Netflix throttled on Verizon.
- Thread starter Kraven
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 20
- Views 3K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
The FCC is already trying to make new Net Neutrality rules. I really don't see the government allowing all the cable providers to start screwing up streaming services.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/business/fcc-to-propose-new-rules-on-open-internet.html?_r=0
Hmmm. We have been seeing issues on TWC, internet only customer in the last 48 hours. Slow speeds, resolution downgrades, connection dropping.
Of course, it is difficult to tell what is Netflix only and what is TWC typical indifferent service
Of course, it is difficult to tell what is Netflix only and what is TWC typical indifferent service
The flow of "general information" (and I'll lump-in entertainment services) into people's homes is definitely in danger.
We live in a country run by legislators who think "bigger is better" and have, on their committees approved things that should have been left alone!
Now, take it one step farther, by using a different "media distribution" example.
Do you listen to local radio? Think your local station is completely "independent?" Guess again! There are TWO major pipelines for most any of the syndicated shows and features out there. Premier Satellite Networks is a subsidiary of Clear Channel, the nation's bloated "giant" (radio) company that doesn't want to be called "radio" anymore, but they control WHO can have what THEY distribute through THEIR mainly-satellite platform. Then, there's Townsquare which bought Cumulus which owned Dial Global, (now back to being called Westwood One) a distributor of other very well known audio networks like CBS, NBC, and features like the Osgood Files and MUCH, much more.
Essentially we have TWO pipes of information to local (radio) affiliates, and choice is being choked. I know! One of my stations was told, "NO, you may not keep updates from Yahoo Sports Radio (formerly Sporting News Radio--bought up by the bigger conglomerate) because they don't think we're worthy of carrying their updates (only) anymore, after being an affiliate for 5 years there, and about the same amount of time here.
So, Network news, Features, Opinions you hear on the radio can be controlled as to location, market, and how and when they're heard by TWO large companies. This is very dangerous to radio, just as merging two (very) large cable companies is dangerous to subscribers. Think of it! Your "big cable company of America' doesn't want you to see a certain side of news! They're big enough to bully the programming suppliers and not carry what they dislike, or carry ONLY WHAT THEY DO! How about emergencies? ONE BIG COMPANY gets damaged at a major backbone (or attacked somehow) and goes "down." It takes out MORE subscribers that NEED information (in that particular emergency) than when there our country had more companies vying for your business.
"Bigger is Better and Okay" is becoming dangerous, and it's a serious issue, not a "sky is falling" situation, either. It's REAL. Our legislators seem to buy-in to the theory that big business is better. Or, is that they are "bought into"....hmmmm
Cable subscribers to what will be the "biggie" should definitely be at least concerned, if not scared. And, watch radio in the next few years....it's going to be a FIGHT over information and entertainment sources and formats. Not many programs are available in privately-run syndication anymore!
Sorry to "hijack" the thread to radio, but its an example of what is looming in the world of cable! It's already happening to us!
We live in a country run by legislators who think "bigger is better" and have, on their committees approved things that should have been left alone!
Now, take it one step farther, by using a different "media distribution" example.
Do you listen to local radio? Think your local station is completely "independent?" Guess again! There are TWO major pipelines for most any of the syndicated shows and features out there. Premier Satellite Networks is a subsidiary of Clear Channel, the nation's bloated "giant" (radio) company that doesn't want to be called "radio" anymore, but they control WHO can have what THEY distribute through THEIR mainly-satellite platform. Then, there's Townsquare which bought Cumulus which owned Dial Global, (now back to being called Westwood One) a distributor of other very well known audio networks like CBS, NBC, and features like the Osgood Files and MUCH, much more.
Essentially we have TWO pipes of information to local (radio) affiliates, and choice is being choked. I know! One of my stations was told, "NO, you may not keep updates from Yahoo Sports Radio (formerly Sporting News Radio--bought up by the bigger conglomerate) because they don't think we're worthy of carrying their updates (only) anymore, after being an affiliate for 5 years there, and about the same amount of time here.
So, Network news, Features, Opinions you hear on the radio can be controlled as to location, market, and how and when they're heard by TWO large companies. This is very dangerous to radio, just as merging two (very) large cable companies is dangerous to subscribers. Think of it! Your "big cable company of America' doesn't want you to see a certain side of news! They're big enough to bully the programming suppliers and not carry what they dislike, or carry ONLY WHAT THEY DO! How about emergencies? ONE BIG COMPANY gets damaged at a major backbone (or attacked somehow) and goes "down." It takes out MORE subscribers that NEED information (in that particular emergency) than when there our country had more companies vying for your business.
"Bigger is Better and Okay" is becoming dangerous, and it's a serious issue, not a "sky is falling" situation, either. It's REAL. Our legislators seem to buy-in to the theory that big business is better. Or, is that they are "bought into"....hmmmm
Cable subscribers to what will be the "biggie" should definitely be at least concerned, if not scared. And, watch radio in the next few years....it's going to be a FIGHT over information and entertainment sources and formats. Not many programs are available in privately-run syndication anymore!
Sorry to "hijack" the thread to radio, but its an example of what is looming in the world of cable! It's already happening to us!
- Nov 29, 2003
- 14,316
- 18,391
During the Day, get full 5800 kbps, 1080P picture, after about 5pm it gets knocked down to at best 1750 kbps and 480P picture, for the info I use the example short that displays the info and I have a Sony 5100 BR player that displays the info.
This only happens on Netflix, never on Vudu.
I have Comcast Extreme 105 so I have plenty of speed, just did a test and am getting 120 down, 25 up and Netflix is at right now the numbers I listed above.
This only happens on Netflix, never on Vudu.
I have Comcast Extreme 105 so I have plenty of speed, just did a test and am getting 120 down, 25 up and Netflix is at right now the numbers I listed above.
All they have to do is not give Netflix the bandwidth needed. Lets say the Netflix connection is limited to 10Gb/sec, when a bunch of users attempt to use Netflix it starts to deteriorate. They could give it a 100Gbit/sec connection, but they want Netflix to pay for it monthly... This is how these games are played. No, the cable company is not throttling Netflix on purpose, they just are not upgrading the link as needed.
Same here
"During the Day, get full 5800 kbps, 1080P picture, after about 5pm it gets knocked down to at best 1750 kbps and 480P picture, for the info I use the example short that displays the info and I have a Sony 5100 BR player that displays the info."
I have an OPPO 103 that allows the same kind of measurements, I have the same results and I have Centurylink DSL 10mbp. This started around the same time Netflix started the SuperHD a few months ago. ron
"During the Day, get full 5800 kbps, 1080P picture, after about 5pm it gets knocked down to at best 1750 kbps and 480P picture, for the info I use the example short that displays the info and I have a Sony 5100 BR player that displays the info."
I have an OPPO 103 that allows the same kind of measurements, I have the same results and I have Centurylink DSL 10mbp. This started around the same time Netflix started the SuperHD a few months ago. ron
- Nov 29, 2003
- 14,316
- 18,391
I bet both Comcast and TWC make a lot of nice peering agreements in the next few months to give the appearance of not being too big to merge...
That's fine...just as long as the video streamers (aka F-loaders) staring paying their fair-share for sucking up all the infrastructure bandwidth, and start paying cable/video franchise fees. No more free rides for Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, YouTube, etc. I'm 100% behind Verizon and Comcast on this issue.
They already pay for the bandwidth they use. They just don't pay way more per GB than everyone else like the cable companies want them too. They already pay more overall than most companies just because they are buying more GBs. Why should they have to pay more per GB too?
And what about the cable companies' customers. I pay for a speed I selected with a 250GB per month cap. Now they are going to tell me that the speed and data limit I paid for is only good for the services they decide to cut deals for? No thanks. I don't want my ISP deciding which parts of the web I am allowed to view based off their corporate partnerships. That sounds as shady as China's government restricting the internet to me.
There are no freeloaders in this scenario. Me and Netflix are both paying for our bandwidth. If they decide to stop providing me with that bandwidth I no longer have any use for them.
Not responding to your post...just looking at things from "the other side" since so many folks are wanting something for nothing and feel that Verizon and Comcast runs charities and should dole out their infrastructures without compensation. Back to reality....Verizon and Comcast run businesses and have a fiduciary obligation to earn a profit and maximize gains for their shareholders. Most of us probably have cable and telecom stocks in our retirement portfolios.
Folks always have the option of getting video selections delivered via the post office instead of sucking-up all the infrastructure bandwidth the Verizons and Comcasts paid tens of billions of dollars to build, all the while killing performance for other customers who pay just as much for their service, while using it for far-less bandwidth-choking applications like telephone, video games, email and web browsing. Sorry! When I watch Comcast and FiOS VOD I'm streaming video using a separate 6Mhz channels of cable spectrum dedicate for this purpose, for paying customers...instead of clogging the cable headenes and telephone switching offices Internet pipelines with millions of these video streams. I'm all in favor of Netflix paying Cable/Telcos to use dedicated spectrum for steaming video. Oterwise, Netflix customers should get steaming video when it doesn't interfere with Verizon/Comcast's business and technical operations. If they don't like it...customers can sign-up with another Internet provider and/or ask Netflix to build their own fiber/copper network.
I'm being somewhat facetious, but the only way net-neutrality works is if the Internet is regulated. Unfortunately, this means heavily regulated where usage will be metered (and taxed), video will be metered (and taxed again) and online transactions will also be monitored (and taxed, and taxed, and taxed on a federal, state and local level). Then everyone will be crying about the good old days and asking why Netflix, and others, didn't keep their yaps shut and pay their fair-share.
Just my two cents...
In another thread here we had some posters naive enough to think slow down of speed would never happen. What's interesting is Verizon pulled this years ago when Slingbox first came out.
I don't understand how any "end user" (you) of these services would side with the providers of (consumer) internet access who may "up" the user's rate for choosing a 3rd party content service, or control the flow of information. Please explain. If you believe the existence of these video services has somehow hurt YOUR internet usage, please tell us how. I have never heard this argument from anyone.
It would seem to me that, if internet providers make money on bandwidth sales, that part of the reason our overall internet experience is IMPROVING is because the providers of content NEED improved & growing bandwidth and are paying (whatever it takes) to ensure the delivery to consumers is consistent from the "head end." This must mean some profit to the 'net providers, some of which likely goes to improving their infrastructure. In any business, if the need is not demonstrated for growth, along with equally growing sales, business has no incentive to improve it's product or service.
Hold on. You say we want comcast and the other ISPs to offer internet as a charity. You say we want something for nothing. I'm not asking for something for nothing or a charity. I pay my internet bill every month just like the other 40 million Netflix subscribers. You say there isn't enough bandwidth for us video streamers but wasn't that the point of the data cap all the ISPs said were necessary?
My plan says I get 30Mb download with a data cap of 250GB. Now you are telling me that I can't use that 250GB how I please? Unless, I am doing something illegal they should just shut up and provide the service we pay for. As far as I'm concerned GBs are GBs and for them to only give me bandwidth to access the corporations that agree to pay them the most is ridiculous.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Right, if the ISPs start blocking all the video streaming services how are they going to sell those expensive 100Mbps internet plans? They are trying to increase the demand for internet. If all I can do is browse the web and check email I may as well cut back to 3Mbps DSL and save a bunch of money each month. What do I need speed for if all the services that can use it are restricted?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Something for nothing?
I pay quite a bit for my internet service, and I suspect that Netflix pays quite a bit on their end as well. If my usage doesn't cover Comcast's costs, then go ahead and raise rates as needed. But throttling specific services to try and eliminate competition is an entirely different problem.
The problem is that I have paid Time Warner Cable for a 50mbit connection, and I continue to pay every month. I as a consumer expect them to be able to deliver the content I decide to view at 50mbit/sec. If TWC cannot deliver any service faster than 2mbit/sec, what am I paying them for? Netflix is not attempting to send Cox cable internet subscribers Netflix movies over the TWC internet connections. No, it is trying to deliver content to existing subscribers on the TWC network that have asked for it. The content is delivered using the lines and bandwidth they have paid for. Netflix is not sending unrequested packets.
Just saw this in the local news regarding the Comcast issue. It also mentions Verizon.
kcra.com/money/Netflix-and-Comcast-strike-deal-to-allow-faster-speeds/24629746
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
kcra.com/money/Netflix-and-Comcast-strike-deal-to-allow-faster-speeds/24629746
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Looks like Netflix is going to pay some to Comcast. How much is unknown. The issue looks like that Netflix wanted to house local servers and they need space, electricity and cooling.
