Netflix Pays Comcast for Smooth Streaming - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-05-2014, 03:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
trans_lux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In my theater
Posts: 981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhalmo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trans_lux View Post

The end is nigh
This is what our future holds....


Wow, this post is is awesome. This is exactly what I was thinking of and it certainly looks like we are headed that way. Where did you get these graphics?

I saw it during a presentation on net neutrality. Did a search on the web and found it.

I truly fear that this is the future. The Republicans are certainly on the wrong side of this one.
Remember the late Sen Ted Stevens explanation of the web? It would be funny if he hadn't authored the bill, S. 2686,[44] the Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006. Basically a net neutrality busting bill.
Dhalmo likes this.
trans_lux is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-05-2014, 03:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jahjd2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate View Post

In a laissez-faire or free market, the big players would have even bigger advantage. They would have even bigger lobbying and payoff influence, not less, since there won't be any rules and regulations preventing or limiting such maneuvers.

If I remember my Econ 101 correctly, a purely competitive market will eventually devolve into a monopoly.

I think you have the concept backwards. Theoretically a free market will induce competition and lead to better options, value, and pricing for consumers. See Adam Smith's theory on the invisible hand.

The one exception to the free market theory is public utilities, which is why you see a lot of government intervention with regards to 'communal services' like water and electricity. Some argue that the internet should be considered a utility, a notion I subscribe to. I'm not saying the government should take over the cable/internet industry, but they shouldn't stymie companies from entering local markets like they do today with Google Fiber.
thehun and Dhalmo like this.

Sharp LC70SQ15U
Denon 4311ci
Ascend Acoustics Towers (NrT)
Ascend Horizon Center (NrT)
Definitive Technology Surrounds BP1.2X
Rythmik E15HP
Epik Empire
Jahjd2000 is offline  
Old 03-05-2014, 04:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jahjd2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Here's a snippet from this article: http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5431382/the-internet-is-****ed

What happens in countries where there’s real competition? In the UK, where incumbent provider BT is required to allow competitors to use its wired broadband network, home internet service prices are as low as £2.50 a month, or just over $4. In South Korea, where wireless giants SK Telecom and LG Uplus are locked in a fierce technology battle, customers have access to the fastest mobile networks in the world — up to 300Mbps, compared to a theoretical max of 80Mbps on Verizon that’s actually more like 15 or 20mbps in the real world.

Sharp LC70SQ15U
Denon 4311ci
Ascend Acoustics Towers (NrT)
Ascend Horizon Center (NrT)
Definitive Technology Surrounds BP1.2X
Rythmik E15HP
Epik Empire
Jahjd2000 is offline  
Old 03-05-2014, 08:38 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 178 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahjd2000 View Post

I think you have the concept backwards. Theoretically a free market will induce competition and lead to better options, value, and pricing for consumers.
The operative word is "theoretically".

The problem is, in a truly free market without government oversight, what you get is bigger companies gobbling up smaller ones again and again until you end up with monopolies. That's how railroad and oil barons happened and the reason why we have all the anti-trust laws we have.

In a truly free environment, business will strive to be a monopoly, ignore the environment, exploit workers, create hazardous working conditions and price gouge when materials are scarce. While our system does still see some of that, it was a whole lot worse at the turn of the century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahjd2000 View Post

Here's a snippet from this article: http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5431382/the-internet-is-****ed

What happens in countries where there’s real competition? In the UK, where incumbent provider BT is required to allow competitors to use its wired broadband network, home internet service prices are as low as £2.50 a month, or just over $4. In South Korea, where wireless giants SK Telecom and LG Uplus are locked in a fierce technology battle, customers have access to the fastest mobile networks in the world — up to 300Mbps, compared to a theoretical max of 80Mbps on Verizon that’s actually more like 15 or 20mbps in the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahjd2000 View Post

I think you have the concept backwards. Theoretically a free market will induce competition and lead to better options, value, and pricing for consumers.
The UK and South Korea have all kinds of government checks and balances. That competition wouldn't happen without the rules that have been set. It's an artificial competitive market. I guarantee you that if there weren't regulations against it, BT would be be buying up those other competitors instead of simply letting them use their pipes. They'd still let other companies use their pipes, but they'd take them over in a stock buy if they actually used them.

Eventually, if they gobbled up enough competition, there would be no takers on using the networks.

We didn't have all the strict controls other places like the UK and South Korea had governing every little aspect of business. We had just enough regulation to break up some monopolies, but by the time the media companies saw their share of anti-trust regulation, the were far to powerful to allow the government to decide anything but one cable operator, one telco and one set of over the air stations is real competition. The result is, they've bought themselves so much government, it would require most of the congressmen falling on their swords to get any real regulation through at this point.

It's too late for that.

Now, you get the government you can pay for. That's why Charlie couldn't acquire DirecTV, yet Comcast can acquire just about anything these days. It's all about the Benjamins.
mr. wally and ohYew812 like this.
NetworkTV is offline  
Old 03-05-2014, 08:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,584
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Liked: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhalmo View Post

Wow, this post is is awesome. This is exactly what I was thinking of and it certainly looks like we are headed that way. Where did you get these graphics?

This was from an article that someone wrote quite awhile ago. The graphics are made up but the point is made.
Otto Pylot is online now  
Old 03-05-2014, 09:04 PM
 
Apostate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahjd2000 View Post

I think you have the concept backwards. Theoretically a free market will induce competition and lead to better options, value, and pricing for consumers. See Adam Smith's theory on the invisible hand.

The one exception to the free market theory is public utilities, which is why you see a lot of government intervention with regards to 'communal services' like water and electricity. Some argue that the internet should be considered a utility, a notion I subscribe to. I'm not saying the government should take over the cable/internet industry, but they shouldn't stymie companies from entering local markets like they do today with Google Fiber.

You are correct, of course. redface.gif I misused the term "purely competitive market." In academic sense, purely competitive market is as you've described - many buyers and sellers, etc. However, I distinctly remember having a discussion on "natural" evolution of competitive market that was pretty much what NetworkTV described in his post as below, i.e., we would end up with monopolies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

The operative word is "theoretically".

The problem is, in a truly free market without government oversight, what you get is bigger companies gobbling up smaller ones again and again until you end up with monopolies. That's how railroad and oil barons happened and the reason why we have all the anti-trust laws we have.

In a truly free environment, business will strive to be a monopoly, ignore the environment, exploit workers, create hazardous working conditions and price gouge when materials are scarce. While our system does still see some of that, it was a whole lot worse at the turn of the century.

Kinda like a certain shark specie where the baby sharks would eat each other in the womb until only one is left and birthed. eek.gif
Apostate is offline  
Old 03-05-2014, 09:10 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 320 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Wanted to post some really good news about Netflix streaming since the Comcast announcement-

Tonight for the first time I am streaming the 3D content on Netflix with no buffering. Every 3D title just fires up and plays with no stuttering or buffering perfectly using my PS3. So I suppose today they get the new direct connection to the Netflex servers working. Hope it continues.
Don Landis is online now  
Old 03-05-2014, 10:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jahjd2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

The operative word is "theoretically".

The problem is, in a truly free market without government oversight, what you get is bigger companies gobbling up smaller ones again and again until you end up with monopolies. That's how railroad and oil barons happened and the reason why we have all the anti-trust laws we have.

I don't disagree that some markets can, on its own accord, lead to a monopoly. But...I believe the government should only intervene in certain markets because not all monopolies are created equal. Should the government play a role with public utilities? Absolutely! Too much public welfare at stake. Should the government have stepped in to regulate Microsoft Windows--some argued that Windows had become too powerful and therefore needed to be regulated. No, I don't think they should have.

For the sake of clarity, the net neutrality bill ruling was absurd and so is the potential marriage between Comcast and Time Warner. And I do believe the government should intervene and restore the cable/internet market to normalcy. If left untreated this could be a HUGE impediment to US innovation.

Sharp LC70SQ15U
Denon 4311ci
Ascend Acoustics Towers (NrT)
Ascend Horizon Center (NrT)
Definitive Technology Surrounds BP1.2X
Rythmik E15HP
Epik Empire
Jahjd2000 is offline  
Old 03-06-2014, 01:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 178 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahjd2000 View Post

I don't disagree that some markets can, on its own accord, lead to a monopoly. But...I believe the government should only intervene in certain markets because not all monopolies are created equal. Should the government play a role with public utilities? Absolutely! Too much public welfare at stake. Should the government have stepped in to regulate Microsoft Windows--some argued that Windows had become too powerful and therefore needed to be regulated. No, I don't think they should have.
I fully agree.

The Microsoft thing was ridiculous and based on people simply being too lazy or uninformed to try to explore and understand other options, such as software alternatives like Open Office or Firefox and even alternative operating systems like MC OS or Linux. Most people just want to load their computer up and have everything handed to them. Microsoft did that. Those that had an issue with it were free to explore the options. We've become a victim society where we expect the government to save us from ourselves.

Unfortunately, though, if you want cable TV, you only have one provider. If you want Telco service, you only have one provider. If you want satellite, you're still likely tied to a cable company or telco to get your internet access.

The government thinks that is competition. That would be like saying because there is a single company that sells cars and another that sells boats that there is competition for people's transportation needs. Each option does fundamentally the same thing, but has it's own set of limitations making one or the other undesirable to some.

In that case, there needs to either be strict controls to regulate quality of service and pricing or a system like in other countries where the providers are required to allow competitors to use the pipes. Right now, we have neither.
Jahjd2000 and Dhalmo like this.
NetworkTV is offline  
Old 03-07-2014, 09:46 AM
Advanced Member
 
trans_lux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In my theater
Posts: 981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 137
Interesting article about net neutrality
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/03/07/what-airlines-the-mafia-and-the-law-of-unintended-consequences-can-teach-us-about-net-neutrality/
trans_lux is offline  
Old 03-11-2014, 10:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thehun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wine country CA
Posts: 7,338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

The free market utopia you envision is a fantasy. When there are no regulations and/or a lack of oversight, greed runs rampant because that is a negative aspect of human nature. Countries become corporate oligarchies. Smart regulation is supposed to help buffer our country from human beings' worst instincts; that's why they are put in place. Even smart businessmen will agree that without good, tough, enforceable regulations, they may end up shooting their own feet because their worst tendencies kick in... in the end it's bad for the bottom line and not in a country's best interest. However, right now regulations are being gutted left and right as corporate lobbyist power has increased.

Case in point: Canada. They basically have no official regulatory body like the environmental protection agency or laws like the wildlife protection act, and what did they end up with? Tar sand pits in Alberta, especially, that look like a nuclear bomb went off. Total environmental devastation.














Pretty, eh?

Though the example I use is fossil fuel extraction, the general idea of corporate oligarchies running rampant in the communications business and the negative aspects of them is the same.
Sorry you wasted all those pretty pictures on the wrong poster. In case you didn't get, I was advocating regulations, and simply objected to the other poster that the FCC is far from over regulating , nor that net neutrality is obsolete. Instead of highlighting some words you may want to look the entire context it was posted and meant to be before you get on your soap box.

sent via Morse code...........

The Hun
thehun is offline  
Old 03-11-2014, 11:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thehun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wine country CA
Posts: 7,338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate View Post

I don't get it. Russia has even worse, you can say blatant, crony capitalism than we do.

True free market would lead to monopoly and downright medieval economic system where financial might is right. Rules and regulations provide some check and balance.

In a true free market based system, Comcast would not be out of business but thrive and get ever bigger.

But that's exactly what we have here is monopoly at least Comcast ever inching towards it, with the blessing of the government I might ad, and not because of ideology, but because corruption, and that's exactly what goes on in Russia ten times over , no doubt.Comcast isn't so big because of free market principles, or lack of regulations, but because of corruption.Yeah Comcast would do very well in Russia.
Like I said I'm not against sensible regulations, but that's not what we have in the telco industry. I just read an article that Comcast already greasing the palms of over 75% of the committee members of both the Senate and the House[both parties] that will decide of the acquisition of TWC .

sent via Morse code...........

The Hun
thehun is offline  
Old 03-11-2014, 11:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thehun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wine country CA
Posts: 7,338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahjd2000 View Post

I don't disagree that some markets can, on its own accord, lead to a monopoly. But...I believe the government should only intervene in certain markets because not all monopolies are created equal. Should the government play a role with public utilities? Absolutely! Too much public welfare at stake. Should the government have stepped in to regulate Microsoft Windows--some argued that Windows had become too powerful and therefore needed to be regulated. No, I don't think they should have.

For the sake of clarity, the net neutrality bill ruling was absurd and so is the potential marriage between Comcast and Time Warner. And I do believe the government should intervene and restore the cable/internet market to normalcy. If left untreated this could be a HUGE impediment to US innovation.
Yup, well said.

sent via Morse code...........

The Hun
thehun is offline  
Old 03-14-2014, 05:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ryan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by LairdWilliams View Post

Sure. Comcast will be adding physical connections to Netflix to the infrastructure at its network boundaries. It will have to add hardware and licenses. It will also be increasing the workload on the labor that monitors and maintains that infrastructure. All of that costs money. Who would YOU expect to pay for that? If you are tempted to say, "Comcast". Well - what's in it for them?
Again - those connections would add infrastructure INSIDE the cable providers' networks...at whose cost? Again - what's in it for them? Oh - and having someone else's boxes on your premises is SUCH an attractive prospect.
Yes, it will. You can call it a shakedown. You can irrationally blame Comcast or TWC or whomever for dead babies and AIDS too. Netflix outgrew the ability of a large chunk of the internet, as it currently stands, to handle all of the traffic that Netflix generates. Why on earth should someone else have to pay for the upgrades needed to compensate for that?

Not blaming Comcast or TWC for dead babies or AIDS, but what you posted above begs the question of why not treat Comcast as a utility which provides the "pipes" to your home or office?

The problems all arise from the fact that Comcast provides the "pipes" and in practice has a monopoly in the area, yet it also competes with other users of the "pipes" to deliver content.

And please don't state that "Netflix outgrew the ability of a large chunk of the internet" as a fact, when it is not. It is basically FUD spread by CCos lobbyists.
Ryan1 is offline  
Old 03-15-2014, 01:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 178 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post

And please don't state that "Netflix outgrew the ability of a large chunk of the internet" as a fact, when it is not. It is basically FUD spread by CCos lobbyists.

Not to mention, Netflix pays a great deal more than you or I or many businesses to connect to the internet.
NetworkTV is offline  
Old 03-15-2014, 08:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
trans_lux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In my theater
Posts: 981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 137
I just hope and pray I can put this in my yard in the near future.
Then Comcast & ATT can suck it!

trans_lux is offline  
 

Tags
Netflix , Comcast
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off