Article: "Netflix hints at some good news for customers after big change to pricing"

[Don in CT]

Well, since people lived for 10s of 1000s of years without it, no one "needs" the internet.

But, on a less hyperbolic note, no, no one really "needs" HD video quality internet, which did not even exist not 20 or even 15 years ago. If you have kids in school, or are in school yourself, or work from home (AKA pay for infrastructure your boss should provide for you at work) or so on, you need a certain level of basic internet. For everyone else, it can be a way of paying bills, reading mail, and so on, but that level is far from an HD quality level needed to support multichannel HD video, but that is a luxury. No one "needs" that.

This is why the cost of such internet should be included when foolishly talking about how much money one "saved". You paid for the delivery system too. Include that cost.

There are no savings. Just a consuming public, unprotected. Now having to pay for the same content, two or three or more times.

No one needs TV or radio either. There are plenty of things we don't need that we all want to have.

The internet is the delivery system now for everything. So yes we do need it.

 

[telstar_1]

No one needs TV or radio either. There are plenty of things we don't need that we all want to have.

The internet is the delivery system now for everything. So yes we do need it.

But there's of course a cost. You have to attribute some of that cost to home video viewing, i.e., watching TV. But if the linear TV cord is cut you also subtract costs like maintaining a sat system including lease fees, service calls, etc.

 

[dishdude]

But there's of course a cost. You have to attribute some of that cost to home video viewing, i.e., watching TV. But if the linear TV cord is cut you also subtract costs like maintaining a sat system including lease fees, service calls, etc.

That's the big advantage services like YTTV have, don't need to provide equipment or install, all of that is customer provided. There still is a significant investment on their part of hosting the content.

 

[ncted]

For the people who think Internet service should be included in the cost of streaming TV, here is my perspective:

I first started paying for Internet service in 1994. I didn't start paying for streaming TV until 2007. Even if I went back to Dish or DirecTV or OTA+DVDs and cancelled all my streaming subscriptions, I would still be paying $75/month for AT&T Fiber because it is necessary to live life in 2023, not to mention do my job as an IT person who occasionally gets after hours emergency requests. It is the equivalent of a mainframe operator needing to have a phone line in the 1970s.

 

[AZ.]

No one needs TV or radio either. There are plenty of things we don't need that we all want to have.

The internet is the delivery system now for everything. So yes we do need it.

Thats why it should be treated like a utility!

 

[MikeD-C05]

Thats why it should be treated like a utility!

I think the FCC is working on reclassifying it as a utility. I read something about that the other day.

 

[Juan]

For the people who think Internet service should be included in the cost of streaming TV, here is my perspective:

I first started paying for Internet service in 1994. I didn't start paying for streaming TV until 2007. Even if I went back to Dish or DirecTV or OTA+DVDs and cancelled all my streaming subscriptions, I would still be paying $75/month for AT&T Fiber because it is necessary to live life in 2023, not to mention do my job as an IT person who occasionally gets after hours emergency requests. It is the equivalent of a mainframe operator needing to have a phone line in the 1970s.

So cancel your internet connection and see how well streaming works

 

[Ronnie-]

So cancel your internet connection and see how well streaming works

Nobody is saying streaming will work without internet.

People ARE saying that they would have internet regardless of how they get their tv, so adding it as an additional cost when you are already paying for it is a ridiculous argument to make.

If I am paying x dollars for sat and internet, and I am paying $70 less dollars for streaming and internet, it seems some of you want to count the internet cost twice to say, "see! there is no savings! "

Not that I should really have to explain this to you, as I am sure you got the point from the very first time the argument was made.

 

[Bruce]

So cancel your internet connection and see how well streaming works

Why, with internet can still get Television ( free and paid).

With just TV, that is all you get, plus nothing free.

 

[Bruce]

Nobody is saying streaming will work without internet.

People ARE saying that they would have internet regardless of how they get their tv, so adding it as an additional cost when you are already paying for it is a ridiculous argument to make.

If I am paying x dollars for sat and internet, and I am paying $70 less dollars for streaming and internet, it seems some of you want to count the internet cost twice to say, "see! there is no savings! "

Not that I should really have to explain this to you, as I am sure you got the point from the very first time the argument was made.

This is actually the 3rd time you have explained it to him.

 

[Juan]

Nobody is saying streaming will work without internet.

People ARE saying that they would have internet regardless of how they get their tv, so adding it as an additional cost when you are already paying for it is a ridiculous argument to make.

If I am paying x dollars for sat and internet, and I am paying $70 less dollars for streaming and internet, it seems some of you want to count the internet cost twice to say, "see! there is no savings! "

Not that I should really have to explain this to you, as I am sure you got the point from the very first time the argument was made.

My point is..you can't say streaming cost xx compared to satellite or cable without a delivery method..granted you would have Internet but would you have 100mb + internet without streaming?..

 

[Ronnie-]

but would you have 100mb + internet without streaming?..

Yes

 

[Bruce]

Yes

Difference in price is like $20 here with Charter, so a big yes.

 

[ncted]

Yes

I had 50Mbps internet when I switched to YTTV. I had 7Mbps ADSL2 internet when I started watching Netflix with no regular buffering or PQ issues. I could easily get by with <100Mbps internet and still stream everything I want. That said, my wife, who works at home, really benefits from 1Gbps symmetrical internet for her job which involves large files. 300Mbps would probably be fine for her, but we get MAX included with our Gigabit which makes it a wash cost-wise.

I suppose a family of 4+ might need more than 100Mbps Internet if everyone is streaming UHD content simultaneously, but the bit rates I'm seeing on my router don't really quite support that presumption: <20Mbps for Netflix, MAX, Hulu, Paramount+, Disney+ 4K. AppleTV+ 4K seems to need more bandwidth, but still less than 30Mbps.

 

[Ronnie-]

I had 50Mbps internet when I switched to YTTV. I had 7Mbps ADSL2 internet when I started watching Netflix with no regular buffering or PQ issues. I could easily get by with <100Mbps internet and still stream everything I want. That said, my wife, who works at home, really benefits from 1Gbps symmetrical internet for her job which involves large files. 300Mbps would probably be fine for her, but we get MAX included with our Gigabit which makes it a wash cost-wise.

I suppose a family of 4+ might need more than 100Mbps Internet if everyone is streaming UHD content simultaneously, but the bit rates I'm seeing on my router don't really quite support that presumption: <20Mbps for Netflix, MAX, Hulu, Paramount+, Disney+ 4K. AppleTV+ 4K seems to need more bandwidth, but still less than 30Mbps.

When we moved to this house we had 10Mbps cable as the best offering, then a couple of years later 24Mbps Uverse.

Then 1gb cable, and as of a year ago 1gb both ways fiber.

I pay less for the fiber than I did for any of the others, all of this within 10 years, so I’d have whay I have regardless.

That’s said I do have quite a few cams and other things that I want to have good speed and reliability no matter what my tv delivery system is.

If it was just for tv, I could drop my fiber speed.

The price difference wouldn’t be that great though so I see no reason to.

And what I have now with internet and streaming is still much less than what I had with internet and sat years ago.

 

[savarese04]

I had 50Mbps internet when I switched to YTTV. I had 7Mbps ADSL2 internet when I started watching Netflix with no regular buffering or PQ issues. I could easily get by with <100Mbps internet and still stream everything I want. That said, my wife, who works at home, really benefits from 1Gbps symmetrical internet for her job which involves large files. 300Mbps would probably be fine for her, but we get MAX included with our Gigabit which makes it a wash cost-wise.

I suppose a family of 4+ might need more than 100Mbps Internet if everyone is streaming UHD content simultaneously, but the bit rates I'm seeing on my router don't really quite support that presumption: <20Mbps for Netflix, MAX, Hulu, Paramount+, Disney+ 4K. AppleTV+ 4K seems to need more bandwidth, but still less than 30Mbps.

100 isn't great. you gotta keep in mind that your true speed is probably somewhere around 85 and you'll want to plot 20% headroom , so you're looking at 100 actually being closer to 68. Still ample, but not great if you've got 3 people streaming at once. I think of bandwidth like an electrical circuit. just because you have 15A doesn't mean you should be plotting to fill 15A. Your true usable capacity is 12A.

A lot of people also don't realize (not saying you, just people in general) that all these smart home/security equip uses bandwidth. If you've got a couple ring cams set up and there's a lot of activity, that will crush your upload bandwidth if you've got an asymmetrical connection. Asymmetrical is the biggest BS these days. Born out of a need to suppress people from running torrent servers and whatnot out of their house back in the 2000s, it's not nearly as a big a problem as today.

 

[ncted]

100 isn't great. you gotta keep in mind that your true speed is probably somewhere around 85 and you'll want to plot 20% headroom , so you're looking at 100 actually being closer to 68. Still ample, but not great if you've got 3 people streaming at once. I think of bandwidth like an electrical circuit. just because you have 15A doesn't mean you should be plotting to fill 15A. Your true usable capacity is 12A.

A lot of people also don't realize (not saying you, just people in general) that all these smart home/security equip uses bandwidth. If you've got a couple ring cams set up and there's a lot of activity, that will crush your upload bandwidth if you've got an asymmetrical connection. Asymmetrical is the biggest BS these days. Born out of a need to suppress people from running torrent servers and whatnot out of their house back in the 2000s, it's not nearly as a big a problem as today.

Unless the line is really limited to 100Mbps by signaling constraints of the uplink to the ISP or a hardware component, you're probably going to actually get better than 100Mbps. Spectrum over provisions their non-Gigabit services by about 10-20% in my experience, and the fiber providers that can do multiple gigabit service do the same. Even when I had 50Mbps service from AT&T Fiber, I was getting close to 60Mbps in real-world download/upload tests (i.e. not Speedtest). Other ISPs may provision differently of course. I haven't seen the 20% headroom "rule of thumb" in action since the old ATM encapsulation days. Realistically, I see 1-5% below theoretical max on high quality connections that are limited by signaling or hardware. I get 950Mbps all day long on my Gig connection which is pretty much what AT&T says gigabit means in all their fine print. If someone isn't getting very close to the rated speed on their DOCSIS or of Fiber service on a regular basis these days, they should request a service call.

In any case, my comments were specifically about what is required for streaming TV. Obviously, if you are using your internet connection for other things, you would need more than I stated, especially for anything video-related.

Hopefully DOCSIS 4.0 will be all they say it is, so the asymmetrical limitation will largely go away.

 

[Bruce]

Hopefully DOCSIS 4.0 will be all they say it is, so the asymmetrical limitation will largely go away.

I hope so also, but Charter just delayed the upgrades again , due to money.

My download speed is great, but my upload speed is terrible, tops out at 35, my co-workers in California say my video calls look like **** on their end, from them to my house, looks great.

Spectrum Plans to Upgrade Every Internet Customer's Speed But Needs to Delay The Project Because of Money | Cord Cutters News

Charter’s Spectrum said its massive project to upgrade its network to offer multi-gigabit speeds will wrap up as late as the middle of 2026, marking a slight delay from its original forecast. Charter CEO Christopher Winfrey, speaking on the company’s third-quarter earnings conference call, said...

cordcuttersnews.com

 

[ncted]

I hope so also, but Charter just delayed the upgrades again , due to money.

My download speed is great, but my upload speed is terrible, tops out at 35, my co-workers in California say my video calls look like **** on their end, from them to my house, looks great.

Spectrum Plans to Upgrade Every Internet Customer's Speed But Needs to Delay The Project Because of Money | Cord Cutters News

Charter’s Spectrum said its massive project to upgrade its network to offer multi-gigabit speeds will wrap up as late as the middle of 2026, marking a slight delay from its original forecast. Charter CEO Christopher Winfrey, speaking on the company’s third-quarter earnings conference call, said...

cordcuttersnews.com

Not sure what video conferencing service you are running, but 35Mbps should be plenty unless you are doing a whole lot of other stuff that requires upload bandwidth. E.g.:

Zoom system requirements: Windows, macOS, Linux

This article lists the requirements for using the Zoom desktop client on Windows, macOS, and Linux. For system requirements for other Zoom products, refer to the articles for the mobile app, Zoo...

support.zoom.us

 

[Bruce]

Not sure what video conferencing service you are running, but 35Mbps should be plenty unless you are doing a whole lot of other stuff that requires upload bandwidth. E.g.:

Zoom system requirements: Windows, macOS, Linux

This article lists the requirements for using the Zoom desktop client on Windows, macOS, and Linux. For system requirements for other Zoom products, refer to the articles for the mobile app, Zoo...

support.zoom.us

Just up the usual, video doorbell, ring alarms with video, etc.

I can only go by what they say, they say it looks terrible, from them it looks wonderful.