AT&T Calls Netflix's Request for Equitable Peering 'Arrogant'

[Teehar]

No,it's a Netgear dsl wireless router.

Most fairly new netgear routers have that feature.If you have a router that supports dd-wrt it has a great b/width monitor.I read a lot when I was an ATT customer,over at dsl reports and other sites,I would say 90% of the posters had used less b/width than ATT was claiming they had.Just one more reason I don't trust them.You have to wonder just how accurate ATT's info is when they say (in our area) we can't effectively monitor your b/width usage.

Here is their online usage link.

www.MyUsage.att.com

And here is a discussion about it
http://forums.att.com/t5/Email-Internet-Security/Download-Meter-available/td-p/2705999

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

Most fairly new netgear routers have that feature.If you have a router that supports dd-wrt it has a great b/width monitor.I read a lot when I was an ATT customer,over at dsl reports and other sites,I would say 90% of the posters had used less b/width than ATT was claiming they had.Just one more reason I don't trust them.You have to wonder just how accurate ATT's info is when they say (in our area) we can't effectively monitor your b/width usage.

Here is their online usage link.

www.MyUsage.att.com

And here is a discussion about it
http://forums.att.com/t5/Email-Internet-Security/Download-Meter-available/td-p/2705999

They are saying that my data usage DOUBLED from January of this year to February of this year.

 

[Teehar]

They are saying that my data usage DOUBLED from January of this year to February of this year.

Makes ya scratch your head I bet?Sure sounds fishy to me.

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

I'm going to contact my local cable company to see what their internet rates are currently. I had cable internet before,actually had both cable AND ATT DSL internet. I actually want to do the same thing again. ATT's prices are fair to me & they have never overcharged me,this whole Data thing is what is confusing me. My wireless network is password secure & I checked my router to make sure no one is connected who shouldn't be. It would be interesting to find out if other ATT customers(who are also Netflix customers) are having the same conundrum.

 

[Need]

I am paying for that connection, so what I choose to use it for should be irrelevant whether it is streaming music, video, web browsing, etc. Comcast should not have the right to say: "oh, you're using netflix, sorry we're going to artificially slow down your connection for that because we can."

But the problem here is not as easy as net contents neutrality. If you look at internet as a system of carrying water to the homes. The system is neutral to the color of the water, and it doesn't care if you are asking for clear, yellow or green water... it will flow the rate to the homes. But Netflix has pink water where everyone wants... but the existing water system connecting to the Netflix lake is bottle-necked and Netflix wants the carrying system to build extra channels to its lake of pink water.

Netflix is saying: I have a lake of pink water and users want it. I need you to build extra channels to get my water out to them.
ISP is saying: I don't care your water is pink or black. You get the same amount of outlet as other lakes. Why should you get extra channels for free?

 

[king3pj]

But the problem here is not as easy as net contents neutrality. If you look at internet as a system of carrying water to the homes. The system is neutral to the color of the water, and it doesn't care if you are asking for clear, yellow or green water... it will flow the rate to the homes. But Netflix has pink water where everyone wants... but the existing water system connecting to the Netflix lake is bottle-necked and Netflix wants the carrying system to build extra channels to its lake of pink water.

Netflix is saying: I have a lake of pink water and users want it. I need you to build extra channels to get my water out to them.
ISP is saying: I don't care your water is pink or black. You get the same amount of outlet as other lakes. Why should you get extra channels for free?

First, Netflix still pays for bandwidth just like everyone else. It isn't free. The ISPs want them to pay a higher rate per GB on top of them already paying more in total because they are buying more GBs than anyone else.

Second, it would be silly for the ISPs to take the stance that every content provider should get the same size pipe like you are suggesting. Then you would have small providers having access to a bigger pipe than they will ever need and the big fish like Netflix wouldn't have enough. You would be wasting unused bandwidth on the little guys instead of moving some over to Netflix.

Not only that but the ISP's customers expect a certain level of quality. If you have an ISP saying "Sorry, Netflix doesn't work well on our service but joe blow streaming works great because people aren't clogging the pipe." their customers won't be very happy. If a business makes a habit out of making their customers unhappy for too long eventually they won't have many customers left to make unhappy.

I feel for the people who only have 1 ISP available. Those of us with more options won't put up with that crap. As we move forward, more ISPs will continue to spring up. Look how many no contract cheaper cellular providers have entered the market over the last few years. The big boys are starting to take notice. I think we will see something similar happen to internet as the demand for more online content continues to grow.

 

[jayn_j]

I feel for the people who only have 1 ISP available. Those of us with more options won't put up with that crap. As we move forward, more ISPs will continue to spring up. Look how many no contract cheaper cellular providers have entered the market over the last few years. The big boys are starting to take notice. I think we will see something similar happen to internet as the demand for more online content continues to grow.

Not that easy. This is a last mile problem of getting the 'wire' into someone's home. Heavy investment in infrastructure, and most places only have one or two providers who have made that investment; the phone company and the cable company. Some areas have alternatives with wireless internet using 802.11a, but that tends to be even more expensive. We used that when we lived out in the country in Colorado. Not even considering 3G/4G due to bandwidth costs.

 

[Teehar]

Whatever happened to the broadband for everyone initiative that Obama rolled out?I know ATT refused,but others took the grant money to build it out.I would have figured it would be making progress by now.I had to google it.Targeted for 2020.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...government-programs-promote-broadband-rollout

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I see the number of ISP's decreasing. As one who use to own an ISP I can tell you that they are a dying breed. I got out just after we updated our entire network in the state to 56K.

Not only that but there is no way for a small ISP to get broadband into peoples homes cheaply. The only real broadband providers to deliver speeds over 10 Mbps are going to be the Big Boys.

 

[Teehar]

According to that article in my post above yours,the money is there,if someone wants to do it.Hopefully sooner rather than later,everyone will have the ability to get hsi.Hard to believe that an estimated 15 million people still don't have access to it.

 

[king3pj]

Fixed wireless is an option in my area. We used to use it in our office building. They were competitive in pricing with both Charter and AT&T. As for speed, they were slower than Charter cable but faster than AT&T DSL. They just put an antenna on our roof and ran ethernet into the building. It's not all that different from satellite internet except for the slow speeds and low data caps that satellite offers. I can see more of these types of alternatives coming out in the future. We eventually switched to Charter because we could get faster speeds for around the same price. If Charter started screwing with my streaming I would be happy to switch to them for my personal use though.

We also have some local governments providing internet now. The town where I work has free WiFi access all over the place. I don't live close enough to town for it to replace my ISP but I know people who do. I don't know what kind of speed people are getting with that type of service but you can't beat free. I have a friend using it and the connection is good enough for him to play games on Xbox Live with me. When I check my friends list, I see him watching Netflix or Amazon pretty often so it can't be that bad.

http://www.tctimes.com/news/fenton-...cle_e588d5a6-e624-11e0-be1d-001cc4c03286.html

 

[mike123abc]

But the problem here is not as easy as net contents neutrality. If you look at internet as a system of carrying water to the homes. The system is neutral to the color of the water, and it doesn't care if you are asking for clear, yellow or green water... it will flow the rate to the homes. But Netflix has pink water where everyone wants... but the existing water system connecting to the Netflix lake is bottle-necked and Netflix wants the carrying system to build extra channels to its lake of pink water.

Netflix is saying: I have a lake of pink water and users want it. I need you to build extra channels to get my water out to them.
ISP is saying: I don't care your water is pink or black. You get the same amount of outlet as other lakes. Why should you get extra channels for free?

Actually Netflix has been offering for a while now to connect to the ISP anywhere they want to be connected to deliver the content. They are not asking for the ISP to build lines to Netflix.

The real "issue" here is that ISP oversell their capacity. They take a 10Gbit/sec connection and put 50k homes on it and sell each house 10mbit, then whine when 10k homes want to watch a 3mbit stream and wipe out the entire capacity of the town. Then to add insult to injury AT&T watch to charge a per gigabyte fee to the home where they have had to sit through a sputtering service.

AT&T simply wants to increase its quarterly profits by charging the home for monthly services and overages and then turn around and charge the provider of the data again.

 

[dangue]

AT&T simply wants to increase its quarterly profits by charging the home for monthly services and overages and then turn around and charge the provider of the data again.

BINGO

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys