utiz4321

Right. But the question is why? The answer is that both sick companies have networks that don't allow them to charge the as much as the healthy players because they aren't as good of products. Again why? Because the cost of a national network is pretty much the same weather you have 50 million customer or 100 million customers The pressure on wireless providers to invest in their networks to keep up with the consumer demand for content is also similar, this means the returns to scale are high. High returns to scale means fewer players. Given that neither, content or ISPs can exist without each other the market is a two sided one. Which means costs and profits are most efficiently spread between the two. ISPs argue they are being stuck with most of the costs ( which increases returns to scale) and what content providers to cover some of the capital costs. Are they right? That depends on the consumer, in any case the anti-net neutrality case isn't with out its merits and I am supportive of it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually that is not accurate. ma bell was created by regulation. The break up of standard oil came after its market share started to slip. It also led to higher oil prices because, surprise, regulators didn't figure the optimal size of an oil company. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is called a two sided market. Content providers can't exist without ISPs and ISPs can't exist without content providers. If you are fine with crappy ISP choices fine, use the government to force profits to flow to content providers. If you are not, like me, let the market figure out where the profits can go. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you look at the industry the wireless customers aren't paying enough to cover the capex and opex requirements to sustain four players. That is why we have two "sick men" in the wireless industry. It isn't pure greed. Shipping companies do the exact same thing. If you are a company and you are willing to pony up the dough your wares get to your customers faster than some mom and pop shop. Yet, there isn't this complaining about how unfair it is to the little guy that Amazon can ship stuff fast because they can afford to pay and others can't. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I am saying is something different. In this discussion many people have complained about the number of ISP choices they have. Why are there so few? Capex and regulation makes it prohibitively expensive for new entrants. Capex is driven by content consumption and it is not obvious they shouldn't flip part of the bill. I don't know what the opex is of cable companies, but it isn't insignificant in the wireless industry. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow. That is a rant. The question is who should pay for the added capex required to meet consumers growing content demand. It is not as open and shut a case that content providers should bear no cost in order to have their content delivered to the consumer. Further, it is not a decision that you or I on a thread have any ability to pretend we know the answer. What I think is a reasonable approach is to let consumer decide. You complain about being stuck with very little choice in terms of providers and then advocate for a policy that deprives providers the ability to offset the capital costs of meeting the demands of consumer. Higher capex, lower revenue means higher returns to scale which in turn means larger companies and fewer choices. Net neutrality will mean fewer ISP choices. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. My point is you have choices, maybe only one that fits your needs but then we should look at why that is. And when you do you won't find that it is because of the anti-net neutrality position of your only viable ISP but because of regulation and the high capex cost. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have hit the nail on the head. Zones to avoid competition. This is the real problem and one which you can affect. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have wireless, probably four or so to choose from if you are in a high-density suburb. I get what you are saying though. There is only two in Phoenix and this is the sixth largest MSA in the US. I don't know this for certain but I bet there is some regulatory reason for it. In any case google sees the opportunity here and this will be changing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Google is the perfect point to what I am saying. Google fiber is a giant threat to pipe. Basically it is Google saying keep the Internet relatively open or else we will destroy your bottom line. I can't think of a market with only one isp choice, except extremely rural areas on satellite. Also, good point on local regulations gumming things up. I support the FCC dropping the hammer on the NIMBY crowd. Look, the higher the capex for ISPs, the higher the return to scales, thus the fewer players and higher end user cost. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Umm.... No it didn't. High speed internet has been around since the late 1990s. Tom wheeler didn't become FCC chair until 2013. The market and the nature of the Internet makes this a bad model. Besides, pipes ability to package content isn't what wheeler prohibited. It was charging content providers for fast lanes to customers. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What is funny about this example is that it never happened. Not because of regulations but because it is a bad business model as long as there is competition on the pipe side. If it was the good old days of ma' bell than net neutrality would be a must. But I don't think we want to go back to the days of no choices in providers. In affect, net neutrality makes fewer players viable on the pipe side. There is always a cost to regulation. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you use it on your att service? If you like something that is on prime, that is only on prime you'll use the data to watch it or at least most people would. Also, did you use Netflix when it was 10 gigs and neutral? If so that data has been freed up. Now how the math works out (dropping to 6 gigs) depends on your usage pattern but for a lot of people it means more data to consume on other content. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure what you mean people like me. I personally have thought the industry would move to this formate sooner and have be consistently fine with it. I am anti-net neutral, as from my point of view all it does is uses force to shift profits from pipe to content creators and will either leave us with shitty networks or fewer networks to chooses from. Remember, growth in the consumption of online content is the reason capex for wireless companies are as high as they are, shouldn't some of the larger content providers shoulder some of that burden? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get that but acknowledge my point, which is if I am using 5 gigs of usage on Netflix and 5 gigs on prime and Netflix strikes a deal making the usage I spend on them not count against my data bucket then that frees up 5 gigs which I can use on prime or any other content I wish to consume. If a movie or show is on both I might use Netflix to watch it but Their catalogs are not identical and I still get shipping through prime so I and I am willing to bet Robert isn't canceling our prime subscription. It may put pressure on Amazon to strike unique content relationships or invest more in original material or strike a deal to make their content not count against my data bucket, any of which are good things from the consumer's point of view. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, I don't think you've dropped prime because of it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You pay T-Mobile for a data allotment, not for Amazon prime access. When all the services counted against your data allotment you used prime and other services? If so it should allow you to use more prime not less, as your will use less data over all because some of your services don't count then you'll have more to burn on prime. Besides I am sure that you simply shifted your usage of prime to one of your other services. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If a service is good people will use it, even if it uses data. Look, T-Mobile customers haven't stopped using services they love because a competitor doesn't use their data. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If a service is good people will use it, even if it uses data. Look, T-Mobile customers haven't stopped using services they love because a competitor doesn't use their data. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree branding is everything with these providers. I subscribe to HBO because the brand represents quality content, Netflix is much the same, Hulu I can get tv content with out cable bill ect...Branding and its cost are the biggest struggle for an online content providers and this adds, not subtracts, an avenue for providers to brand their product. Which in the end is all vzw is doing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What small online video streaming business do you think this will effect negatively? To get the content to be a mass appeal online video delivery company you need scale i.e. Your a big business. If you deliver niche content (a space a small online company might occupy) , it doesn't effect you because by definition you are providing content no one else is and to a small dedicated audience. So again, what is the big deal? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really don't get the issue. If vzw want to give this value add to its customers who subscribe to their new video streaming service who cares. If the service sucks people aren't going to subscribe and if it is good this is just a value add for them. People still love Netflix, HBO and YouTube and as long as they provide the content people want they will do fine. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Forecasting is difficult. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I don't get is that if you look at call reliability a .7 percent differences gives vzw the one spot over sprint but a .9 percent difference between sprint and att has them tied for second. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At about the 15 minute mark he does mention densification. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk