[171823] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu May 15 10:33:27 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <37AFC907-CAB5-4721-B79D-EAE2687970BF@puck.nether.net>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 07:26:43 -0700
To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I don=92t disagree. However, given the choice between Comcast and =
broadband services in NL, Chatanooga, or Seoul, just to name a few, =
Comcast loses badly.
Choosing between Comcast and a legacy Telco is like choosing between =
legionnaire=92s disease and SARS.
Owen
On May 14, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
> Owen,
>=20
> I've seen a vast difference between Comcast and others in the =
"marketplace". Right now, if I had the choice between Comcast and a =
"legacy" telco, I would pick Comcast hands-down for:
>=20
> a) performance
> b) IPv6 support
> c) willingness to work on issues
>=20
> - Jared
>=20
> On May 14, 2014, at 5:14 PM, McElearney, Kevin =
<Kevin_McElearney@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>=20
>> Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate "sound bite"
>>=20
>> - Kevin
>>=20
>> 215-313-1083
>>=20
>>> On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> Owen
>>>=20
>>> On May 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 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).
>>>>=20
>>>> 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.
>>>>=20
>>>> I'm not endorsing this; just pointing out that you two are actually =
in
>>>> agreement here.
>>>>=20
>>>> --
>>>> Hugo
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:23 AM, <charles@thefnf.org> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On 2014-05-14 02:04, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> There is the issue of control over the market. But also the =
pressure
>>>>>> from shareholders for continued growth.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Yes. That is true. Except that it's not.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> How do service providers grow? Let's explore that:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> What is growth for a transit provider?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> More (new) access network(s) (connections).
>>>>> More bandwidth across backbone pipes.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> What is growth for access network?
>>>>> More subscribers.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Penetration is ABYSMAL sir. Huge swaths of underserved americans =
exist.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart
>>>>>> competition any way they can.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> So how is the content delivered? Is it over the internet? Or is it =
over
>>>>> the cable plant, from cable headends?
>>>=20
