 | | So where is the Google Channel? Until they have their own channels (think discovery, history, etc) they are not broadcasters. Once they do such then then I would agree. Until then they are not much more than a cable company that's using a different delivery method. | |
|
| | 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 | Re: Something has to give. 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. | |
|
| | | | Re: Something has to give. "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. | |
|
| | |  HangmnDon't Fight It...It's InevitablePremium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA | Re: Something has to give. 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 | |
|
| | | | | 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 | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Something has to give. 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. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Windstream
| Re: Something has to give. 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Something has to give. And, in some cases, those municipal broadband offerings are in areas the duopoly isn't servicing, but the duopoly opposes it because they might one day decide to enter that market and, if/when they do, they don't want to "compete with the government." So the people continue to get no access and the duopoly ISPs get to keep promising access... sometime... maybe... we'll see.
--
-Jason Levine | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Something has to give. said by swintec:said by r81984:How much do you think the physical cable to your house and the routing equipment costs???
Not sure, can you please tell us? How much does the pole rental cost throughout an entire plant, the line maintenance techs and all the equipment including truck and gas, call center buildings, staff, remote buildings for CMTS and associated equipment, advertisements, peering costs to offload the traffic and the list goes on and on and on. This isnt just stringing a piece of CAT 5 to each house and plugging it into a 80 dollar Linksys router you know. I guess you did not read my post.
Providing internet is cheaper than providing cable tv, but yet they basically charge the same per month for each service.
Their plant is already paid for from the cable TV, internet is just a bonus.
They make a fortune off the internet.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else. | |
|
| | | | | | Just wondering. How long have your worked in the ISP industry at a level where you are part of the decision making process? | |
|
| | | | | 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 are NOT eating the cost. You obviously do not understand canadian broadband. The lowest tier plans have a 2gb cap, the highest having a 175gb cap. In the case of UBB with wholesalers its even worse. The wholesaler pays the ISP for bandwidth, provides thier own network after the initial transit, and then the consumer gets billed by the wholesaler and the ISP for overages.
Tell me how that is "eating the cost" | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Something has to give. "You obviously do not understand canadian broadband."
Very true, seeing as how I don't work for a Canadian ISP and this statement was about "US broadband ISPs are monopolies" | |
|
| | | | ISPs are being told they have to eat the cost. Read Comcast's letter to the FCC regarding Level 3. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Something has to give. 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. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Something has to give. 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Something has to give. I am going to assume you did not read the linked article as you are still spewing nonsense. You should read it, there are even pretty pictures with color and all to help you understand better.
This has absolutely nothing to do with peering and thus has nothing to do with what Comcast is trying to claim. Comcast is NOT a peering company. They are trying to be more of a CDN just as Level 3 is, but that is not relevant to any of this beyond the fact that Comcast is attempting to profit from others being CDN's to companies they are not by charging a "toll" to have traffic delivered to their customers.
I am not going to continue to dispute this with you. The facts are out there, not just the he said / she said stuff. You trying to ignore them for the benefit of your argument is not going to change that. | |
|
| |  elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
·Cybersurf Intern..
| said by r81984: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.
In Canada the cable companies don't pay what we call the "conventional channels" providers (major Canadian networks, the 4 US networks, etc). However the cableco's do have to pay the freight to get the content to their NOC.
When it comes to the specialty channels, the Cableco's also hold all the cards, most channels do no require mandatory carriage, so each "broadcaster" has to negotiate withe Cableco's for carriage, and trust me if they get more then 50c/subscriber I'd be quite surprised.
The cablecos up here are also the major internet providers and at the same time own substantial broadcasting properties. Americans talk about concentration of the media, trust me, it's much worse in Canada.
--
Jake: "Four fried chickens, and a coke" Elwood: "And some dry white toast, please" | |
|
|  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | ISPs are getting greedy. That's what this is about. | |
|
| | | | Re: Something has to give. 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 | |
|
| | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: Something has to give. ISPs can raise their prices for internet service if they believe the market will bear it. Adapt or die. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Something has to give. 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. | |
|
| | | | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: Something has to give. 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | 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 | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
·EPB Fiber Optics
| said by fifty nine: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. Well yes, because that would be extremely stupid and greedy. It's like you're trying to think of the most greedy and horrible thing for consumers so you can say "LOOK! SEE?! They always cry no matter what they do!" Data is data and doesn't come in different "flavors". It's called the cost of doing business and these ISP's seem to be making nice profits in spite of the big bad Video Services. You can't whine about bandwidth costs and then turn around and show a healthy return. | |
|
| | | | | | | The internet was not designed to be a series of toll roads to be abused. As for the CRTC it only works for the major ISPs so clearly you know jack about that. Considering Canadians have had to pay for most of copper based networks here it think its only fair we have some say over how we access content over it. Power should not be in the hands of companies whose own VOD services are in direct competition with all online media to prevent cord cutters and people paying less for netflix then single VOD PPV movie you can only watch once(go shaw less for more!) | |
|
| kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL | 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 | |
|
| | | | Re: Something has to give. And nothing is wrong with them taking steps to maintain that profitability. | |
|
|  GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | Most ISPs in Canada already have caps and overage fees. Bell Canada has a 60GB cap on their standard DSL service, and a $2.50 per gigabyte overage fee.
Doesn't that kind of cover the added costs of greater demand for streaming?
In fact, since Bell managed to convince the CRTC to mandate these same fees on wholesalers who lease access to Bell's telephone lines, my DSL bill is going to *triple*. I'd say that covers waaay more than any justifiable upgrades!
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org | |
|
| | | So are you paying 1-2 dollars per gig in overage fees with a cap under 100gigs? Do you have only 2 ISPs in your area with exact same caps and overage plans? Its called collusion not capitalism... Crippling the internet just as internet based VOD is taking off in Canada has nothing to do with bandwidth problems. | |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Shaw is run by morons “Why should we be burdened with anchors and costs? The reason Netflix can offer an $8.99 service is because they have no costs other than acquiring the content,” said Shaw president Peter Bissonnette
Oh really they don't pay for bandwidth or hosting or anything like that? Their movies just go accross the internet by magic? | |
|
| | Figures. What fuckin' babies Shaw are! | |
|
| | The CRTC I had the chance in a class i'm taking to write a paper on this and it was actually sent to the commisioners at the CRTC.
The conclusion that we came to was basically the only answer to all the Canadian Content problems is to tax new media and funnel the revenue to fund canadian content production.
The CRTC needs to step out of the way and move this file over to revenue Canada.
a 1%-3% levy on purchased digital media and we could do away with Canadian Content laws and all these problems.
After all traditional broadcasting is on a crash course with reality | |
|
| | |  Re: The CRTC
| |
|
| | | said by backness:I had the chance in a class i'm taking to write a paper on this and it was actually sent to the commisioners at the CRTC.
The conclusion that we came to was basically the only answer to all the Canadian Content problems is to tax new media and funnel the revenue to fund canadian content production.
The CRTC needs to step out of the way and move this file over to revenue Canada.
a 1%-3% levy on purchased digital media and we could do away with Canadian Content laws and all these problems.
After all traditional broadcasting is on a crash course with reality
I think a tax on digital media would be more unpopular than ISPs raising rates.
Gimme more, I want it faster, and I want it close to free and cheap as possible... that's the mantra of the cord cutter. | |
|
| | | | Re: The CRTC I agree but what is the alternative? Have major broadcasters be in control of all the content? Creation of a web licencing system?
With the number of choices going from 3 in the 1950's (Over the air) to up to 300 in the 2000's (modern cable) the next step is going to an infinite source of broadcasters (IP delivery).
Any other system falls apart if you really step back from the problem.
We further suplemented the analysis by saying that only content that got used got the funding, so you don't get any cash until the product is a success (or at least only a small fraction).
I could not see any other way to keep the Canadian Content sytem alive. (not that I really care about it anyway) | |
|
| | No one likes a Greedy company, only competitive companies Shaw should really evaluate their business model and become more competitive, other than trying to stamp out everyone that tries to be competitive. A fair product, gets a fair market share. | |
|
| | | Re: No one likes a Greedy company, only competitive companies Shaw is just mad netflix cost as much a single PPV VOD movie on their service(or half the price of one PPV porn which there is more of on VOD then good content). Say what you want about netflix but atleast it does not deal in porn that anyone can order for 12-15 bucks...
And you wonder why people are cutting the cut in favor of ITunes, netflix, amazon vod, justin.tv etc etc etc.
So solution A is now to just insane overage-charges the amount for viewing netflix and not having to buy media rights all together. AKA same thing bell(ATT's bastard child) did super low caps with stupid overages to kill online competition. | |
|
| | what about other legit services? World of warcraft?
Steam?
Online backup services? | |
|
| | Yule this Shaw! For years cable outfits like Rogers and Shaw took OTA broadcasts and redistributed them over their cable systems and (shock) paid ZERO to the broadcasters. Shaw only became a "broadcaster" with real TV stations (commercial as opposed to their profiteering idea of community television) very recently and did so of its own choice.
Shaw wants their cake and eat it too, and your cake and the other guys cake and so on.
The fact that they have decided to charge PPV fees to users that wish to watch a burning yule log on Dec 25 when it costs them next to nothing to broadcast it only highlights how greedy they are. | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
 GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | What's a broadcaster or an ISP anymore? So I suppose we need to re-define both of those terms in regulatory circles in order to solve this?
Seriously Shaw and others like it who claim to be ISPs but really are content providers crack me up.
They aren't providing dumb pipe anymore. They're into all sorts of things. There are very few really true ISPs out there who are just providing the pipe.
AT&T, Shaw, Comcast....aren't ISPs in that sense. Thus why they're freaked out by Internet content siphoning into their cable TV business.
Funny really. The Internet is a data medium. Content is data.
The idea that any online content site now should be a broadcaster is pretty absurd when thought about traditionally. So they only way to shift things back into the hands of incumbents is to change the regulations...as per usual!
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. | |
|
Reviews:
·Velcom
| Corporate greed at its best What I see here in Canada is that the same players are controlling content production, content ownership and content delivery, so they feel like they can do whatever they want. If they see that you're not buying enough of their content at overinflated prices, they choke down the delivery system via which you're getting alternative content either by throttling or by UBB. If that wasn't enough, the same guys also own 95% of the mobile telephony/data market and they are "regulated" by their former execs. Now that we won the Cold War, we're living in a Communist dream  | |
|
| | Their Whole Argument Appears To Be Based On A Lie Why should we be burdened with anchors and costs? The reason Netflix can offer an $8.99 service is because they have no costs other than acquiring the content,” said Shaw president Peter Bissonnette.
No other costs? How about their extremely high speed connection to the Internet? They are paying for their end of the bandwidth. There isn't anyone out there giving it to them for free. | |
|
| Reviews:
·EPB Fiber Optics
| Re: Their Whole Argument Appears To Be Based On A Lie said by ruraltn:Why should we be burdened with anchors and costs? The reason Netflix can offer an $8.99 service is because they have no costs other than acquiring the content,” said Shaw president Peter Bissonnette.
No other costs? How about their extremely high speed connection to the Internet? They are paying for their end of the bandwidth. There isn't anyone out there giving it to them for free.
Seriously..Netflix isn't BitTorrent. It's amazing how easily they forget the "little" details. | |
|
| | As always, the usual strategy when you have no case:
Lie enough, and someone is bound to believe you. | |
|
| | Funny | |
|
| | enough is enough... revolution is the only answer. Shaw and the other cronies (Telus/Bell/Rogers) should be slammed hard for their anti competitive behaviours of the present and past. Open the borders to foreign competition who are salivating to tear them all apart. CRTC should be disbanded and all who have had decision making powers be jailed for anti competitive and anti consumer acts.
Its time for telecommunication revolution.
On top of that, appropriate all copper, cable, cell as well as fiber lines and declare them public. Build out fiber across the board (taxpayer funded, has the benefit to create jobs and all the good things about infrastructure investment) and invite companies to establish distribution companies on top of it. Such as what Tecksaavy does right now on rogers and bell's networks.
Everyone pays into the fund to maintain and upgrade the network proportionally based on the number of subscribers.
Enough is enough... These guys are getting subsidized, and on top of that we pay a premium for it all. If that ain't double dipping, then i don't know what is. | |
|
|  MM
@shawcable.net | Re: enough is enough... revolution is the only answer. More like triple dipping...
We pay, the government pays, then they want us to pay again for usage, heck won't be long before they pull a comcast and demand money from netflix and every competitor even tho they are making money on the content from online sources from overage fees. MORE MORE MORE for LESS LESS LESS | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by dfkjsf :Shaw and the other cronies (Telus/Bell/Rogers) should be slammed hard for their anti competitive behaviours of the present and past. Open the borders to foreign competition who are salivating to tear them all apart. CRTC should be disbanded and all who have had decision making powers be jailed for anti competitive and anti consumer acts.
Its time for telecommunication revolution.
You're right. Canada is a strong country and it's nonsensical to think it will somehow cease to be an independent country if a little telecommunications competition is allowed. | |
|
| | Shaw is clueless in Canada. quote:
Why should we be burdened with anchors and costs? The reason Netflix can offer an $8.99 service is because they have no costs
As if they dont have to pay for the upstream from their streaming servers.
What a load of crap.
--
Cheers! | |
|
| |
| | Invade
join:2007-07-08
Burnaby, BC | Re: Shaw is clueless in Canada. No, it's not even. Reason why they charge you over is because they're greedy. Look at Japan/Korea and Europe, they have way faster speeds and 100x cheaper than what we got. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Shaw is clueless in Canada. I was trying to be funny. Land overage fees are price gouging.... there's no other way to understand it. | |
|
| | | | Invade
join:2007-07-08
Burnaby, BC | Re: Shaw is clueless in Canada. sorry, too annoyed by the bullshit the canadian ISP's are pulling :| | |
|
 The EPlease allow me to retortPremium
join:2002-05-26
Burnaby, BC
2 edits | Null null | |
|
| | Fail shaw is fail.... Your caps are a purposely a joke to prevent access free/supercheap online video unless we pay stupid overage fees and you wanna complain about competition.... | |
|
|
|
·
·
·
