AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
398 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Wow..glad I dumped crapcast.

http://gizmodo.com/5701746/comcast-i...yline=true&s=i

Level 3, who recently signed a deal to become the primary provider for streaming Netflix content, was pressured by Comcast to pay a "recurring fee" "to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast's customers who request such content." After a few days of negotiating, Level 3 paid the fee, ensuring uninterrupted service for Netflix subscribers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,220 Posts
The title is a bit over dramatic according to the article already posted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
i'd be willing to pay a little extra if they commit to putting that revenue towards hiring and training customer service reps who know how to help customers. i know that would never happen, but always like to express my displeasure with comcast reps whenever possible
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
Comcast has always been a mediocre company. In fact so many of the telecoms are run like "three card monte" operations always trying to squeeze as much money out of you as possible and giving you less than what you paid for. Netflix is the opposite, providing plenty of value for the buck. Unfortunately the oligarchs will probably win in this sad state of affairs country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad /forum/post/19569888


Comcast has always been a mediocre company. In fact so many of the telecoms are run like "three card monte" operations always trying to squeeze as much money out of you as possible and giving you less than what you paid for. Netflix is the opposite, providing plenty of value for the buck. Unfortunately the oligarchs will probably win in this sad state of affairs country.

That depends on how you define mediocre. I won't defend any cable company because they all charge too much and I despise the pricing models and fee structures (charges for outlets, boxes, additional for HD content, and on and on). However, of the lot I've had to deal with Comcast has been about the best.


For over 3 years now I've never had an outtage that's been more than a blip, have pretty good picture quality, a fair amount of HD content available (but again there are those ridiculous charges...) and very good internet speed and reliability. I'd not define that as mediocrity.


The whole argument for Netflix streaming seems to be based on value. But to me there is absolutely no value in the dreadful quality they stream today. Pay for that? No thanks. We might as well be back to an old 4:3 set with rabbit ears (where, by the way, the content was free).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
916 Posts
JN99, I pretty much agree with your assessment. Comcast cable and Comcast internet should be thought of separately. I am torn right now between switching from Qwest DSL to Comcast internet, where I can currently get up to 20/2 speed for not much more money, but I will NEVER pay for cable TV in its current form. That's the issue everyone is having with the cable companies. I also agree about the relatively poor quality of streaming, but you have to keep in mind this technology is only a couple of years old. I have faith it will get better.


Oh, as for TV via "rabbit ears." Have you seen the HD picture you can get OTA? Don't knock it until you've tried it..and it's still free! For me, 20 free channels OTA and everything else via streaming is working out very well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taperwood /forum/post/19574620


JN99, I pretty much agree with your assessment. Comcast cable and Comcast internet should be thought of separately. I am torn right now between switching from Qwest DSL to Comcast internet, where I can currently get up to 20/2 speed for not much more money, but I will NEVER pay for cable TV in its current form. That's the issue everyone is having with the cable companies. I also agree about the relatively poor quality of streaming, but you have to keep in mind this technology is only a couple of years old. I have faith it will get better.


Oh, as for TV via "rabbit ears." Have you seen the HD picture you can get OTA? Don't knock it until you've tried it..and it's still free! For me, 20 free channels OTA and everything else via streaming is working out very well.

Agreed on the streaming. However, if you compare Vudu to Netflix for example it is clear that it isn't the technology itself that's the problem, it's the way Netflix has chosen to implement it. Given that they are increasing their subscriber numbers, I don't know if there is any compelling reason for them to change it either. I guess it's all down to you get what you pay for and with Netflix, it ain't much.


To me, with the 60" HD set I now have, it is pointless to watch anything streaming from Netflix because it is simply awful. Maybe if I watched on a 32" set from 10-12 ft. it would be acceptable but even then I doubt it. It's clear to me that their business model is to sign up as many people as they can at low rates and deliver equally low quality and hope they don't mind. That's just not for me.


My comment on rabbit ears was about the old analog ones because to me streaming Netflix is akin to stepping back to analog SD on a 4:3 set using them. I have used antennas in the past for OTA HD and it is stunning (better than the compressed signals delivered by cable and dish operators).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
JN99, I think it depends on what you're watching on Netflix. If your taste is for blockbusters you probably would be disappointed. I'm not interested in those and mainly am watching many independent and foreign films. I'm more interested in the content than in being impressed by my home theater setup. I got over the latter years ago. The documentary I watched last night was in HD and I wasn't expecting it to be but it was nice that way. I could be better in 1080p than 720p but the content I wanted was there. A number of the SD Netflix I'm watching seem to be 540p too which is a bit better looking than 480p, not HD but almost there.


I was knocking Comcast for the schlock content (not to mention their annoying carnival style barkers trying to sell their junk you get when select OnDemand). Unless Comcast were to buy Netflix it would be difficult to provide the variety people are looking for. Big companies are almost impossible if not impossible to manage. They just become golden geese for their top level owners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
916 Posts
JN99, Yeah, it would be nice if Netflix allowed buffering of an entire movie, but like you said they are trying to drive the market at this point by getting their service to as many people as possible. Because of that, they have to take a more middle road approach, and since anyone can get HD via antenna, BD, Amazon, Hulu, or Vudu, etc, Netflix streaming quality is not so much of an issue. I simply don't have the bandwidth to get much HD now anyway, so my problem lies elsewhere, and I suspect that is the case with a lot of people.


I watch on a 42" HD plasma. When I get my 1080p projector, I will be set for life
Streaming everyday stuff on the plasma and eye candy on the projector.


At the end of all this, content will rule, and Netflix has a pretty good head start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JN99 /forum/post/19574832


Agreed on the streaming. However, if you compare Vudu to Netflix for example it is clear that it isn't the technology itself that's the problem, it's the way Netflix has chosen to implement it. Given that they are increasing their subscriber numbers, I don't know if there is any compelling reason for them to change it either. I guess it's all down to you get what you pay for and with Netflix, it ain't much.


To me, with the 60" HD set I now have, it is pointless to watch anything streaming from Netflix because it is simply awful. Maybe if I watched on a 32" set from 10-12 ft. it would be acceptable but even then I doubt it. It's clear to me that their business model is to sign up as many people as they can at low rates and deliver equally low quality and hope they don't mind. That's just not for me.


My comment on rabbit ears was about the old analog ones because to me streaming Netflix is akin to stepping back to analog SD on a 4:3 set using them. I have used antennas in the past for OTA HD and it is stunning (better than the compressed signals delivered by cable and dish operators).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
i think the real story is that level 3 is paying comcast to "host" their content, and since its netflix streaming it is more bandwidth intense than other items. in response comcast wants more money. its not comcast saying hey joe smith wants netflix lets charge level 3 more money to make up for lost VOD, its more like level 3 is paying comcast for DSL service and expecting T3 service. thats what I think anyways i may be wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,756 Posts
People who spend a lot of time watching videos or downloading files from the Internet could pay higher prices as part of a controversial proposal that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski unveiled Wednesday.


He will ask the five-member regulatory agency to vote on Dec. 21 on rules that he says would "preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet." President Obama has said that protecting what's known as net neutrality would be a top goal.


Genachowski said that his proposal would bar "unreasonable" efforts by Internet providers led by cable and phone companies to help some services and hurt others. For example, providers couldn't provide smooth and uninterrupted transmissions for communication services that they own, and jittery or delayed transmissions for competitors such as YouTube or Skype.


But Genachowski apparently hopes to win cable and phone company support by endorsing their right to make heavy Internet users pay more. It's been unclear whether the FCC would deem such pricing plans to be discriminatory: For example, consumers might favor unlimited conventional cable TV over a Web video service such as Netflix if broadband prices were tied to how many minutes or megabytes they use.


"The thrust of the proposal has shifted from purely preserving 'openness' to now simultaneously acknowledging the need for broadband rationing," says analyst Craig Moffett of financial services firm Bernstein Research.


Genachowski also made a concession to cable and phone companies by abandoning his effort to reclassify the Internet as a regulated communications service, similar to telephone connections.


Internet providers vigorously objected to that effort, launched in May following a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling. Justices said the FCC lacked authority to set rules for the Internet because the agency has classified it as an unregulated information service.


Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell challenged the FCC's authority to adopt what he called an "ill-advised" and "highly interventionist" plan. House Republicans are "promising to attack the FCC move to write rules," says analyst Rebecca Arbogast at financial services firm Stifel Nicolaus.


Net neutrality supporters were divided. Free Press CEO Josh Silver called the proposal "disappointing." Craigslist founder Craig Newmark said it would "help ensure certainty in markets while also preserving the openness ... of the Internet."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...ity02_ST_N.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
I for years have thought that the future was providing content by VOD which people could rent. My model would have been something like shareware portals where small studios and producers could put their works and then companies like Comcast might provide access to them for a cut. In a way Netflix is this model (especially if you look a their submissions process) but my idea was a little broader and might not just involve one company. The giants were sleeping and Jack the Netflix snuck up on them and now they are raging mad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
781 Posts
I can't understand any of this.

IF the supplier was forcing content to comcast users then comcast should charge.

BUT since comcast users who pay for the bandwidth are requesting the content then I don't see anything but comcrap asking for money both ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
Leo LaPorte suggested on his Sunday show suggested that L3 should have turned around and told Comcast they wouldn't pay and thus Comcast customers wouldn't be getting Netflix. Interesting who would lose the most, Comcast or Netflix?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,328 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad /forum/post/19598280


Leo LaPorte suggested on his Sunday show suggested that L3 should have turned around and told Comcast they wouldn't pay and thus Comcast customers wouldn't be getting Netflix. Interesting who would lose the most, Comcast or Netflix?

Probably Level 3 as they would likely be in breach of their contract with Netflix. Level 3 could route the traffic through another transit carrier like Tata but traffic through Tata can often be congested as apparently that's where a lot of traffic that doesn't play by Comcast's rules(money) ends up being routed and Comcast restricts the ports that accept that traffic. Such restriction could result in a downgrade of performance, something Netflix won't accept.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,992 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad /forum/post/19598280


Leo LaPorte suggested on his Sunday show suggested that L3 should have turned around and told Comcast they wouldn't pay and thus Comcast customers wouldn't be getting Netflix. Interesting who would lose the most, Comcast or Netflix?

That is what should have happened. The outcry of an ISP (as big as Comcast is) blocking internet content would have been huge.


The precedent that ISPs can seemingly now pressure internet companies for payment in order for their customers to have access to their websites/content is a very bad thing.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top