4 ms·

I work for one of the big cable companies, and the internal culture seems to be "innovate, but slowly and carefully". Everybody is fully aware of the threat Net

by davedx 12y ago

I work for one of the big cable companies, and the internal culture seems to be "innovate, but slowly and carefully". Everybody is fully aware of the threat Netflix et al pose to the incumbents, but progress is slow. So many of our resources are spent just trying to minimise costs and maximise revenues, without really changing the game. Comcast, for all their flaws, do seem to really care about innovation. I watched a video about the development of Xfinity X2, and their R&D department looks like it has insane resources. It's a very interesting space to be in, on all sides.

dublinben 12y ago
To what end though? Their new X2 cable boxes are slower than ten year old ones, and are just catching up with the interfaces of Tivo and Roku from five years ago. Who really wants "innovation" from their cable provider? Certainly not the unsatisfied customers that are leaving in droves.
lotsofpulp 12y ago
What incentive does a cable provider have to progress and become a dumb pipe? The only value Comcast brings is owning the license to rent a wire that brings Internet signals to your house. After that, the content creators/curators can take care of the rest. Of course, being a dump pipe means less profitability, but it should have already been treated like a utility in the first place, like in Chattanooga, Tennessee. It's a huge, profitable, conflict of interest to have your content provider also be the internet signal provider to your home, and I don't see them wanting to innovate that away. If anything, their R&D is probably in figuring out how to box out movie studios and other content providers like Netflix/Amazon Prime to make their own offerings more attractive.
- VLM 12y ago
  "Of course, being a dumb pipe means less profitability" If you have a strong, legally enforced monopoly, I'm not seeing this. Is walmart really less profitable than mom -n- pop main street? If they aren't, why did mom -n- pop main street all go out of business when walmart moved in? The future seems to be big dumb profitable pipes and much less profitable content sources.
  - lotsofpulp 12y ago
    I think the cable companies right now enjoy a public perception that they are not just providing a dumb pipe, but they are adding value with the DVRs and HD, so they don't seem like the gas or electric or water provider. If they come to be viewed as infrastructure, then there might be a push to make them into utilities and regulate their prices, since they have a monopoly. Additionally, offering different tiers and mixes of products allows business to create more opportunities for profit margin, but simplifying their business to just X amount of download bandwidth and Y amount of upload bandwidth for a flat price will remove their ability to obfuscate the value of what people buy. And they will have to work harder to justify increasing prices, whereas now, they can just blame it on the media companies, etc.
  - Touche 12y ago
    Walmart isn't a dumb-pipe, for one. A dumb pipe would be electric and water companies, are those as profitable as cable companies?
    - Zigurd 12y ago
      For things like detergent, motor oil, and some categories of food, Wal-mart offers zero differentiation and lower prices. i really can't think of one thing where I think "Oh, I have to go to Wal-mart for that." The only reason is efficiency, and hence price.
      - Touche 12y ago
        None of those things constitute a "dumb pipe".
        Zigurd 12y ago
        I don't understand your assertion. Bodega vs. Stop & Shop vs. Wal-Mart to buy Tide detergent. Wal-Mart adds nothing to the product, but delivers it more efficiently. That is the definition of a "dumb pipe." Can you explain how that's not a dumb pipe?
- lukifer 12y ago
  > it should have already been treated like a utility in the first place I worked for Comcast circa 2003, and it was the company's official policy that its broadband services were for "entertainment only", to skirt around regulatory issues and downtime liability. While it was a dubious claim even then, it's farcical to call broadband internet anything but a utility in 2014.
- shmerl 12y ago
  > It's a huge, profitable, conflict of interest to have your content provider also be the internet signal provider to your home So why isn't it prohibited on the antitrust grounds? Or they can't be sustainable as separate companies?
  - lotsofpulp 12y ago
    Lobbying? There are probably a lot of entrenched interests that don't want the ISP/TV provider monopoly to go away. I guess for TV, there are actually 3 to 4 options available for most people (Dish Network/DirectTV/Cable/Fiber). But for broadband, there is usually only 1 option, or 2 if you're lucky, and they also happen to be selling you content.
jradd 12y ago
Nice to hear from a dissent perspective on this matter. Though it certainly begs the question; in what way is Comcast being innovative? Xfinity X2 seems to be imitating more than anything. I would not be so critical if it weren't for their obvious disinterest of innovation.
Zigurd 12y ago
Real innovation would be maximum bits for minimum dollars. Otherwise you are just standing athwart innovation.

by davedx 12y ago

dublinben 12y ago

To what end though? Their new X2 cable boxes are slower than ten year old ones, and are just catching up with the interfaces of Tivo and Roku from five years ago. Who really wants "innovation" from their cable provider? Certainly not the unsatisfied customers that are leaving in droves.

lotsofpulp 12y ago

What incentive does a cable provider have to progress and become a dumb pipe? The only value Comcast brings is owning the license to rent a wire that brings Internet signals to your house. After that, the content creators/curators can take care of the rest. Of course, being a dump pipe means less profitability, but it should have already been treated like a utility in the first place, like in Chattanooga, Tennessee. It's a huge, profitable, conflict of interest to have your content provider also be the internet signal provider to your home, and I don't see them wanting to innovate that away. If anything, their R&D is probably in figuring out how to box out movie studios and other content providers like Netflix/Amazon Prime to make their own offerings more attractive.

VLM 12y ago
"Of course, being a dumb pipe means less profitability" If you have a strong, legally enforced monopoly, I'm not seeing this. Is walmart really less profitable than mom -n- pop main street? If they aren't, why did mom -n- pop main street all go out of business when walmart moved in? The future seems to be big dumb profitable pipes and much less profitable content sources.
- lotsofpulp 12y ago
  I think the cable companies right now enjoy a public perception that they are not just providing a dumb pipe, but they are adding value with the DVRs and HD, so they don't seem like the gas or electric or water provider. If they come to be viewed as infrastructure, then there might be a push to make them into utilities and regulate their prices, since they have a monopoly. Additionally, offering different tiers and mixes of products allows business to create more opportunities for profit margin, but simplifying their business to just X amount of download bandwidth and Y amount of upload bandwidth for a flat price will remove their ability to obfuscate the value of what people buy. And they will have to work harder to justify increasing prices, whereas now, they can just blame it on the media companies, etc.
- Touche 12y ago
  Walmart isn't a dumb-pipe, for one. A dumb pipe would be electric and water companies, are those as profitable as cable companies?
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    For things like detergent, motor oil, and some categories of food, Wal-mart offers zero differentiation and lower prices. i really can't think of one thing where I think "Oh, I have to go to Wal-mart for that." The only reason is efficiency, and hence price.
    - Touche 12y ago
      None of those things constitute a "dumb pipe".
      - Zigurd 12y ago
        I don't understand your assertion. Bodega vs. Stop & Shop vs. Wal-Mart to buy Tide detergent. Wal-Mart adds nothing to the product, but delivers it more efficiently. That is the definition of a "dumb pipe." Can you explain how that's not a dumb pipe?
lukifer 12y ago
> it should have already been treated like a utility in the first place I worked for Comcast circa 2003, and it was the company's official policy that its broadband services were for "entertainment only", to skirt around regulatory issues and downtime liability. While it was a dubious claim even then, it's farcical to call broadband internet anything but a utility in 2014.
shmerl 12y ago
> It's a huge, profitable, conflict of interest to have your content provider also be the internet signal provider to your home So why isn't it prohibited on the antitrust grounds? Or they can't be sustainable as separate companies?
- lotsofpulp 12y ago
  Lobbying? There are probably a lot of entrenched interests that don't want the ISP/TV provider monopoly to go away. I guess for TV, there are actually 3 to 4 options available for most people (Dish Network/DirectTV/Cable/Fiber). But for broadband, there is usually only 1 option, or 2 if you're lucky, and they also happen to be selling you content.

jradd 12y ago

Nice to hear from a dissent perspective on this matter. Though it certainly begs the question; in what way is Comcast being innovative? Xfinity X2 seems to be imitating more than anything. I would not be so critical if it weren't for their obvious disinterest of innovation.

Zigurd 12y ago

Real innovation would be maximum bits for minimum dollars. Otherwise you are just standing athwart innovation.