FCC Nixes Net Neutrality for Fast Lane - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 80 Old 04-23-2014, 05:55 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,555
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1032 Post(s)
Liked: 2179

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) plans to implement a new set of rules regarding how ISPs (Internet service providers) allocate broadband between websites. The new rules, if adopted, will allow online content providers to pay ISPs for preferential treatment in order to ensure that streaming media plays smoothly during peak network usage periods.

 

Quote:
"The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals." - NYT.com

 

The new FCC rules represent a major reversal in terms of the agency's policy towards net neutrality. Under the old rules, every website's content had to be treated the same by ISPs, which could result in poor streaming video performance during peak Internet usage periods. The change in policy comes on the heels of a January 2014 federal appeals court ruling that invalidated the FCC's old rules and paved the path for paid preferential treatment.

 

Quote:
"The new rules, according to the people briefed on them, will allow a company like Comcast or Verizon to negotiate separately with each content company – like Netflix, Amazon, Disney or Google – and charge different companies different amounts for priority service." - NYT.com

 

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler - photo from NYT.com

 

A couple months ago, Netflix agreed to pay Comcast for preferential treatment on its network—the result was a 65% increase in throughput for Netflix content on Comcast's network. Since that arrangement is consistent with the FCC's new rules, I expect to see similar deals hammered out between other online content providers and ISPs.

 

Quote:
"Comcast jumped five spots in Netflix's ranking of ISP performance for the month of March. It now sits in fifth place, delivering an average streaming speed of 2.5Mbps — up from the pitiful 1.15Mbps average Comcast delivered to Netflix subscribers in January." The Verge

 

In light of these recent developments, can it be mere coincidence that Netflix recently announced that it plans to raise the price of a subscription to its monthly streaming service?

 


 

Like AVS Forum on Facebook

Follow AVS Forum on Twitter

+1 AVS Forum on Google+

Scott Wilkinson likes this.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 80 Old 04-23-2014, 08:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thehun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wine country CA
Posts: 7,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 37
It didn't take long for Wheeler to show his true colors. Let's remember that the previous rules were shut done based on a mere technicality, not because it was fundamentally wrong .

The Hun
thehun is offline  
post #3 of 80 Old 04-23-2014, 08:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Corporations : the fourth branch of the US government.

You are all screwed. Sorry.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #4 of 80 Old 04-23-2014, 08:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,805
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 222
This is what happens when money runs this country. The US is not a democracy, but an Oligarchy. The elite in this country have no party affiliation. They own whoever is in charge. If you actually think you have a say, or if you think you will make it beyond upper middle class, you are fooling yourself. You have no say, you never will, and you will never have a chance to change this country. You only have a chance to vote for those they decide you will vote for. If you believe otherwise, you are a fool. Welcome to America and to the dream that never existed.

RIP Robin Williams. Thanks for the laughter.
wxman is online now  
post #5 of 80 Old 04-23-2014, 08:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,584
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 413 Post(s)
Liked: 736
I'm not sure how this is going to directly affect me, but it doesn't sound good...

I really don't like the idea of paying twice for the same service. and it certainly seems like that's what will happen. i'll have to pay for my internet provider(which will think it can charge extra because it has a deal with Netflix) and pay for Netflix(which will charge extra because they are paying my ISP) in order to use the streaming service and have it actually work.

in a fair market, I should be able to choose my ISP because they provide the better service, and their better service allows smoother streaming. this will give them the opportunity to actually make service worse if they don't pay. Netflix could be throttled by your ISP until they pay up. frown.gif
Dan Hitchman and Chris5028 like this.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is online now  
post #6 of 80 Old 04-23-2014, 08:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Osirus23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post



In light of these recent developments, can it be mere coincidence that Netflix recently announced that it plans to raise the price of a subscription to its monthly streaming service?

Yes. What the hell does that have to do with anything? rolleyes.gif

Pretty sure this isn't the first time the cost of something has gone up. Amazon announced a hike to the cost of Prime a while back too, is that also part of the grand conspiracy?
Osirus23 is offline  
post #7 of 80 Old 04-23-2014, 10:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,419
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 205 Post(s)
Liked: 1378

In theory, the added revenue from content providers should allow ISPs to raise speeds, improve service and/or decrease prices....in theory.  Unfortunately with most ISPs being a near monopoly, that's probably not going to happen. :(

Dan Hitchman and Chris5028 like this.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #8 of 80 Old 04-23-2014, 10:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,868
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osirus23 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post



In light of these recent developments, can it be mere coincidence that Netflix recently announced that it plans to raise the price of a subscription to its monthly streaming service?

Yes. What the hell does that have to do with anything? rolleyes.gif

Pretty sure this isn't the first time the cost of something has gone up. Amazon announced a hike to the cost of Prime a while back too, is that also part of the grand conspiracy?

I agree in this case. Not the best example of journalism.
mo949 is offline  
post #9 of 80 Old 04-23-2014, 11:06 PM
Member
 
CyberDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Abingdon, MD, USA
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Why bother, with such a ruling net neutrality is dead! So with this ruling, companies like Comcast and Verizon, can put in a 1meg pipe to the rest of the world, and if you want better service than that, you PAY for it, and if you don't, expect any service you have to be unusable. As always, we have the best politicians money can buy..
CyberDude is offline  
post #10 of 80 Old 04-23-2014, 11:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,515
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 496 Post(s)
Liked: 326
This was not a surprising development in the least. As soon as the courts ruled in favor of the ISP's (like Comcast), the industry's damn locust-like lobbyists were out in full force pushing for an FCC rule change that benefits only them.

We have the best government money can buy. Politicians, whether they call themselves Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Tea Partiers, etc., are pretty much all the same once you peel back the layers of social "differences": they work for the rich and the powerful for their own self interests; the rest of the country be damned.
seatacboy and reddice like this.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #11 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 12:03 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,555
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1032 Post(s)
Liked: 2179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osirus23 View Post


Yes. What the hell does that have to do with anything? rolleyes.gif

Pretty sure this isn't the first time the cost of something has gone up. Amazon announced a hike to the cost of Prime a while back too, is that also part of the grand conspiracy?

 

What conspiracy? I said coincidence. Surely Amazon will have to "pay to play" as well, right?

Jinjuku likes this.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is offline  
post #12 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 12:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KenLand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sugar Land, TX, USA
Posts: 3,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Yes this is crazy. I paid extra to Comcast for better bandwidth when I upgraded to 24Mbps service. Netflix or Vudu or XYZ should NOT have to pay extra also. The ISP's should have to upgrade their equipment (if needed) to supply the bandwidth purchased by the customer.

And when I say "should have to" I don't mean the govt getting involved and mucking it up. I mean either Comcast provide me the bandwidth I've purchased or the Marketplace will. (Verizon Fios, Google Fiber, ATT Fiber, etc..)

This is crazy that the govt would condone extortion money be paid so that I get the service I've purchased only from sources paying the extortion money. Poorly done by Netflix and the FCC!
Jinjuku likes this.
KenLand is online now  
post #13 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 12:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,515
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 496 Post(s)
Liked: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenLand View Post

Yes this is crazy. I paid extra to Comcast for better bandwidth when I upgraded to 24Mbps service. Netflix or Vudu or XYZ should NOT have to pay extra also. The ISP's should have to upgrade their equipment (if needed) to supply the bandwidth purchased by the customer.

And when I say "should have to" I don't mean the govt getting involved and mucking it up. I mean either Comcast provide me the bandwidth I've purchased or the Marketplace will. (Verizon Fios, Google Fiber, ATT Fiber, etc..)

This is crazy that the govt would condone extortion money be paid so that I get the service I've purchased only from sources paying the extortion money. Poorly done by Netflix and the FCC!

The marketplace will not for a very long time. Most places have an ISP service that is a complete monopoly if customers want high speed internet (if I want it in my neighborhood, for instance, it's Comcast or bust). The marketplace has spoken: we lobby the government with a lots of promises of campaign contributions and other favors... we win (as in them, not us). There is nothing fair about it. It isn't even capitalism at work, it's extortion.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #14 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 04:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Hampton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 6,727
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 64
I wish streaming video would just go away. I'm totally happy collecting blu rays.

I'm alone in that notion in my own house though... My wife likes to stream TV series using Amazon Prime Instant Video and my kids like to stream Vudu and iTunes instead of going to get the discs off the shelf. So, I guess it's not going to go away.

Of course,... making the system work bandwidth wise for one user in the house isn't enough... everyone in the house will want to stream something different in HD so you have to figure maybe 4x the bandwidth for a single family home.

Why should all that bandwidth be wasted... If you stream it, you transferred the whole set of data... you ought to be able to capture of keep it... such a waste of resources!

It's as bad a circuit city's DivX but sheeple only see it as free and easy or close enough to it.
Brian Hampton is offline  
post #15 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 05:49 AM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
Liked: 204

My question is this...

 

Is Content Provider A paying Internet Service Provider B for a specific minimum bandwidth, or, are they paying for "preferential treatment" (whatever that may be)?

 

If it's a specific minimum bandwidth then that is one thing (still don't I agree with it, but it could be worse).  Other content providers can make similar deals.  They all get the bandwidth they need and, worst case, it results in a one time price increase to customers for each service they use (until the contracts expire or the content providers decide that they need more bandwidth and renegotiate).  At least in this case, ISP's have incentive to increase the total bandwidth as that allows them to make deals with more clients without failing to live up to the obligations of their previous agreements.

 

On the other hand, if there is no guaranteed minimum bandwidth being provided and the agreement is for some vague sort of "preferential treatment", then how can an ISP negotiate with other content providers to give them the same level of "preferential treatment"?  If they all get "preferential treatment" then relative to one another, none of them are getting "preferential treatment" (if that makes sense).  At the same time, what is to prevent the ISP's from turning it into a bidding war, where the content provider that pays them the most gets the best service?  This would just lead to content providers trying to one-up eachother, which could result in multiple price hikes for the same streaming service.  Meanwhile, ISP's really have no incentive to increase the total bandwidth since they can go on making agreements with an unlimited number of clients.  Because they are not actually required to provide anybody with a minimum bandwidth, it makes it harder for anyone to call them out for failing to live up to previous agreements.

 

Does anyone know what the ISP's are actually required to provide under these new FCC rules or how flexible the terms of the contracts they are allowed to negotiate are?

HockeyoAJB is online now  
post #16 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 05:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,419
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 205 Post(s)
Liked: 1378
The more I think about it, the less it bothers me. Although to be fair, I do live in an area that's competitive. These things have a way of working themselves out.

I'll start to worry when an Eskimo is riding a motorcycle with a nuke for a sidecar though. tongue.gif

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #17 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 06:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,419
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 205 Post(s)
Liked: 1378
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post

My question is this...

Is Content Provider A paying Internet Service Provider B for a specific minimum bandwidth, or, are they paying for "preferential treatment" (whatever that may be)?

If it's a specific minimum bandwidth then that is one thing (still don't I agree with it, but it could be worse).  Other content providers can make similar deals.  They all get the bandwidth they need and, worst case, it results in a one time price increase to customers for each service they use (until the contracts expire or the content providers decide that they need more bandwidth and renegotiate).  At least in this case, ISP's have incentive to increase the total bandwidth as that allows them to make deals with more clients without failing to live up to the obligations of their previous agreements.

On the other hand, if there is no guaranteed minimum bandwidth being provided and the agreement is for some vague sort of "preferential treatment", then how can an ISP negotiate with other content providers to give them the same level of "preferential treatment"?  If they all get "preferential treatment" then relative to one another, none of them are getting "preferential treatment" (if that makes sense).  At the same time, what is to prevent the ISP's from turning it into a bidding war, where the content provider that pays them the most gets the best service?  This would just lead to content providers trying to one-up eachother, which could result in multiple price hikes for the same streaming service.  Meanwhile, ISP's really have no incentive to increase the total bandwidth since they can go on making agreements with an unlimited number of clients.  Because they are not actually required to provide anybody with a minimum bandwidth, it makes it harder for anyone to call them out for failing to live up to previous agreements.

Does anyone know what the ISP's are actually required to provide under these new FCC rules or how flexible the terms of the contracts they are allowed to negotiate are?

If they succeed in creating a scenario where they can double dip like that, it's going to be such a lucrative business that it might start making it economically viable to extend decent speeds out to rural areas. And if comcast won't, someone else will.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #18 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 06:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jinjuku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 2,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osirus23 View Post

Yes. What the hell does that have to do with anything? rolleyes.gif

Pretty sure this isn't the first time the cost of something has gone up. Amazon announced a hike to the cost of Prime a while back too, is that also part of the grand conspiracy?

It could reasonably be argued that ISP's now having the green light to charge for 'enhanced delivery' of popular services will have a knock on effect of raising prices.

You already pay for internet access. My particular agreement is UNLIMITED 12/3 connectivity. If TWC in my case is strangling Netflix then I am hardly getting Unlimited access as agreed.

Corporations now run our government. I don't know any other light that that of wanton corruption to view this with.

An audiophile likes to talk about how much they spent and how good it sounds.

A DIY'er likes to talk about how little they spent and how good it sounds.

Jinjuku is online now  
post #19 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 06:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Hampton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 6,727
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Netflix and Comcast trying to make a monopoly makes me so happy with Amazon Prime Video and Fairpoint DSL... thank you Amazon!

-Brian
Brian Hampton is offline  
post #20 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 07:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jinjuku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 2,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Just wait: We'll probably see legislation sponsored by ISP's that make it illegal for content providers like Youtube, Amazon, Netflix to operate ISP's.

An audiophile likes to talk about how much they spent and how good it sounds.

A DIY'er likes to talk about how little they spent and how good it sounds.

Jinjuku is online now  
post #21 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 07:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
Liked: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post


...
You already pay for internet access. My particular agreement is UNLIMITED 12/3 connectivity. If TWC in my case is strangling Netflix then I am hardly getting Unlimited access as agreed.
...

 

Just playing devil's advocate here but...does your service plan say anything about giving you a guaranteed 12/3 connection to the website of your choice?  If the site you are connecting to also has a guaranteed 12/3 connection then that means their upload speed is supposed to be 3 Mbps.  So, if you tried to download something from their site, the fastest you could possibly get is 3 Mbps, not 12 Mbps.  To actually use your full 12 Mbps download speed, you would need to either download from multiple sites at once, or download from a site that has an upload speed of at least 12 Mbps.  Also, you would have to be the only person downloading from that site, otherwise the site's upload bandwidth would be split amongst multiple users.

 

It's a bit more complicated than that, but I think it still illustrates the point.  This is why you see folks posting speed test numbers of 25 to 100+ Mbps w/ Comcast and yet the average streaming bandwidth per user from Netflix over Comcast was only 1.5 Mbps in the month of January, despite the fact that the bit rate of the content they are streaming is capable of exceeding 3 or even 5 Mbps if it stays at the max. quality.  Your connection might be 20 times what it needs to be to stream that movie, but the connection on the other end (or somewhere inbetween) is still less than what it should be.  You can still use more bandwidth by downloading from other sites, so your ISP is providing the connection speed they promised you, just not to the single site of your choice.

HockeyoAJB is online now  
post #22 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 07:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jinjuku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 2,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post

Just playing devil's advocate here but...does your service plan say anything about giving you a guaranteed 12/3 connection to the website of your choice? 

I've installed ISP NOC's (Network Operation Centers). My 12 down 3 up is OBVIOUSLY supposed to be a best effort on TWC's part at per our agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post

  You can still use more bandwidth by downloading from other sites, so your ISP is providing the connection speed they promised you, just not to the single site of your choice.

I host servers at Amazon, Digital Ocean, Singlehop. With them I saturate my down stream and upstream. Now if TWC started to play around with that (say limiting to 6/1) I would have a contractual problem to resolve with them.

For an item like a 30 minute video from Netflix only enough bandwidth for 30 minutes is needed to deliver it uninterrupted. If my ISP is playing games however and affecting the delivery in either timeliness or picture quality that should be a contractual problem also.

An audiophile likes to talk about how much they spent and how good it sounds.

A DIY'er likes to talk about how little they spent and how good it sounds.

Jinjuku is online now  
post #23 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 07:47 AM
Advanced Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenLand View Post

Yes this is crazy. I paid extra to Comcast for better bandwidth when I upgraded to 24Mbps service. Netflix or Vudu or XYZ should NOT have to pay extra also. The ISP's should have to upgrade their equipment (if needed) to supply the bandwidth purchased by the customer.

And when I say "should have to" I don't mean the govt getting involved and mucking it up. I mean either Comcast provide me the bandwidth I've purchased or the Marketplace will. (Verizon Fios, Google Fiber, ATT Fiber, etc..)

This is crazy that the govt would condone extortion money be paid so that I get the service I've purchased only from sources paying the extortion money. Poorly done by Netflix and the FCC!

This. They are double dipping, adding toll booths, that instead of costing a few dollars per car, will end up costing tons. And not to maintain the infrastructure, that costs pennies comparatively, which is already paid for amply by existing profits. No, this is sheer highway robbery of the highest order. The only explanation here is that Obama is in their back pocket, despite his campaign promises to the contrary.

It's high time people of all stripes start admitting what he is : just another phony, crony capitalist puppet for the corporate overlords who really run the show. Everything else is a mere distraction. The left and the right get together to make your pocket light, but that's assuming that Obama is actually leftist, which he isn't. He's just another corpo-drone, like most of the rest of the US elected lizards who campaign on one thing then do the exact opposite when they are elected.

Unfortunately everyone will suffer because of this, not just Americans. People will flock to torrent sites even more. Hopefully Bluray UHD discs will become available soon. At least that way I can buy discs and keep them, and play them back no matter what surcharges are added to travel the internet highway in the future.

There will be pushback against this by the rest of the world. Fortunately, the internet interprets paywalls and tolls the same as it does censorship : it routes the information around it. Ironically, in the end this might even end up hurting Murican companies, since there is no way the rest of the world is going to go along with this tiered system.
Dan Hitchman likes this.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #24 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 07:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,419
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 205 Post(s)
Liked: 1378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

Just wait: We'll probably see legislation sponsored by ISP's that make it illegal for content providers like Youtube, Amazon, Netflix to operate ISP's.

Google and amazon are not going to take that lying down. They've got big pockets too, and can buy off just as many politicians. Ultimately that's the check on their power - big interests might be able to step on the little guy, but they still have to tangle with the other big interests. So this isn't the apocalypse everyone is making it out to be.

I'm curious, does anyone know the proportion of the population that actually has only one choice for broadband? My area is very competitive, and I swear a day doesn't go by where I'm not inundated by special offers trying to get me to switch ISPs. It's so competitive they literally send door to door salesman to try and switch you over, I have to regularly shoo away verizon and cablevision salesmen on my doorstep.
mo949 likes this.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #25 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 08:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,868
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 369
I agree bd2003. I now have 2 real options for the tv side of things with ATT and TW. ATT goes door to door to try and get people to switch also. I thought about switching after huge TW price hikes a couple years back, but when I did the math it turns out that ATT essentially charges the same thing when I did an apples to apples on my setup. Its still that way. Not the way I expected prices to go with new competition around.
mo949 is offline  
post #26 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 08:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,419
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 205 Post(s)
Liked: 1378
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

I agree bd2003. I now have 2 real options for the tv side of things with ATT and TW. ATT goes door to door to try and get people to switch also. I thought about switching after huge TW price hikes a couple years back, but when I did the math it turns out that ATT essentially charges the same thing when I did an apples to apples on my setup. Its still that way. Not the way I expected prices to go with new competition around.

How have your speeds fared since then though?

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #27 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 08:24 AM
Member
 
leevit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
IT looks like streaming is not going to be so popular after all. Once again, with hand out the big corporations are out to get every penny from the consumer. It looks like Directv is not a bad deal after all.

piss off then
leevit is offline  
post #28 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 08:44 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,419
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 205 Post(s)
Liked: 1378
Quote:
Originally Posted by leevit View Post

IT looks like streaming is not going to be so popular after all. Once again, with hand out the big corporations are out to get every penny from the consumer. It looks like Directv is not a bad deal after all.

If anything this means an acceleration of streaming adoption. They can't monetize the priority lanes for the content providers without providing ample speed for streaming.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #29 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 08:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jinjuku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 2,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

If anything this means an acceleration of streaming adoption. They can't monetize the priority lanes for the content providers without providing ample speed for streaming.

I can provide as much bandwidth in the physical plant as I want. I can then restrict competitors traffic, enhance my own, and via the magic of QOS tagging 'insure' rather than 'ensure' the customer experience with the ISP provided service.

An audiophile likes to talk about how much they spent and how good it sounds.

A DIY'er likes to talk about how little they spent and how good it sounds.

Jinjuku is online now  
post #30 of 80 Old 04-24-2014, 08:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,868
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

I agree bd2003. I now have 2 real options for the tv side of things with ATT and TW. ATT goes door to door to try and get people to switch also. I thought about switching after huge TW price hikes a couple years back, but when I did the math it turns out that ATT essentially charges the same thing when I did an apples to apples on my setup. Its still that way. Not the way I expected prices to go with new competition around.

How have your speeds fared since then though?

I was only talking about the Cable Tv portion. For the internet side of things there really was only the TW option since it offered 25Mbps and up. For the same price at ATT I would have had <10Mbps at the time. Today, given the poor netflix speeds on my 25Mbps subscription I've actually reduced my plan to the 15Mbps plan to see what would happen and Netflix streaming remains the same - my surfing hasn't been impacted either which is as expected since I probably don't need much more than 5Mbps for that from home.
mo949 is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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