Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

[arvindersingh () mail2tor com]

Yes Kevin, this is understood - but valid observation from Nick.

Can you pls answer my question first?  Very curious.

Arvinder

> Guys, I'm already pretty far off the reservation and will not respond to
> trolling. I think most ISPs are starting to avoid participation here for
> the same reason. I'm going to stop for a while.
>
>       - Kevin
>
>
> On May 15, 2014, at 12:42 PM, "Nick B"
> <nick () pelagiris org<mailto:nick () pelagiris org>> wrote:
>
> Yes, you've got "some of the largest Internet companies as customers".
> Because you told them "if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you".  Then you
> throttled them.  I'm sorry, not a winning argument.
> Nick
>
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, McElearney, Kevin
> <Kevin_McElearney () cable comcast com<mailto:Kevin_McElearney () cable comcast com>>
> wrote:
> Upgrades/buildout are happening every day.  They are continuous to keep
> ahead of demand and publicly measured by SamKnows (FCC measuring
> broadband), Akamai, Ookla, etc
>
> What is not well known is that Comcast has been an existing commercial
> transit business for 15+ years (with over 8000 commercial fiber
> customers).  Comcast also has over 40 balanced peers with plenty of
> capacity, and some of the largest Internet companies as customers.
>
>       - Kevin
>
> 215-313-1083<tel:215-313-1083>
>
> > On May 15, 2014, at 10:19 AM, "Owen DeLong"
> > <owen () delong com<mailto:owen () delong com>> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, please do explicate on how this is inaccurate…
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > > On May 14, 2014, at 2:14 PM, McElearney, Kevin
> > > <Kevin_McElearney () cable comcast com<mailto:Kevin_McElearney () cable comcast com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate "sound bite"
> > >
> > >    - Kevin
> > >
> > > 215-313-1083<tel:215-313-1083>
> > >
> > > > On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, "Owen DeLong"
> > > > <owen () delong com<mailto:owen () delong com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new
> > > > ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in
> > > > upgrades
> > > > or additional buildout any more than absolutely necessary.
> > > >
> > > > Owen
> > > >
> > > > On May 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Hugo Slabbert
> > > > <hugo () slabnet com<mailto:hugo () slabnet com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart
> > > > > > > competition any way they can.
> > > > > No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources
> > > > > of
> > > > > > revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin).
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure they are (seeking new sources of revenue).  They're not
> > > > > necessarily
> > > > > creating new products or services, i.e. actually adding any value,
> > > > > but they
> > > > > are finding ways to extract additional revenue from the same pipes,
> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > through paid peering with content providers.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not endorsing this; just pointing out that you two are actually
> > > > > in
> > > > > agreement here.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Hugo
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:23 AM,
> > > > > > > <charles () thefnf org<mailto:charles () thefnf org>> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2014-05-14 02:04, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They have the money.  They have the ability to get more money.
> > > > > > > *They see
> > > > > > > > no reason to spend money making customers happy.*  They can make
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > profit without it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is the issue of control over the market. But also the
> > > > > > > pressure
> > > > > > > from shareholders for continued growth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes. That is true. Except that it's not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do service providers grow? Let's explore that:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is growth for a transit provider?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More (new) access network(s) (connections).
> > > > > > More bandwidth across backbone pipes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is growth for access network?
> > > > > > More subscribers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Except that the incumbent carriers have shown they have no interest
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > providing decent bandwidth to anywhere but the most profitable rate
> > > > > > centers. I'd say about 2/3 of the USA is served with quite terrible
> > > > > > access.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The problem with the internet is that while it had promises of wild
> > > > > > > growth in the 90s and 00s, once penetration reaches a certain
> > > > > > > level,
> > > > > > > growth stabilizes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Penetration is ABYSMAL sir. Huge swaths of underserved americans
> > > > > > exist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > When you combine this with threath to large incumbents's media and
> > > > > > > media
> > > > > > > distribution endeavours by the likes of Netflix (and cat videos on
> > > > > > > Youtube), large incumbents start thinking about how they will be
> > > > > > > able to
> > > > > > > continue to grow revenus/profits when customers will shift spending
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > vspecialty channels/cableTV to Netflix and customer growth will not
> > > > > > > compensate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Except they aren't. Even in the most profitable rate centers,
> > > > > > they've
> > > > > > declined to really invest in the networks. They aren't a real
> > > > > > business. You
> > > > > > have to remember that. They have regulatory capture, natural/defacto
> > > > > > monopoly etc etc. They don't operate in the real world of
> > > > > > risk/reward/profit/loss/uncertainty like any other real business has
> > > > > > to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart
> > > > > > > competition any way they can.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin).
> > > > > > They did
> > > > > > a bit of an advertising campaign of "smart home" offerings, but that
> > > > > > seems
> > > > > > to have never grown beyond a pilot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The current trend is to "if you can't fight them, jon them" where
> > > > > > > cablecos start to include the Netflix app into their proprietary
> > > > > > > set-top
> > > > > > > boxes. The idea is that you at least make the customer continue to
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > your box and your remote control which makes it easier for them to
> > > > > > > switch between netflix and legacy TV.
> > > > > > True. I don't know why one of the cablecos hasn't licensed roku,
> > > > > > added
> > > > > > cable card and made that available as a "hip/cool" set top box
> > > > > > offering and
> > > > > > charge another 10.00 a month on top of the standard dvr rental.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would be interesting to see if those cable companies that are
> > > > > > agreeing
> > > > > > > to add the Netflix app onto their proprietary STBs also  play
> > > > > > > peering
> > > > > > > capacity games to degrade the service or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So how is the content delivered? Is it over the internet? Or is it
> > > > > > over
> > > > > > the cable plant, from cable headends?