Bad news for net neutrality, Netflix and streaming services... (1 Viewer)

comfortably_numb

Thread Starter
Dogs have owners, cats have staff
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 30, 2011
11,309
11,999
Missouri/Kansas
Just received this article by David Pogue of PBS's NOVA:


Meet the new, business-friendly FCC

Remember net neutrality?

Back in 2014, you couldn’t miss it, nor the videos that people created to explain it. Like the one I made.

Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast (CMCSA) and AT&T (T) should not be able to charge more to pass along some kinds of data than others. It’s an issue now that these companies own more than the “pipes”—they also own the companies that send video through them. For example, Comcast owns NBC, and AT&T owns DirecTV. Should Comcast be allowed to charge Netflix (NFLX) more because it’s a rival?

2014 was the year of net-neutrality debate. The whole country was up in arms. Every consumer-advocacy group took to the streets. In the end, net neutrality was preserved; the internet continued as it always has.

But now there’s a new FCC chairman, handpicked by Donald Trump: former Verizon (VZ) lawyer Ajit Vai. He wasted no time—without any announcement or discussion—in tearing down the FCC’s consumer-protection laws. He took about a dozen actions, including these:

  • “Net neutrality’s days are numbered,” he announced. He’ll face a battle to dismantle it completely, but that’s his goal.
  • He has defunded nine smaller ISPs that participate in the Lifeline program, created by Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to bring service to lower-income Americans.
  • He has killed the FCC’s effort to eliminate the cable-box rental industry, which costs you more than $230 a year, per box. The previous FCC felt that its circuitry could easily be built into our TVs or gadgets like the Roku or Apple (AAPL) TV.
  • He has halted the FCC’s efforts to end price-gouging monopolies on phone calls from jails and prisons, which cost as much as $17 per 15-minute call before the regulator acted to rein in prices.
Pai’s goal, like Trump’s, is to eliminate as many regulations as possible—regulations that cost money to large corporations like Verizon (2015 profits: $42 billion), AT&T ($13 billion), and Comcast ($3.5 billion).

Alas, the loser in these transactions is you, the consumer. Once net neutrality is dead, you’ll pay more for Netflix and other services that aren’t owned by the ISPs.

Of course, not everyone will be unhappy with the new, anti-consumer FCC spirit. Shareholders will love it.

Disclosure: Verizon has made an offer to buy Yahoo Finance’s parent company, Yahoo.

David Pogue, tech columnist for Yahoo Finance, welcomes non-toxic comments in the Comments below. On the web, he’s davidpogue.com. On Twitter, he’s @pogue. On email, he’s poguester@yahoo.com. You can read all his articles here, or you can sign up to get his columns by email.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheKrell

Claude Greiner

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
13,225
3,769
Detroit - The Paris of the Midwest
The low income plan for internet was intended for kids to have access to so their homework for school purposes.

I rarely see it used by the people who it was intended to help. Instead it's just being exploited by the people who are scamming the system already.

I say get rid of it, or make it so the people who get it only have 5 Gig for streaming video and see how many people upgrade to a regular plan like anyone else.

I agree the jail calls are too expensive.

As far as net neutrality, I would actually support getting rid of it. As everything goes to content being delivered via the internet the Cable and phone providers are loosing money when everyone is using their internet to bypass purchasing their video service.

Eventually this is going to lead to higher internet prices for everyone, where services like Netflix should have to pay for their fair share for the bandwidth they use.

Granted Netflix would have more fees to their customers, but those fees would be only passed to the customers using it, then make everyone pay for it over the entire customer base.
 

comfortably_numb

Thread Starter
Dogs have owners, cats have staff
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 30, 2011
11,309
11,999
Missouri/Kansas
You already pay a certain amount of money each month for access to the "pipe," to deliver your internet access. Then, you pay another $9.99 (or more) for Netflix. Why should you pay more just because your ISP doesn't own Netflix?
 

Sean Mota

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
19,040
1,738
New York City
The low income plan for internet was intended for kids to have access to so their homework for school purposes.

I rarely see it used by the people who it was intended to help. Instead it's just being exploited by the people who are scamming the system already.

I say get rid of it, or make it so the people who get it only have 5 Gig for streaming video and see how many people upgrade to a regular plan like anyone else.

I agree the jail calls are too expensive.

As far as net neutrality, I would actually support getting rid of it. As everything goes to content being delivered via the internet the Cable and phone providers are loosing money when everyone is using their internet to bypass purchasing their video service.

Eventually this is going to lead to higher internet prices for everyone, where services like Netflix should have to pay for their fair share for the bandwidth they use.

Granted Netflix would have more fees to their customers, but those fees would be only passed to the customers using it, then make everyone pay for it over the entire customer base.
I do not get it. I am confused. As a consumer, you advocate for higher premium so that Rich sucking companies like AT&T, Verizon, etc can have more profit than what they are making today?

Sent from my SM-N920T using the SatelliteGuys app!
 
Last edited:

SatinKzo

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
May 22, 2004
6,232
83
Louisiana
Net Neutrality is a joke. People scream it like they claim first amendment protection without understanding either. Net Neutrality needs to go away, but so do gov't sponsored monopolies of internet providers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kent4499

comfortably_numb

Thread Starter
Dogs have owners, cats have staff
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 30, 2011
11,309
11,999
Missouri/Kansas
How is Netflix or any other streaming service causing a poor return on investment to a broadband company? Once a network is built out, data becomes a soft cost. A customer streaming Netflix at a bitrate of 8 mbps is costing them the same amount of money as your grandma who checks her email twice a day. Adding fees and restrictions on how you use the internet access you pay for might bring in more profit for the provider, but it has no benefit to the customer. I can't see how any consumer would support such a thing. It's just as bad as data caps on home ISP's. The companies argue it's preventing network congestion and abuse, but that's all smoke and mirrors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheKrell

Yespage

SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Feb 27, 2010
12,195
11,444
Ohio
I pay. Netflix pays. Why should Netflix pay even more?
Yup. Netflix pays to upload their stream, you pay to download their stream. Comcast wants to be able to pirate Netflix's stream over the last few miles and extract money from Netflix.

Hey Netflix... You know, maybe you should pay us a little bit to ensure this stream gets to your customer without being harmed. It'd be a shame if that nice HD stream became all pixelated.

So..who would invest major money in a broadband network without a return of. Their investment?
You mean other than the millions they receive from charging their customers to use their Internet?

Odd, there was Net Neutrality and the Internet in my area went from low speed DSL (5 Mbps) to high speed DSL (15 to 20 Mbps) to Gigabit now. In fact, there are lots of areas with Gigabit internet. Google even started from scratch to create a Gigabit network.

The whole "Net Neutrality" prevents investment is one of the dumbest, most ignorant arguments that can be made. All Net Neutrality says is all Internet traffic is equal and it can't be tinkered with. There is nothing stopping Comcast from upgrading their system... after all, lots of people are paying a good deal of money to get their internet from them. In fact, Comcast advertises being able to stream with their Internet.
 

comfortably_numb

Thread Starter
Dogs have owners, cats have staff
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 30, 2011
11,309
11,999
Missouri/Kansas
All ISP's should be treating internet access as a "dumb pipe." Telling people what they can and can't do with that pipe, the service they pay for, is absolutely absurd. Does your electric company tell you that you can't use a certain type of furnace because they didn't sell it? Does your phone company tell you not to use phones made by Sony because they didn't make it? You pay for the amount (speed) of internet service that you like. That's all that ISP's should be charging for. What you do with that is up to you!
 

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
26,997
6,004
Moscow Russia
How is Netflix or any other streaming service causing a poor return on investment to a broadband company? Once a network is built out, data becomes a soft cost. A customer streaming Netflix at a bitrate of 8 mbps is costing them the same amount of money as your grandma who checks her email twice a day. Adding fees and restrictions on how you use the internet access you pay for might bring in more profit for the provider, but it has no benefit to the customer. I can't see how any consumer would support such a thing. It's just as bad as data caps on home ISP's. The companies argue it's preventing network congestion and abuse, but that's all smoke and mirrors.
they have to beef up the backbone to handle all the additional traffic..the internet fairies that provide free unlimited internet don't really exist in the real world
 

comfortably_numb

Thread Starter
Dogs have owners, cats have staff
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 30, 2011
11,309
11,999
Missouri/Kansas
they have to beef up the backbone to handle all the additional traffic..the internet fairies that provide free unlimited internet don't really exist in the real world

"Beefing up the backbone" is part of the cost of doing business. It is passed along to the customer. If you want 100 mbps, you pay for it. Nobody is arguing for "free" anything.
 

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
26,997
6,004
Moscow Russia
You mean other than the millions they receive from charging their customers to use their Internet?

Odd, there was Net Neutrality and the Internet in my area went from low speed DSL (5 Mbps) to high speed DSL (15 to 20 Mbps) to Gigabit now. In fact, there are lots of areas with Gigabit internet. Google even started from scratch to create a Gigabit network.

The whole "Net Neutrality" prevents investment is one of the dumbest, most ignorant arguments that can be made. All Net Neutrality says is all Internet traffic is equal and it can't be tinkered with. There is nothing stopping Comcast from upgrading their system... after all, lots of people are paying a good deal of money to get their internet from them. In fact, Comcast advertises being able to stream with their Internet.
Really? all internet traffic is not equal and never really has been..the only thing stopping Comcast from upgrading their system is the BILLIONS it will cost..routers,fiber,software and engineers are not cheap..if a corporation built a huge new factory in a small town..would it not be fair to have them pay for infrastructure (roads etc) rather than dump it on the existing taxpayers?..Same kind of idea..those who use the bandwidth..PAY for the bandwidth
 

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
26,997
6,004
Moscow Russia
"Beefing up the backbone" is part of the cost of doing business. It is passed along to the customer. If you want 100 mbps, you pay for it. Nobody is arguing for "free" anything.
I am talking about an internet that was designed for bursty traffic being forced constantly stream video..In the real world ..those who create traffic should pay for the expansion..its not a hard concept.
 

Yespage

SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Feb 27, 2010
12,195
11,444
Ohio
Really? all internet traffic is not equal and never really has been..the only thing stopping Comcast from upgrading their system is the BILLIONS it will cost..routers,fiber,software and engineers are not cheap..
Neither is their internet packages.
if a corporation built a huge new factory in a small town..would it not be fair to have them pay for infrastructure (roads etc) rather than dump it on the existing taxpayers?..Same kind of idea..those who use the bandwidth..PAY for the bandwidth
Everyone is paying for the bandwidth. Netflix pays A to upload locally. Then A pays B to use the main trunk. Then C receives the stream. And D pays C to download the stream.

If Comcast can't handle the bandwidth, it sounds like they committed fraud when they said people could stream using their Internet service.
 

Gobucks

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jul 2, 2012
700
208
Ohio
I am talking about an internet that was designed for bursty traffic being forced constantly stream video..In the real world ..those who create traffic should pay for the expansion..its not a hard concept.
We already pay for that expansion with almost yearly rate increases. Plus we pay more for faster speeds.

Where I live Time Warner has raised the modem fee $2 every year. Most people just rent them.
 

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
26,997
6,004
Moscow Russia
Everyone is paying for the bandwidth. Netflix pays A to upload locally. Then A pays B to use the main trunk. Then C receives the stream. And D pays C to download the stream.

If Comcast can't handle the bandwidth, it sounds like they committed fraud when they said people could stream using their Internet service.
I am talking about Netflix purchasing better service..its not fraud..they should pay a higher toll.(for better service)..at one point a major telco was building special trunks exclusive for netflix.( to move their traffic more efficiently) they were going to have cache servers etc. This would be a much better way to provide 4k streams...this would allow them to stream at higher speeds without clogging up the regular internet for the freeloaders (lol). By allowing companies to "purchase" better service benefits everyone (Not forcing anyone).
 

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
26,997
6,004
Moscow Russia
We already pay for that expansion with almost yearly rate increases. Plus we pay more for faster speeds.

Where I live Time Warner has raised the modem fee $2 every year. Most people just rent them.
silly to rent them..Wouldn't it be better for netflix to pay for the expansion? Rather than force it on everyone?
 

Gobucks

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jul 2, 2012
700
208
Ohio
silly to rent them..Wouldn't it be better for netflix to pay for the expansion? Rather than force it on everyone?
Some people don't know you can buy your own. They don't promote that. At least not here.

Why would Netflix pay for it? Should all the car companies pay for road since their cars use them? Should they pay to maintain them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: comfortably_numb

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top