| 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. |
|
|
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·row44
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
2 edits | 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. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to fifty nine
ISPs are getting greedy. That's what this is about. |
|
| 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 |
|
| 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. |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to Jason Levine
ISPs can raise their prices for internet service if they believe the market will bear it. Adapt or die. |
|
| reply to r81984
ISPs are being told they have to eat the cost. Read Comcast's letter to the FCC regarding Level 3. |
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL | reply to fifty nine
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 |
|
| reply to fifty nine
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. |
|
| 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.
I suggest you read that so you actually know what you are talking about. |
|
| 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. |
|
| reply to kaila
And nothing is wrong with them taking steps to maintain that profitability. |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to fifty nine
ISPs can recoup their costs by charging more. They cannot decide what content users decide to access on their lines. Yes, that is a net neutrality issue. ISPs must be protocol neutral. |
|
 HangmnDon't Fight It...It's InevitablePremium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA | reply to battleop
said by battleop:"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.
ISPs CLEARLY gouge customers as the WHOLESALE costs of bandwidth has been on the DECLINE for a DECADE and providers FAITHFULLY increase fees twice yearly..You sir clearly have no idea...oh and not to mention NO COMPETITION
--
»davescustompc.com |
|
| reply to fifty nine
And how would the ISP charge more for certain types of content? If you read a web page with an embedded YouTube video, would that be Online Video? What if the video was hosted on the web page's own site? Would there be a fee structure with different fees (charged per megabyte) for different sites?
Besides being a network neutrality violation, this would be horribly complex for billing purposes. ISPs that did this wouldn't be able to advertise "get super fast Internet for just $XX." Of course, they could still advertise their "low rate of $XX" and then add in more bogus below the line taxes and fees (e.g. "Online Video Fee", "Streaming Movie Tax", etc.) They wouldn't be able to charge much there, however. I think the FCC would investigate if people were being charged $20 a month in "Streaming Movie Fees."
--
-Jason Levine |
|
| reply to battleop
As far as B is concerned, most areas in the US have only one or two broadband ISPs to choose from. You have the phone company or the cable company. These two "compete" but just enough to maintain their duopoly. Less lucky areas only have one ISP and people have a choice of going with the only broadband ISP or not having broadband Internet. (Still less lucky areas have no broadband ISPs, but I think that's a different discussion.) Very few areas in the US have 3 or more ISP choices.
--
-Jason Levine |
|
 swintecPremium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:4
 ·RapidVPS
·Sprint Mobile Br..
 ·VoicePulse
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to battleop
said by battleop:You clearly have absolutely no idea as to what you are taking about.
Oh hey you must be new here. 
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts |
|
| reply to Jason Levine
and if somebody is dumb enough to challenge them and open a third service, they promptly upgrade the area and lower prices to kill the new guys margins. |
|
swintecPremium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:4 Reviews:
·RapidVPS
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·VoicePulse
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by backness:and if somebody is dumb enough to challenge them and open a third service, they promptly upgrade the area and lower prices to kill the new guys margins.
Well gee whiz...that sounds an awful lot like...how business works?
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts |
|
Reviews:
·Windstream
| If you have a monopoly, it does. You can afford to lower prices for awhile in a small area to kill off new competitors. Then you and raise the prices back again once the blood dries.
I really don't understand some of the people on here who reflexively root against municipal broadband offerings as "unfair government interference in the free market" when the local monopoly or duopoly got established by government franchises with guaranteed rates of return. The removal of those franchises doesn't remove the enormous advantage the original entrenched players have.
When there are only two "competitors", there really is no free market for a local government to meddle in. |
|
