1. seniors are also less dependent on TV and technology and more willing to not be tied to it especially when pricing and even more so the "packaging" of the service becomes too stupid and too frustrating to deal with

2. load balancing and the like is really only important for two reasons......lack of access to a fiber backbone that can support your traffic or last mile limitations/shared last mile issues

most major metro areas and even many minor metro areas (and even many rural areas) do not have a lack of ability to move large amounts of data in and out of their area or region there is a lot of dark fiber in the ground and there are always new technologies to get more bandwidth out of available fibers

and with cell companies in particular the reason they limit data is because they never really are sure where people will suddenly demand large amounts of bandwidth so they place limits on users overall to meet the resources they feel will be demanded in most areas at any one time

it is like when you go to a college or pro game and you can't get cell or data access because of the large number of users.....or in the case of major national cell companies with lots of traveling and roaming users you can't give them all "unlimited data" and then realize a lot of them are showing up in more rural areas or in areas like airports and sucking the data dry time and again......people will accept that to a degree at a three hour sports game, but not frequently and randomly as they roam from place to place

with the system of "local providers" like I am talking about that offer unlimited bandwidth or very very high bandwidth limits for a very low cost they are getting around this issue because they have a fixed geographic footprint (like a traditional cable company where the area is where the wire is on the pole) and thus that local data provider can readily match available 3G and 4G availability along with fiber backbones out of the area/region to their user needs without worrying about them roaming all over the place still wanting to suck up a ton of bandwidth where availability is limited

it will be very similar to a local cable company only without the coax/wires

content comes into the main area and instead of going out on a wired cable plant it goes out wirelessly and instead of users being confined to their home or as far as their home network reaches they are confined to the entire area that the company covers.....but they are confined to that area

the second issue why cable internet companies specifically want to throttle bandwidth and balance loads is because of the shared last mile....and sure as they upgrade their plant that becomes less of an issue and as technologies become available for more data to move on the last piece of coax that helps as well......but to get over that shared last mile basically requires a large investment in fixed assets right at the subscribers home and more importantly a total reconfigure of the cable plant and that is cost prohibitive

cable was always about a "shout" (for lack of a better term) across a cable plant and then at the home level you limit the subscriber to what parts of that "shout" they can hear (channels they get)

cable companies basically had a large amount of bandwidth (mainly one way) they "shouted" all their content down and each sub listened in......now with the internet and back and forth traffic (upstream still not a major factor) and the major factor of each user wanting to hear a "shout" from random someone/anyone on the internet cable companies need to deal with the fact that their plant was designed to carry a large block of "shouts" that were defined by the cable company and limited at the cable box or limited at the "tap" with filter blocks

POTS/TELCO was always about a back and forth conversation between a single user and the Central Office (CO) the issue POTS/TELCO has was that their copper twisted pair between the individual users and the CO was limited in bandwidth, but the individuality of that type of POTS plant means that as ILECS move fiber from the CO down to more local boxes on the street and the alley and they limit the distances that a twisted pair has to carry data they can get large amounts of bandwidth very close to users and those users are only sharing the bandwidth once it hits a location that is very easy to get huge bandwidth to.....their users do not share with a neighbor they only share once it hits a box or even a CO that is easy to drag more and more bandwidth to....but still even then there is a high cost associated with that

both of them would be much smarter to drag bandwidth to towers and have more towers/antennas and then define an area (the DFW area and 10 miles out from it) and say that is where your data access stops or that is where the unlimited portion stops

but they feel they can get away with not doing so and cable companies especially still feel they are the arbiters of what you want to see and get to see and as POTS/TELCO companies get more and more into "cable" like providers they have the same disease along with the disease that they feel they have to offer the same type of service to "roaming" users as they roam across the continent instead of realizing they can offer limits to unlimited/high bandwidth to geographic areas and if it is CHEAP it will be desirable especially if it offers FREE CHOICE in TV content available at a la carte prices

it is not a matter of bandwidth to towers or bandwidth in and out of geographic areas (and really in some areas it is not a matter of bandwidth on a twisted pair or a coax cable)....it is a rotten yesteryear mindset of what and how to offer a service and what and how a user will have service and content dictated to them instead of provided for them

(03-20-2015 02:14 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  There is also going to be a market for traditional cable packages for a long time to come. Seniors for example are further behind on technology. Some don't even know how to use the internet.

I question that local providers are going to be the future. The reason is we are moving to having global information grid where a lot of the load balancing is going to happen at the application level. Multi-threaded application management over back end load balancing like its been done traditionally.

Locally managed networks and systems are going by the wayside. Moving toward cloud management where the physical infrastructure will be at the data centers only.

Competition will of course drive down price. I predict after a few rounds of cord cutting you will start to see phone cutting as more people don't want to pay $40 dollars for cell service they use once a month. Data only is the way to go and if you really need a phone you can get a $15 month home plan with nationwide calling.

Demand doesn't guarantee a supply will be there.

Cable/Satellite is a bad overall scheme. End users should be paying content creators directly, not paying distributors a monthly rate for a bundle of products they mostly don't want. Content creators have distributors over a barrel currently, charging per customer fees and forcing them to put a whole slew of channels on standard tiers that people don't want.

Apple TV is not hard to use. Rotary telephones eventually went away too.

Some will always kick and scream, nothing you can do about that.

(03-20-2015 03:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 02:14 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  There is also going to be a market for traditional cable packages for a long time to come. Seniors for example are further behind on technology. Some don't even know how to use the internet.

I question that local providers are going to be the future. The reason is we are moving to having global information grid where a lot of the load balancing is going to happen at the application level. Multi-threaded application management over back end load balancing like its been done traditionally.

Locally managed networks and systems are going by the wayside. Moving toward cloud management where the physical infrastructure will be at the data centers only.

Competition will of course drive down price. I predict after a few rounds of cord cutting you will start to see phone cutting as more people don't want to pay $40 dollars for cell service they use once a month. Data only is the way to go and if you really need a phone you can get a $15 month home plan with nationwide calling.

Demand doesn't guarantee a supply will be there.

Cable/Satellite is a bad overall scheme. End users should be paying content creators directly, not paying distributors a monthly rate for a bundle of products they mostly don't want. Content creators have distributors over a barrel currently, charging per customer fees and forcing them to put a whole slew of channels on standard tiers that people don't want.

Apple TV is not hard to use. Rotary telephones eventually went away too.

Some will always kick and scream, nothing you can do about that.

this....I will pay you for a connection and bandwidth to me

I will pay those that have the content I desire to come down your connection to me

I do not need you to arbitrate all of that and bundle it and choose for me

the sooner some companies come along with the above plan the sooner cable and Sat companies will lose more and more subscribers

(03-20-2015 03:52 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 03:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 02:14 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  There is also going to be a market for traditional cable packages for a long time to come. Seniors for example are further behind on technology. Some don't even know how to use the internet.

I question that local providers are going to be the future. The reason is we are moving to having global information grid where a lot of the load balancing is going to happen at the application level. Multi-threaded application management over back end load balancing like its been done traditionally.

Locally managed networks and systems are going by the wayside. Moving toward cloud management where the physical infrastructure will be at the data centers only.

Competition will of course drive down price. I predict after a few rounds of cord cutting you will start to see phone cutting as more people don't want to pay $40 dollars for cell service they use once a month. Data only is the way to go and if you really need a phone you can get a $15 month home plan with nationwide calling.

Demand doesn't guarantee a supply will be there.

Cable/Satellite is a bad overall scheme. End users should be paying content creators directly, not paying distributors a monthly rate for a bundle of products they mostly don't want. Content creators have distributors over a barrel currently, charging per customer fees and forcing them to put a whole slew of channels on standard tiers that people don't want.

Apple TV is not hard to use. Rotary telephones eventually went away too.

Some will always kick and scream, nothing you can do about that.

this....I will pay you for a connection and bandwidth to me

I will pay those that have the content I desire to come down your connection to me

I do not need you to arbitrate all of that and bundle it and choose for me

the sooner some companies come along with the above plan the sooner cable and Sat companies will lose more and more subscribers

You won't even have to pay for the connection and bandwidth. There will be global wifi.

That is why I'm thinking its going to be the applications that will do all the charging in the future. ESPN may get to the same price point as HBO if the demand is there.

End of the Cable companies will be followed by the end of the Service Providers. The local choke points aren't going to be there.

(03-20-2015 04:16 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 03:52 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 03:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 02:14 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  There is also going to be a market for traditional cable packages for a long time to come. Seniors for example are further behind on technology. Some don't even know how to use the internet.

I question that local providers are going to be the future. The reason is we are moving to having global information grid where a lot of the load balancing is going to happen at the application level. Multi-threaded application management over back end load balancing like its been done traditionally.

Locally managed networks and systems are going by the wayside. Moving toward cloud management where the physical infrastructure will be at the data centers only.

Competition will of course drive down price. I predict after a few rounds of cord cutting you will start to see phone cutting as more people don't want to pay $40 dollars for cell service they use once a month. Data only is the way to go and if you really need a phone you can get a $15 month home plan with nationwide calling.

Demand doesn't guarantee a supply will be there.

Cable/Satellite is a bad overall scheme. End users should be paying content creators directly, not paying distributors a monthly rate for a bundle of products they mostly don't want. Content creators have distributors over a barrel currently, charging per customer fees and forcing them to put a whole slew of channels on standard tiers that people don't want.

Apple TV is not hard to use. Rotary telephones eventually went away too.

Some will always kick and scream, nothing you can do about that.

this....I will pay you for a connection and bandwidth to me

I will pay those that have the content I desire to come down your connection to me

I do not need you to arbitrate all of that and bundle it and choose for me

the sooner some companies come along with the above plan the sooner cable and Sat companies will lose more and more subscribers

You won't even have to pay for the connection and bandwidth. There will be global wifi.

That is why I'm thinking its going to be the applications that will do all the charging in the future. ESPN may get to the same price point as HBO if the demand is there.

End of the Cable companies will be followed by the end of the Service Providers. The local choke points aren't going to be there.

it will be impossible to not pay for connections and bandwidth

someone has to provide the WIFI towers and someone has to provide the fiber to those towers and someone has to provide the the fiber to a larger backbone and then to a NAP

that will not be coming for free even if the amount of bandwidth available is very large

(03-20-2015 11:48 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  New
$70 8GB Data (Sprint)
$20 Mobile Broadband Charge (Sprint)
$15 Home Phone (Sprint)
$15 HBO Go
$20 Sling TV
$40 Smartphone Service (Sprint)
$15 Smartphone Device (Sprint)
$11 Smartphone Insurance (Sprint)
$206 Total

New-Data Only
$80 12GB Data (Sprint)
$8 Mobile Broadband Monthly Device (Sprint)
$15 Home Phone (Sprint)
$15 HBO Go
$20 Sling TV
$10 Tablet Device Monthly Cost (Sprint)
$9 Device Insurance (Sprint)
$157 Total

I got same price comparison from T-Mobile. Definitely have some better prices because they don't charge you a device fee for the mobile broadband like you ave to pay in the Share Everything Plans.

$50 7GB Broadband Data (T-Mobile)
$5 Mobile Broadband Monthly Device (T-Mobile)
$15 Home Phone (Sprint)
$15 HBO Go
$20 Sling TV
$50 1GB Smartphone Service (T-Mobile)
$19 Smartphone Device (T-Mobile)
$8 Device Insurance (T-Mobile)
$182 Total

New-Data Only
$50 7GB Broadband Data (T-Mobile)
$5 Mobile Broadband Monthly Device (T-Mobile)
$15 Home Phone (Sprint)
$15 HBO Go
$20 Sling TV
$13 Tablet Device Monthly Cost (T-Mobile)
$8 Device Insurance (T-Mobile)
$126 Total

At $126 that is $130 less than the $257 access point for HBO going through traditional cable. Now you are talking saving $1560 a year.

Another option is a split Phone/Broadband purchase intead of a family plan through a provider like Sprint..

$50 6GB Data (Sprint)
$8 Mobile Broadband Monthly Device (Sprint)
$15 Home Phone (Sprint)
$15 HBO Go
$20 Sling TV
$50 2GB Smartphone Service (Sprint)
$15 Smartphone Device (Sprint)
$11 Smartphone Insurance (Sprint)
$184 Total

Or with an LG G Pad instead of a smartphone...

$50 6GB Data (Sprint)
$8 Mobile Broadband Monthly Device (Sprint)
$15 Home Phone (Sprint)
$15 HBO Go
$20 Sling TV
$9 LG G Pad Insurance (Sprint)
$118 Total