beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
| reply to JazzJRabbit
Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds?
Thanks. Google is easy, getting CORRECT information only a little more difficult. Try here: »www.netflix.com/WiMessage?msg=59
You'll need to login.
Basically it says a 5mbps or higher is fine. Not to mention why would netflix release technology that only, say, 1% of people can get?
So at 5mbps you could watch 24/7 on virgin if you had a 20mbps package right? Because if they throttle you to 25% you still have 5mbps. And the 50mbps plan you'd still have plenty of headroom. |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | reply to JazzJRabbit
Jazz that is absolutely BS |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| reply to JazzJRabbit
said by JazzJRabbit  :said by devnuller :That's the FUD talking. I use Internet video everyday with Fancast, Hulu,, Netflix kids with online games, YouTube and Slingbox. Never come close to caps. The world will end with CAPs is just plain rhetoric. CAP usage is better explained in this editorial by Justin(the owner of DSLReports). From what I read Netflix HD streaming requires 8-10MBit bandwidth. So if throttling like this was implemented by US ISPs and you were on 20MB tier, then you'd be throttled even before you finished watching your movie. The total size of a Netflix HD movie is about 6GB. The rate at which it downloads doesn't matter as it doesn't use 8-10Mbps for the entire time the movie runs. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :No, but Virgin is going to start targeting BitTorrent specifically. Do you see any anti-competitive implications of a cable TV company suddenly throttling a protocol that delivers competition via peer to peer networks? Clearly, you're mistaken. There's absolutely no reason for a corporation to cripple an up-and-coming competitor. Why, I don't believe that has ever happened in this history of our great company, errr, country. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to swhitney2003
said by swhitney2003 :I'm going to assume sarcasm here. Definitely. I was preempting all the nonsense that was sure to follow. (and perhaps has outside of this thread)
I don't think you should be able to max out your line 24x7x365 and not expect some type of throttling. However, I also feel that every US Corporation instituting caps (excluding Comcast) has has set them way to low and should raise their caps in line with Comcast's 250GB, as well as lower their per GB overage charges.
If it were my decision, I would like to see a monthly usage cap, but with no throttling done until that cap is reached and no per Mbps limit either. Give me a fire hose and lower the water pressure after I've used my 250 gallons. I can understand why removing the per Mbps cap isn't really possible with the current systems in use and would probably wind up being an especially bad idea -- I can see Little Johnny Pirate deciding to save his 250GB for December 31st so he can utilize 250GB on December 31st and another 250GB on January 1st, thus crippling his node for 48 hours. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :No, but Virgin is going to start targeting BitTorrent specifically. Do you see any anti-competitive implications of a cable TV company suddenly throttling a protocol that delivers competition via peer to peer networks? Video competition from who? Vuze? BitTorrent is out of the video distribution game, and the major players in online video don't use P2P for distribution. |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | reply to Karl Bode
Karl if they targeted, say netflix, or itunes, etc...then I'd agree with you. But they don't. Calling bittorrent "competition" to cable tv as a video distribution method is ridiculous. |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | reply to JazzJRabbit
And not to mention the article states they are moving AWAY from the throttling system and just going after bittorrent specifically.... |
|
swhitney2003
I can't drive 55.
Premium
join:2003-06-13
NH
clubs:  | reply to Matt
Maybe a rolling usage would be better? 250GB within the past 30 days instead of by bill period? That way you cannot just pound the node for 48 hours straight. Just a thought, implementing it and the money to do that... I am clueless. |
|
davidbrown
join:2005-05-31
Toronto, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to devnuller
said by devnuller :That's the FUD talking. I use Internet video everyday with Fancast, Hulu,, Netflix kids with online games, YouTube and Slingbox. Never come close to caps. The world will end with CAPs is just plain rhetoric. CAP usage is better explained in this editorial by Justin(the owner of DSLReports). I agree with much of what he said but it does miss one important fact.
In the states were there are many different providers this is quite likely to happen but thats just the states.
In say Canada where we truly only have two providers this isn't likely to happen.
They work together rather then compete to keep ripping off the buyers and it had remained this way from the beginning.
For a health market with fair usage to emerge competition is needed and using Canada as a example this simply does not exist in a lot of places.
Tell this changes people wont get a fair deal. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to beaups
Calling bittorrent "competition" to cable tv as a video distribution method is ridiculous. Oh, glad we've got that straightened out then, Mark Cuban. |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
| Nice, admin resorting to name calling. I guess if you are going to call me a name, might as well be a rich guy 
Cuban is on record regarding Bittorrent? I did not state that the INTERNET is not viable competetion...strictly Bittorrent. Show me some data proving otherwise. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to JazzJRabbit
I didn't know it was that hard to google in this day and age Me thinks you're talking to an industry insider who's pretending to be "new" to this whole idea... |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
3 edits | reply to beaups
Oh, so it has to be viable competition or using your dominant market position to crush delivery doesn't count?
Just because you don't think Vuze is a legitimate competitor (I could be wrong, but I'm guessing you're playing dumb but work at a carrier), doesn't magically make it not a competitor. Caps and P2P protocol throttling aren't about killing the competitors of today, they're about killing the competitors of tomorrow.
BitTorrent certainly isn't a current serious competitor for live TV, nor is it currently eating away at any decent share (online video entire ate about 2% of all TV ad revenue in '07), but it is a competitor all the same. Should we get semantic, BitTorrent piracy is a competitor as well, as it sets market expectation (which unfortunately for industry folks is free, and easy). |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
| I don't work at a carrier or anywhere in the communications business. But this article is about attacking bittorrent directly as opposed to their old method of attacking all heavy users. From the outside looking in, attacking all heavy users would seem to be more of an anti-competetive practice (although I don't think it is) than strictly throttling bittorrent. This frees up all the netflix, hulu, itunes, etc. arguments. Now they just go after bittorrent directly, which is quite insignificant in the "legitimate" online video marketplace.
In fact, it could be construed that they are attacking bittorrent usage to make the netflix streaming experience better for the rest of their customers....although I doubt that as well |
|
