reply to discussion |
Results 1 to 15 of 73
- 05-22-2012, 10:14 AM #1SMSGuest
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-chairman-supports-broadband-data-caps-amid-netflix-protests/2012/05/22/gIQAfdN9hU_blog.html>
While I understand Netflix's desire to piggyback their streaming service
over broadband unlimited data, Comcast's lowest tier is 300GB/month.
This translates to about 150 hours of the highest quality video
available from Netflix. Is anyone watching five hours of HD video per
day, or doing anything else that would get them up to 300GB? I suppose
you could have a household with a lot of people doing multiple streams
at the same time that would get you there, and there are tiers to
support that model.
Still, it's not like what Pandora is running into with tiered pricing
for wireless data. There you have users regularly running into their
limit, whether it's 100MB, 200MB, 300MB, 1GB, or 2GB/month, and probably
deciding to find another source for music to save their data for more
important tasks. Storing audio files on an iPod or smart phone, rather
than doing wireless streaming, is a bit more of a hassle but not an
undue hardship.
What Netflix is worried about is the misperception that cable
subscribers may have about data usage, and that the users may decide to
drop Netflix streaming as a result.
You have to wonder about a business model that relies on another company
continuing to provide an unlimited service.
› See More: FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects
- 05-22-2012, 10:52 AM #2JustinGuest
Re: FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--NetflixObjects
SMS wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 09:14:45 -0700]:
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-chairman-supports-broadband-data-caps-amid-netflix-protests/2012/05/22/gIQAfdN9hU_blog.html>
>
> While I understand Netflix's desire to piggyback their streaming service
> over broadband unlimited data, Comcast's lowest tier is 300GB/month.
> This translates to about 150 hours of the highest quality video
> available from Netflix. Is anyone watching five hours of HD video per
> day, or doing anything else that would get them up to 300GB? I suppose
That's only 2.5 hours per day for Mom & Dad watching one thing and
kids watching another. Or stay at home Mom watching 5 hours a day.
That's assuming all you do is Netflix. There are many other uses for
the internet like online backup, downloading games seems to be where the
market is going for all gaming devices, concoles and PCs. One game is 4-20GB
Let's not forget it's TOTAL usage they count, so you uploading photos
to grandma also counts as well as downloading stuff.
> What Netflix is worried about is the misperception that cable
> subscribers may have about data usage, and that the users may decide to
> drop Netflix streaming as a result.
Then there's the prioritization of their own Xfinity packets above those
of Netflix or Hulu
> You have to wonder about a business model that relies on another company
> continuing to provide an unlimited service.
The limits are FALSE to begin with.
- 05-22-2012, 12:21 PM #3John HigdonGuest
Re: FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects
In article <[email protected]>, Justin <[email protected]>
wrote:
> SMS wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 09:14:45 -0700]:
> > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...an-supports-br
> > oadband-data-caps-amid-netflix-protests/2012/05/22/gIQAfdN9hU_blog.html>
> >
> > You have to wonder about a business model that relies on another company
> > continuing to provide an unlimited service.
>
> The limits are FALSE to begin with.
The reason the limits are there (note that they don't apply to content
purchased from the carrier) is to discourage customers going elsewhere
for content. That is the ONLY reason the limits are there. There is no
shortage of bits.
Note that sonic.net has no limits. Why? Because they are not a content
provider and don't really give a damn what the data is used for. It is
also interesting to note that Comcast business service has no limits.
Business customers can use as much as they like but home users have to
be restricted? That should tell you right there that Comcast doesn't
care about the data volume as much as they don't want home users
watching movies from Netflix.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
- 05-22-2012, 12:57 PM #4BhairituGuest
Re: FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects
On 05/22/2012 09:14 AM, SMS wrote:
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-chairman-supports-broadband-data-caps-amid-netflix-protests/2012/05/22/gIQAfdN9hU_blog.html>
>
>
> While I understand Netflix's desire to piggyback their streaming service
> over broadband unlimited data, Comcast's lowest tier is 300GB/month.
> This translates to about 150 hours of the highest quality video
> available from Netflix. Is anyone watching five hours of HD video per
> day, or doing anything else that would get them up to 300GB? I suppose
> you could have a household with a lot of people doing multiple streams
> at the same time that would get you there, and there are tiers to
> support that model.
>
> Still, it's not like what Pandora is running into with tiered pricing
> for wireless data. There you have users regularly running into their
> limit, whether it's 100MB, 200MB, 300MB, 1GB, or 2GB/month, and probably
> deciding to find another source for music to save their data for more
> important tasks. Storing audio files on an iPod or smart phone, rather
> than doing wireless streaming, is a bit more of a hassle but not an
> undue hardship.
>
> What Netflix is worried about is the misperception that cable
> subscribers may have about data usage, and that the users may decide to
> drop Netflix streaming as a result.
>
> You have to wonder about a business model that relies on another company
> continuing to provide an unlimited service.
If things are going to move forward in this country then you can't have
data caps. And you can't in a lot of areas have two companies with a
monopoly over broadband. Fiber now needs to be in the commons not the
cash cow for a bunch of fat investors. We are already behind many
countries as far as broadband goes just to suit a bunch of US suits.
They want things in "the cloud" but seem to be unwilling to make it
happen or available 24/7 no data caps.
- 05-22-2012, 01:03 PM #5D. Peter MausGuest
Re: FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects
On 5/22/12 11:52 , Justin wrote:
> SMS wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 09:14:45 -0700]:
>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-chairman-supports-broadband-data-caps-amid-netflix-protests/2012/05/22/gIQAfdN9hU_blog.html>
>>
>> While I understand Netflix's desire to piggyback their streaming service
>> over broadband unlimited data, Comcast's lowest tier is 300GB/month.
>> This translates to about 150 hours of the highest quality video
>> available from Netflix. Is anyone watching five hours of HD video per
>> day, or doing anything else that would get them up to 300GB? I suppose
>
> That's only 2.5 hours per day for Mom & Dad watching one thing and
> kids watching another. Or stay at home Mom watching 5 hours a day.
>
>
> That's assuming all you do is Netflix. There are many other uses for
> the internet like online backup, downloading games seems to be where the
> market is going for all gaming devices, concoles and PCs. One game is 4-20GB
>
> Let's not forget it's TOTAL usage they count, so you uploading photos
> to grandma also counts as well as downloading stuff.
>
>
>
>> What Netflix is worried about is the misperception that cable
>> subscribers may have about data usage, and that the users may decide to
>> drop Netflix streaming as a result.
>
> Then there's the prioritization of their own Xfinity packets above those
> of Netflix or Hulu
>
>> You have to wonder about a business model that relies on another company
>> continuing to provide an unlimited service.
>
> The limits are FALSE to begin with.
>
There was a story that came out some time ago, in which the
Chairman of ATT was commenting on the proposed Net Neutrality rules
being discussed in the blogosphere, at the time. He proposed the
ending of all unlimited data plans, not only for wireless, but for
wired carriers, as well, because he was unwilling to let someone
else use his pipe to make money that he didn't get a cut. Tiered
plans were his recommendations as the only 'fair' solution. After
all, business phone system and line rates have been prorated and
linked to gross annual revenue of the subscriber since AG Bell. Only
residential phones were flat rate.
Almost immediately, other carriers distanced themselves from this
blunt commentary, but they didn't dispute his point. And considering
that consumer level internet is used more often than not to connect
to for-profit sources, the commercial phone model can easily be
applied to internet usage.
But the data limits as imposed are less intended to prevent
freerides on someone else's service, as much as they are
protectionist measures in favor of the carriers' own content
services, which, often, do NOT contain what the viewer/user is
interested in. In this way, the carrier profits from the use of
someone else's services, when their own do not meet the consumer's
needs.
In other words, the moves are intended to induce consumer choice
limits...which is kind of antithetical to the intent of the internet.
- 05-22-2012, 01:33 PM #6David KayeGuest
Re: FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects
"Bhairitu" <[email protected]> wrote
> If things are going to move forward in this country then you can't have
> data caps. And you can't in a lot of areas have two companies with a
> monopoly over broadband.
This is why we need government regulation. This scenario is exactly why the
Libertarian philosophy doesn't work. In an unregulated field there is
little/no room for small entrepreneurs. The big guys gobble up all the
worthwhile competitors and the little guys get squashed. I'm still amazed
it hasn't happened to Sonic.net yet, though I'm sure AT&T and Comcast are
looking for ways to do it before they get too big.
- 05-22-2012, 01:52 PM #7David KayeGuest
Re: FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects
"D. Peter Maus" <[email protected]> wrote
> But the data limits as imposed are less intended to prevent freerides on
> someone else's service, as much as they are protectionist measures in
> favor of the carriers' own content services [....]
Prior to the Reagan era there used to be anti-trust laws which told
companies that not only could they not buy up all the competition, but they
also could not "vertically integrate", that is, control all levels of
service such as production, distribution, and end-user retailing.
In the 1950s this led to the breakup of the movie studios. No longer could
they provide content AND run movie theaters. They had to do one or the
other. This saved the small mom'n'pop movie theaters from extinction
because they were able to bid on first-run movies on a level playing field.
Since the studios were allowed to get back into the theater business a few
years ago, movies have been distributed mostly to owned chains and the
little mom'n'pop theaters are dropping out of business like flies. In SF,
the Metro, Roxie, and Balboa have gone non-profit, the Castro is dark 1 or 2
nights a week, and thousands of theaters have closed across America.
And yet, the movie theater model is not dead. China's theaters are growing
by leaps and bounds and they've just announced the purchase of AMC Theaters
here. In order to secure product for their theaters, the new Wanda/AMC will
co-produce movies with Disney. And when the movies are released they will
likely appear first at AMC and then maybe by the 4th month at indie
theaters, if anybody wants to see them by then.
Well, so too, the problem with Comcast (now majority co-owner of NBC, don't
forget). I can see a time when Comcast will give preference to NBC-related
programming (CNBC, MSNBC, Syfy, Telmundo, G4, Hulu, etc) such as maybe
making it all basic tier, while competing programming (CNN, Discovery,
History, Biography, Univision, etc) are relegated to higher-priced tiers.
Anti-trust regulation is the only way out of this mess.
- 05-22-2012, 02:38 PM #8AJLGuest
Re: FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects
On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:21:47 -0700, John Higdon <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Business customers can use as much as they like but home users have to
>be restricted?
Business and residential users generally get different rates. If I
used my (unlimited) home phone for a business I expect Cox would be
inviting me to change to a business plan. Why would an ISP be
different?
- 05-22-2012, 02:51 PM #9D. Peter MausGuest
Re: FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects
On 5/22/12 14:52 , David Kaye wrote:
> I can see a time when Comcast will give preference to NBC-related
> programming (CNBC, MSNBC, Syfy, Telmundo, G4, Hulu, etc) such as maybe
> making it all basic tier, while competing programming (CNN, Discovery,
> History, Biography, Univision, etc) are relegated to higher-priced tiers.
They already do.
- 05-22-2012, 03:01 PM #10AJLGuest
Re: FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects
On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:55:38 -0600, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:
>The sole purpose of an ISP is to connect us to
>the internet to use the variety of services available,
The ISP is a business, not a charity. The *sole purpose* is to make
shareholders happy (if a public company).
>otherwise we could
>go back to the walled gardens of circa-1985 AOL and Compuserve.
Really? You could go back? Do the walled gardens still exist?
>In my own case, I was perfectly happy with my provider's 1Mb/s
>(eventually 3Mb/s) budget tier of service, but I upgraded to 7Mb/s for
>$10/month more solely for Netflix's $8/month streaming package to work
>acceptably. They're making more from my Netflix usage than Netflix is!
Simple. If you're displeased vote with your wallet. Or else do like
everyone else here. Pay the price and ***** about it...
- 05-22-2012, 03:23 PM #11John HigdonGuest
Re: FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects
In article <[email protected]>,
"D. Peter Maus" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In other words, the moves are intended to induce consumer choice
> limits...which is kind of antithetical to the intent of the internet.
Which is why content providers should not be data carriers and visa
versa. Note the sonic.net has comparable rates to Comcastf, but does not
impose limits.
Sonic.net is not a content provider. Funny thing, that.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
- 05-22-2012, 03:29 PM #12David KayeGuest
Re: FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects
"D. Peter Maus" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> They already do.
I'm on Comcast and they don't give preference to NBC programming. Discovery
is on channel 15, which is basic cable. Faux News, CNN, MSNBC, et al are
all gathered together on basic and look comparable to the customer.
Likewise, Comcast also offers History, Biography, and similar channels on
basic.
What I'm saying is that there'll come a time when Comcast offers a "basic
basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
and local brodcasters. I'd bet that you won't be seeing Biography, History,
Discovery, CNN, or Weather on that service.
- 05-22-2012, 03:50 PM #13NeilGuest
Re: FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects
On 5/22/12 2:29 PM, David Kaye wrote:
> "D. Peter Maus"<[email protected]> wrote
>
>>
>> They already do.
>
> I'm on Comcast and they don't give preference to NBC programming. Discovery
> is on channel 15, which is basic cable. Faux News, CNN, MSNBC, et al are
> all gathered together on basic and look comparable to the customer.
> Likewise, Comcast also offers History, Biography, and similar channels on
> basic.
>
> What I'm saying is that there'll come a time when Comcast offers a "basic
> basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
> and local brodcasters. I'd bet that you won't be seeing Biography, History,
> Discovery, CNN, or Weather on that service.
>
If by "Weather" you mean "The Weather Channel", that's another
"property" in the Comcast/NBC-Universal stable. (You can trace the start
of TWC's decline to the day NBC got its paws on it.)
- 05-22-2012, 03:51 PM #14NeilGuest
Re: FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects
On 5/22/12 2:23 PM, John Higdon wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> "D. Peter Maus"<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In other words, the moves are intended to induce consumer choice
>> limits...which is kind of antithetical to the intent of the internet.
>
> Which is why content providers should not be data carriers and visa
> versa. Note the sonic.net has comparable rates to Comcastf, but does not
> impose limits.
>
> Sonic.net is not a content provider. Funny thing, that.
>
Sonic is also superbly responsive to subscribers, something neither
Comcast nor AT&T can say with a straight face.
- 05-22-2012, 03:53 PM #15D. Peter MausGuest
Re: FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects
On 5/22/12 16:29 , David Kaye wrote:
> "D. Peter Maus" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>
>> They already do.
>
> I'm on Comcast and they don't give preference to NBC programming. Discovery
> is on channel 15, which is basic cable. Faux News, CNN, MSNBC, et al are
> all gathered together on basic and look comparable to the customer.
> Likewise, Comcast also offers History, Biography, and similar channels on
> basic.
>
> What I'm saying is that there'll come a time when Comcast offers a "basic
> basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
> and local brodcasters. I'd bet that you won't be seeing Biography, History,
> Discovery, CNN, or Weather on that service.
>
>
>
>
>
When I looked at Comcast for my television, they were doing it
already, here.
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.sprintpcs
Newbie Member
in New Member Introductions