Net Neutrality, Redux

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]cueball wrote:
ISPs not charging for use of the internet at certain speeds, but charging HOW and what you access by tiered subscriptions.

[/quote]

That’s covered, and in general, one of the parts I’m tentatively okay with as I stand right now.

It’s whole speed thing and lack of ability to discriminate that gets me hung up. I understand the “stated” intent, and am on the surface okay with it. But after the recent videos of Bamcare architects talking about lieing to pass the bill, I’m not sold the stated intent of these regulations are the actual intent.

However, how is this different than paying for HBO?

102

That’s interesting Doc. Thanks for posting.

103

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
You don’t have a contract that requires them to provide AT 50mb/s. As far as I know, that’s never been the case. It even says it on your graphic: “UP TO 50mb/s”. Which means you could, at any time, be receiving at 30, 20, 10. [/quote]

Yes, I know (I posted the pic) and point that out in a subsequent post. That is a capabilities issue though. They, as far as I know, aren’t purposely throttling speed. I would be pissed if they were and I was one of their customers.

[/quote]

Sorry, I looked, but must have missed your clarification.

I’m sure it’s next to impossible to verify, but I have no doubt that it (throttling) happens, IMO. I live in KC and recently made the switch to Google fiber. In my area, the biggest player is Time Warner, and google is killing them with people switching. I had already dropped my cable a year or so ago, but still subscribed to their lower tier internet service until I switched to Google.

My neighbors, who had a cable subscription as well as internet through TW, said when they called to cancel their service, were met with some of the most blatant lies and were fed misconceptions about Google and their services. One being that Google didn’t even provide ESPN. The customer service person was downright nasty to them. Which seems strange, if you want to keep customers, why treat them like shit?

I have heard a few other similar stories from others in the area. I would not put it past a company like this to throttle service well beyond advertised speeds solely to prompt a call to customer service about said speed, only to suggest you bump your service to the next level.

104

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
ISPs not charging for use of the internet at certain speeds, but charging HOW and what you access by tiered subscriptions.

[/quote]

That’s covered, and in general, one of the parts I’m tentatively okay with as I stand right now.

It’s whole speed thing and lack of ability to discriminate that gets me hung up. I understand the “stated” intent, and am on the surface okay with it. But after the recent videos of Bamcare architects talking about lieing to pass the bill, I’m not sold the stated intent of these regulations are the actual intent.

However, how is this different than paying for HBO?[/quote]

HBO has always been a premium on top of a cable subscription, no? Netflix or otherwise has never been a premium on top of your internet subscription. Obviously having to pay extra for something that didn’t cost you extra in the past will rub some people the wrong way.

I understand it’s business. They lose cable money to streaming. The fix is to control the streaming and charge for it, since you can’t get it without them.

I switched to Google in part because I was tired of not having a “real” option to TW. I was never happy with the service I got for the price. Google ahas created some competition here, but TW doesn’t seem willing to “compete”. At least not right now.

106

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
You don’t have a contract that requires them to provide AT 50mb/s. As far as I know, that’s never been the case. It even says it on your graphic: “UP TO 50mb/s”. Which means you could, at any time, be receiving at 30, 20, 10. [/quote]

Yes, I know (I posted the pic) and point that out in a subsequent post. That is a capabilities issue though. They, as far as I know, aren’t purposely throttling speed. I would be pissed if they were and I was one of their customers.

[/quote]

Sorry, I looked, but must have missed your clarification.

I’m sure it’s next to impossible to verify, but I have no doubt that it (throttling) happens, IMO. I live in KC and recently made the switch to Google fiber. In my area, the biggest player is Time Warner, and google is killing them with people switching. I had already dropped my cable a year or so ago, but still subscribed to their lower tier internet service until I switched to Google.

My neighbors, who had a cable subscription as well as internet through TW, said when they called to cancel their service, were met with some of the most blatant lies and were fed misconceptions about Google and their services. One being that Google didn’t even provide ESPN. The customer service person was downright nasty to them. Which seems strange, if you want to keep customers, why treat them like shit?

I have heard a few other similar stories from others in the area. I would not put it past a company like this to throttle service well beyond advertised speeds solely to prompt a call to customer service about said speed, only to suggest you bump your service to the next level.[/quote]

Oh ya, you’re probably right. I bet it does happen. I think it’s pretty lousy for the consumer, but there isn’t much I can do. I live in rural MD and my choices are pretty limited.

I’d sell my first born for Google fiber…

107

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I’d sell my first born for Google fiber…[/quote]

You know they filter your content and track your clicks in order to micro target advertising. They also accept payment to ensure you see certain ads and webpages well before others right?

So… Google does what this law is supposed to prevent Comcast or TW from doing (in part).

108

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I’d sell my first born for Google fiber…[/quote]

You know they filter your content and track your clicks in order to micro target advertising. They also accept payment to ensure you see certain ads and webpages well before others right?

So… Google does what this law is supposed to prevent Comcast or TW from doing (in part). [/quote]

Lol, I was just kidding Beans.

109

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
You don’t have a contract that requires them to provide AT 50mb/s. As far as I know, that’s never been the case. It even says it on your graphic: “UP TO 50mb/s”. Which means you could, at any time, be receiving at 30, 20, 10. [/quote]

Yes, I know (I posted the pic) and point that out in a subsequent post. That is a capabilities issue though. They, as far as I know, aren’t purposely throttling speed. I would be pissed if they were and I was one of their customers.

[/quote]

Sorry, I looked, but must have missed your clarification.

I’m sure it’s next to impossible to verify, but I have no doubt that it (throttling) happens, IMO. I live in KC and recently made the switch to Google fiber. In my area, the biggest player is Time Warner, and google is killing them with people switching. I had already dropped my cable a year or so ago, but still subscribed to their lower tier internet service until I switched to Google.

My neighbors, who had a cable subscription as well as internet through TW, said when they called to cancel their service, were met with some of the most blatant lies and were fed misconceptions about Google and their services. One being that Google didn’t even provide ESPN. The customer service person was downright nasty to them. Which seems strange, if you want to keep customers, why treat them like shit?

I have heard a few other similar stories from others in the area. I would not put it past a company like this to throttle service well beyond advertised speeds solely to prompt a call to customer service about said speed, only to suggest you bump your service to the next level.[/quote]

Oh ya, you’re probably right. I bet it does happen. I think it’s pretty lousy for the consumer, but there isn’t much I can do. I live in rural MD and my choices are pretty limited.

I’d sell my first born for Google fiber…[/quote]

It’s pretty nice, and much cheaper than selling a child, unless you really don’t like the kid. ; )

I only got the free internet service, which is still faster than the TW service I had. $25 a month for a year to cover the construction fee, then it’s free for the next 6 years.

Neighbors went with the full deal, gigabit plus TV, and they love it.

TW top tier internet service is only 100 Mb/s. It’s hard for them to compete with the gigabit. They have recently started giving NEW customers their lowest tier for $20. I was paying $45. For some odd reason, they never offered that to existing customers to try and keep them.

110

FWIW if Comcast offered a fast lane for a fee to companies like Netflix as opposed to throttled speed if companies like Netflix refused to pay for a “fast lane” then I’d probably be perfectly fine with all this.

I just can’t shake this feeling like the ISPs are like the Mob and Netflix has to pay to play so to speak.

Not sure if that’s the reality of the situation or not.

111

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
You don’t have a contract that requires them to provide AT 50mb/s. As far as I know, that’s never been the case. It even says it on your graphic: “UP TO 50mb/s”. Which means you could, at any time, be receiving at 30, 20, 10. [/quote]

Yes, I know (I posted the pic) and point that out in a subsequent post. That is a capabilities issue though. They, as far as I know, aren’t purposely throttling speed. I would be pissed if they were and I was one of their customers.

[/quote]

Sorry, I looked, but must have missed your clarification.

I’m sure it’s next to impossible to verify, but I have no doubt that it (throttling) happens, IMO. I live in KC and recently made the switch to Google fiber. In my area, the biggest player is Time Warner, and google is killing them with people switching. I had already dropped my cable a year or so ago, but still subscribed to their lower tier internet service until I switched to Google.

My neighbors, who had a cable subscription as well as internet through TW, said when they called to cancel their service, were met with some of the most blatant lies and were fed misconceptions about Google and their services. One being that Google didn’t even provide ESPN. The customer service person was downright nasty to them. Which seems strange, if you want to keep customers, why treat them like shit?

I have heard a few other similar stories from others in the area. I would not put it past a company like this to throttle service well beyond advertised speeds solely to prompt a call to customer service about said speed, only to suggest you bump your service to the next level.[/quote]

Oh ya, you’re probably right. I bet it does happen. I think it’s pretty lousy for the consumer, but there isn’t much I can do. I live in rural MD and my choices are pretty limited.

I’d sell my first born for Google fiber…[/quote]

It’s pretty nice, and much cheaper than selling a child, unless you really don’t like the kid. ; )

I only got the free internet service, which is still faster than the TW service I had. $25 a month for a year to cover the construction fee, then it’s free for the next 6 years.

Neighbors went with the full deal, gigabit plus TV, and they love it.

TW top tier internet service is only 100 Mb/s. It’s hard for them to compete with the gigabit. They have recently started giving NEW customers their lowest tier for $20. I was paying $45. For some odd reason, they never offered that to existing customers to try and keep them. [/quote]

Ya, that’s nice. Unfortunately around here it’s Satellite or if you’re lucky 4G LTE. Both have data caps so I can’t really watch Netflix anyway…

112

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I just can’t shake this feeling like the ISPs are like the Mob and Netflix has to pay to play so to speak.

[/quote]

You have to pay for Netflix, and you have to pay to get it to your house.

Why the fuck shouldn’t they have to pay some costs too?

113

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I just can’t shake this feeling like the ISPs are like the Mob and Netflix has to pay to play so to speak.

[/quote]

You have to pay for Netflix, and you have to pay to get it to your house.

Why the fuck shouldn’t they have to pay some costs too?[/quote]

I’m pretty sure they do and if they currently don’t they should (I’m having deja vu here).

114

So here is another question:

Situation
Any given moment there is one person watching HD movies which takes 10 resources for Comcast
At the same time someone is playing call of duty which takes 5
and 12 people are watching porn which takes 5 total
and one dude is downloading adobe which takes 10

that is 30 total resources on Comcast’s system.

Lets assume Comcast only have 25 total resources to give.

Does everyone get fucked with lag time because Comcast can’t knock down the adobe to 5 on purpose?

115

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
You don’t have a contract that requires them to provide AT 50mb/s. As far as I know, that’s never been the case. It even says it on your graphic: “UP TO 50mb/s”. Which means you could, at any time, be receiving at 30, 20, 10. [/quote]

Yes, I know (I posted the pic) and point that out in a subsequent post. That is a capabilities issue though. They, as far as I know, aren’t purposely throttling speed. I would be pissed if they were and I was one of their customers.

[/quote]

Sorry, I looked, but must have missed your clarification.

I’m sure it’s next to impossible to verify, but I have no doubt that it (throttling) happens, IMO. I live in KC and recently made the switch to Google fiber. In my area, the biggest player is Time Warner, and google is killing them with people switching. I had already dropped my cable a year or so ago, but still subscribed to their lower tier internet service until I switched to Google.

My neighbors, who had a cable subscription as well as internet through TW, said when they called to cancel their service, were met with some of the most blatant lies and were fed misconceptions about Google and their services. One being that Google didn’t even provide ESPN. The customer service person was downright nasty to them. Which seems strange, if you want to keep customers, why treat them like shit?

I have heard a few other similar stories from others in the area. I would not put it past a company like this to throttle service well beyond advertised speeds solely to prompt a call to customer service about said speed, only to suggest you bump your service to the next level.[/quote]

Oh ya, you’re probably right. I bet it does happen. I think it’s pretty lousy for the consumer, but there isn’t much I can do. I live in rural MD and my choices are pretty limited.

I’d sell my first born for Google fiber…[/quote]

It’s pretty nice, and much cheaper than selling a child, unless you really don’t like the kid. ; )

I only got the free internet service, which is still faster than the TW service I had. $25 a month for a year to cover the construction fee, then it’s free for the next 6 years.

Neighbors went with the full deal, gigabit plus TV, and they love it.

TW top tier internet service is only 100 Mb/s. It’s hard for them to compete with the gigabit. They have recently started giving NEW customers their lowest tier for $20. I was paying $45. For some odd reason, they never offered that to existing customers to try and keep them. [/quote]

Ya, that’s nice. Unfortunately around here it’s Satellite or if you’re lucky 4G LTE. Both have data caps so I can’t really watch Netflix anyway… [/quote]

That sucks.

After I got Netflix, I got rid of cable because I wasn’t really watching all those channels anyway, mostly local channels. I hooked up an HD antenna to the TV as local stations now broadcast in HD, with cable they were standard definition because TW pares it down to “save bandwidth”.

TW advertises “free HD”, but then charges a rental fee each month for a device that “upgrades” your service to HD.

So your only internet option is 4G? I guess you would have DSL, no?

116

I’m not siding with Netflix, just reading up on the issue:

http://ir.netflix.com/sec.cfm
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/NFLX/3627472323x0xS1065280-14-6/1065280/filing.pdf

"Changes in how network operators handle and charge for access to data that travel across their networks could adversely impact our
business. We rely upon the ability of consumers to access our service through the Internet. To the extent that network operators implement usage based pricing, including meaningful bandwidth caps, or otherwise try to monetize access to their networks by data providers, we could incur greater operating expenses and our member acquisition and retention could be negatively impacted. Furthermore, to the extent network operators were to create tiers of Internet access service and either charge us for or prohibit us from being available through these tiers, our business could be negatively impacted. Most network operators that provide consumers with access to the Internet also provide these consumers with multichannel video programming. As such, many network operators have an incentive to use their network infrastructure in a manner adverse to our continued growth and success. For example, Comcast exempted certain of its own Internet video traffic (e.g., Streampix videos to the Xbox 360) from a bandwidth cap that applies to all unaffiliated Internet video traffic (e.g., Netflix videos to the Xbox 360). While we believe that consumer demand, regulatory oversight and competition will help check these incentives, to the extent that network operators are able to provide preferential treatment to their data as opposed to ours or otherwise implement discriminatory network management practices, our business could be negatively impacted. In international markets, especially in Latin America, these same incentives apply however, the consumer demand, regulatory oversight and competition may not be as strong as in our domestic market. "

117

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So here is another question:

Situation
Any given moment there is one person watching HD movies which takes 10 resources for Comcast
At the same time someone is playing call of duty which takes 5
and 12 people are watching porn which takes 5 total
and one dude is downloading adobe which takes 10

that is 30 total resources on Comcast’s system.

Lets assume Comcast only have 25 total resources to give.

Does everyone get fucked with lag time because Comcast can’t knock down the adobe to 5 on purpose?[/quote]

Ya, I think so. Why should the guy downloading Adobe (the 1%er lol) get screwed.

If you promise 20 clients you’ll have their tax return done by April 15th, but you know damn well you can only get 15 of them done by then, what happens?

118

[quote]cueball wrote:

So your only internet option is 4G? I guess you would have DSL, no?
[/quote]

Believe it or not, no. DSL wasn’t ever run into our neighborhood (about 40 houses) and Verizon won’t run new lines because they’ve moved on to fiber (which they won’t provide our neighborhood). Comcast stops about a mile up the road.

119

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So here is another question:

Situation
Any given moment there is one person watching HD movies which takes 10 resources for Comcast
At the same time someone is playing call of duty which takes 5
and 12 people are watching porn which takes 5 total
and one dude is downloading adobe which takes 10

that is 30 total resources on Comcast’s system.

Lets assume Comcast only have 25 total resources to give.

Does everyone get fucked with lag time because Comcast can’t knock down the adobe to 5 on purpose?[/quote]

This is how I’ve always assumed it worked. If the pipeline from the ISP to the customers is overloaded, EVERYTHING slows down.

Why would Comcast pick one person to screw over the other? This is like picking a certain group of people out of a traffic jam and letting them speed by on the shoulder while everybody else is jammed up.

120

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m not siding with Netflix, just reading up on the issue:

http://ir.netflix.com/sec.cfm
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/NFLX/3627472323x0xS1065280-14-6/1065280/filing.pdf

"Changes in how network operators handle and charge for access to data that travel across their networks could adversely impact our
business. We rely upon the ability of consumers to access our service through the Internet. To the extent that network operators implement usage based pricing, including meaningful bandwidth caps, or otherwise try to monetize access to their networks by data providers, we could incur greater operating expenses and our member acquisition and retention could be negatively impacted. Furthermore, to the extent network operators were to create tiers of Internet access service and either charge us for or prohibit us from being available through these tiers, our business could be negatively impacted. Most network operators that provide consumers with access to the Internet also provide these consumers with multichannel video programming. As such, many network operators have an incentive to use their network infrastructure in a manner adverse to our continued growth and success. For example, Comcast exempted certain of its own Internet video traffic (e.g., Streampix videos to the Xbox 360) from a bandwidth cap that applies to all unaffiliated Internet video traffic (e.g., Netflix videos to the Xbox 360). While we believe that consumer demand, regulatory oversight and competition will help check these incentives, to the extent that network operators are able to provide preferential treatment to their data as opposed to ours or otherwise implement discriminatory network management practices, our business could be negatively impacted. In international markets, especially in Latin America, these same incentives apply however, the consumer demand, regulatory oversight and competition may not be as strong as in our domestic market. "

[/quote]

This is in line with the things I had read in the past.