FCC Scuttles 2015 Net Neutrality Rules - Page 7 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 358Likes
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 09:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 2,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 979 Post(s)
Liked: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
It will be interesting to return to this thread in a year or 2 or 3 when people are seeing buffering and connection issues to video streaming sites that worked fine before over their Comcast/Universal/NBC owned connections.
Billy Joel once sang, "The good ole days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."

In the internet age, it might be good to remember that the bad ole days weren't always so bad. Many places had access to only a half dozen TV channels (the Big Three and PBS, along with maybe a couple of independent stations). The FCC did a reasonable job of keeping one station's signal from interfering with another station's signal. The local stations did a decent job of providing local news and weather info. The entertainment offerings were limited, but you could be sure that when you turned on the TV, the shows would not be too outrageous or offensive. If you wanted something deeper or more provocative, you were free to read a book, magazine, or newspaper. That's the way it was, and we liked it.
xnappo likes this.
veedon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 11:16 AM
Senior Member
 
maxreactance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielrg View Post
For example, Comcast as my ISP... Netflix was skipping, having trouble loading, hiccupping, giving me horrible bitrates, all sorts of problems. Netflix when I called them often had no idea why things weren't working well. Then with net neutrality, those problems just sort of went away and my streaming has been working wonderfully the last couple years.
Yeah, that's my experience too, but I wouldn't necessarily credit net neutrality for the change, at least not completely or directly.

Comcast did settle technically into the broadband ISP business, but it took them years, and probably most of the problems were related to the learning curve of infrastructure development. Now they are pretty good, I stream 4K videos without major issues on a regular basis.

Of course, net neutrality DID provide a limiting incentive for them to provide a reasonably good service in the first place, because they had nowhere else to go for additional revenue...as of Thursday, not so much...

--
max
maxreactance is offline  
post #183 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 11:31 AM
Senior Member
 
maxreactance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by grittree View Post
I don't know if "net neutrality" is good or bad.

The internet was essentially unregulated until 2015. Seemed to work pretty good before that. And, so far, after.

Modern electronics was essentially always unregulated. Bell Labs gave us transistors. Other private firms gave us integrated circuits. The only US Govt contribution I know of is that they were the last people using vacuum tubes.

Do we want people who can't be fired for incompetence in charge?
The US government INVENTED the Internet! Al Gore didn't exactly "invent" the Internet, but he did pass bills to commercialize the Internet, which was originally invented by the DOD for military use.

Who can't be fired? What are you even talking about? The Internet WAS "regulated" before 2015 (like "net neutrality", Internet "regulation" has always been small "r" regulation), and always will be "regulated", just like everything else.

The Internet didn't work well in 1992 (when I first started working on it), it didn't work well in 1995, it didn't work well in 1998, and didn't work well in 2005, and doesn't work well today. I crashes, it's annoying, it's pointless, it doesn't give you what you want, it's stupid...but the thing is, that's like everything else in life. Nothing's perfect, the challenge, as always, it to make it better, or at least, good enough...

And like everything else, it won't get better unless anybody can come in freely with a better idea, and make a fortune doing it. Doing anything at any time to prevent that freedom of economic action is a mistake...but, you know, fun to watch...

--
max
maxreactance is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #184 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 12:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 4,322
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Liked: 876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Strobel View Post
There were long running issues between at least a couple major ISPs and Netflix back around 2014. Verizon was one. I think Time Warner Cable was the other, but I'm not positive. Since I personally experienced the effects of the Verizon incident, I will stick to describing that.

The backbone of the Internet is made of up Tier 1 ISPs. These are the biggest 'pipes', so to speak, and they include carriers like Cogent and Level 3. Most business and consumer ISPs are Tier 2 or Tier 3. This illustration might help:



The 'Internet' as we know it ultimately relies on Tier 1 networks to shuffle data across the globe, and those networks are all interconnected. Tier 1 providers, being the largest, all tend to be responsible for lots of traffic, and in order to get from Point A to Point B, traffic often has to cross more than one Tier 1 network. Tier 1 providers have "peering" agreements with each other that basically say "we won't charge our peers (other Tier 1 providers) for any traffic we exchange". It's always worked that way, and it works out well because they're all pretty similar in size, and in the grand scheme of things, the flow of traffic tends to be pretty equal.

Verizon is an outlier, because unlike pretty much every other business or consumer ISP you've heard of, Verizon is also a Tier 1 provider. Back in 2014, Netflix was using Level 3 to distribute its content, and Verizon's interconnect with Level 3 became highly congested. The results were readily apparent to users like me, who endured video quality in the range of 240p to 480p for streams that should have been 1080p. Keep in mind, I was paying Verizon for a 50/50 Mbps FiOS connection.



Normally, when this sort of thing happens, the affected peers simply connect a few more cables in the room where where their networks converge. Verizon refused to do that, hoping to extort some kind of monetary toll out of Netflix. In effect, they wanted Netflix to pay them to deliver the traffic that Verizon customers were already paying Verizon to deliver, at the speeds Verizon advertised. This, to me, was a ridiculous situation. Imagine you had to take a toll road to get to the store, and the government suddenly said, "if you take this road to the store, not only do you have to pay a toll, but the store has to pay a toll too." Seriously? No. You get paid once, by one party.

Verizon saw things differently. They saw that most of the traffic they exchanged with other Tier 1s flowed one way: to Verizon customers. Someone should pay for that imbalance, right? Not so fast. Most users' ISPs are Tier 3 or Tier 2, meaning their ISP pays Tier 1 providers to deliver data, and the Tier 2 and 3 providers charge their customers a larger amount, then pocket the difference as profit. This bears repeating: for most business and residential ISPs, the transit costs are paid for by the customer (e.g., you and me). Verizon was large enough that it made financial sense to become a full-blown Tier 1 provider. They would save a lot of money by not having to pay for peering agreements with the Tier 1 providers, thus keeping a larger chunk of their customers' subscription fees. Pretty smart move. Now, Verizon may have been large enough to be a Tier 1, but because they mostly serve end users, the traffic they exchange with other Tier 1s tends to be rather one-sided (we download a lot but upload relatively little). Despite the imbalance, the other Tier 1 providers went along with it, essentially saying, "ok, fine, you're pretty big now, so you can peer with us for free." To emphasize: this inherent traffic imbalance was a natural consequence of an arrangement that favored Verizon. Pretty sweet deal, right? And how did Verizon respond? They went to Level 3's biggest customer and said, "okay, now you pay us." Naturally, Netflix told them to zark off, because that's just not how the Internet works. When users complained to Verizon, they tried to pass the blame off on Netflix. Level 3 stepped in and, in a rather detailed blog post that is no longer online, ripped Verizon a new one. Level 3 even offered to buy and install the hardware necessary to relieve the congestion, the costs of which would have been negligible to either party (a one-time cost of a few thousand bucks). Still, Verizon refused. Why? Because Verizon was losing customers to Netflix, whose streaming service competed with Verizon's own TV service. Verizon couldn't compete on the merits of their product, so they abused their position as gatekeepers instead. They allowed their interconnect with Level 3 to become congested, and they refused to fix it, even when it would have cost them nothing to do so. I, along with many other Verizon customers, suffered the consequences. We paid for service, and Verizon did not deliver. But there was collateral damage too: Level 3's other customers, and any Verizon customers trying to get data from them, got screwed along with us.

Long story short, Verizon tried to use its position as a large ISP to extort money out of a competitor, and their own users suffered the consequences. The Title II reclassification put an end to these kinds of shenanigans, and now those protections are gone.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but on the other hand much if the crisis is being fomented by the big ISP's not paying much if anything into the bandwidth cost while they have the most to gain in terms of profit which they are making hand over fist. I hope i am not the first to point out that no matter what regulatory costs there are, they always be passed down to the consumer in the form of higher rates. Either google or facebook will charge more for advertising or the ISP's will simply charge more for bottlenecks. If anything, I would think there would be higher pressure to build out more competing infrastructure if some of the richest bandwidth users are being charged for riding someone else's tollway. Lets not even discuss what amazon is going to do to the retail infrastructure of our country and the low tech jobs associated with those establishments.

It does not surprise me that Verizon had to resort to shenanigans. Considering that any increase in price that they have to charge the end consumer for the extra bandwidth ends up not affecting the realized profits for the dot coms while only being a passthrough cost from the ISP to the consumer. The options for making a buck for ISP's are limited to raising prices on consumers while Netflix can keep its low rate while not having to pay much for bandwidth.

It's no wonder that most of my stock is in Facebook and not in Verizon. Compare the 5 year chart of facebook or netflix and the 5 year chart of verizon and we start to see where the breakdown is happening. Follow the money.

I am still waiting for these mega-content-providers to be supporting this countries' infrastructure. Perhaps these companies would have to pay in tiers. The more bandwidth they use, the more the rate goes up in order to handle bandwidth costs. Pure net neutrality for these companies will only cement their monopoly status.

Our electric company charges our business like this now: Based on our peak daytime usage, more infrastructure has to be built to support our building, so they charge a higher rate for electricity.

If am a startup dot.com then perhaps I would pay nothing for the bandwidth of my site (similar to how income taxes work). As I grow, I get charged a higher rate?

IF the ISP's must be treated as a public utility then GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, AND NETFLIX must also be treated as such. I can't live without google and my business can't thrive without advertising on facebook.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #185 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 12:06 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 16,696
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2130 Post(s)
Liked: 4044
A few more off-topic posts have been removed, more to keep things on the rails than anything.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #186 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 12:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 8,002
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2279 Post(s)
Liked: 1748
I think there is a lack of being able to parse the difference between a political discussion and an economic one. Given that around 80% of the country was opposed to the ruling that has to include folks on both sides of the aisle.

In this community there are three broadband providers with lines: AT&T, Comcast and Wave. The latter is relatively new but fiber to premises. AT&T is fiber to node and Comcast coax. AT&T and Comcast are available to me but Wave isn't. However yesterday because I've noticed that the block north of me has three lines that one of them must Wave checked out addresses on that block and all with Wave's availability page showed "available" whereas my address "unavailable". So I'm missing the third service by four houses. At least we have some competition in this community and some like Sonic.net that also ride on AT&T (but costs less) due to copper telephone line rules (the node for me is a block away).

IMO, broadband SHOULD be regulated as a utility. The ruling the other day is a reflection of feudal times (and that's a socio-economic comment not political).
Brian Conrad is offline  
post #187 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 01:38 PM
Senior Member
 
maxreactance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post
I think there is a lack of being able to parse the difference between a political discussion and an economic one.
By and large, there is no difference.

Economics concerns the allocation of resources in society. There are two ways to perform that allocation: politically or the "free market".

A communist country is just a country that uses politics as the primary method of resource allocation. A typical large "capitalist" country such as the US also uses politics heavily, but has a somewhat higher amount "free market" influence in resource allocation.

Neither one, at its limit, will work well for the good of the people and create growing economic benefits. Purely communist ("political") countries fail economically, but purely "capitalist" ("warlords", "feudalism", etc.) countries do the same thing.

No one said existing above the tribal level of organization would be easy or straightforward for mankind.

--
max
maxreactance is offline  
post #188 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 02:02 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
mgkdragn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Illinois, East of St Louis
Posts: 15,174
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2850 Post(s)
Liked: 3650
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Billy Joel once sang, "The good ole days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."

In the internet age, it might be good to remember that the bad ole days weren't always so bad. Many places had access to only a half dozen TV channels (the Big Three and PBS, along with maybe a couple of independent stations). The FCC did a reasonable job of keeping one station's signal from interfering with another station's signal. The local stations did a decent job of providing local news and weather info. The entertainment offerings were limited, but you could be sure that when you turned on the TV, the shows would not be too outrageous or offensive. If you wanted something deeper or more provocative, you were free to read a book, magazine, or newspaper. That's the way it was, and we liked it.
If you've never had a great steak, you don't know what a great steak is .. but once you have, you then judge future steaks by the really great one ..
DoubleDAZ and mailiang like this.

Uncle Willie


Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
mgkdragn is offline  
post #189 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 02:51 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 10,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
In the internet age, it might be good to remember that the bad ole days weren't always so bad. Many places had access to only a half dozen TV channels (the Big Three and PBS, along with maybe a couple of independent stations). The FCC did a reasonable job of keeping one station's signal from interfering with another station's signal. The local stations did a decent job of providing local news and weather info. The entertainment offerings were limited, but you could be sure that when you turned on the TV, the shows would not be too outrageous or offensive. If you wanted something deeper or more provocative, you were free to read a book, magazine, or newspaper. That's the way it was, and we liked it.
Put up an antenna and you can still have that. No one forces you to get cable or satellite and even if you do, no one forces you to watch any channel or show you don't like. And who said we liked it? We may have enjoyed it, but as soon as cable became available, people flocked to it (and I suspect mostly because HBO became available with "deeper" content ). There's no returning to the 50s/60s though, so if you want content as tame as what was offered then, I suggest you set your TV to tune TVLand reruns and nothing else...and even that probably won't satisfy you these days given their current schedule. Most people aren't cutting the cord because there are channels they don't like. They are cutting the cord because there are streaming options that provide many of the same choices at a lower cost and they're already paying for the internet, so why not use it as a primary source of entertainment?

That said, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with rolling back Net Neutrality rules.

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is offline  
post #190 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 03:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 8,002
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2279 Post(s)
Liked: 1748
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
A few more off-topic posts have been removed, more to keep things on the rails than anything.
I think you have this in the wrong section. Networking here is about local networks and NAS servers etc. The topic has been discussed for some time over on Video Download Services and Hardware.
mailiang likes this.
Brian Conrad is offline  
post #191 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 03:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 2,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 979 Post(s)
Liked: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post
And who said we liked it? ...
That said, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with rolling back Net Neutrality rules.
Dana Carvey.

But in reply to your question about how that relates to net neutrality, it is my opinion that people have forgotten that there are always tradeoffs in public policy. It is unrealistic for people to expect regulations or even a so-called "free market" to guarantee cheap access to every streaming service imaginable (or even to the most popular ones). To the extent that there are going to be restrictions on what ISPs can legally do to prioritize one content provider over another, the goal of the regulations should be to guarantee reasonably low-cost access to cultural and educational information (such as provided by museums and universities) and access to sites with job listings and that sort of thing. If that means that the ISPs need to be allowed to make big bucks by charging Netflix a lot of money and passing those costs on to the ISP's subscribers who choose a high-cost tier that includes access to Netflix, then I say, by all means, let the ISP's stick it to Netflix and Netflix addicts.
veedon is offline  
post #192 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 03:41 PM
Senior Member
 
andygiddings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Coppell, Texas
Posts: 258
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Dana Carvey.

But in reply to your question about how that relates to net neutrality, it is my opinion that people have forgotten that there are always tradeoffs in public policy. It is unrealistic for people to expect regulations or even a so-called "free market" to guarantee cheap access to every streaming service imaginable (or even to the most popular ones). To the extent that there are going to be restrictions on what ISPs can legally do to prioritize one content provider over another, the goal of the regulations should be to guarantee reasonably low-cost access to cultural and educational information (such as provided by museums and universities) and access to sites with job listings and that sort of thing. If that means that the ISPs need to be allowed to make big bucks by charging Netflix a lot of money and passing those costs on to the ISP's subscribers who choose a high-cost tier that includes access to Netflix, then I say, by all means, let the ISP's stick it to Netflix and Netflix addicts.
Gee, thanks for your kind words for those of us that are Netflix users - Happy Holidays to you :-)

Room 1 system: Paradigm Reference Active 7.2 system, Anthem AVM50, Oppo BDP-103. Pioneer Elite 610HD. Room 2: Samsung 65HU8550 with SEK3500, Paradigm Monitor 5.1 system, Denon AVR-X2400H, Oppo BDP-203, Nvidia Shield, Apple TV 4k
andygiddings is offline  
post #193 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 03:49 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 10,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 532
I get that veedon, but the post I quoted was all about the tame content that was available on TV back in the good old days, not about cost or how net neutrality will change content (it won't). Regarding your latest post, I think many are looking at what happened when regulations broke up Ma Bell and they expect the same sort of thing with Net Neutrality rules. I agree with Brian that broadband should be treated as a utility, I'm just not sure I agreed with the rules that were rolled back. In some ways, NN makes everyone pay so that folks who want streaming services can get them cheaper. There has to be some impact/cost on broadband providers when millions of users start streaming 4K content vice watching on cable.

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is offline  
post #194 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 03:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 2,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 979 Post(s)
Liked: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by andygiddings View Post
Gee, thanks for your kind words for those of us that are Netflix users - Happy Holidays to you :-)
Well, I remember how much it used to cost to rent a few videos at a Blockbuster store prior to the advent of internet streaming services. And I can hardly believe how cheap (by comparison) a Netflix subscription nowadays is. That makes me think that Netflix has somehow been getting favorable treatment, that it has not had to pay as much in the way of taxes and other expenses as the old brick and mortar stores.

Also, don't high-volume users of Netflix and other streaming services slow down the internet for people who just use the internet for access to sites that use less bandwidth?
veedon is offline  
post #195 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 03:55 PM
Senior Member
 
andygiddings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Coppell, Texas
Posts: 258
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Well, I remember how much it used to cost to rent a few videos at a Blockbuster store prior to the advent of internet streaming services. And I can hardly believe how cheap (by comparison) a Netflix subscription nowadays is. That makes me think that Netflix has somehow been getting favorable treatment, that it has not had to pay as much in the way of taxes and other expenses as the old brick and mortar stores.

Also, don't high-volume users of Netflix and other streaming services slow down the internet for people who just use the internet for access to sites that use less bandwidth?
Lots of reasons that Netflix is cheaper than the old Blockbuster days in logistics alone, so although you can compare the costs, its fairly easy to see why it is and should be cheaper.

Regarding Netflix users slowing things down for others - depends on where you are in the World. Most modern broadband is going to be sized to accommodate the traffic patterns so there should be no noticeable performance drop

Room 1 system: Paradigm Reference Active 7.2 system, Anthem AVM50, Oppo BDP-103. Pioneer Elite 610HD. Room 2: Samsung 65HU8550 with SEK3500, Paradigm Monitor 5.1 system, Denon AVR-X2400H, Oppo BDP-203, Nvidia Shield, Apple TV 4k
andygiddings is offline  
post #196 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 05:10 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 10,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by andygiddings View Post
Most modern broadband is going to be sized to accommodate the traffic patterns so there should be no noticeable performance drop
That's true, but isn't there a cost to providing that bandwidth just as there is with power stations to support ever-increasing energy use? And aren't we all paying the same rates whether or not we use streaming services? Here we have 3 tiers of increasing rates based on electricity consumption so that those who impact capacity the most pay for it. I assume the capital outlay for broadband capacity is not near as great as it is for electricity, so maybe that's a bad analogy. What I see though is that every network seems to want to start a streaming service and charge users for it while not paying for the need for increased capacity. Then again, I'm not sure what their real impact is given all the data that is sent over the internet. With that in mind, I see this as a money grab by the cablecos, but I'm not sure it's the FCCs place to regulate it. If it is, then they should have the power to make the cablecos stop charging me for ESPN if I don't want it.

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is offline  
post #197 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 05:13 PM
Senior Member
 
maxreactance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post
Put up an antenna and you can still have that. No one forces you to get cable or satellite and even if you do, no one forces you to watch any channel or show you don't like. And who said we liked it? We may have enjoyed it, but as soon as cable became available, people flocked to it (and I suspect mostly because HBO became available with "deeper" content ). There's no returning to the 50s/60s though, so if you want content as tame as what was offered then, I suggest you set your TV to tune TVLand reruns and nothing else...and even that probably won't satisfy you these days given their current schedule. Most people aren't cutting the cord because there are channels they don't like. They are cutting the cord because there are streaming options that provide many of the same choices at a lower cost and they're already paying for the internet, so why not use it as a primary source of entertainment?

That said, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with rolling back Net Neutrality rules.
Content restrictions on broadcast TV were certainly a draw to cable, but oddly those restrictions were much less when people began switching to cable (I remember watching many HBO shows with nudity, language on broadcast TV back in the 90s or even earlier).

What really happened was people wanted a better picture, and an expanded choice. To this day, people associate bad reception and choice restrictions with broadcast TV, and they're not totally wrong. But talking about TVLand shows ignorance of what choice IS available on broadcast TV, since there are at least a dozen "oldies" channels (or more) on broadcast TV, and some people watch these shows preferentially (including me, sometimes, I take advantage of the choice).

By and large, streaming is NOT "cord-cutting", watching BONE-STOCK FREE broadcast TV is cord-cutting.

Your confusion about net neutrality is simple. You seem to think that people can just "stream" video over their Internet connection that they already have. In reality, it takes orders of magnitude more bandwidth for your Internet connection to stream video. NET NEUTRALITY NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH PROVIDING "TIERS" OF BANDWIDTH TO ISP CUSTOMERS. IF YOU WANTED TO STREAM VIDEO, YOU HAD TO PAY EXTRA FOR THE PRIVILEGE, WITH OR WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY.

Which is as it should be, and is fair. Every argument here that net neutrality allowed free-loaders of streaming bandwidth is as ignorant as thinking TVLand is the only possible way to watch old TV shows...

--
max
Saturn94 likes this.
maxreactance is offline  
post #198 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 03:50 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 17,288
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1198 Post(s)
Liked: 2035
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Well, I remember how much it used to cost to rent a few videos at a Blockbuster store prior to the advent of internet streaming services. And I can hardly believe how cheap (by comparison) a Netflix subscription nowadays is. That makes me think that Netflix has somehow been getting favorable treatment, that it has not had to pay as much in the way of taxes and other expenses as the old brick and mortar stores.
The odd part about technology is, unlike everything else, it actually gets cheaper in relation to inflation.

When VHS first hit the shelves, players were up around $1000 in 70's money and movies were $40, $50 and up toward $100 for movies with more than one tape. DVD, by comparison, was far cheaper and didn't have the issue of needing to be rewound and was less prone to damage in the rental world.

Netflix isn't getting favorable treatment. The last part of your post is the real reason: it's cheaper to send video over an IP service than have thousands of copies of a new release in hundreds of stores with employees, rent and other expenses making it more expensive.

Having said that, it's not free. Netflix not only pays a lot of money for the streaming rights, they also pay a massive sum of money for the bandwidth they use. They aren't getting a free ride. They're just an easy target to call out because they're the largest and we love to hate on companies that become big after loving them as the scrappy disrupter when they started out.

I remember paying almost $20 a month for dialup, then around $30 a month for 1.5Mb/s broadband. Now I pay $65 a month for around 20Mb/s. If I want 50Mb/s, it's going to be over $80. We're getting faster speeds than ever, but we're paying more than ever for it.

I actually wish the ISPs offered a basic 10-15Mb/s connection for $15-20. My mother would be the perfect customer for it. All she does is check email and go to a few specific sites. She doesn't stream video or post shots of her breakfast on Twitter or Instagram. Instead, she's paying arounf $60 a month for speed she doesn't need.

I'm OK with the speed I get. Would I like it to be cheaper? Sure, but it is what it is. If I ever get to the point where IP based video is my primary method of watching TV, I'll be more than willing to upgrade my speed to address that.

What I don't like is having sites artificially throttled to extort money from the provider - then have the ISP turn around and tell me I need faster internet because it's because of congestion. That's extorting money at both ends for an artificially created problem. It would be like a tire store tossing nails into the street to get more customers who need replacement tires.

Further, I don't like buckets. Having a monthly limit on data transfer does nothing to ease congestion, especially when they keep selling us on faster speeds to allow us to stream higher quality video. They want us to pay more for a faster connection, but don't want us to actually be able to use it. The fact is, it's not how much data you transfer over the course of a month - it's how much you're transfering right now. I can use a 500Mb bucket over the course of a few days and hog the network just as easily as using a 1GB bucket over 30 days.

If congestion were a problem for the ISPs, they wouldn't keep upping the speeds and shrinking the bucket.

The thing is, they want to give us more speeds to get us used to streaming better quality video. Then they give us a small bucket to force us into a service upgrade to get more monthly allocation after they've programmed us to want it.

All they while, they'll cry that Netflix is a hog and they have to charge them more to afford to upgrade they network.

There's far too much having and eating of cake in the world of ISPs.
DoubleDAZ likes this.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #199 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 06:08 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 10,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxreactance View Post
Content restrictions on broadcast TV were certainly a draw to cable, but oddly those restrictions were much less when people began switching to cable (I remember watching many HBO shows with nudity, language on broadcast TV back in the 90s or even earlier).

What really happened was people wanted a better picture, and an expanded choice. To this day, people associate bad reception and choice restrictions with broadcast TV, and they're not totally wrong. But talking about TVLand shows ignorance of what choice IS available on broadcast TV, since there are at least a dozen "oldies" channels (or more) on broadcast TV, and some people watch these shows preferentially (including me, sometimes, I take advantage of the choice).

By and large, streaming is NOT "cord-cutting", watching BONE-STOCK FREE broadcast TV is cord-cutting.

Your confusion about net neutrality is simple. You seem to think that people can just "stream" video over their Internet connection that they already have. In reality, it takes orders of magnitude more bandwidth for your Internet connection to stream video. NET NEUTRALITY NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH PROVIDING "TIERS" OF BANDWIDTH TO ISP CUSTOMERS. IF YOU WANTED TO STREAM VIDEO, YOU HAD TO PAY EXTRA FOR THE PRIVILEGE, WITH OR WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY.

Which is as it should be, and is fair. Every argument here that net neutrality allowed free-loaders of streaming bandwidth is as ignorant as thinking TVLand is the only possible way to watch old TV shows...

--
max
Jeez, TVLand was just an example, you do know what an example is, don't you?

I didn't say anything about tiers in that quote, so I don't know where that's coming from. I'm not confused about NN, but you sure seem to think your ignorant and condescending opinions are the only ones that matter. Thankfully that's not the case.

My definition of cord-cutting matches the one on Wiki - "In broadcast television, cord-cutting refers to the pattern of viewers, referred to as cord cutters, cancelling their subscriptions to multi-channel subscription television services available over cable, dropping pay television channels or reducing the number of hours of subscription TV viewed in response to competition from rival media available over the Internet such as Amazon Video, Hulu, iTunes, Netflix, Sling TV, and YouTube. This Internet content is either free or significantly cheaper than the same content provided via cable." If you want to limit your definition to only those who opt for OTA TV and nothing else, that's fine with me. It's not accurate, but you're free to think it is since you apparently seem to also think you're the expert.

Oh, and folks like you are the reason I generally don't participate in these discussions. I only chimed in because we started talking about it in the HOTP thread and that discussion was moved here when this thread was reopened. My guess is it's only a matter of time before it gets closed again.

Cheers, Dave

Last edited by DoubleDAZ; 12-17-2017 at 06:37 AM.
DoubleDAZ is offline  
post #200 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 06:15 AM
Member
 
Uber Archetype's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxreactance View Post
In reality, it takes orders of magnitude more bandwidth for your Internet connection to stream video.
Uh, "in reality" that would be a false, sweeping generalization. Streaming bandwidth utilization depends on how the the source material is being presented. And the difference between basic TV quality and 4k HDR in terms of bandwidth is not "orders of magnitude."
DoubleDAZ likes this.
Uber Archetype is offline  
post #201 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 07:29 AM
Senior Member
 
maxreactance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post
Jeez, TVLand was just an example, you do know what an example is, don't you?

I didn't say anything about tiers in that quote, so I don't know where that's coming from. I'm not confused about NN, but you sure seem to think your ignorant and condescending opinions are the only ones that matter. Thankfully that's not the case.

My definition of cord-cutting matches the one on Wiki - "In broadcast television, cord-cutting refers to the pattern of viewers, referred to as cord cutters, cancelling their subscriptions to multi-channel subscription television services available over cable, dropping pay television channels or reducing the number of hours of subscription TV viewed in response to competition from rival media available over the Internet such as Amazon Video, Hulu, iTunes, Netflix, Sling TV, and YouTube. This Internet content is either free or significantly cheaper than the same content provided via cable." If you want to limit your definition to only those who opt for OTA TV and nothing else, that's fine with me. It's not accurate, but you're free to think it is since you apparently seem to also think you're the expert.

Oh, and folks like you are the reason I generally don't participate in these discussions. I only chimed in because we started talking about it in the HOTP thread and that discussion was moved here when this thread was reopened. My guess is it's only a matter of time before it gets closed again.
Well, you and Wikipedia are wrong--IN MY OPINION. Wikipedia is a bad joke about actual verifiable facts, let alone possible opinions redefined as "facts". My two favorite "facts" on Wikipedia was "their" assertion that "black level" in video is the level at which no photons are emitted from the display screen (and this was a few years ago before OLED screens, but has nothing to do with "black level" in any event), and the "fact" that I (me!) was the second most famous member of Scientology, right behind Tom Cruise, despite the fact that I am neither famous nor a Scientologist (the "fact" remained on the Wikipedia Scientology page for several days before it was removed).

My opinion is that people that believe that they are "cord-cutting" because they don't subscribe to cable TV is ludicrous if they, like me, pay like $45/month for broadband Internet to the CABLE company delivered THROUGH A CABLE to my home. (Is the confusion that a CABLE is not a CORD? Does the power cord to the TV count?) They probably spend a few $dollars less for what they want from Internet streaming, but probably generally not as great the savings as the millions who ditched cable for satellite, and in both cases, they neatly redefine what they "want" to match what they get from any service they subscribe to. This is a fundamental behavior pattern of people, they redefine reality semantically to identify with a group (tribe) of like-minded people. "I'm a CORD-CUTTER, look at me, I only spend $70/month for TV coming through a cable from the cable company, but I would have spent $75/month if I hadn't skillfully side-stepped those cable company bastards for less actual choice and lower-quality TV."

The bottom line is the bottom line: the big cable companies are making $billions of profits/revenues by selling $10/month of Internet access for $45/month (or more) from deluded "cord-cutters". They can write their version of reality in Wikipedia all they want, I'm sure it makes them feel good, but they are kidding themselves--IN MY OPINION.

Don't get me wrong, like just about everybody, I believe the future of TV/entertainment will largely be streaming (it pretty much is already), and I work in the streaming "industry", and I'm not really troubled by spending $45/month for broadband (even though I know it would be cheaper with true competition) since I can use it for working at home, and I get a lot of personal entertainment value from streaming. I just don't kid myself about what's going on, that's all.

--
max
maxreactance is offline  
post #202 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 07:43 AM
Senior Member
 
maxreactance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Archetype View Post
Uh, "in reality" that would be a false, sweeping generalization. Streaming bandwidth utilization depends on how the the source material is being presented. And the difference between basic TV quality and 4k HDR in terms of bandwidth is not "orders of magnitude."
I guess it depends on what you define as "basic TV quality". The streaming companies stream 4K HDR at anywhere from a minimum of 13mbps (Apple TV, up to 18mbps, but also sometimes referred to as "fake" 4K) to 25-40mbps, where "basic" HD video streaming (720p) is never more than 4mbps (is "basic TV quality" SD? If so, that streams at no more than 1.5mbps, meaning you can use DSL from the phone company and get a nice pixelated mess for most of your "streams").

Those are the numbers, but I guess by endlessly redefining terms like "orders of magnitude" and "basic TV quality" and "how the source material is presented" you're right...about what, I'm not sure...

--
max
maxreactance is offline  
post #203 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 08:12 AM
Member
 
Uber Archetype's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxreactance View Post
...redefining terms like "orders of magnitude" and "basic TV quality" and "how the source material is presented" you're right...about what, I'm not sure...
That's the thing about talkin' **** - you can define your own terms!

Maybe a statistic about the percentage of viewers streaming different types of formats would shoot a bigger hole in your argument?
DoubleDAZ likes this.
Uber Archetype is offline  
post #204 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 08:53 AM
Senior Member
 
maxreactance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Archetype View Post
That's the thing about talkin' **** - you can define your own terms!

Maybe a statistic about the percentage of viewers streaming different types of formats would shoot a bigger hole in your argument?
Exactly! Now THAT'S what the Internet was invented for!

And I'm not even sure what my "argument" is! Maybe you could redefine that for me, too?

If the "argument" is that streaming video takes a lot more network bandwidth than viewing a web page with mostly text and a few JPEGs...well, it just reminds me of a threatened murder in a dive bar I witnessed decades ago.

Two guys got into an argument about who broke Muhammed Ali's jaw in a fight. One guy said George Foreman, the other said Joe Frazier. The argument got very loud, very drunken. At one point one guy yelled "I'VE GOT A .45 IN MY CAR TRUNK AND I'M GOING TO BLOW YOUR HEAD OFF FOR NOT ADMITTING YOU'RE WRONG!!! NOW TELL ME WHO BROKE ALI'S JAW, YOU PUNK!!!!!"

The correct answer was, of course, Ken Norton...and THAT'S why the Internet is so popular!

--
max
maxreactance is offline  
post #205 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 09:03 AM
Member
 
Uber Archetype's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxreactance View Post
If the "argument" is that streaming video takes a lot more network bandwidth than viewing a web page with mostly text and a few JPEGs...
I thought the argument was how big a factor streaming bandwidth is on a macro level. The overall percentage of streaming bandwidth worldwide racks and stacks to alot of different types of source material. The portion comprised of high-def premium services is a drop in that bucket.
DoubleDAZ likes this.
Uber Archetype is offline  
post #206 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 09:33 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 10,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxreactance View Post
Well, you and Wikipedia are wrong--IN MY OPINION......................I just don't kid myself about what's going on, that's all.
And you're entitled to your OPINION until you want to act like yours are the only FACTS. Wiki isn't wrong, you just don't agree with it. Besides, Wiki is just a platform with input from many users and subject to correction, as are your opinions, though thankfully they slide off into the sunset as more comments get posted. When it comes to cord-cutting, I was responding to veedon's comment, not the general discussion of NN. And now you're the expert on everything posted on Wiki and if it's not verified by you, it's false. Gee, must be nice to be so all-knowing. And you just think you don't kid yourself about what's going on. I suspect there are a few here who would beg to differ.

And with that, I will no longer respond to your posts, they simply aren't worth any more of my time.

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is offline  
post #207 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 09:45 AM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 21,097
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1773 Post(s)
Liked: 3541
some posts removed

Dr Don has asked several times to avoid politics

thanks

please take the high road in every post:do not respond to or quote a problematic post: report it
HDMI.org:what a mess HDCP = Hollywood's Draconian Copy Protection system
LG C9 OLED owner


markrubin is offline  
post #208 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 10:16 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 3
If we had true competition with ISPs then that would be true. Ma Bell got broke up and we have what we have today. If we broke up Comcast, etc, then NN might work. This whole country needs some trust busting, lets dig up Teddy Roosevelt, he did it great over a hundred years ago.
Billy007 is offline  
post #209 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 01:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 2,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 979 Post(s)
Liked: 614
The discussion of the meaning of "cord cutting" is interesting. Language evolves, and when terminology is adopted to describe the use of new technologies, sometimes the motivation for the terminology is not clear. And that means that people can hear connotations that may not have ever been intended by the people who popularized the terminology.

I, too, used to think that it was strange to speak of "cord cutting" when a person was merely getting rid of coaxial cables for cable TV and replacing them with coaxial cables for broadband "cable internet" service and coaxial cables that led to indoor or outdoor TV antennas. But I now think that the cords that were being "cut" included the cords from the TV set to the set-top box from the cable TV company. The phenomenon of cord cutting achieved prominence shortly after home Wi-Fi with great enough speed to support streaming of high definition video became commonplace. In many cases, the "cord cutters" were getting rid of their traditional cable TV service, with its traditional cords that connected various components, and were using wireless streaming devices to deliver video to their TV sets. Of course, in many cases, the company providing the internet service (and sometimes even supplying the wireless router) was the very same cable company whose traditional TV service the customer was rejecting.
DoubleDAZ likes this.
veedon is offline  
post #210 of 277 Old 12-17-2017, 02:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 2,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 979 Post(s)
Liked: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post
...I think many are looking at what happened when regulations broke up Ma Bell and they expect the same sort of thing with Net Neutrality rules.
Well, some of the "baby Bells" kinda sorta came home to momma, didn't they? AT&T is a far different company from the one that was broken up in the 1980's (or whenever the breakup happened), but I know that quite a few years after the breakup, AT&T re-acquired Bell South (which by that time was heavily into both internet service and cell phone service rather than just old-fashioned landline POTS) and brought Bell South's services under the AT&T umbrella.

I don't think many people saw Net Neutrality as a means toward a breakup under antitrust laws. They just saw it as a way of reducing conflicts of interest and protecting consumers.

Last edited by veedon; 12-17-2017 at 02:11 PM.
veedon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming

Tags
net neutrality

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