tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35238876.post9136958033167467406..comments2023-11-05T01:32:23.422-08:00Comments on clog: isps complaints about content companiesjon crowcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05692091803072506710noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35238876.post-78560182966596583972009-06-19T05:43:12.023-07:002009-06-19T05:43:12.023-07:00"I sympathise with this right now because of ..."I sympathise with this right now because of rise of tv"<br /><br />This is tricky. Here's my nethead conspiracy-theory take on the TV thing:<br /><br />Once upon a time, the evil telco decided to compete with cable companies and video rental stores by selling more or less regular old TV and videos over IP. The "triple play" idea.<br /><br />So they made fairly big investments into building out walled-garden IP multicast into their DSL networks, and upgrading distribution networks from ADSL to VDSL or even FTTH.<br /><br />Once they had built this, they found that users weren't willing to pay enough for these walled-garden IPTV services for the telcos to pay back the investments quickly and achieve the tradotonal telco margins.<br /><br />So I have limited sympathy for the telcos' whining about investments that nobody wants to pay for. Much of these investments were made speculatively by the telcos to support IPTV, which may never have been a compelling business case. So they invented the myth that they had/have to build these wonderful networks because greedy content companies lure irresponsible Internet users into abusing the poor network for things it hasn't been built for, for example video. So Google should pay for the IPTV that users don't want (enough).<br /><br />But as I said, this is just nethead conspiracy theory. Hope you like it anyway!Simon Leinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13848639114358999199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35238876.post-25625444876997793442009-06-19T03:42:35.843-07:002009-06-19T03:42:35.843-07:00note it doesn't "cost" the ISP if yo...note it doesn't "cost" the ISP if you use capacity - capacity is CAPEX<br />not OPEX.<br /><br />once they've recouped the CAPEX cost, the rest is profit<br /><br />the underlying ssue right now is how to get a piece of the content pie, to justify the CAPEX investment to deploy fiber (fair enough) - once the fiber deployment cost is covered, then we are back again to a situation where the telcos are making money for old rope (almost literally) and we need to make sure they only have marginal (but positive) profits<br /><br />I sympathise with this right now because of rise of tv, but once they've finished FTTH, and has a couple of years to get back dosh, I will go back to my aggressive position again:)jon crowcrofthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05692091803072506710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35238876.post-51359523958339478322009-06-18T15:07:45.919-07:002009-06-18T15:07:45.919-07:00The real underlying issue is that the telcos want ...The real underlying issue is that the telcos want a bigger part of the pie, because they are used to getting the entire pie, and they aren't willing to accept that most of the money is now going elsewhere, namely where most of the value is created. As long as the application providers were mostly losing money, the telcos were fine with it. But now they see some people actually making money (Google, Amazon, eBay). With "their" pipes, OMG!<br /><br />Here's a Bellhead's (sorry: Alcatel-Lucent Bellhead's) <a href="http://webcast.ec.europa.eu/eutv/portal/ism/player/index_player.html?id=6940&pId=6922" rel="nofollow">explanation</a> of the issue.Simon Leinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13848639114358999199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35238876.post-52114247083388079012009-06-16T02:19:22.869-07:002009-06-16T02:19:22.869-07:00Is the real underlying issue that most people want...Is the real underlying issue that most people want a flat "all you can eat" fee (to a completely irrational degree if you read the research on the subject) and most people want a relatively fast connection. However nobody would actually pay the price this would cost the ISP if it was fully used. Therefore all companies offer "unlimited (except for the limits)" connections and hope customers won't see the small print. I see human irrationality as a big part of the issue here.Richard G. Clegghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16438501528697340614noreply@blogger.com