Will Cable Ops take on Netflix Following Court Upset of Net Neutrallity Rules?

[ronjohn]

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.

But most TV providers don't want to lose the higher margin premium services that they offer. They do not want to become a wholesale provider of bits.

In my opinion, the bandwidth caps are all about delaying the transition of TV services to streaming services. There are studies that show that caps do not improve network congestion. Most of the congestion occurs in the evening when everyone is watching Hulu or Netflix. A teenager using torrents uses data in the middle of the night and the middle of the day when the network is less congested, because they get better transfers. The caps work for families that have TV service also. In a family of four without TV service a 250GB cap would mean about 15 hours a month each of Netflix streaming. The broadband provider could then either charge Netflix to keep Netflix traffic from counting against the cap, or charge each consumer to keep it from counting. Either way, they would be able to recover the "premium" prices that they get from TV service now.

In my opinion, broadband should be treated as a utility. I am willing to pay the costs to get decent, unmodified access to the internet. I do not want TV service from my broadband provider. I do not want email service from my broadband provider. I do not want anti-virus service from my broadband provider. I want an open pipe, that I can access the internet and any free or pay services on the internet that I choose.(Network management controls are fine with me, such as preventing email servers, but not any content or traffic type controls)

 

[ronjohn]

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.

I don't think that streaming will decline. I think that the broadband companies want to delay the decline of paid TV service. They also want to be able to charge for broadband access, and then charge to allow content to travel through the broadband.

 

[dangue]

But most TV providers don't want to lose the higher margin premium services that they offer. They do not want to become a wholesale provider of bits. In my opinion, the bandwidth caps are all about delaying the transition of TV services to streaming services. There are studies that show that caps do not improve network congestion. Most of the congestion occurs in the evening when everyone is watching Hulu or Netflix. A teenager using torrents uses data in the middle of the night and the middle of the day when the network is less congested, because they get better transfers. The caps work for families that have TV service also. In a family of four without TV service a 250GB cap would mean about 15 hours a month each of Netflix streaming. The broadband provider could then either charge Netflix to keep Netflix traffic from counting against the cap, or charge each consumer to keep it from counting. Either way, they would be able to recover the "premium" prices that they get from TV service now. In my opinion, broadband should be treated as a utility. I am willing to pay the costs to get decent, unmodified access to the internet. I do not want TV service from my broadband provider. I do not want email service from my broadband provider. I do not want anti-virus service from my broadband provider. I want an open pipe, that I can access the internet and any free or pay services on the internet that I choose.(Network management controls are fine with me, such as preventing email servers, but not any content or traffic type controls)

Careful what you wish for. Utilities tend to be metered services. If broadband providers employ the utility model rather than the flat rate model currently in existence now, we'll all end up paying more for less. There is a reason why AT&T and Verizon did away with unlimited wireless data and switched to tiered pricing ($$$$$).

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[king3pj]

But most TV providers don't want to lose the higher margin premium services that they offer. They do not want to become a wholesale provider of bits.

In my opinion, the bandwidth caps are all about delaying the transition of TV services to streaming services. There are studies that show that caps do not improve network congestion. Most of the congestion occurs in the evening when everyone is watching Hulu or Netflix. A teenager using torrents uses data in the middle of the night and the middle of the day when the network is less congested, because they get better transfers. The caps work for families that have TV service also. In a family of four without TV service a 250GB cap would mean about 15 hours a month each of Netflix streaming. The broadband provider could then either charge Netflix to keep Netflix traffic from counting against the cap, or charge each consumer to keep it from counting. Either way, they would be able to recover the "premium" prices that they get from TV service now.

In my opinion, broadband should be treated as a utility. I am willing to pay the costs to get decent, unmodified access to the internet. I do not want TV service from my broadband provider. I do not want email service from my broadband provider. I do not want anti-virus service from my broadband provider. I want an open pipe, that I can access the internet and any free or pay services on the internet that I choose.(Network management controls are fine with me, such as preventing email servers, but not any content or traffic type controls)

I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded paragraph. I wanted to say one thing about the caps though. I supposedly have a 250GB cap from Charter. Either they aren't enforcing this or 250GBs goes a long ways. I do have a low level Dish TV package but I spend at least as much time streaming Netflix, iTunes movie rentals, Amazon Instant and MLB.tv as I do watching Dish. Once baseball starts my streaming definitely becomes the majority of my TV viewing.

I'm also a big gamer. I download games from Steam, PSN, and Xbox Live regularly. A couple of my PS4 games were 45GB+ and I have bought over 140 Steam games in the last year. Not all of those have been downloaded and installed but many have. All of my Verizon Wireless telephone minutes are routed through the internet via a Network Extender too.

My point is that I use my internet without worrying about caps and I have never been throttled or received a warning letter. I am using as much, if not more data than the average user and in my experience the data cap doesn't matter. That doesn't mean that other providers are more strict than Charter. That's just my experience.

 

[ronjohn]

Careful what you wish for. Utilities tend to be metered services. If broadband providers employ the utility model rather than the flat rate model currently in existence now, we'll all end up paying more for less. There is a reason why AT&T and Verizon did away with unlimited wireless data and switched to tiered pricing ($$$$$).

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

They would probably try that. The big difference is that most of the utilities have a per unit base cost. If you use more natural gas, the provider has to purchase and supply more natural gas to you. With broadband, once the equipment is in place, there is negligible per bit cost to the broadband provider. There are arguments about a cumulative increase in overall usage requiring more equipment to handle it. However, once the equipment is in place, the difference between 1G per month and 900G per month could be measured in pennies. The only real difference would be the difference in the amount of power the routers use when you are transmitting data and when you are not.

Even if there was a metered system, I would be ok with it if it was truly treated as a utility and the companies could only charge regulated amounts that were determined by the actual cost of providing the service plus regulated profit. The broadband companies would have to have open books so that the public could actually see what the actual costs are.

 

[TheKrell]

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/

The problem with using FCC broadband penetration numbers is that they are total BS and have always been BS. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) My understanding is that the FCC counts broadband internet service to one house in a zip code as meaning that all houses in that zip code have that service.

Now I live inside the Washington Beltway. Until FIOS came to my community fairly recently, I had only one viable broadband Internet provider, and that was Cox. Sure, I could get satellite broadband, but that costs Big Bucks, which is why I don't call it viable. I'm too far away from my CO to get DSL, and because of that fact, I couldn't subscribe to DSL via CLECs (such as CavTel) either. I have also read that Verizon cuts the copper when they install FIOS. Can't leave customers with an alternative!

Anyhow, you can check my zip (22003) and see if I have 3 providers or not. I'll bet the FCC says I do. But I don't. It's a damned lie from the pit of hell, and serves the industry interests to jack up prices.

 

[ronjohn]

Anyhow, you can check my zip (22003) and see if I have 3 providers or not. I'll bet the FCC says I do. But I don't. It's a damned lie from the pit of hell, and serves the industry interests to jack up prices.

They show that you have 3: Cox, Verizon, and Platinum Equity. They also show 4 wireless providers.

 

[TheKrell]

Who the hell is Platinum Equity?

Anyhow, I ran across an excellent read in Business Week here: http://www.businessweek.com/article...utrality-problem-is-actually-very-very-simple. Choice quote from the above:

This is all fixable. The court did not say that the FCC could not enforce net neutrality. It said only that if the commission wanted to enforce it—a measure the court broadly agreed with—it would need to decide, as every regulator in every other developed country has decided, that a company that owns the wires is a common-carrier telecommunications service. In its 2005 decision, the Supreme Court already confirmed that the FCC is within its rights to make this decision.

Edited to add: Platinum Equity bought up Megapath and Covad. Their broadband goes over DSL. Can't get DSL at my house.

 

[ronjohn]

Edited to add: Platinum Equity bought up Megapath and Covad. Their broadband goes over DSL. Can't get DSL at my house.

I looked them up and they provide DSL and T1 connections, but it appears only to enterprise customers. So they are listed as a broadband supplier, but do not offer residential broadband.