Comment on Comcast bringing Skype video chat into the living room by Chris

Great for grandma, but who else is paying for a separate box, remote, and cam just to Skype off your TV? This is a great start to the M$oft era. I hope the next big announcement is that on my next Delta flight I can rent some contraption to Skype from the sky!

Comment on Comcast bringing Skype video chat into the living room by Chris

Backlink: http://gigaom.com/video/comcast-skype-video-chat/#comment-631035

Who's Going To Buy Sprint Now? Verizon? Comcast? Google? (S, VZ, CMCSA, GOOG)

Now that AT&T is buying T-Mobile for $39 billion, something is probably going to have to happen with Sprint, the no. 3 carrier that has had a pretty rough time since closing its merger with Nextel half a decade ago.

If Sprint has a tough time competing today, imagine how it's going to be when its biggest competitor grows one-third bigger. At the end of 2010, AT&T had 96 million wireless subscribers and T-Mobile had 34 million, for a combined total of roughly 130 million. Verizon had 94 million. Sprint Nextel, meanwhile, finished the year with 50 million.

So what can Sprint do?

In the short term, it's going to raise a stink about how the merger is bad news for the wireless industry. (Though AT&T has already put on a lengthy show about why the deal is actually good news for consumers and, obviously, for AT&T itself.)

In the medium to long term, Sprint is probably going to have to be involved in consolidation. It can either be the buyer -- as it was considering with T-Mobile before AT&T won that deal, and can now look at U.S. Cellular, MetroPCS, and/or Leap Wireless -- or it can be rolled up. These days, it's looking more like Sprint is going to be absorbed.

So who might be the buyer?

Verizon Wireless is the most likely buyer, just because it's already in the same business as Sprint.

Combining Verizon and Sprint would make it the biggest U.S. wireless carrier, with 144 million subscribers as of the end of 2010. Verizon and Sprint both use the same 3G network technology -- CDMA -- so that would be a relatively easy combination, as opposed to either of them trying to combine with GSM-based T-Mobile. They currently have different 4G networks -- Sprint's through its stake in Clearwire -- and Sprint has that whole Nextel walkie-talkie network to deal with. But those problems could be figured out. (Maybe a crazy sign-and-trade deal with Motorola for the Nextel/iDEN network?)

This, like the AT&T-Mobile deal, would face extreme regulatory scrutiny. But it's one reason for Verizon to let the T-Mobile deal pass without creating a stink.

Comcast has supposedly been eyeing Sprint for years, and now that the NBC deal is done, might be able to pounce.

Comcast is the biggest cable provider in the U.S., and theoretically, would want to offer some sort of wireless service in the future. This could be useful for data "roaming" away from your home cable modem, watching TV on the go, combining your mobile and home phones, etc. It would also give Comcast, which only serves cable in some areas, a national footprint.

But so far, Comcast boss Brian Roberts hasn't really cared that much about wireless. Early integration attempts with Sprint -- "Pivot" -- failed. Comcast has invested in Clearwire alongside Sprint, Time Warner Cable, and others. But that's about it.

Roberts could make a big splash here, or he could ignore the opportunity, focusing instead on integrating NBC. We'll see.

Google buying Sprint would be a stretch, but anything's possible.

Google's best interest in the wireless industry is to remain a neutral partner, hoping that as many carriers in the world promote Android phones (and Google search/ads) as possible.

But don't you think the geniuses at Google are a little fed up with how the carriers have taken Android, filled it up with crapware, and haven't done anything innovative with it? The main reason carriers even care at all about Android now is that it's a decent competitor to the iPhone, which most of them can't sell yet.

How about some drastically creative services and pricing? How about something radically new that will change the way we communicate?

By having control over the software layer and the network layer, Google might be able to create that. And that could really show AT&T and Verizon -- which both suck at software -- some real competition. This could be a really cool deal for consumers.

But this would be an uncharacteristically big bet for Google, and it would involve a lot of things that Google isn't good at, like retail and customer service.

Perhaps it's better off just investing in wireless companies like Clearwire, making phone software as good as it can, and hoping for more deals like the one it announced with Sprint today, to integrate Google Voice service into the network's offerings.

Either way, Sprint is probably now in play. Other potential suitors could include private equity, maybe Cisco, or maybe even an international player.

Related: AT&T-Mobile: The Biggest Winners And Losers

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• AT&T Makes The Case For Its $39 Billion T-Mobile Deal
• AT&T-Mobile: Here Are The Biggest Winners And Losers
• CHARTS: AT&T Explains Its $39 Billion T-Mobile Deal

Who's Going To Buy Sprint Now? Verizon? Comcast? Google? (S, VZ, CMCSA, GOOG)

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/MCXWsTMovJE/sprint-verizon-comcast-google-2011-3

Comcast Doesn't Plan To Charge Bandwidth Hogs Extra... Yet (CMCSA, AAPL, NFLX)

Comcast president Neil Smit said today that the cable giant doesn't have plans to start charging its broadband subscribers by how much bandwidth they use per month.

Not yet, at least.

But come on, of COURSE Comcast isn't going to make the massive announcement at an investor conference, and spook its customers.

However, you can bet that if Comcast isn't the first major U.S. broadband company to get rid of all-you-can-eat Internet access, it will eventually.

Charging for broadband based on consumption is the holy grail for Internet providers -- it would almost certainly increase the amount that customers spend, on average -- and Comcast would never let its competitors get a financial leg up.

Especially because that's how Comcast is going to stop Netflix! Charging for Internet access based on consumption would deter people from watching more high-bandwidth Internet video on iTunes or Netflix, which represents the biggest threat to Comcast's legacy cable TV business.

Perhaps the real reason it isn't going to start charging based on consumption yet is that the average Comcast customer isn't consuming much bandwidth in the first place.

Smit said the average Comcast user consumes 2 to 4 GB of bandwidth per month -- which is barely 2 or 3 iTunes-sized movies per month.

Related: If Net Neutrality Is Coming, So Is The End Of All-You-Can-Eat Internet Access

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• If Net Neutrality Is Coming, So Is The End Of All-You-Can-Eat Internet Access
• 10 Apple TV Apps We Can't Wait To Use
• Apple TV Is #13 Best-Selling Gadget At Amazon, Google TV Is #430

Comcast Doesn't Plan To Charge Bandwidth Hogs Extra... Yet (CMCSA, AAPL, NFLX)

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/9Pnn5PcfBJ0/comcast-doesnt-plan-to-charge-bandwidth-hogs-extra-yet-2010-12

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality; Comcast Might Break the Web by Russ

I agree this is not a net neutrality issue. Some folks have brought up telco termination fees where orignating networks pay terminating nwtroks. That's based primarily on calling party pays. Well, the calling party here is the subscriber. I'm calling Netflix, and I'm paying my ISP for the privledge. And I'm pay a subscription fee to Netflix, so they're happy to terminate my "call." CDN biz is to get content across the internet - to bypass internet bottlenecks. Netflix is happy to pay for that too... The reason Comcast is going after L3 is the concentration of traffic; they have requested so many ports, it's practical to charge them -- and L3 CAN pay because they are being paid by Netflix. If Netflix didn't use a CDN their traffic would still go thru Comcast...it would just come thru more entry points, which would make it harder for Comcast to charge any particular entity....Other than Netflix, and then we'd have a net neutralty issue?? I know many folks hate Comcast, but I think Comcast's biz arguements hold some water...

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality; Comcast Might Break the Web by Russ

Backlink: http://gigaom.com/2010/11/29/forget-net-neutrality-comcast-might-break-the-web/#comment-529783

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality; Comcast Might Break the Web by GD Boy

This is about more than a battle between Content Distribution Networks (CDN's) and Internet Service Providers (ISP's). The day is coming when video customers will abandon old-fashioned video services like cable companies. Comcast is preparing for this day by trying to change the precedent from what was once unlimited internet service to tiered, usage-based service. Comcast also wants to triple-dip and charge end-users, content providers AND CDN's for the extra bandwidth required to deliver video, to makeup for lost business when video services are delivered via other providers — partially using Comcast's bandwidth. I don't begrudge Comcast receiving a fair fee. But Comcast has overcharged video and Internet customers for years while delivering poor service and cheating customers on bandwidth. The company is fundamentally dishonest and cannot be trusted to manage our digital infrastructure. Congress simply MUST step in and separate the information highways from the content providers.

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality; Comcast Might Break the Web by GD Boy

Backlink: http://gigaom.com/2010/11/29/forget-net-neutrality-comcast-might-break-the-web/#comment-528910

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality; Comcast Might Break the Web by Memri

Yes, anymore it seems the maxim 'work smart, not hard' is being unfortunately and intentionally misread as 'screw people over, don't innovate'. This is always a bad thing, and when it happens on a massive corporate level, we end up in situations like these.

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality; Comcast Might Break the Web by Memri

Backlink: http://gigaom.com/2010/11/29/forget-net-neutrality-comcast-might-break-the-web/#comment-528779

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality; Comcast Might Break the Web by KW ENGLAND

You say "Comcast wouldn’t deliver Level 3′s content" if fees aren't paid and that isn't quite true. Level3 (and Comcast) are looking for mutually advantageous interconnections that improve transport speeds. If Level3 refused to pay the fees for the special peering arrangement, Comcast would still accept their traffic, just not at the more-desirable interconnection points. If Level3 and Comcast had the same kind of traffic, their advantage in the proposed interconnection would be the same. The fact that Level3 carries Netflix traffic means that the interconnection is more important to Level3 than Comcast, which does not have a Netflix-like customer. Since it is more important for Level3's business than Comcast's, Level3 pays. You had better believe if Comcast had the Netflix contract, Level3 would be asking Comcast for money. But the fact that the traffic will, in fact, be exchanged between Level3 and Comcast, either according to current backbone interconnects or according to the new peering interconnects, this IS NOT a net neutrality issue. This isn't really even news. Backbones tussle over settlement-free peering all the time, since the beginning of the commercial Internet. The fact that Level3 brings the argument out of the smoke-filled backroom doesn't make it newsworthy, extraordinary or suspicious.

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality; Comcast Might Break the Web by KW ENGLAND

Backlink: http://gigaom.com/2010/11/29/forget-net-neutrality-comcast-might-break-the-web/#comment-528740

Comment on Why Does Everyone Hate Comcast? by Peter

Abysmally poor customer service. Crap, expensive cable packages. Arrogant management. Plenty of reason to hate Comcast and hope, pray, clamor for options to cut the cord forever.

Comment on Why Does Everyone Hate Comcast? by Peter

Backlink: http://gigaom.com/video/everyone-hates-comcast/#comment-528704

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality, Comcast Might Break the Web by Mark Renouf

Wait, what's wrong with charging for more traffic? If there is a balance of traffic in a peering agreement, then all are happy. But if there is a 5:1 ratio I agree that the ISP has a right to charge to deliver that extra traffic. The point of net neutrality is that all *types* of traffic be treated equally. There's nothing wrong with charging for added traffic volume by source... unless of course those prices are not controlled by any real competition. (The real issue!)

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality, Comcast Might Break the Web by Mark Renouf

Backlink: http://gigaom.com/2010/11/29/forget-net-neutrality-comcast-might-break-the-web/#comment-526915

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality, Comcast Might Break the Web by Brett Glass

Again, Stacey Higginbotham continues to spout the usual BS, denying the existence of competitive ISPs and promoting stifling, onerous regulation that would kill them. (This, of course, is all consistent with Google's corporate party line.) Stacey likewise denies the market power of content providers such as Google - perhaps because Google is a sponsor of this site and pays a goodly portion of her salary. Given this financial motivation, we probably can't ever expect unbiased or truthful reporting from Stacey or from this site.

Comment on Forget Net Neutrality, Comcast Might Break the Web by Brett Glass

Backlink: http://gigaom.com/2010/11/29/forget-net-neutrality-comcast-might-break-the-web/#comment-526893

Comcast Starts The Ball Rolling That Kills All-You-Can-Eat Internet Access (CMCST, LVLT, NFLX, AAPL)

Get ready to pay more for all the video you're watching on the Internet: The days of all-you-can-eat Internet access are growing scarce.

That's the REAL reason that Comcast is trying to get Level 3, a telecom company, to pay extra for the Internet video traffic it's pushing onto Comcast's pipes -- which Level 3 is now publicly complaining about.

As web video -- which uses a lot of bandwidth -- grows in popularity, Comcast will want to get paid more. Especially because web video is eventually going to replace a lot of the video you're currently watching on cable TV, and that you're paying Comcast a fat monthly bill for.

As more people replace part or all of their cable subscription with Internet video, Comcast is going to need to get its money somewhere, whether it's directly from consumers, or via a middle man, like Level 3.

Perhaps Comcast is first trying to make Internet video more expensive for Level 3 (and its customers like Netflix) to deliver, by charging more for bandwidth on the back end.

This would make business more expensive for streaming services like Netflix and iTunes, who may then have to charge consumers more for their video services. That would be extra sweet for Comcast -- more money, and weaker competition from iTunes and Netflix.

But if that doesn't work, because of either market or regulatory forces, Comcast may have to go after its own cable modem customers next to get that extra revenue. And that may mean an Internet bill that's much more than $45 per month.

Either way, don't expect this issue to go away -- and don't expect your all-in entertainment bill to go down.

Just because Internet video is the future, doesn't mean it's going to be cheap.

By the way, we'll be talking about this issue at IGNITION, our conference later this week about the future of media. If you haven't bought a ticket yet, what are you waiting for?

See Also: Why I Caved, Bought Cable TV, And Gave Up On My "Hulu Household"

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Comcast Shakes Down Internet Provider For Video Delivery
• Why I Caved, Bought Cable TV, And Gave Up On My 'Hulu Household'
• Sorry, There's No Way To Save The TV Business

Comcast Starts The Ball Rolling That Kills All-You-Can-Eat Internet Access (CMCST, LVLT, NFLX, AAPL)

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/A1XVzq9yAfU/comcast-internet-access-2010-11

Comcast Shakes Down Internet Provider For Video Delivery (LVLT, CMCSK)

Internet backbone provider Level 3 Communications claims that Comcast has suddenly started charging it fees to deliver Internet video to Comcast subscribers.

In a press release, Level 3's Chief Legal Officer Thomas Stortz claims that Comcast approached it on November 19th to demand a recurring fee for delivering online movies and other video. Four days later, Comcast reiterated its demand, and Level 3 paid up to avoid service disruptions to customers. Level 3 is complaining to regulators in hopes of getting rules passed that would prevent companies from establishing these kinds of "toll" payments.

This is a perfect example of why it's so hard for technology companies to change the current TV distribution model. Comcast has no interest in allowing its Internet subscribers to undercut its core TV and video-on-demand business. After all, Comcast pays content owners to distribute their content--why should it allow ISPs a free ride?

Cord-cutting is a nice dream for the high-tech industry, but the incumbents aren't going to roll over and let it happen easily.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Hey, Cable Guys: It's Time To Start Chasing HARD After Apple, Netflix, And Google
• Cable Companies Looking To Crush Netflix And Hulu With iPad Apps
• Comcast Plans On Demand Video Viewing For The iPad

Comcast Shakes Down Internet Provider For Video Delivery (LVLT, CMCSK)

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/6rbpXeORXSY/comcast-shakes-down-internet-provider-level-3-2010-11

Comment on Charter Follows Comcast With Broadband Usage Caps by goldflowpoints

Phillip, my position is that it sounds reasonable for the cable companies to charge more or less based on speed and quantity of data so long as they do not discriminate based on the content of the data. For example, when I consume more electricity or gas, I expect to pay more for it. Why should it be different for the internet? Should not a heavy gamer or movie downloader, who puts a heavy load on the network that potentially impacts the experience for the majority of lighter users, pay more for such heavy use? I assume Stop the Cap does not agree with this, and I wanted to know if you could help me understand why. Thanks.

Post originale: http://gigaom.com/2010/11/11/charter-follows-comcast-with-broadband-usage-caps/#comment-512216

Comment on Comcast to Install Speed Bumps for Bandwidth Hogs by Charter Follows Comcast With Broadband Usage Caps: Tech News «

[...] Charter will also introduce a congestion management policy with a protocol-agnostic approach that’s applied only during periods of congestion (Charter notes that congestion is rare on its network). The policy will affect only the heaviest users (less than 1 percent) in small time increments. Those affected will have their bandwidth limited, but no Internet activities will be blocked. For Comcast’s similar policy see our coverage here. [...]

Post originale: http://gigaom.com/2008/09/19/comcast-installs-speed-bumps-for-bandwidth-hogs/#comment-509500

Comment on Why Tiered Broadband Is the Enemy of Innovation by Charter Follows Comcast With Broadband Usage Caps: Tech News «

[...] Lamont said that 98 percent of Charter’s 5.2 million customers will be unaffected by the decision to enforce the caps (Charter actually first included caps in its acceptable usage policy in February 2009). However, demand for broadband is increasing every week as folks use more online applications and consumer video from the web. For example, streaming a movie on Netflix uses about 1 GB per hour, so that equates to about 100 hours of Netflix streaming video each month. Services such as Netflix and Hulu Plus that involve high-quality video streams are only becoming more popular and pervasive as more consumers connect their televisions to the web. We made this argument back in 2008 when Comcast implemented its 250 GB per month cap and continue to believe that such caps could act as a threat to innovation. [...]

Post originale: http://gigaom.com/2008/06/04/why-tiered-broadband-is-the-enemy-of-innovation/#comment-509499

Charter Follows Comcast With Broadband Usage Caps

Charter Cable plans to start enforcing monthly data caps on its users in December, according to a company spokeswoman. The cable operator will also implement a congestion management plan similar to the one Comcast designed after it got in trouble with the Federal Communications Commission for blocking P2P files in 2008. Charter spokeswoman Anita Lamont emailed me and said Charter will likely post this information to subscribers within the next week (hat tip to DSL Reports who first reported the change was coming).