Telco's Make Frontal Assault on Cable TV's stranglehold - Globe and Mail
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
The Bell/Telus marketing guys spin a good story.
The problem is still what it always has been. The last mile.
I'm approx 2km from the CO. When I was on DSL the BEST I ever saw was 5Mbps down. This is true for the overwhelming majority of DSL subscribers.
Sure, there are a growing number of DSL users who can get 10M+, but that number is exceedingly small compared to what the cable guys offer.
The problem is still what it always has been. The last mile.
I'm approx 2km from the CO. When I was on DSL the BEST I ever saw was 5Mbps down. This is true for the overwhelming majority of DSL subscribers.
Sure, there are a growing number of DSL users who can get 10M+, but that number is exceedingly small compared to what the cable guys offer.
Joined
·
21 Posts
telco
Good article on technology, spend millions on infastructure and charge the customer more. Unfortunetly my neighbourhood has been at the mercy of the Telus/Shaw giants for internet speeds for several years and still no resolve, just play the waiting game. Telus offered 3Mbs down received 256kbs, Shaw offered 15Mbs down received 3-7Mbs with peaks of 15Mbs at 3am, daytime is s-l-o-w. If all this hype over IPTV is coming, start here in backwoods BC.
Cheers
Good article on technology, spend millions on infastructure and charge the customer more. Unfortunetly my neighbourhood has been at the mercy of the Telus/Shaw giants for internet speeds for several years and still no resolve, just play the waiting game. Telus offered 3Mbs down received 256kbs, Shaw offered 15Mbs down received 3-7Mbs with peaks of 15Mbs at 3am, daytime is s-l-o-w. If all this hype over IPTV is coming, start here in backwoods BC.
Cheers
I agree with jvincent. As a computer repair guy who does housecalls, I always cringe when I see an Aliant DSL modem. I know that it will take much longer to do any large downloads and updates. Many of the DSL customers in my neck of the woods get 1.5-2.5 megabit downloads. The cable customers mostly get 15 megabit. That is a huge difference that requires major investment and infrastructure to make up.
If the phone companies really want to take a bite out of cable, they need much faster internet, MUCH MUCH MUCH better customer service, and some killer feature that cable doesn't have. A whole home DVR isn't it. They can be made just as easily for cable as for phone.
Of course a much better way to win back customers would be to offer equivalent services for a much lower price. Wouldn't that be nice...
Mark
If the phone companies really want to take a bite out of cable, they need much faster internet, MUCH MUCH MUCH better customer service, and some killer feature that cable doesn't have. A whole home DVR isn't it. They can be made just as easily for cable as for phone.
Of course a much better way to win back customers would be to offer equivalent services for a much lower price. Wouldn't that be nice...
Mark
The telcos have been slower than cable in deploying fibre to the node. That will change but twisted pair will never catch up to coax in bandwidth. IMHO, the telcos should be deploying fibre to the home in order to compete.
Either way, I find the telcos' rhetoric to be self serving and hypocritical. They talk about eliminating “the last monopoly” while, at the same time, trying to eliminate real competition. The are deploying technology that consumes huge amounts of bandwidth while complaining to the CRTC about lack of bandwidth over the same networks for internet users. They are not trying to do anything but secure the streaming video market for their own high priced services, essentially creating a duopoly with cable.
BTW, that demo would not impress a lot of people here who have been doing the same things for years with open technology.
Either way, I find the telcos' rhetoric to be self serving and hypocritical. They talk about eliminating “the last monopoly” while, at the same time, trying to eliminate real competition. The are deploying technology that consumes huge amounts of bandwidth while complaining to the CRTC about lack of bandwidth over the same networks for internet users. They are not trying to do anything but secure the streaming video market for their own high priced services, essentially creating a duopoly with cable.
BTW, that demo would not impress a lot of people here who have been doing the same things for years with open technology.
Joined
·
494 Posts
In BC, Fibre is in almost every neighborhood. I'd estimated that 70% to 80% of the lowermainland and Fraser Valley have access to at least a 20mb internet connection with ADSL or VDSL.
The problem is the last leg of that path is still on copper, but now the fibre is in place to the neighbourhood terminals. I speculate that its only a matter of time before Bell and Telus start to offer fibre to the home (which i think is the ultimate goal).
The problem is the last leg of that path is still on copper, but now the fibre is in place to the neighbourhood terminals. I speculate that its only a matter of time before Bell and Telus start to offer fibre to the home (which i think is the ultimate goal).
There are sections of large cities in eastern Canada that can't even get 5Mb DSL. Technologies such as fibre to the node are basically only available in a few high density areas and MDUs. It is being deployed but I doubt most areas will see it for several years and some never will. I remember a Bell tech saying, 10 years ago, that Bell was going to deliver TV over twisted pair. I'm still waiting, with no sign that anything over 6Mb DSL will ever be available here. Meanwhile, Bell is restricting my ability to use alternative services such as Netflix.
Frankly, I don't care about "most places". When FibeTV comes to my neck of the woods I will seriously consider dropping Rogers. And I am on a lifetime rent-free PVR deal. Trouble is, 3 years ago that was an insurmountable hurdle for Bell to overcome (their best deals would still not beat what that free PVR gave me). But more recently, I've been able to put together my own bundle (i.e. without getting the rep to offer me any additional discounts) that would be just a little higher than what I pay Rogers now, but I would up my internet access from 3 to 6 (and from 1/4 up to 1), get a second PVR, and enjoy a better user experience with those two PVRs. The only problem is I am not a fan of satellite (had it before Rogers), and when FibeTV comes here I probably will not be completely satisfied with the speed (if all I can get is one HD and 2 SD feeds simultaneously that's not enough; with two PVRs I'll need 4 HD).
Anyhow, no matter what happens, having a serious alternative will drive prices down.
Anyhow, no matter what happens, having a serious alternative will drive prices down.
smallmj,
And with my FibreOp modem, I feel sorry for people with Rogers who try to patch World of Warcraft. That Bittorrent throttling completely kills their supposidly-fast connection while I run circles around them.
DSL is like the new dialup, really. If you're in an area where Aliant is doing Fibre, Rogers isn't competitive.
And with my FibreOp modem, I feel sorry for people with Rogers who try to patch World of Warcraft. That Bittorrent throttling completely kills their supposidly-fast connection while I run circles around them.
DSL is like the new dialup, really. If you're in an area where Aliant is doing Fibre, Rogers isn't competitive.
GIven my obvious and well known OTA bias here at this site I was not impressed by the two G&M articles. I read and reread them to arrive at the same conclusion as some of you: puff pieces that spin the story of the consumer's TV future as having only one facet: the IPTV attack on the CATV stronghold... blah blah blah...
Given the 1950's style photo used in the print version which depicts a nuclear family gathered around a new TV set, it is fair to compare those two articles to the sugary North American automobile reviews of the 1950s and 60s that revolved purely around the latest, greatest, chrome-laden, behemoth land liners coming from Ford, GM, and Chrysler. Meanwhile, in consumer reality, a little car called the Volkswagen and some tiny imported cars called Toyotas and Datsuns were about to change everything forever with their economical, sensible size and their gradually improving workmanship, soon overtaking the Big Three in those categories. (The purpose of that analogy is that what the writers fail to identify is the good sense of many consumers when it comes to their budgets).
Something we at this site see on a routine basis: a substantial number of people now use OTA as their prime TV source, with CATV, IPTV, Internet-based TV, or BD/DVD rental as the solution for programming not carried OTA. On any given day here at this site the most popular forum of all is the OTA Forum, with Bell sometimes in the lead but usually close and the CATV and IPTV forums far behind. With DTV stations popping up across Canada the number of OTA users will only grow. Will they drop CATV, IPTV, etc. en masse? Of course not, but they'll be able to find other ways to watch TV, and that's the subject of an entire thread: Pros and Cons of Going OTA so no point in rehashing any of that here.
Oh well, as I say, just puff pieces aimed narrowly at pumping IPTV.
I was not impressed by the two G&M articles. I read and reread them to arrive at the same conclusion as some of you: puff pieces that spin the story of the consumer's TV future as having only one facet: the IPTV attack on the CATV stronghold... blah blah blah...Given the 1950's style photo used in the print version which depicts a nuclear family gathered around a new TV set, it is fair to compare those two articles to the sugary North American automobile reviews of the 1950s and 60s that revolved purely around the latest, greatest, chrome-laden, behemoth land liners coming from Ford, GM, and Chrysler. Meanwhile, in consumer reality, a little car called the Volkswagen and some tiny imported cars called Toyotas and Datsuns were about to change everything forever with their economical, sensible size and their gradually improving workmanship, soon overtaking the Big Three in those categories. (The purpose of that analogy is that what the writers fail to identify is the good sense of many consumers when it comes to their budgets).
Something we at this site see on a routine basis: a substantial number of people now use OTA as their prime TV source, with CATV, IPTV, Internet-based TV, or BD/DVD rental as the solution for programming not carried OTA. On any given day here at this site the most popular forum of all is the OTA Forum, with Bell sometimes in the lead but usually close and the CATV and IPTV forums far behind. With DTV stations popping up across Canada the number of OTA users will only grow. Will they drop CATV, IPTV, etc. en masse? Of course not, but they'll be able to find other ways to watch TV, and that's the subject of an entire thread: Pros and Cons of Going OTA so no point in rehashing any of that here.
Oh well, as I say, just puff pieces aimed narrowly at pumping IPTV.
I was visiting a friend in Toronto this weekend. He has a *C dish overlooking his front yard. 3 truckloads of Bell techs were working on the box in front of his home for the second day. When we asked what was going on, one of the techs told us they were upgrading the neighbourhood for IPTV and -- get this -- that as soon as it was fully deployed, satellite dishes would be made illegal in Toronto, and that my friend would HAVE to switch to IPTV.
I wonder if the CRTC knows about this yet?
I suspect the truth is that Bhell will stop offering their satellite service in areas where they have IPTV.
I wonder if the CRTC knows about this yet?
I suspect the truth is that Bhell will stop offering their satellite service in areas where they have IPTV.
Joined
·
3,243 Posts
With the limitations of IPTV, such as the number of HD sets you can have, I really doubt it.
-Mike
-Mike
Joined
·
1,950 Posts
Hahahaha thanks for the laugh!
I suppose it is possible Bell might persuade subscribers in areas where IPTV is deployed to go that route instead of ExpressVu but I highly doubt it.
And yes, even at a full 25 Mbps connection (Fibe 25?) the number of HD televisions you can have on simultaneously is limited. Cable, satellite and OTA don't have that problem.
I would hazard that the number is far higher than 30 in which case it may as well be infinite because no one has 30 TVs in their house. I think I have 8 TVs, 9 digital cable boxes plus about 6 or 7 non-TV devices that can also be used for watching TV and I couldn't saturate cable or OTA, but I am guessing I could easily saturate an IPTV feed.
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Join the discussion
