dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
26
wirelessdog
join:2008-07-15
Queen Anne, MD

wirelessdog to BlueC

Member

to BlueC

Re: Netflix pays Comcast

said by BlueC:

it's very questionable (some might even say unethical) behavior for an ISP to accomplish.

That depends. Our base level of service specifically states that it does not support Netflix. What would be questionable or unethical about blocking Netflix for those who have that service?
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC

Member

said by wirelessdog:

That depends. Our base level of service specifically states that it does not support Netflix. What would be questionable or unethical about blocking Netflix for those who have that service?

If you're clearly disclosing that Netflix is not permitted on a certain tier of service (meaning you're offering other service tiers that permit Netflix), then that seems acceptable. However, I still think (my opinion) it's not right to isolate specific networks from being accessed.

If it's a bandwidth consumption issue, having a lower speed tier (e.g. 1mbps) would seem proper in that scenario, as it inherently restricts any high bitrate streaming, but doesn't isolate any particular network.

nunya
LXI 483
MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
·Charter

nunya to wirelessdog

MVM

to wirelessdog
From the customers POV, they are paying $XX for XX Mbps, and they can do whatever they please.
You're saying they can do whatever they please, except XXXX.
It would be like the phone company saying you have unlimited calls, except to your mother. You talk to her too much and it's busying up the switch.
Blocking a specific service while allowing others is very nanny-like. Why stop at Netflix? Let's block Hulu, or Youtube, or Facebook... When you block one, another will take over. Keep blocking and animosity grows.
You don't have to look any further than the phone company in the 90's - rather than upgrade our network to keep up with changing times, let's do everything we can to stifle our customers. Meanwhile - the cable companies were pushing out FTTN everywhere and developing DOCSIS.
That's why the cable companies are now eating the telco's lunch.
You might be able to push people around for a few years, but when somebody better (or even just different) comes along you'll get quick backlash.

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
MVM
join:2008-01-16
Gilbert, AZ

tubbynet to wirelessdog

MVM

to wirelessdog
said by wirelessdog:

ur base level of service specifically states that it does not support Netflix.

unsupportted != outright blocking.

i would also venture a guess that if you tell your customers 'i block netflix outright unless you upgrade your service above and beyond this base tier' -- i would assume that you'd have a serious drop in your customer base.

or -- as people say -- this is great advice for my competitors.

q.
wirelessdog
join:2008-07-15
Queen Anne, MD

wirelessdog

Member

said by tubbynet:

i would also venture a guess that if you tell your customers 'i block netflix outright unless you upgrade your service above and beyond this base tier'

Its about setting customer expectations when they initially sign up. This isn't something that is sprung on customers, its something they clearly understand when they sign up for service.

Remember, last mile service is far different than what most experience.

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
MVM
join:2008-01-16
Gilbert, AZ

tubbynet

MVM

said by wirelessdog:

Its about setting customer expectations when they initially sign up.

absolutely -- but the point is still the same -- i'm willing to bet customers will balk at this to some degree.

q.

DaDawgs
Premium Member
join:2010-08-02
Deltaville, VA

1 recommendation

DaDawgs

Premium Member

They will but you don't want those customers. WISPS don't have unlimited bandwidth. We resell what we have and we have to make a profit or go out of business. So... There is absolutely nothing wrong with charging a premium for a service like Netflix.

Another way to think about it is this. I have ten widgits. I have ten customers. Nine customers want one widgit each. The tenth customer wants five widgts for the same price. That leaves me with two choices, dump the tenth customer and pick up another one who wants only one widgit, or charge that tenth customer appropriately...

Like I have *SAID FOR YEARS* in the end per byte billing will rule the game. It will happen just as sure as the KWH rules power companies.

Jus' my two...

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
MVM
join:2008-01-16
Gilbert, AZ

tubbynet

MVM

said by DaDawgs:

They will but you don't want those customers. WISPS don't have unlimited bandwidth. We resell what we have and we have to make a profit or go out of business. So... There is absolutely nothing wrong with charging a premium for a service like Netflix.

while admittedly, most of my experience has been in the wireline space -- i see a few potential issues with this statement.

saying that you have limited bandwidth has the connotation of sounding that no other type of delivery medium has this issue, which can be considered a disingenuous statement. when you look at traditional last mile access technologies, none of them (aside from fiber) have the "unlimited bandwidth" that you speak of. traditional xdsl access technologies are limited by the age of the copper in the ground and the amount of modulation and encapsulation that can occur in a few mhz of spectrum in the ground. cable access technologies are limited by the number of ntsc channels available for data services combined with the frequency spectrum supported by the plant. prior to d3 -- most cable providers had a few dirty upstream channels in the ~28-33mhz range and a couple of downstream carriers in the upper frequencies. each of this channels could deliver about 38megs of bandwidth to the end user.

as a wisp -- you're bounded by the availability of spectrum that you choose to use and the user density that you wish to serve within each sector/cell, etc. this decision is no different than the number of users served per node or rt -- its a statistical analysis question that can only be answered by some sort of derived formula or tons of trial and error.

now -- if your argument is strictly based on the availability of upstream throughput to your carrier -- then again -- your service, like all other carriers, does not have unlimited upstream capacity. what the larger providers are able to do is create an economy of scale and use the general size and aggregation of their network footprints to subsidize and purchase uplink capacity that creates a less oversubscribed network at the peering points. at the end of the day, this is a business and financial decision that must be made in alignment with your overall goals and vision for your network.
said by DaDawgs:

Another way to think about it is this. I have ten widgits. I have ten customers. Nine customers want one widgit each. The tenth customer wants five widgts for the same price.

the question becomes -- how much are you charging those customers. if you say your payment can get you "up to five widgets", but people only take one because they only have a use for one -- then you're testing your fate. if you're only charging your customers for a single widget, and someone feels they should have five -- then absolutely, they are expecting too much. however, most internet connections are simply given as "up to {x}mbps" and the providers are lucking out that people don't need to drive their connections for long periods of time.

q.