5 ms·

>The trick also is long term perspective. With common TV gradually dying out, more and more people switch to Internet video. Which means that owners of extensiv

>The trick also is long term perspective. With common TV gradually dying out, more and more people switch to Internet video. Which means that owners of extensive networks won't lose business - they'll only get more. So investing in better networks is a good investment. I see it exactly the opposite. Fios was built with the assumption that you can not only sell internet, but also TV service for another 30-60 dollars of revenue. With tv service going over the internet, the ISPs are going to have a hell of a time getting that much revenue back. They can try and charge for usage (like comcast) but it's going to hard. This is why Verizon fought like hell to avoid net neutrality. They wanted options for trying to skim off the top of tv service. So Fios might be making modest profits now, it probably won't be in 5-10 years.

shmerl 11y ago
> With tv service going over the internet, the ISPs are going to have a hell of a time getting that much revenue back. Even if it won't be that much, with pure Internet they'll make enough profit, since Internet usage will only grow. And you don't need caps for it. Some resort to caps simply to rip people off, it has nothing to do with recovering expenses. Also, gutting TV they'll avoid paying retransmission fees and such. > So Fios might be making modest profits now, it probably won't be in 5-10 years. I expect the opposite.
- rayiner 11y ago
  > Also, gutting TV they'll avoid paying retransmission fees and such. TV brings in way more revenue than the content costs. If you look at a cable co like charter, which doesn't have its own content arm, they'd be deeply in the red if they got rid of TV revenues even accounting for the decrease in programming expenses.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - shmerl 11y ago
    > TV brings in way more revenue than the content costs. It does, but it doesn't mean that Internet service alone can't be profitable. One has to improve the network however. No one likes overpriced and capped low bandwidth connection.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Improving a network costs money. Are people willing to pay enough money for a faster, TV-less network to justify that investment? Nobody in the industry operating at scale is showing that in their economics. People don't want wired Internet without TV, or at least not enough to pay very much for it. People in the HN bubble don't really get that. I live in a building where I've got a rock-solid 50/20 FiOS connection with amazing pings that never goes down. But in Baltimore Verizon doesn't have a cable license, so it's just Internet (which is fine, because I'm a cord-cutter). I also have the option of Comcast, which struggles with Netflix during prime-time, for twice as much money. When I first got FiOS installed, the installer was surprised to find out that the ONT on my floor wasn't even configured, because none of the ~50 units on that floor had ever subscribed to FiOS. Everyone subscribes to Comcast, because they want TV.
      - shmerl 11y ago
        > People don't want wired Internet without TV, Why not if they can get video through that very network? When video services will go through the network, to get to them people will need access to the network first. Which means network owners won't lose any business. > Everyone subscribes to Comcast, because they want TV. FiOS isn't the best example since they actually don't try to compete much on the network side of things despite using good technology. Where is their gigabit for affordable prices? Where is their IPv6? Even Comcast already has the later. They simply don't put any priority on it as I said. Their mind is busy with wireless toys. > Nobody in the industry operating at scale is showing that in their economics. It will come out with time. With regular TV drying up and moving all to the Internet.

shmerl 11y ago

> With tv service going over the internet, the ISPs are going to have a hell of a time getting that much revenue back. Even if it won't be that much, with pure Internet they'll make enough profit, since Internet usage will only grow. And you don't need caps for it. Some resort to caps simply to rip people off, it has nothing to do with recovering expenses. Also, gutting TV they'll avoid paying retransmission fees and such. > So Fios might be making modest profits now, it probably won't be in 5-10 years. I expect the opposite.

rayiner 11y ago
> Also, gutting TV they'll avoid paying retransmission fees and such. TV brings in way more revenue than the content costs. If you look at a cable co like charter, which doesn't have its own content arm, they'd be deeply in the red if they got rid of TV revenues even accounting for the decrease in programming expenses.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- shmerl 11y ago
  > TV brings in way more revenue than the content costs. It does, but it doesn't mean that Internet service alone can't be profitable. One has to improve the network however. No one likes overpriced and capped low bandwidth connection.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Improving a network costs money. Are people willing to pay enough money for a faster, TV-less network to justify that investment? Nobody in the industry operating at scale is showing that in their economics. People don't want wired Internet without TV, or at least not enough to pay very much for it. People in the HN bubble don't really get that. I live in a building where I've got a rock-solid 50/20 FiOS connection with amazing pings that never goes down. But in Baltimore Verizon doesn't have a cable license, so it's just Internet (which is fine, because I'm a cord-cutter). I also have the option of Comcast, which struggles with Netflix during prime-time, for twice as much money. When I first got FiOS installed, the installer was surprised to find out that the ONT on my floor wasn't even configured, because none of the ~50 units on that floor had ever subscribed to FiOS. Everyone subscribes to Comcast, because they want TV.
    - shmerl 11y ago
      > People don't want wired Internet without TV, Why not if they can get video through that very network? When video services will go through the network, to get to them people will need access to the network first. Which means network owners won't lose any business. > Everyone subscribes to Comcast, because they want TV. FiOS isn't the best example since they actually don't try to compete much on the network side of things despite using good technology. Where is their gigabit for affordable prices? Where is their IPv6? Even Comcast already has the later. They simply don't put any priority on it as I said. Their mind is busy with wireless toys. > Nobody in the industry operating at scale is showing that in their economics. It will come out with time. With regular TV drying up and moving all to the Internet.