dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7
share rss forum feed


elkido122

join:2011-02-23
Folsom, CA
reply to train_wreck

Re: [Business] Looks like Netflix is paying up to improve signals Source WSJ.

So if we want to watch nexflix now Comcast will charge us or no??


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

said by elkido122:

So if we want to watch nexflix now Comcast will charge us or no??

No, it means comcast won't need to raise rates to pay for Netflix customer traffic.
Netflix may or may not need to charge more, but it will only be Netflix customers paying for THEIR Netflix traffic, as it should be.


camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by tshirt:

No, it means comcast won't need to raise rates to pay for Netflix customer traffic.

 
Comcast never needed Netflix traffic as an excuse to raise rates.


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by camper:

Comcast never needed Netflix traffic as an excuse to raise rates.

My Comcast internet service is about the same price (after inflation) as it was10 years ago when I first signed up and is at 50/10 vs the 3/1 speed offered then.
I wish I could say the same about gas prices or a leg of lamb.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:

Netflix may or may not need to charge more, but it will only be Netflix customers paying for THEIR Netflix traffic, as it should be.

So will you give me a kudo, or three, for picking up your Netflix tab?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:

No, it means comcast won't need to raise rates to pay for Netflix customer traffic.
Netflix may or may not need to charge more, but it will only be Netflix customers paying for THEIR Netflix traffic, as it should be.

Not sure how Comcast (or any caps in the US work), but my cap of 250 GB from 2 pm to 2 am (unlimited 2am to 2 pm) means that I can use 250 GB of any type of data I want, anytime I want, during the month. It costs the same to push through 6 Mbps Netflix data as it does 6 Mbps Linux ISO, news, porn or whatever else gets you going online.

So if someone chooses to use their data for Netflix, then that's their choice. It's a very, very dangerous (for consumers) sentiment to say that Netflix users should pay for THEIR data. If Netflix users have a specific payment to make, so to do all other types of data going through. The ISP's should be a dumb pipe accepting whatever their customers want to download (within the law).

It's a dangerous and slippery slope which completely eliminates the concept of net neutrality and if enough providers force this, could lead to tiered or packaged internet. Today Netflix, soon other video providers, eventually you're paying a news package, sports package, movie package, etc.

Does that pricing model sound familiar? Sounds like cable to me.

said by jimothy :

of course netflix is paying comcast less than what they paid cogent but all the net neutrality morons wont bother reading that or trying to understand any facts. fucking morons

The fact that Comcast is forcing Netflix to pay directly is an attack on net neutrality. Are they slowing down any other data, or just Netflix? If just Netflix, that's the issue.

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
said by markf:

The fact that Comcast is forcing Netflix to pay directly is an attack on net neutrality. Are they slowing down any other data, or just Netflix? If just Netflix, that's the issue.

Fact? Any data to support your assertion that Comcast or any other ISP has in the last couple of months intentionally "slowed down" or "throttled" NetFlix or any other content provider for that matter?

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
I did follow that up with the question. You even have that as part of the quote.

If Netflix (or any other data) is not going through properly as has been reported from various users, then they're oversubscribed and have a network problem that they need to take care of.


camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:

I wish I could say the same about gas prices or a leg of lamb.

 
Gas and lamb are not technology.

For grins I dug up an old Computer Shopper magazine from the depths of my spare room, the most recent one I have, from 1991.

Let's go shopping for a PC...

Intel 80486 33MHz CPU
64K cache RAM
8MB RAM (expandable to 64MB)
1.2MB 5.25" floppy
1.44MB 3.5" floppy
200MB 15mS IDE hard drive with 64K multi-segmented cache
16-bit VGA with 1MB
14" monitor
keyboard, mouse
MS-DOS 5.0
MS Windows 3.0

$3395 from Gateway 2000

If you wanted a system with a 16MHz 80286 CPU, you could bring the price down to $1395.

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
reply to markf
said by markf:

they're oversubscribed and have a network problem that they need to take care of.

The Internet by its very nature is oversubscribed, but not to mince words... I'm not sure who you meant by "they" for sure, but what you've seen today via the announcement is NetFlix and Comcast (they) fixing the problem. For Comcast users, this certainly wasn't the only solution NetFlix could have chosen which tends to lead one to believe it was also the one that made the most sense for NetFlix as well.

While I agree this probably should have been resolved sooner by all parties involved, this has never been even remotely a "net neutrality" issue.


camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by AVonGauss:

The Internet by its very nature is oversubscribed

 
To be a bit more precise in your comment... it is not the Internet that is oversubscribed, but it is the ISPs who are oversubscribing their ability to deliver bandwidth to the Internet.

The Internet is not the same thing as the ISPs.
 
 
said by AVonGauss:

this probably should have been resolved sooner by all parties involved

 
An example of understatement.

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
said by camper:

To be a bit more precise in your comment...

Its actually oversubscribed, everywhere... There is no way all end points (servers and end users alike) could be running at full throttle all the time.

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
reply to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

"they"

They would be Comcast.

My ISP has no problems delivering streaming video.

A few months ago I had slowdowns and buffering while watching NHL Game Center Live, ISP upgraded something on their end as they told me they were in the process of doing and since then I can watch whatever I want in the evenings in High Quality with no slowdowns.

Comcast customers are the only ones who really know what's going on. If everything was slow, then it's a capacity issue. Based on the information available, Netflix is paying Comcast to get their traffic through smoothly. That is a net neutrality issue if everyone else's data is already going through smooth.

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
reply to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

There is no way all end points (servers and end users alike) could be running at full throttle all the time.

Absolutely right on that, but then the pricing model needs to change for everyone and not cherry pick certain types of data going through.

If it's bogged down at certain times, every bit of data should cost the same, whether it's Netflix, YouTube, Skype or grandma's email.


camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

Its actually oversubscribed, everywhere... There is no way all end points (servers and end users alike) could be running at full throttle all the time.

 

I agree.

But I am making the distinction between the on-ramps to the Internet (the end points you mention above) and the Internet itself.

Let's suppose I have a connection to the Internet that can deliver its full capacity all the time, 24/7. Let's also suppose that I have a server that I am "talking" to which also has a connection that can deliver its full capacity all the time, 24/7.

Those two can talk to each other all the time at full throttle. So from the vantage point of those two connections, the Internet is not oversubscribed.

That's why I wanted to clarify what you mentioned --- the Internet is not oversubscribed, in your own words the ISPs have oversubscribed the endpoints.

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
reply to camper
said by camper:

200MB 15mS IDE hard drive

Wow! That's massive.

When I (or I should say my parents) bought our first 386SX 20 Mhz with 1MB RAM, the sales guy told us that 120MB HD would be enough capacity to last forever...


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to camper
said by camper:

the Internet is not oversubscribed, in your own words the ISPs have oversubscribed the endpoints.

and this is the balance that has to be struck, at what congestion level is the service still acceptable?

btw, that's a wild wild price for a 33MHz system :0


camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to markf
said by markf:

When I (or I should say my parents) bought our first 386SX 20 Mhz with 1MB RAM, the sales guy told us that 120MB HD would be enough capacity to last forever...

 

I bought my first PC in the late 1970's. It was an IMSAI 8080 with an Intel 8080 2MHz CPU. No hard drive. Not even a floppy. It had a paper tape reader though. I had to program it in binary via the front panel switches. 64K of memory. That set me back $1500 (in late 1970's dollars) . I had a second phone line in my house for the Hayes 300bps modem.

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
reply to camper
said by camper:

Those two can talk to each other all the time at full throttle. So from the vantage point of those two connections, the Internet is not oversubscribed.

The connections in the middle too, its all one big shared medium of sorts... What it really boils down to is are people able to do what they want when they want, and if they're not, we get 19 page threads like the NetFlix one on here.

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
reply to train_wreck
said by train_wreck:

and this is the balance that has to be struck, at what congestion level is the service still acceptable?

The issue, especially with cable providers around here, is that they use higher speeds as a marketing tool to get more revenue. If you are intentionally selling something you can't deliver, that's a problem.

Why sell 120 Mbps 500GB plans if you know you can't meet that service level?

In my area cable has speed with low caps while DSL has slower max speeds with much higher caps. I'm going through a third party DSL provider and 25/7 is usually easily attainable most times of day. I haven't noticed slowdowns since they upgraded things on their end.


camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

The connections in the middle too,

 
Yup. When the people who control the end point choke points also control the connections in the middle, then the issues seem to occur.

It certainly makes one wonder......

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
reply to markf
said by markf:

Why sell 120 Mbps 500GB plans if you know you can't meet that service level?

Speed and capacity aren't the same thing, in fact, one could argue faster speed could yield higher capacity for typical usage. I'm not saying companies don't advertise speed as a lure, they do and it works, just that they are two different aspects.


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to markf
said by markf:

In my area cable has speed with low caps while DSL has slower max speeds with much higher caps. I'm going through a third party DSL provider and 25/7 is usually easily attainable most times of day. I haven't noticed slowdowns since they upgraded things on their end.

Interesting. Here, cable is the much higher performing option in terms of speed & caps, and outside of the recent netflix issue, i never notice any types of interruptions other than natural-cause related. I was quoted a max speed of U-Verse available to me at 12mbps a few months ago due to central office distance.


camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

Speed and capacity aren't the same thing

 

But you miss what I see as the point of the comment --- why sell something that cannot be delivered?

At what point will the State Attorneys General start becoming involved when the ISPs promise everyone a bandwidth that cannot possibly be delivered simultaneously?


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
said by camper:

But miss what I see as the point of the comment --- why sell something that cannot be delivered?

probably because to deliver EXACTLY 12 (or 25 or 50 or 100) megabits down to EVERY customer ALL the time would require an overkill of resources, particularly as most home internet connections are unused a majority of the time?

btw, to the point of not "selling something they can't deliver", it's worth pointing out that the fine print of every Comcast service agreement states a given speed "up to" x.

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
reply to camper
said by camper:

At what point will the State Attorneys General start becoming involved when the ISPs promise everyone a bandwidth that cannot possibly be delivered simultaneously?

Well, considering the poster I was replying to I don't believe is from the United States, I would imagine the State Attorneys will never get involved.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
quote:
At what point will the State Attorneys General start becoming involved when the ISPs promise everyone a bandwidth that cannot possibly be delivered simultaneously?
Ha, bandwidth to the closest speedtest server? I wouldnt fret.


camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

Well, considering the poster I was replying to I don't believe is from the United States, I would imagine the State Attorneys will never get involved

 

So you are saying that speed and capacity are the same thing in the US but not other countries?

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
said by camper:

So you are saying that speed and capacity are the same thing in the US but not other countries?

No, and you know that. What I am saying is that I'm not going to get involved in a circular debate about something that is not an issue.

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
reply to train_wreck
said by train_wreck:

btw, to the point of not "selling something they can't deliver", it's worth pointing out that the fine print of every Comcast service agreement states a given speed "up to" x.

They all say this, but when you can't deliver a 6 Mbps Netflix stream over cable, your network has major issues.

Looking on Comcast's website (»www.comcast.com/internet-service ··· ice.html) I'm shocked at the services they offer. High priced, low speed compared to what we have in my area.

6/1, 25/5, 50/10? 105/20 is the only one that beats VDSL in my area, and the prices for all of them are higher than I pay. Not sure the cap, but I'm unlimited for 12 hours per day at 25/7 (my DSL line can't handle 10 up)

We have capacity based billing here, so third party ISP's have to manage their over subscription numbers to match with the capacity they buy from incumbents. If they buy 1000 Mbps but have peaks of 2000, then users will suffer.

Some unlimited providers, in order to keep prices down, clearly sell packages that have reduced speeds during peak times (i.e. 25/10 off peak, 12.5/5 on peak) to manage traffic. That's being honest with the customer.

If you sell me a 50 Mbps line, it should be under exceptional circumstances that it doesn't hit that. If it's happening every evening, you'd better tell me, or as a customer you're lying to me about what you're selling.

If I sold you a car that can go 40 MPH on level ground, 60 MPH down a hill and I tell you that it goes 60 MPH, am I misleading you? If I sell you "up to a dozen" donuts, and you open the box and always find 10 or less, am I telling you the truth about what I'm selling you?

I understand that networks need to be oversubscribed to be economical, but if it's so bad that a 6 Mbps stream is too much for the network to handle on lines advertised as 25 Mbps or more, then there is a major issue there.