|
Welcome to the party, NetflixAnd Godspeed, as the attacks on you begin.
A little late, but at least they're fighting back. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
Re: Welcome to the party, NetflixNetflix, Google, Oracle, IBM, Amazon and any provider of services like cloud computing, electronic delivery of software, and goods should be rallying to fit this coming Dark Age of Technology. | |
|
| | newviewEx .. Ex .. Exactly Premium Member join:2001-10-01 Parsonsburg, MD |
newview
Premium Member
2011-Apr-2 9:55 am
Re: Welcome to the party, NetflixYou can add World of Warcraft to that list ... Apparently using P2P to update software on your subscriber's computers flags as Bittorent usage and is throttled on many ISPs. | |
|
| | |
Twaddle to jims2321
Anon
2011-Apr-2 8:14 pm
to jims2321
Throw in Hewlett Packard to the Cloud Computing Crowd! The use of Caps is going to stifle the Internet and the common man will be left out and businesses that rely on the Internet will pay the costs and pass them on to the public. W.A.S.S. (We Are So Screwed) The deep pockets of the likes of AT&T, Verizon et al and the lack of any intestinal fortitude by our bunch of mewling parasites, a.k.a. elected representatives, the courts and all the way up to the Executive Branch of this Late great nation have sealed the deal. They've whored themselves out quite effectively to the highest payers. Welcome to the newest 3rd world country, United States of Amerika, the best government money can buy. | |
|
| |
to CommonMan
Netflix, Google, Oracle, IBM, Amazon and any provider of services like cloud computing, electronic delivery of software, and goods should be rallying to fight this coming Dark Age of Technology. | |
|
| OneEye join:2006-04-15 Peachtree City, GA |
to CommonMan
Independent content providers must band together as a group to lobby the government to break up AT&T and Comcast's building monopoly.
Not doing so will put the independents out of business and continue to screw consumers who have no choice in which pipe they connect to. | |
|
| | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2011-Apr-2 1:24 am
Re: Welcome to the party, Netflixsaid by OneEye:Independent content providers must band together as a group to lobby the government to break up AT&T and Comcast's building monopoly.
Not doing so will put the independents out of business and continue to screw consumers who have no choice in which pipe they connect to. Brilliant; and when The Phone Company/CATV cabal surly will spend billions more so you can watch 4 year old "B" movies wile doping CATV and paying a penny a gig. What is that I hear? I know that song; it was sung back in 1984 by MCI. Come little children take my hand and I will lead you to never, never land; never, never will the US of A have the number one communication system in the world as they had for 100 years. | |
|
| | | Noah VailOh God please no. Premium Member join:2004-12-10 SouthAmerica |
The Netflix Partysaid by batterup:Brilliant; and when The Phone Company/CATV cabal surly will spend billions more so you can watch 4 year old "B" movies wile doping CATV and paying a penny a gig.
What is that I hear? I know that song; it was sung back in 1984 by MCI. Come little children take my hand and I will lead you to never, never land; never, never will the US of A have the number one communication system in the world as they had for 100 years. In reading your posts, some things occur to me. One is that you are a consumer. At least I think you are. Second is that you consistently display animosity toward consumers. Perhaps your rejection of consumerism is really a form of self loathing. Maybe you are rejecting that facet of yourself and thus projecting your personal hostility onto all of us. NV | |
|
| | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2011-Apr-2 9:31 pm
Re: The Netflix Partysaid by Noah Vail:One is that you are a consumer. At least I think you are.
Second is that you consistently display animosity toward consumers. Consumers wanting something for free and believing those that tell they can get it are fools; I do not suffer fools gladly. I don't have FiOS because of fools. Fools build nothing and throw stumbling block at the feet of those that do. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: The Netflix PartyCustomers do not want something FOR FEE, they want the services they PAID for without encumbrances and bait and switch techniques propped by monopolies/duopolies and regulatory capture. | |
|
| | | | | |
to batterup
said by batterup:said by Noah Vail:One is that you are a consumer. At least I think you are.
Second is that you consistently display animosity toward consumers. Consumers wanting something for free and believing those that tell they can get it are fools; I do not suffer fools gladly. I don't have FiOS because of fools. Fools build nothing and throw stumbling block at the feet of those that do. Who's getting broadband for free? | |
|
| | | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2011-Apr-3 2:09 pm
Re: The Netflix Partysaid by DataRiker: Who's getting broadband for free?
Besides "war drivers" no one. But most of the posters in this supposed forum want tax funded bandwidth at the penny a gig they are lead to believe it cost to produce it. These same posters are the ones that believed MCI would bring them unlimited penny a minute long distance. Sure they could but only to a tower if you want it in your home that costs a bit more; even more now that long distance doesn't support universal service. These are the same posters that made it very difficult and less profitable for Verizon to deploy FiOS. They forced Verizon to deploy it to some of the least profitable areas and buy the mayor an indoor pool too. I drive around the Newark area of NJ as see the shiny PON boxes that are only being used at 30% capacity. I see the dark glass hanging on the poles in my town but it has been hanging for 4 years and now it may not be lit in my life time. | |
|
| | | | | Noah VailOh God please no. Premium Member join:2004-12-10 SouthAmerica |
to batterup
said by batterup:Consumers wanting something for free and believing those that tell they can get it are fools; I do not suffer fools gladly. That's really swell. Thanks for sharing that. Anyway, I was indicating that I've never seen any indication that you ever support the consumer side of relevant issues. You do repeatedly unleash animosity toward consumers, seemingly without effort or balanced reflection on the matter. It makes you a untrustworthy source for unbiased opinion. NV | |
|
| | | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2011-Apr-3 6:14 pm
Re: The Netflix Partysaid by Noah Vail:It makes you a untrustworthy source for unbiased opinion. That is not a problem for me as I'm not selling anything. Those that are selling snake oil will tell you what you want to hear knowing they can never provide it but will get what they can before the house of cards falls. Funny thing is they are playing the same tune MCI played; if one doesn't remember history one is doomed to repeat it. | |
|
| | | | | | | Noah VailOh God please no. Premium Member join:2004-12-10 SouthAmerica |
Re: The Netflix Partysaid by batterup:said by Noah Vail:It makes you a untrustworthy source for unbiased opinion. That is not a problem for me as I'm not selling anything. It's almost like those two sentences have something to do with each other. I'm seeing a pattern here. You offer not-quite-relevant responses to each mention of your inherent hostility toward consumers. Why do you suppose your responses to my questions about your consumer animosity aren't direct and unambiguously relevant? NV | |
|
| | | | | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2011-Apr-3 8:00 pm
Re: The Netflix Partysaid by Noah Vail:Why do you suppose your responses to my questions about your consumer animosity aren't direct and unambiguously relevant? Because you present a false presupposition. Let me ask you a question; have you stopped beating your wife? | |
|
| | | | | |
to batterup
I don't expect things for free. And anyone who thinks everything is possible for free ARE fools. FREE is not what I am asking for. Eliminating profits for businesses are not my goal. I have been self employed myself. What most people (except the free minded fools) are asking for is not being fleeced. If I pay $40 to $50/mo for a connection and it is already pricey then why should I be penalized with caps and other nonsense? There are few exceptions where caps are needed. Some rural ISP's appear to have problems providing adequate bandwidth to their connections for customers. Outside of that, ISP's have access to reasonable and affordable bandwidth in decent size towns and cities or at least in towns that are regional hubs. Its easy to fix all of this of course and most consumers are not willing to do it. For the same reasons some people are cutting the TV cord then the next step will be cutting the internet cord and saying forget it because its not worth the trouble when the ISP's start piddling, playing, gaming, meddling, and manipulating costs to the customer. | |
|
| | | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2011-Apr-4 1:23 pm
Re: The Netflix Partysaid by jkeelsnc:f I pay $40 to $50/mo for a connection and it is already pricey then why should I be penalized with caps and other nonsense? Let me explain. You pay $50 a month for say 15/2 connection. Now if you were to use it 24/7 at full speed you would in effect have a dedicated lease line at 15/2. The cost for a T-1 at 1.5/1.5 is about $600 a month, that is much less expensive than they used to be but quite a bit more than a "residential" 15/2 connection. The businesses that lease dedicated lines know they are worth what they pay for them and you NEVER see them post non sense on this supposed forum. If you want what you are asking for it is available but what you are asking for is exclusive unlimited use of a Cadillac for $50 a month; it is not going to happen. Now with 50 people paying $50 a month to be able to use the same Cadillac when available is doable and that is what you have. | |
|
|
Gratuity Index! The company that succeeds will be the company that paid off the most lawmakers with generous campaign contributions. | |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
2 recommendations |
pnh102
Premium Member
2011-Apr-1 1:50 pm
New Side BusinessPerhaps Netflix should start investing in some last-mile connectivity. Instead of whining about the lack of competition, do something about it! | |
|
| GuspazGuspaz MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC |
Re: New Side Businesssaid by pnh102:Perhaps Netflix should start investing in some last-mile connectivity. Instead of whining about the lack of competition, do something about it! So, your suggestion to the problem of greedy Internet service providers is to get rid of the Internet entirely and have content providers build out physical infrastructure to reach the customers? Sorry, but that's silly. The whole point of the Internet is that content providers can use a common network (the Internet) to reach people rather than having to build connectivity directly. It's like telling a VoIP company that they should run phone lines to customers. That defeats the purpose of VoIP. | |
|
| | alchav join:2002-05-17 Saint George, UT |
alchav
Member
2011-Apr-1 2:29 pm
Re: New Side Businesssaid by Guspaz:said by pnh102:Perhaps Netflix should start investing in some last-mile connectivity. Instead of whining about the lack of competition, do something about it! So, your suggestion to the problem of greedy Internet service providers is to get rid of the Internet entirely and have content providers build out physical infrastructure to reach the customers? Sorry, but that's silly. The whole point of the Internet is that content providers can use a common network (the Internet) to reach people rather than having to build connectivity directly. It's like telling a VoIP company that they should run phone lines to customers. That defeats the purpose of VoIP. I guess most people really don't understand The Internet, but becoming an ISP is not out of the question. It could be a little costly and outside of Netflex's Business Plan. Providing Last Mile connectivity is not that easy. Netflex could Partner up with Google, that might be a better idea. | |
|
| | SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
1 recommendation |
to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:said by pnh102:Perhaps Netflix should start investing in some last-mile connectivity. Instead of whining about the lack of competition, do something about it! So, your suggestion to the problem of greedy Internet service providers is to get rid of the Internet entirely and have content providers build out physical infrastructure to reach the customers? I don't think that was the point. If the incumbent ISPs are raking in obscene profits under their current model because providing last-mile low-oversubscription bandwidth is so cheap, then Netflix should prove it by becoming an ISP or at least funding the development of one. I mean, if the profits are obscene, then any company that comes in can charge less and still make massive profits, right? | |
|
| | |
1 recommendation |
Re: New Side BusinessYour suggestion of such is just as stupid as the original posters.
So should Google, Yahoo, DSLReports, Microsoft, Apple, Steam, Skype and millions of other companies also go out and build a network to prove this?
Shouldn't all of our homes have at least 50 different fiber/coax/cat3 phone wire coming into it by 50 different companies just so we can get their service?
Want to switch VOIP companies? Have them run a new cable to your house.
Want to change search providers? Have them run a new cable to your house.
The single biggest issue is that there is no real competition in the providers of the lines. Regardless of ISP's, though the 2 are virtually always the same.
If they really want to get into this game, then they should not be allowed to provide content. Only the pipe. | |
|
| | | | SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
1 recommendation |
Re: New Side Businesssaid by Skippy25:So should Google, Yahoo, DSLReports, Microsoft, Apple, Steam, Skype and millions of other companies also go out and build a network to prove this? No, my specific point is that if Netflix truly believes that the incumbent ISPs are charging too much, then they should enter the market and take their lunch. Not to operate as a closed network, but actually operate an open ISP like the ones they claim are overcharging today. For example, Google is dedicating some R&D dollars to prove out what it would actually take to build out high capacity networks: » googleblog.blogspot.com/ ··· tal.htmlAfter Google moves forward with building and operating that network they'll be in a position to make some informed statements about the costs and challenges of providing high capacity broadband. In the meatime, you don't see them making crap uninformed statements like Reed Hastings. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: New Side BusinessIt is a known fact they are charging too much and that has been discussed several times. | |
|
| | | | | | SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
1 recommendation |
Re: New Side Businesssaid by Skippy25:It is a known fact they are charging too much and that has been discussed several times. Using numbers that people pull out of their posterior or numbers completely unrelated to last-mile network costs. Say that it costs $0.01 to fill a standard bottle of water at a bottling plant, but that bottle of water costs $1.40 out of a vending machine. It's easy to say that's a 140x mark-up, but it ignores all the costs of storing the bottles (warehousing costs), distribution (ie, trucks, gas, drivers), the cost of the vending machine and associate operation (sending people out to restock, collect the cash, process the sales, repair the machine, etc). It's easy to assert massive overcharging when you ignore 95% of details that contribute to the final cost of the product. | |
|
| | | | | | | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness
1 recommendation |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2011-Apr-1 6:52 pm
Re: New Side Businesssaid by SpaethCo:said by Skippy25:It is a known fact they are charging too much and that has been discussed several times. Using numbers that people pull out of their posterior or numbers completely unrelated to last-mile network costs. Say that it costs $0.01 to fill a standard bottle of water at a bottling plant, but that bottle of water costs $1.40 out of a vending machine. It's easy to say that's a 140x mark-up, but it ignores all the costs of storing the bottles (warehousing costs), distribution (ie, trucks, gas, drivers), the cost of the vending machine and associate operation (sending people out to restock, collect the cash, process the sales, repair the machine, etc). It's easy to assert massive overcharging when you ignore 95% of details that contribute to the final cost of the product. Yeah except all those other costs are paid for by the ISP customer when they pay their monthly bill. So the only additional cost would be bandwidth. So your analogy sucks. | |
|
| | | | | | | | SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
1 recommendation |
Re: New Side Businesssaid by 88615298:Yeah except all those other costs are paid for by the ISP customer when they pay their monthly bill. So the only additional cost would be bandwidth. Not entirely. Costs are incurred as the network is expanded at every step in the chain. It's not just a matter of buying more transit bandwidth, it's the costs associated with augmenting capacity at every step of the path including the last mile. The last mile costs are greater because you can't use commodity Ethernet gear, but rather you have to by more specialized (hence more expensive) hardware that allows for operation over the existing cable plant which was originally intended for another use. Of course, leveraging that existing cable plant is the only thing that made deploying this possible in the first place... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: New Side Businesssaid by SpaethCo:said by 88615298:Yeah except all those other costs are paid for by the ISP customer when they pay their monthly bill. So the only additional cost would be bandwidth. Not entirely. Costs are incurred as the network is expanded at every step in the chain. It's not just a matter of buying more transit bandwidth, it's the costs associated with augmenting capacity at every step of the path including the last mile. The last mile costs are greater because you can't use commodity Ethernet gear, but rather you have to by more specialized (hence more expensive) hardware that allows for operation over the existing cable plant which was originally intended for another use. Of course, leveraging that existing cable plant is the only thing that made deploying this possible in the first place... What a ridiculous statement. Capex among telcos has been falling year over year for the last 5 years, even as their profits surge. Their investments have been falling as equipment has gotten ever cheaper. Thanks to Moore's Law congestion has been virtually eliminated despite telcos basically standing still, doing the bare minimum investment to replace worn out and broken down hardware. Not once has a single private ISP offered any evidence of congestion. Every attempt to secure their raw data has resulted in howls of contempt and denial. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | •••
|
| | | | | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:said by Skippy25:It is a known fact they are charging too much and that has been discussed several times. Using numbers that people pull out of their posterior or numbers completely unrelated to last-mile network costs. Say that it costs $0.01 to fill a standard bottle of water at a bottling plant, but that bottle of water costs $1.40 out of a vending machine. It's easy to say that's a 140x mark-up, but it ignores all the costs of storing the bottles (warehousing costs), distribution (ie, trucks, gas, drivers), the cost of the vending machine and associate operation (sending people out to restock, collect the cash, process the sales, repair the machine, etc). It's easy to assert massive overcharging when you ignore 95% of details that contribute to the final cost of the product. I agree. I get so tired of those whose broadband cost theories continually ignore the reality you just outlined. One last time - backbone costs are NOT the same as last mile ISP Costs. | |
|
| | | | | | | | •••• |
| | | | | | | |
to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:said by Skippy25:It is a known fact they are charging too much and that has been discussed several times. Using numbers that people pull out of their posterior or numbers completely unrelated to last-mile network costs. Say that it costs $0.01 to fill a standard bottle of water at a bottling plant, but that bottle of water costs $1.40 out of a vending machine. It's easy to say that's a 140x mark-up, but it ignores all the costs of storing the bottles (warehousing costs), distribution (ie, trucks, gas, drivers), the cost of the vending machine and associate operation (sending people out to restock, collect the cash, process the sales, repair the machine, etc). It's easy to assert massive overcharging when you ignore 95% of details that contribute to the final cost of the product. The costs you refer to are fixed costs, and when dealing with a network already fully paid off decades ago are minimal- especially for ISPs with the size and scale of Bell or AT&T. Everything else you've said is just FUD. | |
|
| | | | | | | | SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
Re: New Side Businesssaid by sonicmerlin:The costs you refer to are fixed costs, and when dealing with a network already fully paid off decades ago are minimal- especially for ISPs with the size and scale of Bell or AT&T. The cable plant from the curb to the house has been paid off for decades, and that's about the last remaining element that's been untouched in the network. Over the last several years there have been thousands upon thousands of remote terminals deployed, bridge taps removed, and trunk capacity upgrades. So residents complaining about additional utility cabinets being installed must be imagining things, because there hasn't been any investment by the telcos for decades, right? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: New Side Businesssaid by SpaethCo:The cable plant from the curb to the house has been paid off for decades, and that's about the last remaining element that's been untouched in the network. They haven't touched most of the underground and aerial (F2 from the crossbox) around here for decades. There is one spot near my house where they have five repair boots within fifty feet. Yes, it's all paid off, yes, it was paid for under ROI rules back when they were a (more) regulated monopoly. They do pay nominal property taxes on plant, but it's nowhere near proportional to its true value. AT&T's goal with their VDSL strategy was to push optical out farther without taking the huge capital hit that Verizon did with FIOS. Good short-term strategy, but they're not getting the desired ROI on that plant investment when customers are just taking internet rather than the triple play. Bottom line, if there's an appearance that they have an ulterior motive, it really doesn't matter whether they do or not. The only way to make that argument go away is to split plant from services, and that is not part of their business model. | |
|
| | | |
to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:said by Guspaz:said by pnh102:Perhaps Netflix should start investing in some last-mile connectivity. Instead of whining about the lack of competition, do something about it! So, your suggestion to the problem of greedy Internet service providers is to get rid of the Internet entirely and have content providers build out physical infrastructure to reach the customers? I don't think that was the point. If the incumbent ISPs are raking in obscene profits under their current model because providing last-mile low-oversubscription bandwidth is so cheap, then Netflix should prove it by becoming an ISP or at least funding the development of one. I mean, if the profits are obscene, then any company that comes in can charge less and still make massive profits, right? Why do you make these strawman arguments? Do you actually believe them, or do you simply like to lie to people? Last mile buildouts require huge initial capital expenditures. Anyone coming into the industry would have have to have huge capital reserves to build out the network without going bankrupt. Because the market is already saturated and dominated by the incumbent, at most their initial offering will attract 5-10% penetration. The rest of their customers have to be stolen from the extremely cost-advantaged incumbent, who paid off their last mile lines decades ago (often with taxpayer money). That means the new entrant needs to engage in a massive advertising campaign and produce significantly lower prices, often times below cost, just to attract customers. That doesn't preclude their opposition from predatory pricing practices, like with what is happening to FTTH provider Novus in Canada. But you KNOW this. I don't understand why you want to spread FUD. What's the point? Who does it serve? What are you trying to gain by lying to people about the huge barriers of entry to the broadband industry? | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
1 recommendation |
to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:Sorry, but that's silly. Do you think it is silly to stake the survival on your business on companies which want you to go out of business? | |
|
| |
j653 to pnh102
Anon
2011-Apr-1 2:09 pm
to pnh102
Netflix could try to compete, but do you -- the consumer -- want the folks controlling the content to also control the pipes?
In many cases telcos and cable companies are essentially state-supported monopolies. In such cases, a free market does not exist. Therefore, it's necessary for government to regulate to protect the consumer, as government was the agency to grant them the monopoly. | |
|
| | |
Re: New Side Businesssaid by j653 :but do you -- the consumer -- want the folks controlling the content to also control the pipes? They already do if you receive your internet from Comcast or Time Warner. Verizon and AT&T may not be in the content creation business but with FiOS and uverse they have an incentive not to undercut TV too badly. | |
|
| | |
to j653
said by j653 :Netflix could try to compete, but do you -- the consumer -- want the folks controlling the content to also control the pipes? That's already happening with the Comcast/NBC merger. It's certainly not something I want, but it's going to happen anyway. | |
|
| FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ
1 recommendation |
to pnh102
said by pnh102:Perhaps Netflix should start investing in some last-mile connectivity. Instead of whining about the lack of competition, do something about it! And Netflix should worry much more about Hollywood than the ISPs. It is they who will drive up Netflix prices, and thereby making Netflix increasingly too costly to subscribe to. | |
|
| | ••• |
| coldmoon Premium Member join:2002-02-04 Fulton, NY |
to pnh102
said by pnh102:Perhaps Netflix should start investing in some last-mile connectivity. Instead of whining about the lack of competition, do something about it! Like getting a coalition together and lobby for title 2 regulation of that last mile? Interesting idea... JMHO Mike | |
|
| gunther_01 Premium Member join:2004-03-29 Saybrook, IL
1 recommendation |
to pnh102
They are whinning to whine.. They started to realize that their business model is failed. And the rest of the world doesn't get their bandwidth for pennies per meg like they do (OR HAVE A NETWORK TO MAINTAIN TO DISTRIBUTE IT). It's interesting that once they figured out that ISP's aren't going to foot the bill for Netflix's extra network usage, and they started to have to "work" towards keeping "their" customers happy, they have something to complain about.
Let's actually get Netflix to have some video bandwidth options, and now it's "oh my, ISP's are the devil, they want money for having to rebuild everything to support our service"
While Netflix isn't inherintly bad, an ISP's business model and network is ENTIRELY different than Netflix's. Believing in otherwise, means you believe the media which is unwise | |
|
| | ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• |
| rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
to pnh102
Lots of under served communities have tried only to be lobbied to death. In some respects I understand capitalism crying foul when a group wants to socialize their market. If, however, the community begged for service and for whatever reason the corporations didn't respond due to lack of profit potential, then they have no room to cry foul and keep a group of motivated citizens from doing and paying for their own thing.
In fact, I sometimes wonder if we should end the madness and treat the last-mile network like roads and support it with something like property tax revenue. | |
|
| EUSKill cancer Premium Member join:2002-09-10 canada |
EUS to pnh102
Premium Member
2011-Apr-1 2:49 pm
to pnh102
Sure, first thing is to put these new last mile providers on equal footing, ie free right of way through private property. Or, let's put incumbents on equal footing by charging rent for their poles that run through my (and everyone else's) property. | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2011-Apr-1 3:33 pm
Re: New Side BusinessI like how Google was planning on doing such a thing. They'd lay out the fiber, and then have multiple providers offer service. | |
|
| |
to pnh102
no.why not have netflix invest in becoming an ISP.offer unlimited flat rate monthly affordable bills and the people will flock to them in droves. say hello to my little friend ATT,Verizon,Slime Warner,etc | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
KrK to pnh102
Premium Member
2011-Apr-1 7:55 pm
to pnh102
That's NOT their business... besides, great way to piss off the people you depend on to exist.
Bad idea. | |
|
| KrK |
KrK to pnh102
Premium Member
2011-Apr-1 8:01 pm
to pnh102
The solution is to divorce the service providers (and content providers) from being the network providers as well.
In other words, you should have one company the builds out the network and infrastructure and maintains it, and then they charge a flat fee to everyone and anyone else who rides on the network and provides services which the consumer can pick and choose to buy. If you don't like the service from one ISP, for example, you just change to another, without any change in your actual equipment or service. You simply change who you do business with, kind of like changing hosting providers.
Course, it will never happen. | |
|
| | |
Re: New Side Businesssaid by KrK:The solution is to divorce the service providers (and content providers) from being the network providers as well.
In other words, you should have one company the builds out the network and infrastructure and maintains it, and then they charge a flat fee to everyone and anyone else who rides on the network and provides services which the consumer can pick and choose to buy. If you don't like the service from one ISP, for example, you just change to another, without any change in your actual equipment or service. You simply change who you do business with, kind of like changing hosting providers.
Course, it will never happen. This is why Ma Bell should have been split horizontally. The vertical split was a gift to the company, as it rid it of its social obligations. | |
|
| | |
to KrK
Companies love to eat each other too muchPROFIT OVER PEOPLE OR PEOPLE OVER PROFIT. CHOOSE A SIDE !! | |
|
| gunther_01 Premium Member join:2004-03-29 Saybrook, IL |
to pnh102
I will have to check on the Youtube thing. But an HD feed should be higher than that. Most of the time it defaults to SD videos unless you have an account I believe where you can preset your preferences. You do want to have a faster connection for Netflix. It will work with 1.5M, but faster is better since NT will use everything you have for it's buffer to fill, then stop, then fill, then stop. Etc.
Regardless if you think basing a business on selling bandwidth they don't have is good or not. It's the way it is, period. It's WHY you have cheap Internet access. Do you not understand that?? The Internet took off, because of business managers who thought outside the box came up with that idea. And that was fine until it took off and we now have usage that is sustained. BIG DIFFERENCE to what we started with..
One more time.. The ISP did NOT sell you a dedicated 3Meg account. Did NOT.. I am very sure they sold you an "Up to" 3 meg. You are the one that thinks you can do whatever you want all day long and are entitiled to use that 3meg. Well it's not your network now is it? So it's not your way. Build your own, or buy something that lets you do that.
The lowly email checkers ARE getting the lower rate at this point. They are using below the cap, it's the one's that don't want to stay under that will get charged more. UBB is the only fair method to bill heavy users extra and not penalize those that don't use as much.
If you purchase a business account, and you get a guaranteed 3Meg, that is what you will get.
We have come full circle. From what you have suggested we as ISP's should limit our customer connections to guaranteed services. We should raise our prices, and lower our speeds. I kind of like the idea to keep the speeds, and prices where they are, and just charge those that want to use our systems more sustained (like a business account) more than others.
Oh, and Satellite has done this from day one. Except when you hit your cap, your DONE for the rest of the month. I guess we could always use that option. Then your bill won't go up at all LOL | |
|
|
Mr Anon
Anon
2011-Apr-1 2:07 pm
Tit for tat or tit and tat?Since going metered, are ISP's still trying to figure out a way to sneak in priority access for money from content providers like netflix or is it, you pay us more for better access to our customers or we will charge them more if they access you too much? | |
|
| ••• |
IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman join:2000-09-20 Washington, DC |
Purchasing NetflixIs there a reason that Apple Computer, with its 60+ Billion Dollars of cash on hand hasn't acquired Netflix?
If these ISPs want to meter broadband like a utility is, then the meters have to be vetted by the government with full cost disclosures.
On my electric/gas bill, there is full disclosure of all costs and fees borne by the user and company. It is shameful and downright illegal what these ISPs feel they can get away with.
The only satisfaction I have is knowing that beneath all the congestion PR spin, they are scared $&@!less of Netflix. | |
|
| •••••• |
COMMANPlug Me In join:2000-07-17 Mount Juliet, TN 1 edit
1 recommendation |
COMMAN
Member
2011-Apr-1 2:51 pm
friends in high places as well"...taking on major North American ISPs like AT&T and their disingenuous justifications for higher prices is going to make Netflix a large number of very deep-pocketed adversaries."
They'll make huge numbers of new FRIENDS as well, some of those with arguably deeper pockets, such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, and others looking to compete in the content space, as well as consumers by the hundreds of thousands. Netflix is currently seen as a 'cord-cutter's hero', and there are HUGE numbers of us who have gotten the cable monkey off our backs - and out of our pockets - thanks to Netflix.
What Netflix is saying is simple truth - bandwidth is cheap, and I'm pushing this info to my client base (Radio, TV, and Print Media) every week, so the public can be informed as to the REAL truth. Big Telecom can provide a reasonably priced, reasonably unrestricted service, or become the next Lehman Brothers; and if the buying public is kept informed, that's the only 2 choices the "deep-pocketed adversaries" will have. Frankly, with the near unbelievable display of greed I've seen from AT&T (for years now, and even more so lately) I can sincerely hope the public makes them the first example of 'give us what we want or call yourself Sears-Roebuck'.
A dumb pipe can still be a profitable business - arrogance can mean bankruptcy. | |
|
Stonedonkey Premium Member join:2001-05-15 Corte Madera, CA
1 recommendation |
Three years of capsComcast has been using the same cap for about three years now, despite their heavily marketed transition to an "all-digital" network and implying left and right that their network is mostly fiber now; they have conveniently found no way to increase their capacity.
At the same time, they've gained a plurality stake in Hulu, implemented xfinitytv.com, and signed on with ESPN 3. A multi-user household can now easily go over the cap for perfectly legitimate reasons, all while never fully leaving Comcast's services. The new "bandwidth hogger" is a guy with a wife and kids who's doing nothing more than swapping couch surfing for his ISP's on-demand content.
Imagine if your local grocer doubled the capacity and variety of their store -- but they kick you out if you put more in your cart than you usually do. | |
|
| SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
Re: Three years of capssaid by Stonedonkey:Comcast has been using the same cap for about three years now, despite their heavily marketed transition to an "all-digital" network and implying left and right that their network is mostly fiber now; they have conveniently found no way to increase their capacity. Actually, you can buy into that expanded capacity if you sign up for business service. It starts at $59.95/mo for 12/2 service with no cap: » business.comcast.com/int ··· ans.aspxMoreover, since it's straight Internet-only access, there are no franchise fees or taxes, so the price differential over standard $44.95/mo residential service is even smaller. | |
|
·Google Fiber
|
Maybe it's just me, but...I pay AT&T for my DSL service; I pay Pandora, Netflix, and DI.FM for content. I get TV service from DISH Network. I'd say I pay my fair share.
I've had DSL since 1999 and really doubt I've downloaded or used an inordinate amount of bandwidth in the roughly 12 years I've had DSL (even if you factor in the Napster usage I did circa 2000).
My Instant View playlist on Netflix is pretty thin right now, so I've been trying to whittle my DVD list down some. So for now, I'm hardly using any bandwidth at all. From where I sit, I don't see what AT&T is complaining about. | |
|
JohnInSJ Premium Member join:2003-09-22 Aptos, CA |
JohnInSJ
Premium Member
2011-Apr-1 4:52 pm
its always fun to seethe same stuff posted by the same people anytime Karl coughs up an evil ISP is stealing your money and teh internets will end with no Netflix due to caps story.
Seriously. Like, every time.
Talk about echo chamber. | |
|
| ••••••••••• |
GNHI know my limitations. Premium Member join:1999-12-20 Canyon Lake, TX |
GNH
Premium Member
2011-Apr-1 5:19 pm
GoogleFlix, GoNetFlixogle, FlixNetMyGoogle, GoogleMyNetflixWould not be surprised to see Google and Netflix partner-up at some point. | |
|
|
What do you expect NetFlix to say?They are exploiting the ISPs with unlimited plans. The ISPs are taking away the freebie. Of COURSE they are going to join the "ISPs are greedy and just trying to squeeze more money out of their customers, and they can do this because there's no competition and they pay off the politicians" bandwagon. Because they'd rather have an unlimited pipe to sell through, so THEY can keep the money.
If you had a delivery business on the other side of a bridge from town, and the town decided to put a toll on the bridge, you'd pull out every "it's not fair! you don't really need that revenue! this is illegal!" etc. etc. argument you could think of. Because your core profitability is being threatened.
I'm not saying the ISPs are any "better" than NetFlix. I'm just saying you need to view this as a business question, not as some great moral debate.
This is not news. | |
|
| •••••••••••••••••••• |
|
nw_beaver
Anon
2011-Apr-1 7:48 pm
transparency, up frontI think fewer people would be upset if caps where in place when they purchased their service. Or, if the service that's advertised as great for watching movies was also advertised as great for watching the occasional movie.
I understand poor planning. Look, I get that you charge customers a premium for "unlimited" service because they'll pay even if they don't use it.
I'm lucky enough to not have to deal with bandwidth caps yet. But if my isp implemented caps, I'd be out of luck. THere's only one other dsl provider here, and cable already has caps. | |
|
doublea join:2007-06-04 Rancho Cordova, CA |
Finally....We the consumers, have really needed a big guy like Netflix to start fighting back on this issue. I was beginning to think Netflix was going to roll over and play dead for all the capping crud going on.
Atleast when a CEO of a company like Netflix says something like this, it gets attention... Finally Attention for caps, something that honestly less than 5% of people who pay internet bills really know about. | |
|
| batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2011-Apr-2 1:31 am
Re: Finally....said by doublea:We the consumers, have really needed a big guy like Netflix to start fighting back on this issue. I was beginning to think Netflix was going to roll over and play dead for all the capping crud going on. Big flaccid gun. Google is your massive potent gun; they were going to buy the analog TV spectrum and build an open cell network; or they may have been blowing smoke. No problem, they are now going to bring FTTP to the great unwashed. I read it on DSLreports so it must be true. Sleep well little children, Google will cradle you in it's kindly arms and sell your sole to the highest ad sponsor. | |
|
|
pp03
Member
2011-Apr-1 11:40 pm
:(This makes me a little sad. I live in a rural area, and just last December we got a friendly letter that shows us about our ISP's brand new thing to let you CHECK OUT YOUR USAGE!
(WHAT TYPE OF USER ARE YOU IT EXCLAIMS!)
........
Obviously test piloting self-monitoring so this year or next they can be like oh, and by the way we are introducing caps. Remember that site that showed you what kind of user you are, yeah, use that so you don't go over.
FML | |
|
| slckusr Premium Member join:2003-03-17 Greenville, SC |
slckusr
Premium Member
2011-Apr-2 7:08 pm
Re: :(said by pp03:This makes me a little sad. I live in a rural area, and just last December we got a friendly letter that shows us about our ISP's brand new thing to let you CHECK OUT YOUR USAGE!
(WHAT TYPE OF USER ARE YOU IT EXCLAIMS!)
........
Obviously test piloting self-monitoring so this year or next they can be like oh, and by the way we are introducing caps. Remember that site that showed you what kind of user you are, yeah, use that so you don't go over.
FML Which is exactly what atts marketing or whomever department should of told the higher ups to do. I might be a little less up in arms if i would had the ability to track my usage prior to actually having to track it. | |
|
|
i've been saying itI've been screaming this kinda crap for a while.. But the have mines always ignored the message.. I hope to hell netflix wins or at least gets enough attention to stunt this upcoming GREEDY AS HELL trend happening in our country..
This isn't innovation, its saturation.. Of their wallets. | |
|
| batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2011-Apr-2 1:37 am
Re: i've been saying itsaid by decifal7:This isn't innovation, its saturation.. Of their wallets. Yes my wallet, my deregulated wallet the people wanted. Enjoy. When VZ stock gets back to $68 a share I will post no more but until then get your hand out of my pocket. | |
|
| | |
Re: i've been saying itlol | |
|
bbmak7 join:2004-01-11 San Francisco, CA |
bbmak7
Member
2011-Apr-2 2:58 am
No AT&T and T-Mobile USA mergeLaw makers should block AT&T and T-Mobile USA merge. This is going to create GSM network monopoly. | |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2011-Apr-2 9:29 pm
ISPs being Cable is a problem....See Logically the ISPs should be trying to get Netflix servers inside their cloud so there is no real transport costs. But the problem is all the Major ISPs are also Cable TV providers these days(Verizon and ATT have video and of course its the core business of Cable Co) so they do not want to anger the content providers by promoting netflix.
I mean Imagine the love from customers if an ISP had Netflix streaming servers in their regional data centers, close to the customers and also inside their network so they dont face bandwidth costs. But id imagine the content providers that supply their CATV units would flip out and threaten to raise rates. | |
|
|
BandwidthAll I hear is cap this cap that and how cable TV will be broadcast over a IP instead of channel bundles but where is all this bandwidth going to come from and take the heavy traffic now and multiply that by 1 million.Its like people bitching about nuclear power with not one damn suggestion on what to put in place when the reactors are shut down.You can't stream anything good from netflix anyway.Anything worth watching has to be sent by DVD so why is netflix worried about limited bandwidth when the only stuff you can stream in general now they have a few things as far as documentaries but movie wise anything good comes in the mailbox.That would indicate the need for server upgrades and expansion so Netflix needs to fix their own problems before throwing mud at somebody else. | |
|
| |
MeMeMe
Anon
2011-Apr-4 8:01 pm
Re: BandwidthFunny...I LIKE the documentaries. I'm not so sure that using your own opinion of what you like is the best way to estimate what the average/normal subscriber will do. Maybe not everyone has the same viewpoint as you - I will point out that NetFlix actually offers a 0 DVDs plan... | |
|
EGeezer Premium Member join:2002-08-04 Midwest |
EGeezer
Premium Member
2011-Apr-3 3:46 pm
Competition is the answer to monopolistic practicesCaps and fees imposed by ISPs who have a monopoly or dualopoly in an area are why citizens should be allowed to authorize local governments to build out their own networks and allow ISPs to compete with non-exclusive deals to public entities, businesses, non-profits and residents in the network. The more providers we have competing, the better the competition and more robust the innovation.
If our public highway system was like the internet highway, all roads would be privately owned and we'd be paying monthly fees for access and surcharges for miles driven. | |
|
|
And at the end of the day, we have yetto be shown a single piece of evidence showing that these ISP's are truly suffering from heavy users
None | |
|
| |
Re: And at the end of the day, we have yetsaid by Bill Neilson:to be shown a single piece of evidence showing that these ISP's are truly suffering from heavy users
None And they don't have to. "Just believe everything we say. We're truly here to serve you, our loyal customer." BLECHHHH!!!! Such bullshit. | |
|
|
|