Again, you are thinking in a competitive world. Exactly who is going to advertise that Netflix works great on their system when Charter now charges for it or cripples it? There is no other alternative where I am in Ct.
Will Cable Ops take on Netflix Following Court Upset of Net Neutrallity Rules?
- Thread starter dfergie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 48
- Views 5K
I to agree with the fact that the ISP's won't be too aggressive. If they are, then the public uproar will be so large, that even the most "bought and paid for" politician will support regulations. The last thing ISP's want is government oversight. I've felt for a long time that internet service has much higher margins than tv service. An if I'm right, these companies won't want to upset the apple cart.
Last edited:
Maybe not where you live but most of the people they offer service too probably do have other options. Rural areas might not but cities where they can get many more customers probably have at least 3 or 4 choices.
Edit: According to this website 94% of Americans have access to fixed location internet of at least 3Mbs from 2 or more providers. If you start adding in wireless solutions like LTE that number goes up to 98% having at least 2 choices and 85% having 3 or more choices.
http://www.innovationfiles.org/how-much-broadband-choice-do-americans-have/
Last edited:
How do you get 3 or 4?
In my small city, there is only DSL. No cable or fiber.
I had thought that in most larger cities, you could choose between a phone line internet connection and a cable line internet connection. There might be multiple phone companies, but usually only one is available at a house. There might be multiple cable companies, but as well only one available at a particular house. Where do the other 1 or 2 choices come from?
I live in a rural area and basically here we have Mediacom and Frontier. Both have to deal with the city gov't for many things and the beauty of smaller towns is that I can go up to city hall and bitch at the mayor directly. If enough people do that, then some things get changed. Personally I think in the end things won't change much from right now as far as how the internet works overall.
I have since edited that post to include a website showing some numbers. Most people have at least 2 or 3 choices. There are other solutions like fixed wireless. I'm not talking about mobile broadband from cell phone carriers here.
Where my house is in Florida I do have two choices for cable internet service Brighthouse or Fios. However where we are moving to there there is one, Brighthouse.
Good point about smaller communities, your voice does get heard better. I don't know if that translates into action. Charter recently dropped their free basic service to firehouses or town buildings where I am in Ct. After several weeks of back and forth the Town gave up.
Good point about smaller communities, your voice does get heard better. I don't know if that translates into action. Charter recently dropped their free basic service to firehouses or town buildings where I am in Ct. After several weeks of back and forth the Town gave up.
I am not trying to argue with you, I am actually interested. When I do a web search for fixed wireless broadband providers, the providers that show up are: Verizon, AT&T, Clearwire, and Sprint. Verizon's home broadband is $120 for 30GB. That would be about 8 hours of Netflix. What actual companies offer either unlimited or realistic bandwith limits on fixed wireless home broadband?
I would like to know who the 3+ providers are. If you live in a house that is provided phone service by AT&T and cable from Charter, what companies other than AT&T and Charter would provide you with wired internet access?
Also, looking at the charts in the link you provided, it shows that 0 percent of American households do not have access to 3mbs speed. Only 6 percent have only one provider at 3mbs or higher. Those are listed as numbers as of the end of year 2011. I find those numbers to be suspect.
Also, looking at the charts in the link you provided, it shows that 0 percent of American households do not have access to 3mbs speed. Only 6 percent have only one provider at 3mbs or higher. Those are listed as numbers as of the end of year 2011. I find those numbers to be suspect.
We used to use this service at our office. If there were caps we weren't bumping into them with 10 people on computers all day. We weren't streaming video or anything but several employees streamed audio at their desk. This isn't the fastest or cheapest option but we had it for a while a couple years back at a better price than this.
http://tcw.co/packages/
This is also a fixed wireless option in my town. Speeds are 40 down and 4 up for $40 per month.
http://www.windstreambusiness.com/shop/products/mi/fenton
Neither option is as good as the Charter cable we have or Uverse which we could have but there are choices out there. Most of them are regional but people may be surprised to see what is actually available in their town. Fenton is not a big city by any stretch of the imagination.
I am just very skeptical of the information provided by the FCC and that the companies provide to the FCC. If you look at broadbandmap.gov, my city shows that AT&T offers 3-6mbs, which is correct. It shows that Verizon offers 10-25mbs, which is wireless, but just going off of speedtests on my phone, the max I can get anywhere in my city is about 4mbs. It shows that Comcast offers 100mbs, but when I contact Comcast, they offer 100mbs in my region, but no digital cable anywhere in my zip code. The closest that Comcast offers digital cable is about 20 miles away, but the government map shows it at my house.
The companies overstate what they have available in an effort to pass legislation to keep municipalities from offering broadband.
The companies overstate what they have available in an effort to pass legislation to keep municipalities from offering broadband.
I don't doubt that some of those numbers are skewed. I still say that the majority of Americans have more than one broadband choice though. If one company blocks streaming someone else will start advertising that they don't. It would be suicide for most broadband companies to try to take away streaming at this point.
The caveat to that is that in most areas, both major broadband providers are also the major television providers. ATT, Verizon, TW, Charter, etc would most likely rather work together to crush threats to profitable television services than squabble with each other over a broadband customers in various cities.
I actually see the direction as similar to cable. Internet access will not be to the open internet. You will pay an access fee. Then if you will be able to subscribe to packages that offer access to such sites as YouTube and Netflix. If you don't pay for the package, you don't get access to the sites.
I think even most TV providers know that internet is the future. That's why dish is trying so hard to get into the internet game outside of their satellite offerings. I don't think they would intentionally ruin their internet offerings knowing they are going to have to rely on them in the future.
I also don't see this package internet thing you are talking about. The internet is all about access of information. I don't see the government letting these ISPs start to limit that access.
I understand that some rural areas only have one choice. I would consider my area a rural area though and we have at least 4 choices not including satellite and the cellular providers. Plus the people who live in the most rural areas are a very small part of the population. They aren't going to be designing the internet offerings around those people. They are going to design it to get the most business possible. If most of their customers have more than one option they can't act like they are the only game in town even if they are in some towns.
I think the most interesting thing about this is how the companies have shifted the discussion over time. Right now we have a debate about choice and how that and free market principles will prevent companies from limiting streaming. But, I think the reality is that there're market isn't working in this field and that choice and competition are an illusion.
What tells me this? Price. We pay a lot more for much slower connections in the US (as compared to other industrialized nations). If competition and choice were truly in existence, costs would have declined, services would have vastly improved or some combination of both would have occurred over the past decade. It hasn't happened (and I live in an urban area where competition from multiple providers is the most likely to exist).
The only places where we see these companies innovating in speed and price is where Google has been disruptive with google fiber. And that tells me that more competition is needed. If this applies to price and service quality, I have no doubt it will also apply to anti-net neutrality efforts.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
What tells me this? Price. We pay a lot more for much slower connections in the US (as compared to other industrialized nations). If competition and choice were truly in existence, costs would have declined, services would have vastly improved or some combination of both would have occurred over the past decade. It hasn't happened (and I live in an urban area where competition from multiple providers is the most likely to exist).
The only places where we see these companies innovating in speed and price is where Google has been disruptive with google fiber. And that tells me that more competition is needed. If this applies to price and service quality, I have no doubt it will also apply to anti-net neutrality efforts.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
That presumes one standard rate everywhere. Providers (take comcast as an example) offer different rates based on zip code. So, if need be, the providers can be more competitive in urban areas, while maximizing profit in rural areas where they have a de facto monopoly on broadband service.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for more choice and competition.
Here is the bottom line though. Do you guys really think this means the internet is going to drastically change to be more restrictive towards streaming services like Netflix? I really don't. Whether it comes from government intervention or the free market I think streaming will continue to grow not start to decline.
Here is the bottom line though. Do you guys really think this means the internet is going to drastically change to be more restrictive towards streaming services like Netflix? I really don't. Whether it comes from government intervention or the free market I think streaming will continue to grow not start to decline.
