The logical but horrible end to this is the dreaded metered/measured service where you pay for the bandwidth you actually use, similar to what Verizon and other cellular companies do with their data plans. Sure, you can stream to your hearts content from whatever service you want but you are going to pay for the bits you use. Really, though, that is probably the most fair solution.
Netflix warns it will provoke customer protest if ISPs violate net neutrality principles
- Thread starter Poke
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 39
- Views 4K
-
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 logical but horrible end to this is the dreaded metered/measured service where you pay for the bandwidth you actually use, similar to what Verizon and other cellular companies do with their data plans. Sure, you can stream to your hearts content from whatever service you want but you are going to pay for the bits you use. Really, though, that is probably the most fair solution.
Maybe, but what does that have to do with net neutrality? Just because they can now block Netflix if they want it doesn't mean our internet costs will go up. If anything they should go down because people will be using less bandwidth. Netflix's cost might go up and Netflix might start charging us more but I don't see what this ruling has to do with our own internet costs.
I would have no problem with that method. It has been estimated that it costs an ISP less than 1 cent per gigabyte transferred. Lets give them a huge markup and say 5 cents a gigabyte, plus a base fee of lets say $25 to get the cable to you (about what lifeline cable costs). So, a cable system with a 300 GB cap would cost $40, probably less than most people pay. A terabyte would run about $76. The problem of course is that is a lot less margin than what they charge now.
It is part of the bigger picture. Remember the reason ISPs originally gave for blocking certain services or types of traffic was because their infrastructure couldn't handle the traffic. Of course it was very convenient that the services being blocked were often considered to be competing with with other services the ISP was offering, thus at least part of the reason for the "net neutrality" rule in the first place. IF ISPs start blocking or otherwise limiting services in any kind of wide scale fashion, the services will stage an uproar, as Netflix has apparently threatened. This will eventually turn the tide back to net neutrality via other means (likely legislatively). If ISPs are once again not allowed to control traffic on their networks, I believe the ultimate outcome will be that the measured service model used by the cellular providers will become the norm for most all subscribers. This isn't going to happen overnight but I would be surprised if it isn't the norm in 10 years or so.
As others have pointed out, they don't have much cost for bandwidth once the network is built out. I see more similarities to landline phones than a natural gas company. Once the phone lines are in place actual usage of them is very cheap. Natural gas, on the other hand, is a physical resource that must be sent out to meet customer demand. That's why it makes sense that most landlines offer unlimited use while natural gas is charged on a metered basis.
I think internet is much closer to the landline business model than most of the metered use business models.
I have to agree. The problem is of course that the companies involved are used to making big money on internet connections and are not going to want to give up any of that revenue. That plus of course the on going pressure to make more money every year will only lead to higher prices.
I think that net neutrality lasted a good amount of time. If it had been thrown out years ago before Netflix streaming took off it would be a very different scenario. Now that it has been established that they can make a profit and build the capacity to get where we are now, they will not be able to justify cuts in service or price increases to cover the cost of building out for streaming.
Many areas have more than one bandwidth provider. Phone companies providing DSL does not offer television services so they would have less of a reason to block such services as NetFlix. They would actually be competitive against the cable companies in the same areas that would choose to block such services. Other new services may emerge to compete that would allow the content.
I would like to see more ISPs that come from companies that don't offer TV services. The problem with that in my area is AT&T is the phone provider. They have Uverse TV service. Other places have Verizon phone lines and they offer FiOS TV. I do have other ISP options in the form of fixed wireless providers though.
I fully agree and have said this years ago...make the freeloaders, like Netflix and YouTube, pay their fair share for sucking up gobs of infrastructure. Also, D*/E* need to start paying taxes/fees for deliverying VOD to it's customers over the same lines Comcast/Verizon/etc. are requiered to pay cable TV franchise fees. Conversely, states should not be permitted to tax D*/E* programming since these services lease spectrum from the FCC and they do not use public infrastructures. That's what I call a fair playing field.
I fully agree and have said this years ago...make the freeloaders, like Netflix and YouTube, pay their fair share for sucking up gobs of infrastructure. Also, D*/E* need to start paying taxes/fees for deliverying VOD to it's customers over the same lines Comcast/Verizon/etc. are requiered to pay cable TV franchise fees. Conversely, states should not be permitted to tax D*/E* programming since these services lease spectrum from the FCC and they do not use public infrastructures. That's what I call a fair playing field.
Netflix, Youtube, etc... aren't exactly freeloaders. Sure they use a ton of bandwidth but they also pay for that bandwidth. As far as I'm concerned, data is data and the price shouldn't be dependent on which company is sending it.
Let's look at it another way...you pay taxes and expect to drive your small hybrid vehicle on the state highways and the federal interstates. Meanwhile, some mega-giant trucking company has a fleet of trucks running rampant that are taking up all the lanes, creating traffic jams, and making life slower and less responsive for others. While your little smart car is only a few feet long, the payload on these trucks are massive with some being miles long...and they just keep coming, and coming, and coming...often making it impossible for you to enter and exit the highways. Meanwhile, these knuckleheads are generally being taxed little more than me and you for sucking up vast swathes of highway. Heck, and they probably pay less taxes than both of us for using these highways because they can hide their money in offshore accounts, and employ other accounting tricks. I'm sorry, but I'm not fine with this arrangement. I want those trucks to pay for the lion's share of maintaining our super-highways. Right now the little guy is footing an unusually large percentage of the bill to maintain these electronic highways. Time to put-up the video toll booths? Yes IMO! Comcast, Verizon, Cox and AT&T should be outraged.
I fully agree and have said this years ago...make the freeloaders, like Netflix and YouTube, pay their fair share for sucking up gobs of infrastructure. Also, D*/E* need to start paying taxes/fees for deliverying VOD to it's customers over the same lines Comcast/Verizon/etc. are requiered to pay cable TV franchise fees. Conversely, states should not be permitted to tax D*/E* programming since these services lease spectrum from the FCC and they do not use public infrastructures. That's what I call a fair playing field.
Actually netflix and google pay tons for their bandwidth. Google has a giant fiber optic worldwide backbone. Both companies will run fiber to your local ISP's location and if the ISP lets them, install caching servers right at the ISP head end to deliver content.
Any company that streams or delivers internet content has to either have their own back bone or pay other companies to transport their bits. There is no free ride on the internet. Your local ISP does not have to build and maintain nationwide/worldwide networks. The local ISP just has to deliver the incoming content to their local connections, the connections you as a consumer are paying for. This is why the cost of transporting a Gigabyte of information is a fraction of a cent.
Bad example. Gas/diesel taxes pay for the highways. Those big trucks are sucking down tons of fuel and paying tons more than your car in taxes. In fact diesel is taxed 5 cents per gallon higher at the federal level, and even more in a lot of states.
If the cable company wants to violate net neutrality, maybe the government needs to step in a break them up. Supplying cable TV, phone service and internet service is what I would call incompatible businesses. They should be 3 separate companies.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 14,316
- 18,387
No way, I do not want to lose my Triple Play discount, I pay $128.00 a month right now for every channel plus Starz, 1 X1 box and the little X1 box, 50/10 broadband and home phone, I have noticed for what I pay for Comcast a lot of people here pay that same amount for just DirecTV or Dish.
One thing is for sure...communications laws and regulations have not kept pace with technology. Unfortunately, lawmakers will have to pick winners and losers since they can't put the cork back in the bottle and start over. The Lobbyist must be having a field-day!
Is this a promotion price?What do you pay when this ends.Around here for what you have costs $165 to near $200 and keeps going up! hopefully the end is near for the cable monopoly.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 14,316
- 18,387
It is the price I get because I called them up and said I am leaving for DirecTV or Uverse (and I would have left).
Also my bill just went down $10 because I paying for a upgrade for Blast for the 50/10 speed, well here Performance just went up to 50/10 and Blast is going to the 105 speed, so right now Performance and Blast have the same speeds, so Comcast lowered my bill, they did that without me asking, I noticed it on my bill.
That's great bruce! It pays to speek up
We are planning on dropping all but are internet!I wonder what they will try to sell us to keep what we got.
