dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
13

PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

PapaMidnight to elray

Member

to elray

Re: Still

Let me understand this: Are you saying that it would be nice for Netflix to pay ISPs to send their content with no effect on your monthly cap, or are you saying that it would be nice for ISPs to not impose a monthly cap on their users? I ask as these are two different things, and the first is in support of the multi-tiered internet which is the very thing those of us in favor of network neutrality are trying to avoid.

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

1 recommendation

TechyDad

Premium Member

I've got to agree. That would be a horrible situation.

From the content provider viewpoint: It would favor big companies over small ones. A small Netflix-competitor startup wouldn't have the cash to pay to all of the ISPs to let their content be cap-free. This would mean that large companies would become entrenched without fear of smaller competition.

From the user viewpoint: It would be fuzzy just what counted and didn't count towards your caps. Netflix doesn't, but does YouTube? What about Amazon VOD? Vidmeo? Hulu? iTunes? What if you switch providers (being lucky enough to live in an area with more than one ISP)? Does the new ISP have a different set of "cap free" services than the old one?

This type of system would just result in large companies pushing out small startups and customers getting overcharged due to cap confusion.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

1 recommendation

elray to PapaMidnight

Member

to PapaMidnight
Yes, it would be better if Netflix paid, on behalf of its customers, to assure delivery of their streams, without meter anxiety, rather than having the ISP customer suffer performance issues or worry about their cap.

Netflix has the power to negotiate really great terms for priority delivery - the consumer does not.

The 30% of us who don't use any volume at all, who don't care for Netflix or equivalent, shouldn't be paying for the extra capital costs to support the new demand rate, or the ISP's cost to link up with OpenConnect.

Wired caps are a temporary phenomenon, which will be raised and eventually fade away in the next decade, but they'll be replaced by something else for Karl to complain about, i.e. IPV6-based per-device (or basket) charges, or SIM-card / Cablecard-IV authentication and charge for every connection.

Wireless caps will be with us for a very long time, so cap buy-outs (or co-pays) will be critical for video streaming products to succeed.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to PapaMidnight

Member

to PapaMidnight
He's for data caps and pretty much anti-consumer/pro ISP. Which is strange, because they shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive.
jjeffeory

jjeffeory to elray

Member

to elray
Maybe you 3% should just get a special "grandma" tier that's super cheap and so the rest of us can be out of your hair and actually use the internet.

Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state

Qumahlin to elray

MVM

to elray
It's odd you would think wireless caps will be with us for a long time, when as time moves forward there is less and less of a need for them, whereas you think wired caps will eventually fade away. It would make more sense for you to think both will fade away.

Regardless, no streaming provider is going to pay for your wireless overage caps, nor should they. Video streaming products will still succeed and either the providers will change or the consumer will shell out more money. Either way you thinking the streaming provider is going to pay is simply not going to happen. Ever.

buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Dover, NH
(Software) Sophos UTM Home Edition
Ruckus R310

1 recommendation

buzz_4_20 to jjeffeory

Member

to jjeffeory
Doesn't everyone understand that IF Netflix were to pay the ransom to be held outside the cap that the cost would go right into a price hike?
Also, Netflix is paying for bandwidth... on their end and customers on this end... The ONLY place to lay blame is with the ISP...
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina to elray

Member

to elray
If wired caps disappear, what would motivate streaming providers to buy-out caps on the wireless side? Carrier wireless (as opposed to WiFi) is useful for many things but unless I'm camping or stranded, anywhere I find enough comfort to enjoy a Netflix movie, WiFi is available and I don't need to use my carrier wireless. Planes are an exception but that use case is evolving in its own direction.

chamberc
Premium Member
join:2008-08-05
Addison, TX

3 recommendations

chamberc to PapaMidnight

Premium Member

to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight:

Let me understand this: Are you saying that it would be nice for Netflix to pay ISPs to send their content with no effect on your monthly cap, or are you saying that it would be nice for ISPs to not impose a monthly cap on their users? I ask as these are two different things, and the first is in support of the multi-tiered internet which is the very thing those of us in favor of network neutrality are trying to avoid.

Hopefully everyone is on board with content providers paying for what they use... why should everyone foot the bill equally for small providers who consume a lot of bandwidth. Net neutrality is simple socialism.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

2 recommendations

sonicmerlin

Member

said by chamberc:

said by PapaMidnight:

Let me understand this: Are you saying that it would be nice for Netflix to pay ISPs to send their content with no effect on your monthly cap, or are you saying that it would be nice for ISPs to not impose a monthly cap on their users? I ask as these are two different things, and the first is in support of the multi-tiered internet which is the very thing those of us in favor of network neutrality are trying to avoid.

Hopefully everyone is on board with content providers paying for what they use... why should everyone foot the bill equally for small providers who consume a lot of bandwidth. Net neutrality is simple socialism.

Go away troll.
TBBroadband
join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH

TBBroadband to buzz_4_20

Member

to buzz_4_20
How doe Netflix pay on the customer's end? Netflix doesn't pay part of anyone's bill. They pay for their own CDN charges and that is all. As far as the blame with the ISPs- again Netflix sets the standards to peer with them, it's not the ISPs fault that Netlix only requires a 10gig-e link. If Netflix wants more- they should pay more to peer. It's just another Cogent issue just this time with a CDN.
TBBroadband

TBBroadband to Qumahlin

Member

to Qumahlin
Google is a streaming provider and indeed does pay.
TBBroadband

TBBroadband to chamberc

Member

to chamberc
And is a form of socialism that does NOT need to be created. It is something that is not a right.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to jjeffeory

Member

to jjeffeory
Thanks. We do have that tier ($15/month, 2M/1M), and I'm the first to stipulate that remarkably, they're able to offer it without the cap they proposed a couple years ago.

But don't flatter yourself. The low-volume users are about 30%, not 3%, and that doesn't count the non-subscribers who simply aren't interested or are unwilling to pay the market rate for service.

It is actually you who needs to get out of the way, and not overconsume common resources, so the rest of us, who don't, can access when we so choose.
elray

elray to Qumahlin

Member

to Qumahlin
There is a fundamental difference in capacity potential between wired and wireless. The former approaches infinity, the latter has real limits.

You watch.

As AT&T and Verizon offer up toll-free wireless video options, you will see ESPN, NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL and Nascar step up.

What you may misunderstand, is that they're not paying your "steep" overages, they're buying them out in bulk, for their traffic to you, for a penny on the dollar, in exchange for your patronage.

Netflix will fight for a while, but eventually, they'll make a deal as well.
Randamin
join:2010-11-29
Laredo, TX

Randamin to elray

Member

to elray
The cap on that particular tier known as internet essentials was merely optional to save $5 but would limit the use to 5GB which to me is not worth the savings.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Actually, the first offering was for a $15 tier, not the $5 savings, but Karl and his merry band of populists shouted it down before we could even buy it.

The current offering ("Everyday Low Price Internet") is $15 without a cap.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

3 recommendations

r81984 to chamberc

Premium Member

to chamberc
You cant be this stupid?
Net neutrality ensures the internet stays fair and people dont get double charged for the networks they already 100% paid for.
Every customers including you, me, netflix, cnn, fox news, hulu, dslreports, etc pays their ISP for internet access. It makes no sense to allow monopolies to gouge customers to double charge.
That is not socialism. Net neutraity is fair capitalism where everyone only has to pay once to get on the internet.

Now socialism started the internet and corporate welfare gave companies like ATT and Comcast free money to build their networks.
Expand your moderator at work