5 ms·

I'll reiterate the problem carriers face that I stated earlier. Customer revenue is decreasing and because the market is saturated they cannot add enough custo

I'll reiterate the problem carriers face that I stated earlier. Customer revenue is decreasing and because the market is saturated they cannot add enough customers to combat the atrophy of revenue. As shareholders expect growth every year, ISPs are forced to look for new revenue streams. If you don't think they should be doing this as a private company, reclassify them as a utility. Otherwise shareholder demand is what gets satisfied. Carriers have very specific equipment amortization patterns in their heads and they are financial models that banks accept. If carriers have to change their amortization patterns (more routers, faster) they have to change their financing which damages the value of the stock. Sure we can do this, but what does "fair" mean here? I'm trying to say that the argument is not as black and white as people make it out to be.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago
>If carriers have to change their amortization patterns (more routers, faster) they have to change their financing which damages the value of the stock. Welcome to the world of business. Change is constant, you can't just tell your customers, "Whoops we didn't plan for that." I also disagree that its as hopeless as you make it out to be (in many nations 100mbps or even 1gbps unlimited internet is trivial to get). They can raise prices on customers, lower caps, throttle netflix users, etc if they're in such financial dire straits. Their competitors will love this as customers will migrate to them. Their competitors may have a more nimble management structure and can provide the data at this level. What I don't get, assuming they really are in dire straits and not trying to monetize artificial scarcity, is why don't they just push out a notice, "Due to network limitations, we are throttling streaming video users to 4mbps which is enough for medium quality 720p streaming. The investment to support 1080p streaming is impossible for us. Love Verizon." Actually, I know why they won't do this, because Comcast will pay for the router upgrades and steal all their customers once they find out. So they go around their customers' backs and try dirty dealings with Netflix and others. These guys being duopolies in most markets (substitute AT&T with Verizon in some states) just decided to not compete and simply change the rules at the FCC, which is pretty much a textbook description of collusion.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

>If carriers have to change their amortization patterns (more routers, faster) they have to change their financing which damages the value of the stock. Welcome to the world of business. Change is constant, you can't just tell your customers, "Whoops we didn't plan for that." I also disagree that its as hopeless as you make it out to be (in many nations 100mbps or even 1gbps unlimited internet is trivial to get). They can raise prices on customers, lower caps, throttle netflix users, etc if they're in such financial dire straits. Their competitors will love this as customers will migrate to them. Their competitors may have a more nimble management structure and can provide the data at this level. What I don't get, assuming they really are in dire straits and not trying to monetize artificial scarcity, is why don't they just push out a notice, "Due to network limitations, we are throttling streaming video users to 4mbps which is enough for medium quality 720p streaming. The investment to support 1080p streaming is impossible for us. Love Verizon." Actually, I know why they won't do this, because Comcast will pay for the router upgrades and steal all their customers once they find out. So they go around their customers' backs and try dirty dealings with Netflix and others. These guys being duopolies in most markets (substitute AT&T with Verizon in some states) just decided to not compete and simply change the rules at the FCC, which is pretty much a textbook description of collusion.