Time-Warner and Cox spending big bux on WiFi

[stevech]

Time-Warner and Cox et al are announcing new spending of big bux on WiFi hotspot expansion. Seamless, they say.

As this scale grows, to public and private spaces, I wonder if Verizon/AT&T will start to lose significant revenue to WiFi?

It could also be that today, many non-techies don't know how to ensure their smart phone service could cost a lot less (lower data cap plans).

Cable Co's were/are installing access points connected to the cable co's cable for backhaul. Cisco spent a lot getting products for this, as have others.

It's a curious future.

I'm in the camp that says that the US Gov should oppose the takeover of Time Warner Cable for anti-trust reasons. But fer sure, the lobbyists will see that it happens. Time Warner Inc. spun out the cable business some time back. Must mean it's too low profit vs. selling content where there's no fixed costs for a network's O&M.

 

[azazel1024]

I hope like heck the Gov't opposes it with all their force, or if not, seeds it with poison pill conditions. In some ways I almost wish it was Verizon trying to take over TWC, so that one of the requirements would be mandating that Verizon actually finish their FIOS build out in existing markets within a resonable time frame (say 3 years) as well as commit to expanding in to some meaningful number of new markets with the number broken between urban and suburban regions, as well as deploying high capped 4G to rural markets (not some pansy 5GB a month or some crap. Like 50GB a month minimum...at current basic rates).

I honestly can't see a provision at the gov't could require of Comcast/TWC that would make the merger "okay" in anyway. Maybe unbundling/a la carte mandate might be at least a little nudge in the "making it okay" direction.

As for Wifi...I don't see it meaningfully taking away from the wireless telecoms. Once there is meaningful penetration in big cities, it might take away a small amount if coverage is pretty close to universal. At least for city dwellers who rarely if ever actually leave the city. Wifi just doesn't cut the mustard on range for anything else though. Even if comcast and TWC force out modems on all subscribers with second SSIDs and open access to all subscribers through the second SSID, it just doesn't provide the required blanket coverage to replace cellular coverage.

I know personally I'd never consider it a replacement if I thought walking down the wrong stretch of a neighborhood where 3 neighbors in a row don't have Comcast service meant that my phone conversation disconnected due to loss of wifi connection.

One of the biggest issues here is congestion though. Comcast at least is disingenuously saying that their modems with the second SSID don't slow down the subscribers connection at all, because its a "seperate backhaul". The problem there is both local node congestion as well as the fact that Comcast are still speaking out of their rear. I've seen a couple of people test their connections when also loading the second SSID and, you have both Wifi congestion to contend with there, as well as it actually chocking the cable connection to the local node. It doesn't seem to impact it much, but it does seem to knock 5-20% off wired performance when someone is connected and actively hitting the comcast provided wifi SSID and I'd imagine wifi performance would be much worse, especially if you happened to be using the modem as an access point yourself.

How much would the local node be hit if this becomes deployed widely, especially in an urban setting where you might have a lot of foot traffic by hitting the local node, that wouldn't have been there before, no idea, but since Comcast already way over subscribes, I can only imagine it'll be bad.

I think it is an interesting concept, but you know they'll only deploy it in such a way to maximize profits for themselves with little consideration about how it'll negatively impact their own customers.

Oh and interestingly, my brother actually worked on this on a 6-month contract with Comcast about 2 odd years ago when they were just begining to do very early testing of the concept (modems that provide a non-user controllable second SSID for open access to other comcast subscribers).

 

[stevech]

If you look at how much WiFi traffic is moved out in public spaces, most likely it says most is done while the smartphone is immobile or in low mobility. That matches WiFi coverage bubbles if they are compellingly cheaper than cellular. Buzzing along in your car, so far, you aren't consuming broadband. Probably not either, as a pedestrian on a walk.

 

[azazel1024]

You are though if you are using your phone in map mode. That doesn't eat a whole ton of data, but it certainly uses a resonable amount.

You could possibly cut a data plan to the bone with good wifi coverage in public spaces, but that still potentially has a limited impact. Most people I know of with high data plans also typically use a lot of that data where public wifi is likely to never be available and/or their employer doesn't provide wifi access to their employees and that likely wouldn't change.

I could be completely wrong, but I just don't see how this is anything more than a modest convenience for a modest number of people and maybe at most might allow a small percentage of people to reduce their data plan.

 

[KGB7]

There are 2 WiFi hot spots next my town house that belong to Comcast and Cox, but you can only use it if you are their customer. Download speed is 600kbps.

Would be nice if anyone can use it.