k.

cheftyler
February 20th, 2014, 09:17 PM
If you can get on other people's main networks via their wifi, then it's on them for their own lack of security.
There is a reason I have hard wire run in my house and will in my next house (that and it's just plain faster and more consistent).

Fixed that one for you ;)

bsaunder
February 20th, 2014, 09:24 PM
Fixed that one for you ;)

Very true :D

bsaunder
February 20th, 2014, 09:27 PM
Interesting, when I called they told me, repeatedly, that their max UL speed is 768k.

Supposedly I have a Fibre node close by. Two years ago, I was told 1Mbps was the fastest download I could get, so they have been making some definite improvements.

Google Centurylink upload speed and one of the top 5 should be a pdf listed on Centurylink. Com/legal/... Or something very similar. It has all the carnations of the residential download and upload speeds on it.

From a CS standpoint, I'm still not a fan of Centurylink though. Too many stories of having to reach out to friends in the industry to get things fixed as they were having a hard time figuring their way out of a cardboard box..

cheftyler
February 20th, 2014, 09:29 PM
Supposedly I have a Fibre node close by. Two years ago, I was told 1Mbps was the fastest download I could get, so they have been making some definite improvements.

From a CS standpoint, I'm still not a fan of Centurylink though. Too many stories of having to reach out to friends in the industry to get things fixed as they were having a hard time figuring their way out of a cardboard box..

So...crappy proximity based technology...bad CS (not that any cable co has any better)...and they're generally just stupid?

bsaunder
February 20th, 2014, 09:35 PM
So...crappy proximity based technology...bad CS (not that any cable co has any better)...and they're generally just stupid?

Yea, pretty much.
Though to be fair, comcast is also proximity restricted and shared bandwidth on top of that with high rates of bad or malformed packets. Their CS has been world's better than Centurylink though.

Edit: - the CL enterprise and business people I've dealt with have all been excellent though. Maybe I've got the short end of the stick with their consumer and field support...

cheftyler
February 20th, 2014, 09:36 PM
Yea, pretty much.

Though to be fair, comcast is also proximity restricted and shared bandwidth on top of that with high rates of bad or malformed packets. Their CS has been world's better than Centurylink though.

True, I would hate to know what CL's CS has been if that's the case.

Trango
February 21st, 2014, 01:36 AM
Worth the read:
http://bgr.com/2014/02/20/time-warner-cable-internet-speeds-austin/

Pilot
February 21st, 2014, 05:54 AM
Meh. If you don't like Comcast, and I DON'T, use a different provider, or go Netflix, Hulu, etc. Right now I have Verizon FIOS, and am getting very tired of paying $170+ a month for "bundled" services, so I am looking at other alternatives.

Waifer2112
February 21st, 2014, 07:59 AM
Super fast internet service will be the next "right" that every citizen is entitled to, even if they can't afford it. We'll soon have Obamaweb, about which Nancy Pelosi will state "I know it's some computer thingy, but we'll have to pass the bill to know what's in it." Every citizen will be required to buy it, but the .gov will subsidize it if you don't make more than Obama's recommended $10.10/h minimum wage. If you don't buy it you'll be fined by the NSA because they can't track your web use as effectively.

After this is completed they'll tackle the basic Constitutional right of every American to have 200+ HD TV channels.

It's a brave new world we live in. :spit:

Why does Jonathan Davis use the name "Steve" on this forum?

:flipoff2:

lilgreenjeepyj
February 21st, 2014, 09:00 AM
There are slight shortcomings to satellite, as mentioned above, but what is so laughable? I can stream, VoIP, browse, game... ping is a little high @ ~650, but hey.. it's ALL better than having nothing.

You can stream HD through Sat Internet??? Thats a new one.

lilgreenjeepyj
February 21st, 2014, 09:01 AM
then again, if we fritter away net neutrality, then honestly, **** it.


no doubt!!!!

ZappBranigan
February 21st, 2014, 09:45 AM
Pass the Soma.



We already have soma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World), we just call it "weed." ;)

"A gram is better than a 'damn!'" :rolleyes:


Does anyone read a book anymore? Even an e-book?

I have a kindle, which is great for travel, but I'm old fashioned enough that I like a by-God book. :shrug:

I guess that's why my office at home looks like a messy library. :D

CherryokeeXJ
February 21st, 2014, 09:53 AM
What is "tv"? Is that the box that plays my one zombie show every week?

Shakey
February 21st, 2014, 09:59 AM
Super fast internet service will be the next "right" that every citizen is entitled to, even if they can't afford it. We'll soon have Obamaweb, about which Nancy Pelosi will state "I know it's some computer thingy, but we'll have to pass the bill to know what's in it." Every citizen will be required to buy it, but the .gov will subsidize it if you don't make more than Obama's recommended $10.10/h minimum wage. If you don't buy it you'll be fined by the NSA because they can't track your web use as effectively.

After this is completed they'll tackle the basic Constitutional right of every American to have 200+ HD TV channels.

It's a brave new world we live in. :spit:

You sound like a cane-waving-old-man, but you're more worldly than anyone else here, so I'd be interested in your actual opinion.

In the last 20 years my access to the internet has become more necessary to me than having personal automotive transportation. I can walk or take public transportation to work, but I couldn't do my job without access to the internet. I do a lot of research, and those books used to be available in a few libraries in most towns. In the last year to five years, those libraries stopped carrying those books because they expected you to access the information online. Some of that information is free, some of it you have to pay for (and pay a lot for it). The internet is also almost to the point of replacing air travel for me for work purposes. What used to require flying across the country or to another country, probably half the time or more, I now do by video conference over the internet. It means I have to sometimes be at work at midnight and later to do that, but it's better than spending hours traveling and significantly less expensive for the customer.

And, isn't this just the beginning? What's going to be possible in the next 20 years? What happens if the internet is absolutely required for education at some point? While in the US we don't have a Constitutional right to education, it's fair to say that the federal and state governments do a lot to promote access to education. Does the government at some point subsidize it or provide some form of infrastructure made available to us like they do with public schools?

Steve
February 21st, 2014, 10:27 AM
Why does Jonathan Davis use the name "Steve" on this forum?

:flipoff2:


You sound like a cane-waving-old-man, but you're more worldly than anyone else here, so I'd be interested in your actual opinion.

It was humor. Something that clearly is lacking in some people. And if by "wordly" you mean old: :flipoff2:


In the last 20 years my access to the internet has become more necessary to me than having personal automotive transportation. I can walk or take public transportation to work, but I couldn't do my job without access to the internet. I do a lot of research, and those books used to be available in a few libraries in most towns. In the last year to five years, those libraries stopped carrying those books because they expected you to access the information online. Some of that information is free, some of it you have to pay for (and pay a lot for it). The internet is also almost to the point of replacing air travel for me for work purposes. What used to require flying across the country or to another country, probably half the time or more, I now do by video conference over the internet. It means I have to sometimes be at work at midnight and later to do that, but it's better than spending hours traveling and significantly less expensive for the customer.

And, isn't this just the beginning? What's going to be possible in the next 20 years? What happens if the internet is absolutely required for education at some point? While in the US we don't have a Constitutional right to education, it's fair to say that the federal and state governments do a lot to promote access to education. Does the government at some point subsidize it or provide some form of infrastructure made available to us like they do with public schools?

My job would be much more difficult without the web. Is high speed web access a necessity for home, as in for TV, games, Facebook, etc? I guess that depends on your definition of "necessity." Do I think the .gov should subsidize web access? Nope, I absolutely don't. In fact, I'd advocate for keeping the .gov as far away and uninvolved from the internet as possible for a number of reasons.

And GET OFF MY LAWN!!! :rant:

:beer:

Clod Hopper
February 21st, 2014, 10:37 AM
In fact, I'd advocate for keeping the .gov as far away and uninvolved from the internet as possible for a number of reasons.

Too late.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnFJ8cHAlco


;)

Waifer2112
February 21st, 2014, 10:52 AM
It was humor. Something that clearly is lacking in some people.

I had to do this with someone else. Never thought I'd have to for you, too.

Steve. Humor can be applied in many different ways on the internet. One way is to add an LOL, or another moniker such as ROFLMAO. Another way is to add an emoticons, or smileys. These can tell the reader the tone of the remark; whether or not it's sarcastic, serious, pissed, etc. When one uses the :flipoff2: symbol, it doesn't actually mean that the person is pissed and is flipping you off seriously. It really means that the previous statement was in jest.

I hope this helps alleviate some of the problems in communication for you.

You're welcome.














































:flipoff2:

Steve
February 21st, 2014, 10:58 AM
Well played Waifer. :thumbsup:

:beer:

Waifer2112
February 21st, 2014, 11:32 AM
Well played Waifer. :thumbsup:

:beer:

It's all good man. You've got your plate full AFA "real life" stuff, so you get some slack around here...


...for the time being. :evil:

Waifer2112
February 21st, 2014, 12:21 PM
I don't have internet at home, nor do I have a smartphone, so I'm not up on all this stuff. Thought maybe this article was apropo???

http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2014/02/20/4g-data-usa-second-slowest-australia-fastest/#!wKjt3

4G data: The USA is second-slowest while Australia is fastest

OpenSignal has released a report today looking at the state of LTE coverage and speeds around the world, revealing that, contrary to what you might expect, not all LTE networks perform comparably.

While 4G is a convenient term for consumers to get their heads around, the performance of networks being rolled out in different countries is wildly variable, with some operators actually showing overall declines in 4G download speeds in the last year.

For example, the data (covering the second half of 2013) shows that in the US, 4G download speeds have dropped from an average of 9.6Mbps in the second half of 2012 to 6.5Mbps for 2013 – a decline of more than 30 percent. No particular operator seems to be at fault of dragging the average down either; the report notes that “the USA networks uniformly perform poorly for speed – with Metro PCS recording the slowest speeds of all eligible networks”. The US wasn’t actually the slowest country overall, the Philippines took that spot with an average speed of 5.3Mbps.

It’s not just spectrum allocations that can have an effect on speeds, though. Staggered network rollouts, equipment upgrades – and the resulting additional customers – can all come together contribute to a more congested service. At the top of the country list was Australia, which had improved its average download speed by 42 percent; going from 17.3Mbps to 24.5Mbps.

Got any signal?

However, what use is speed if you haven’t got any coverage? To address this, the report also looked at what level of coverage consumers were getting by measuring the ‘Time on LTE’, and much like with average speeds, it shows a variable picture.

With networks around the globe still rolling out LTE, it’s unsurprising that some of the operators (or even countries) offer lower amounts of coverage than others. For example, it’s less surprising to see South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan in the top four for coverage (Sweden is actually the number 2 spot behind South Korea) as they’ve been rolling out LTE networks for longer.

Overall, the US didn’t fare well on speeds, but it manages to keep connection to LTE services for 67 percent of the time, which somewhat redresses the poor downloads. The UK manages to stay connected to LTE 53 percent of the time – again, this isn’t perhaps that surprising given that UK operators only started rolling out their networks in the second half of 2013, with the exception of EE – and the fasty country by download speed (Australia) does a little less well in coverage, managing only 58 percent.

Usefully, what the report also shows is time on LTE correlated with average speed for each of the operators it looked at. Claro BR in Brazil came out as the fastest single operator overall, with an average download speed of 28.45Mbps, but it’s clearly not finished with its rollout as its time on LTE coverage score was just 42.4 percent. At the other end of the scale is Metro PCS in the US, with average speeds of just 2.43Mbps but coverage of 84.7 percent. UK operators (EE, Vodafone, O2) managed between 47 percent and 55 percent on LTE coverage and average download speeds of between 17Mbps and 19Mbps.

There’s a lot of data in the report and some of it may be contrary to expectations, but overall it shows a picture of networks still in the flux of rollouts and looking for ways to manage large numbers of new users without having a knock-on effect on its existing customers. And from the data, it seems some operators are doing better than others at this.