dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2010-12-07 08:46:17: Canadian ISPs have already managed to parry Internet video's assault by imposing low cap and high overages in addition to wholesale throttling and usage-based billing. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

So where is the Google Channel?

Until they have their own channels (think discovery, history, etc) they are not broadcasters. Once they do such then then I would agree. Until then they are not much more than a cable company that's using a different delivery method.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Something has to give.

While I don't agree with regulating them as broadcasters, if internet streaming continues to require ISPs to upgrade to handle the additional traffic, we can't simply expect ISPs to eat the costs without either raising prices or charging back the content providers.

Problem is that we as consumers have expected "free" or "cheap" from the internet since forever. Level 3 vs Comcast showed exactly that, that consumers expect that Comcast should simply eat the cost of more infrastructure to handle netflix.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Shaw is run by morons

“Why should we be burdened with anchors and costs? The reason Netflix can offer an $8.99 service is because they have no costs other than acquiring the content,” said Shaw president Peter Bissonnette

Oh really they don't pay for bandwidth or hosting or anything like that? Their movies just go accross the internet by magic?


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to fifty nine

Re: Something has to give.

said by fifty nine:

While I don't agree with regulating them as broadcasters, if internet streaming continues to require ISPs to upgrade to handle the additional traffic, we can't simply expect ISPs to eat the costs without either raising prices or charging back the content providers.

Problem is that we as consumers have expected "free" or "cheap" from the internet since forever. Level 3 vs Comcast showed exactly that, that consumers expect that Comcast should simply eat the cost of more infrastructure to handle netflix.

ISPs eat the cost???? Really?
ISPs are not eating any costs. In 99% of the US broadband ISPs are monopolies. Their customers pay plenty to pay for the networks and for upgrades. Online streaming is not hurting the ISP business.

FYI, the content providers like google and netflix already pay their ISPs for access to the internet. Only an idiot would even think that google and netflix should pay for other ISP customers internet connections.

$40+ a month is not cheap for internet.
My cable company sells cable for $50 a month and internet for $50 a month. They make a much smaller profit off the tv after they pay content providers than when they sell internet which requires no payment to content providers. They make a killing off internet.

If they want netflix to be a broadcaster than Shaw would have to pay netflix for their customers to access it. So instead of Shaw getting free content to sell internet connections they will have to pay for it.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else.


ILuvDogshit

@lightpath.net

Figures.

What fuckin' babies Shaw are!


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
reply to fifty nine

Re: Something has to give.

ISPs are getting greedy. That's what this is about.

backness

join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2

The CRTC

I had the chance in a class i'm taking to write a paper on this and it was actually sent to the commisioners at the CRTC.

The conclusion that we came to was basically the only answer to all the Canadian Content problems is to tax new media and funnel the revenue to fund canadian content production.

The CRTC needs to step out of the way and move this file over to revenue Canada.

a 1%-3% levy on purchased digital media and we could do away with Canadian Content laws and all these problems.

After all traditional broadcasting is on a crash course with reality


trainwreck6

join:2010-09-21
off track

1 recommendation

Right. But we still have the problem of needing an unfettered, dumb pipe that is content neutral to use. So there needs to be legislation to force those conditions so we the people can benefit.


Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
reply to morbo

Re: Something has to give.

I think what this is really about is that ISPs that also provide television content see Netflix, Google and other online video providers as a threat. If people get enough of their entertainment from online sources, they'll cut cable (or, at the very least, won't buy those expensive cable add-on packages). This will cut the ISP's revenue. So they either demand that Netflix/Google/etc be regulated (read: "Hey, Government. Save our profits!") or they demand that they be paid for traffic coming across their network. ("We'll be fair and charge everyone... except for ourselves of course. No, that doesn't give us an advantage. Oops, looks like Netflix is slowing down again. Better pay us to watch some TV.")
--
-Jason Levine


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

reply to r81984
"ISPs are not eating any costs. In 99% of the US broadband ISPs are monopolies"

You clearly have absolutely no idea as to what you are taking about. Please show us where A. ISPs are not taking a hit on this and B. where 99% of broadband ISPs are monopolies.

Speed bot

join:2010-10-30
canada

No one likes a Greedy company, only competitive companies

Shaw should really evaluate their business model and become more competitive, other than trying to stamp out everyone that tries to be competitive. A fair product, gets a fair market share.

wilburyan

join:2002-08-01

what about other legit services?

World of warcraft?
Steam?
Online backup services?


Thane_Bitter
Inquire within
Premium
join:2005-01-20
Reviews:
·Bell Sympatico

Yule this Shaw!

For years cable outfits like Rogers and Shaw took OTA broadcasts and redistributed them over their cable systems and (shock) paid ZERO to the broadcasters. Shaw only became a "broadcaster" with real TV stations (commercial as opposed to their profiteering idea of community television) very recently and did so of its own choice.

Shaw wants their cake and eat it too, and your cake and the other guys cake and so on.

The fact that they have decided to charge PPV fees to users that wish to watch a burning yule log on Dec 25 when it costs them next to nothing to broadcast it only highlights how greedy they are.


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
reply to Jason Levine

Re: Something has to give.

ISPs can raise their prices for internet service if they believe the market will bear it. Adapt or die.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to r81984
ISPs are being told they have to eat the cost. Read Comcast's letter to the FCC regarding Level 3.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to Thane_Bitter

Re: Yule this Shaw!

So are you implying that it costs nothing to run a cable network?


CanadianLuvr

@teksavvy.com
said by fifty nine:

So are you implying that it costs nothing to run a cable network?

Are you kidding me? Last time I checked Comcast was not losing any money. You will just have to see that the way we get our entertainment is changing, and the old dinosaur model of broadcast TV is going to be extinct soon.

kaila

join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL
reply to fifty nine

Re: Something has to give.

While it 'sucks' for ISP's that consumer bandwidth usage keeps trending upward, it has been doing that since the beginning and should hardly come as a surprise. And based on the average subscriber pricing and usage limits in Canada (US as well), they're either well prepared for the cost of upgrades or making a lot of mistakes with their money.

Singling out Comcast (as your example), their gross profits are 60% with net around 10%. Fairly standard for the industry and a pretty sweet money making model in light of the economy and .29% 1yr T-bills.
--
Jeff Howe
Jeff's Blog - »www.ostjournal.net


Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
reply to fifty nine

Nasty Americans horning in......

In a word think The National Film Board of Canada. Their budget is somewhere around 80 million a year and they promote the Canadian film industary. But as long as there are those nasty American companies horning in on some of the FBC's revenue streams it isn't fair. One of those revenue streams in a iTunes App from which you can play Canadian movies. Netflix is a big compeditor to this online service, and Google will make it worse. do you notice Apple iTV is not mentioned. This is why in past years people along the border have rented post office box's in the states as a billing address for there Dish Network and Direct TV systems so they can get those shows blocked in the Great White North.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption


GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL

What's a broadcaster or an ISP anymore?

So I suppose we need to re-define both of those terms in regulatory circles in order to solve this?

Seriously Shaw and others like it who claim to be ISPs but really are content providers crack me up.

They aren't providing dumb pipe anymore. They're into all sorts of things. There are very few really true ISPs out there who are just providing the pipe.

AT&T, Shaw, Comcast....aren't ISPs in that sense. Thus why they're freaked out by Internet content siphoning into their cable TV business.

Funny really. The Internet is a data medium. Content is data.

The idea that any online content site now should be a broadcaster is pretty absurd when thought about traditionally. So they only way to shift things back into the hands of incumbents is to change the regulations...as per usual!
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to fifty nine

Re: Something has to give.

Right... because what Comcast says is oh so on the up and up.

ISP's do not have to eat any cost. They run an internet service, that requires them to deliver packets their consumers request. This has cost associated with it. Cost they make up for in their rates they charge their subscribers. If they are paying more then they are receiving then they need to raise their rates to their subscribers to make up that difference.

The fight between L3 and Comcast has nothing to do with peering as Comcast claims. It is simply them trying to leverage their large user base against yet another one of their core providers. One person that explains the "issue" very well without picking sides is here. »www.voxel.net/blog/2010/12/peeri···-and-you

I suggest you read that so you actually know what you are talking about. You will also see how Comcast is trying to get Tata into one of their "peering agreements" by choking their access to Comcast customers.


Tima

@shawcable.net
reply to fifty nine

Re: Yule this Shaw!

It does not cost them 1-2 dollars per gig,yet they think it is fair for an overage rate.... And trying to justify it is nothing more then an insult to peoples intelligence.


FiReSTaRT
Premium
join:2010-02-26
Canada
Reviews:
·Velcom

Corporate greed at its best

What I see here in Canada is that the same players are controlling content production, content ownership and content delivery, so they feel like they can do whatever they want. If they see that you're not buying enough of their content at overinflated prices, they choke down the delivery system via which you're getting alternative content either by throttling or by UBB. If that wasn't enough, the same guys also own 95% of the mobile telephony/data market and they are "regulated" by their former execs. Now that we won the Cold War, we're living in a Communist dream


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to Skippy25

Re: Something has to give.

said by Skippy25:

Right... because what Comcast says is oh so on the up and up.

It's because what Comcast says is the truth, and Level 3 is yet to deny any of their claims. Instead, they're deflecting from the facts with the "evil comcast is protecting their video revenue" claims.

ISP's do not have to eat any cost. They run an internet service, that requires them to deliver packets their consumers request. This has cost associated with it. Cost they make up for in their rates they charge their subscribers. If they are paying more then they are receiving then they need to raise their rates to their subscribers to make up that difference.

Based on the above, I suggest you take your own advice:

I suggest you read that so you actually know what you are talking about.



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to morbo
said by morbo:

ISPs can raise their prices for internet service if they believe the market will bear it. Adapt or die.

What if ISPs decided to charge more for certain types of content? Then people would be screaming "net neutrality!!!!!" and run straight to the FCC/CRTC crying about how evil corporations are putting up toll booths on the internet.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to kaila
And nothing is wrong with them taking steps to maintain that profitability.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to backness

Re: The CRTC

said by backness:

I had the chance in a class i'm taking to write a paper on this and it was actually sent to the commisioners at the CRTC.

The conclusion that we came to was basically the only answer to all the Canadian Content problems is to tax new media and funnel the revenue to fund canadian content production.

The CRTC needs to step out of the way and move this file over to revenue Canada.

a 1%-3% levy on purchased digital media and we could do away with Canadian Content laws and all these problems.

After all traditional broadcasting is on a crash course with reality

I think a tax on digital media would be more unpopular than ISPs raising rates.

Gimme more, I want it faster, and I want it close to free and cheap as possible... that's the mantra of the cord cutter.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to CanadianLuvr

Re: Yule this Shaw!

said by CanadianLuvr :

said by fifty nine:

So are you implying that it costs nothing to run a cable network?

Are you kidding me? Last time I checked Comcast was not losing any money. You will just have to see that the way we get our entertainment is changing, and the old dinosaur model of broadcast TV is going to be extinct soon.

Nobody said that they are losing money. In fact they are profitable precisely because they price their product appropriately.

As for the "dinosaur model of broadcast TV" going extinct? Hardly. A few cord cutters does not make a revolution. In fact despite the depressed housing market, cable companies are doing quite well.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to Tima
said by Tima :

It does not cost them 1-2 dollars per gig,yet they think it is fair for an overage rate.... And trying to justify it is nothing more then an insult to peoples intelligence.

Then speak with your feet. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you pay.


ruraltn

join:2008-05-16

Their Whole Argument Appears To Be Based On A Lie

Why should we be burdened with anchors and costs? The reason Netflix can offer an $8.99 service is because they have no costs other than acquiring the content,” said Shaw president Peter Bissonnette.

No other costs? How about their extremely high speed connection to the Internet? They are paying for their end of the bandwidth. There isn't anyone out there giving it to them for free.