3 recommendations |
Nothing but Speculation.This article is a waste of space. It is nothing more than someones speculation. |
|
Jim Kirk Premium Member join:2005-12-09 49985 |
Jim Kirk
Premium Member
2014-Mar-31 9:33 am
Shoo |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix? Premium Member join:2005-03-14 Woodstock, CT |
to IlKevinlI
So what is your hypothesis? |
|
1 recommendation |
to IlKevinlI
It's hard to call it speculation when it's been put to the forefront on numerous occasions. However, if you disagree and can back it up, you're always free to write your own article. He'll even pay you for it. |
|
Ano @comcast.net |
Ano
Anon
2014-Mar-31 10:20 am
Per bit transfered?I find it odd that they would be required to pay per bit transferred? I know it's done but don't understand it.
I can get a 10G connection in my data center and I pay for the port and it's speed, not how much BW I use... They should have allowed Netflix to do the same, just get a few 10G or even a 100G connections. Yes those are expensive but not 100's of millions... This is just a way to increase profit and screw the customers because the increased cost will now cost Netflix customer in the form of rate hikes. In return for all the extra money Comcast gets what does the Comcast customer get? Oh I remember, yearly rate hikes, fee hikes and rental hikes... |
|
1 recommendation |
penske1
Member
2014-Mar-31 10:07 am
Vote with your walletVerizon's action or non-action on this issue will determine whether I renew my Fios contract when it expires. Cablevision/Optimum has Netflix Open Connect and is tempting me with promotions every day. |
|
IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman join:2000-09-20 Washington, DC |
to IlKevinlI
Re: Nothing but Speculation.Speculation? The FCC Chairman and his wife have their Netflix stream buffering... ---- After the moderator, Gigaoms Stacey Higginbotham, described how peering issues have impacted services of some Internet companies, most notably Netflix, Wheeler assured the audience that he understood the concerns. I understand exactly the situation youre describing. I dont think this is TMI, but my wife and I like to lie in bed and watch Netflix, Wheeler told the crowd. Like other people, Wheeler finds the video sometimes stutters and doesnt stream properly. Youre chairman of the FCC, why is this happening? Wheeler said his wife complained. ---- » recode.net/2014/01/28/fc ··· -action/ |
|
aaronwt Premium Member join:2004-11-07 Woodbridge, VA |
aaronwt
Premium Member
2014-Mar-31 10:16 am
Why is the video stuttering? I don't recall ever having Netflix video stutter. |
|
|
to Ano
Re: Per bit transfered?Remember; the exaflood is real and coming to a POP near you. |
|
1 edit |
to IlKevinlI
Re: Nothing but Speculation.Do you haveAT&T as your ISP? I do and I see this peering issue everyday while trying to play Diablo 3, World of Warcraft and World of Tanks. I have ran hundreds of tracert and the I ssue always points at the peering with either time outs or high pings. Most of the time it is at night when the kiddies are at home or on the weekends. So yeah I believe what they are saying about AT&T. |
|
rolandeCertifiable MVM, join:2002-05-24 Dallas, TX ARRIS BGW210-700 Cisco Meraki MR42
1 recommendation |
Seriously...?!quote: Comcast was seeking $0.01/GB transmitted
quote: Netflixs 33 million US streaming customers consume an average of 100GB
The ISPs need to give the customers options in this economic game. I think 99% of all NetFlix subscribers would not have a huge problem paying a $1 per month premium to support an amenable bandwidth subscription ratio that would support their NetFlix usage and avoid poor performance etc. It requires customer education on the cost and pricing model to avoid customer abandonment. Unfortunately, the vast majority of customers don't understand anything about how network service is delivered and the typical costs and razor thin margins. It's all Egyptian Hyroglyphics to them. I still think the smart ISPs who want to make customers happy while being able to remain profitable will offer the option to their customers to help subsidize the bandwidth to support the different utilization profiles. For now, though, it is easier for them to just hold the content providers hostage and just shrug their shoulders and feign innocence to their customers when they complain that they aren't getting what they are paying for. |
|
|
wkm001
Member
2014-Mar-31 10:48 am
100GB of data per month?In total data transfer or just from Netflix? I often don't even come close to using 100GB of data in a month, total, on my Comcast connection.
Of course it doesn't help that the average person has no idea what a bit, byte, kilobyte, megabyte, or gigabyte is. Since ISPs aren't required to give you access to a usage meter I don't see this going away anytime soon.
If mobile carriers can count data down to the byte, wireline ISPs should be able to also! This should be a requirement if any laws are passed. |
|
|
TylerHelms
Anon
2014-Mar-31 10:59 am
Netflix does not need this deal.While AT&T and Verizon like to posture with the media, their networks are not nearly as congested as Comcast. Netflix and Comcast needed to broker a deal, because the Comcast peering is the most congested in this industry. While less than ideal, Netflix can continue to serve the other ISPs over public internet. |
|
IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman join:2000-09-20 Washington, DC |
to aaronwt
Re: Nothing but Speculation.Here's the FCC Chair talking about it: » www.c-span.org/video/?31 ··· t-policy |
|
|
to wkm001
Re: 100GB of data per month?We just switched to Comcast on March 20th and looking at their meter on my account shows 77GB used so far, wow. All that can be is HBO Go, I have watched 1 1/2 seasons of The Wire and my daughter just started a Netflix account yesterday. Seems to me their meter is off a bit, or HBO uses a lot of bandwith. |
|
|
to aaronwt
Re: Nothing but Speculation.Maybe you are and maybe you arent effected by this, but I know it buffers quite a bit now and often does not test to even 1MB where as before it use to test over 10mb all the time. |
|
Skippy25 |
AT&T Lost Me Over ThisI am having my ISP switched to Charter tomorrow and then will be canceling AT&T as the end of April and this is the straw that broke the camel's back.
Being I hate both Charter and AT&T with a passion I stayed with AT&T for many years because Charter's service was not good around here.
Well this issue with Netflix has finally convinced me it is time to give Charter a try. I am having this done without the wife's knowledge as she is adamently against Charter. So hopefully it will be completely transparent to her over the next month or 2 so I can then tell her about the change and her argument against Charter is without merit. |
|
Skippy25 |
to rolande
Re: Seriously...?!I disagree. I already pay for X they provide me and that is for ALL of the internet.
I will not allow them to start charging me Y extra for add on services that should already be included.
If their network can't handle the bandwidth they can either invest in making their network better or take needed steps to reduce their subscribers so they have less people using less bandwith. |
|
IanM @comcastbusiness.net |
IanM
Anon
2014-Mar-31 11:35 am
It's like taxesIf I pay for an internet subscription and I pay for Netflix, why would I pay more if I want to use my internet to connect to Netflix? If that's the case, every streaming site on the internet should have this "tax" applied to it. How about YouTube? ISPs provide a service then complain when you use it. AT&T does this ALL THE TIME. |
|
54761437 (banned) join:2013-01-18 Durham, NC |
to rolande
Re: Seriously...?!Slippery slope, my friend. A dollar here and a dollar there soon add up to a substantial increase in your monthly Internet service bill. The concept of double-dipping on subscriber fees is valid regardless of the dollar amount involved. |
|
rolandeCertifiable MVM, join:2002-05-24 Dallas, TX ARRIS BGW210-700 Cisco Meraki MR42
|
Okay maybe I didn't think my comment all the way through. In my defense, it is still early on Monday. The point is that the cost of last mile access will have to rise to meet the change in subscriber demand for services. ISPs are deploying peering bandwidth and uplink aggregation based on outdated subscription models. That is their fault and not the customers fault or the content providers fault. The ISPs are just choosing to punish the content providers because they are the easier throat to choke.
If we agree it isn't fair for the ISPs to hold the content providers hostage, then they will need to shift those costs back onto the end customer. I believe most ISPs are not run for charity purposes. The problem is the lack of balance in demand for these premium services versus the number of subscribers willing to pay base rates to support them. It is a Catch22. Who makes the first move? If one ISP invests in more bandwidth and raises their prices to account for the uptick in subscriber/bandwidth ratio, the customers flee.
I'm sure it will all eventually work itself out, ignoring the fact that there isn't perfect competition in the market. However, for now there seems to be a bit of an impasse between ISPs, subscribers, and content providers. It would be a big help to the industry if the ISPs were proactively restricted from charging carriage fees to content providers. In the end, the consumers (losers) would be forced to pay the real price for their actual service consumption.
The question then becomes Is it fair to distribute the costs associated with 'premium' usage that may be a minority of the customers across the entire subscriber base? This debate will rage on and ebb and flow over time as the point of contention continuously moves between the subscribers, the ISPs, and the content providers. |
|
|
Capitalism to Skippy25
Anon
2014-Mar-31 12:08 pm
to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:I disagree. I already pay for X they provide me and that is for ALL of the internet.
I will not allow them to start charging me Y extra for add on services that should already be included.
If their network can't handle the bandwidth they can either invest in making their network better or take needed steps to reduce their subscribers so they have less people using less bandwith. The X you already pay does get you ALL of the internet: at best effort speeds and capacity. When the internet became a high definition video delivery service, best effort is no longer good enough. So you are going to pay more for those sites delivering HD video. And the needed steps you want them to take, they are taking them by charging the HD video providers a fee. |
|
|
Best effort is best effort and that is exactly how the internet should be ran for ALL services.
If they want to create another dedicated closed network for services, then let them run the lines and do that and charge appropriately for it. However, I will not stand by watching as they try to bastardize the internet for their monetary gain.
Otherwise, they can do as I said and invest in their networks to make them capable of handling the services or they can find a way to lessen their subscriber base so the capacity needed to service those wanting the service can be meet with their current infrastructure. |
|
1 recommendation |
Capitalism
Anon
2014-Mar-31 12:38 pm
said by Skippy25: However, I will not stand by watching as they try to bastardize the internet for their monetary gain. So, don't subscribe to any internet services(TV or broadband) and read a book. |
|
1 recommendation |
to rolande
So let them invest and raise rates. That is how the market works right? Not that they need to raise rates being they can role out fiber to their subscribers and pay cash to do it being they couldnt roll it out fast enough to eat through their quarterly profits. But lets allow the greed and say go ahead and roll out fiber and raise your rates $5 or $10 a month. xDSL is already priced close to as much, if not more, than cable that is capable of much faster speeds. Considering fiber is much cheaper to maintain, they could even roll it out without charging a dime more and still enjoy more profit in the future.
It is not like a vast majority of their foot prings have someone to flee to as you claim anyway. For the most part there is no competition and if you are lucky enough to have one, two or maybe even 3 choices, when they all do the same thing it does not help. |
|
Skippy25 |
to Capitalism
That doesn't resolve anything now does it? Even if I had none of the services, I would still disagree with them taking something that is so important for the public and bastardize it for their own monetary gain.
If they don't like it, then they can stop being an ISP and find another service to get into. |
|
|
to djoropallo
Re: 100GB of data per month?That's what's un-fair... You pay the ISP for access to the internet. Netflix pays to have content relayed to you, and any watching you do goes against your data CAP.
ISP's have a win, win, win situation, and are laughing all the way to the bank. |
|
cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC |
to rolande
Re: Seriously...?!The actual world has already made you wrong. If netflix ups their bill by $1 to support the bandwidth habit, many (more than enough, actually) will bitch loudly and drop them. This has happened before. (more than once as I recall) |
|
cramer
1 recommendation |
to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:If their network can't handle the bandwidth The same can, and is, said of Netflix. Peering disputes involve *two* people. |
|
Cabal Premium Member join:2007-01-21 |
to ptrowski
Re: Nothing but Speculation.The resolution to needless speculation is more speculation? |
|