FCC Sides with Cable Companies on Tiered Pricing--Netflix Objects

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-chairman-supports-broadband-data-caps-amid-netflix-protests/2012/05/22/gIQAfdN9hU_blog.html>

While I understand Netflix's desire to piggyback their streaming service
over broadband unlimited data, Comcast's lowest tier is 300GB/month.
This translates to about 150 hours of the highest quality video
available from Netflix. Is anyone watching five hours of HD video per
day, or doing anything else that would get them up to 300GB? I suppose
you could have a household with a lot of people doing multiple streams
at the same time that would get you there, and there are tiers to
support that model.

Still, it's not like what Pandora is running into with tiered pricing
for wireless data. There you have users regularly running into their
limit, whether it's 100MB, 200MB, 300MB, 1GB, or 2GB/month, and probably
deciding to find another source for music to save their data for more
important tasks. Storing audio files on an iPod or smart phone, rather
than doing wireless streaming, is a bit more of a hassle but not an
undue hardship.

What Netflix is worried about is the misperception that cable
subscribers may have about data usage, and that the users may decide to
drop Netflix streaming as a result.

You have to wonder about a business model that relies on another company
continuing to provide an unlimited service.

SMS wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 09:14:45 -0700]:
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-chairman-supports-broadband-data-caps-amid-netflix-protests/2012/05/22/gIQAfdN9hU_blog.html>
>
> While I understand Netflix's desire to piggyback their streaming service
> over broadband unlimited data, Comcast's lowest tier is 300GB/month.
> This translates to about 150 hours of the highest quality video
> available from Netflix. Is anyone watching five hours of HD video per
> day, or doing anything else that would get them up to 300GB? I suppose

That's only 2.5 hours per day for Mom & Dad watching one thing and
kids watching another. Or stay at home Mom watching 5 hours a day.


That's assuming all you do is Netflix. There are many other uses for
the internet like online backup, downloading games seems to be where the
market is going for all gaming devices, concoles and PCs. One game is 4-20GB

Let's not forget it's TOTAL usage they count, so you uploading photos
to grandma also counts as well as downloading stuff.



> What Netflix is worried about is the misperception that cable
> subscribers may have about data usage, and that the users may decide to
> drop Netflix streaming as a result.

Then there's the prioritization of their own Xfinity packets above those
of Netflix or Hulu

> You have to wonder about a business model that relies on another company
> continuing to provide an unlimited service.

The limits are FALSE to begin with.

In article <jpgg86$tou$1@dont-email.me>, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
wrote:

> SMS wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 09:14:45 -0700]:
> > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...an-supports-br
> > oadband-data-caps-amid-netflix-protests/2012/05/22/gIQAfdN9hU_blog.html>
> >
> > You have to wonder about a business model that relies on another company
> > continuing to provide an unlimited service.
>
> The limits are FALSE to begin with.

The reason the limits are there (note that they don't apply to content
purchased from the carrier) is to discourage customers going elsewhere
for content. That is the ONLY reason the limits are there. There is no
shortage of bits.

Note that sonic.net has no limits. Why? Because they are not a content
provider and don't really give a damn what the data is used for. It is
also interesting to note that Comcast business service has no limits.

Business customers can use as much as they like but home users have to
be restricted? That should tell you right there that Comcast doesn't
care about the data volume as much as they don't want home users
watching movies from Netflix.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400

On 05/22/2012 09:14 AM, SMS wrote:
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-chairman-supports-broadband-data-caps-amid-netflix-protests/2012/05/22/gIQAfdN9hU_blog.html>
>
>
> While I understand Netflix's desire to piggyback their streaming service
> over broadband unlimited data, Comcast's lowest tier is 300GB/month.
> This translates to about 150 hours of the highest quality video
> available from Netflix. Is anyone watching five hours of HD video per
> day, or doing anything else that would get them up to 300GB? I suppose
> you could have a household with a lot of people doing multiple streams
> at the same time that would get you there, and there are tiers to
> support that model.
>
> Still, it's not like what Pandora is running into with tiered pricing
> for wireless data. There you have users regularly running into their
> limit, whether it's 100MB, 200MB, 300MB, 1GB, or 2GB/month, and probably
> deciding to find another source for music to save their data for more
> important tasks. Storing audio files on an iPod or smart phone, rather
> than doing wireless streaming, is a bit more of a hassle but not an
> undue hardship.
>
> What Netflix is worried about is the misperception that cable
> subscribers may have about data usage, and that the users may decide to
> drop Netflix streaming as a result.
>
> You have to wonder about a business model that relies on another company
> continuing to provide an unlimited service.

If things are going to move forward in this country then you can't have
data caps. And you can't in a lot of areas have two companies with a
monopoly over broadband. Fiber now needs to be in the commons not the
cash cow for a bunch of fat investors. We are already behind many
countries as far as broadband goes just to suit a bunch of US suits.

They want things in "the cloud" but seem to be unwilling to make it
happen or available 24/7 no data caps.

On 5/22/12 11:52 , Justin wrote:
> SMS wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 09:14:45 -0700]:
>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-chairman-supports-broadband-data-caps-amid-netflix-protests/2012/05/22/gIQAfdN9hU_blog.html>
>>
>> While I understand Netflix's desire to piggyback their streaming service
>> over broadband unlimited data, Comcast's lowest tier is 300GB/month.
>> This translates to about 150 hours of the highest quality video
>> available from Netflix. Is anyone watching five hours of HD video per
>> day, or doing anything else that would get them up to 300GB? I suppose
>
> That's only 2.5 hours per day for Mom & Dad watching one thing and
> kids watching another. Or stay at home Mom watching 5 hours a day.
>
>
> That's assuming all you do is Netflix. There are many other uses for
> the internet like online backup, downloading games seems to be where the
> market is going for all gaming devices, concoles and PCs. One game is 4-20GB
>
> Let's not forget it's TOTAL usage they count, so you uploading photos
> to grandma also counts as well as downloading stuff.
>
>
>
>> What Netflix is worried about is the misperception that cable
>> subscribers may have about data usage, and that the users may decide to
>> drop Netflix streaming as a result.
>
> Then there's the prioritization of their own Xfinity packets above those
> of Netflix or Hulu
>
>> You have to wonder about a business model that relies on another company
>> continuing to provide an unlimited service.
>
> The limits are FALSE to begin with.
>



There was a story that came out some time ago, in which the
Chairman of ATT was commenting on the proposed Net Neutrality rules
being discussed in the blogosphere, at the time. He proposed the
ending of all unlimited data plans, not only for wireless, but for
wired carriers, as well, because he was unwilling to let someone
else use his pipe to make money that he didn't get a cut. Tiered
plans were his recommendations as the only 'fair' solution. After
all, business phone system and line rates have been prorated and
linked to gross annual revenue of the subscriber since AG Bell. Only
residential phones were flat rate.

Almost immediately, other carriers distanced themselves from this
blunt commentary, but they didn't dispute his point. And considering
that consumer level internet is used more often than not to connect
to for-profit sources, the commercial phone model can easily be
applied to internet usage.

But the data limits as imposed are less intended to prevent
freerides on someone else's service, as much as they are
protectionist measures in favor of the carriers' own content
services, which, often, do NOT contain what the viewer/user is
interested in. In this way, the carrier profits from the use of
someone else's services, when their own do not meet the consumer's
needs.

In other words, the moves are intended to induce consumer choice
limits...which is kind of antithetical to the intent of the internet.

"Bhairitu" <noozguru@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> If things are going to move forward in this country then you can't have
> data caps. And you can't in a lot of areas have two companies with a
> monopoly over broadband.

This is why we need government regulation. This scenario is exactly why the
Libertarian philosophy doesn't work. In an unregulated field there is
little/no room for small entrepreneurs. The big guys gobble up all the
worthwhile competitors and the little guys get squashed. I'm still amazed
it hasn't happened to Sonic.net yet, though I'm sure AT&T and Comcast are
looking for ways to do it before they get too big.

"D. Peter Maus" <dpetermaus@att.net> wrote

> But the data limits as imposed are less intended to prevent freerides on
> someone else's service, as much as they are protectionist measures in
> favor of the carriers' own content services [....]

Prior to the Reagan era there used to be anti-trust laws which told
companies that not only could they not buy up all the competition, but they
also could not "vertically integrate", that is, control all levels of
service such as production, distribution, and end-user retailing.

In the 1950s this led to the breakup of the movie studios. No longer could
they provide content AND run movie theaters. They had to do one or the
other. This saved the small mom'n'pop movie theaters from extinction
because they were able to bid on first-run movies on a level playing field.

Since the studios were allowed to get back into the theater business a few
years ago, movies have been distributed mostly to owned chains and the
little mom'n'pop theaters are dropping out of business like flies. In SF,
the Metro, Roxie, and Balboa have gone non-profit, the Castro is dark 1 or 2
nights a week, and thousands of theaters have closed across America.

And yet, the movie theater model is not dead. China's theaters are growing
by leaps and bounds and they've just announced the purchase of AMC Theaters
here. In order to secure product for their theaters, the new Wanda/AMC will
co-produce movies with Disney. And when the movies are released they will
likely appear first at AMC and then maybe by the 4th month at indie
theaters, if anybody wants to see them by then.

Well, so too, the problem with Comcast (now majority co-owner of NBC, don't
forget). I can see a time when Comcast will give preference to NBC-related
programming (CNBC, MSNBC, Syfy, Telmundo, G4, Hulu, etc) such as maybe
making it all basic tier, while competing programming (CNN, Discovery,
History, Biography, Univision, etc) are relegated to higher-priced tiers.

Anti-trust regulation is the only way out of this mess.

At 22 May 2012 09:14:45 -0700 SMS wrote:
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/.../fcc-chairman-
supports-broadband-data-caps-amid-netflix-
protests/2012/05/22/gIQAfdN9hU_blog.html>
>
> While I understand Netflix's desire to piggyback their streaming
> service over broadband unlimited data, Comcast's lowest tier is
> 300GB/month. This translates to about 150 hours of the highest quality
> video available from Netflix. Is anyone watching five hours of HD video
> per day, or doing anything else that would get them up to 300GB? I
> suppose you could have a household with a lot of people doing multiple
> streams at the same time that would get you there, and there are tiers
> to support that model.
>
> Still, it's not like what Pandora is running into with tiered pricing
> for wireless data. There you have users regularly running into their
> limit, whether it's 100MB, 200MB, 300MB, 1GB, or 2GB/month, and
> probably deciding to find another source for music to save their data
> for more important tasks. Storing audio files on an iPod or smart
> phone, rather than doing wireless streaming, is a bit more of a hassle
> but not an undue hardship.
>
> What Netflix is worried about is the misperception that cable
> subscribers may have about data usage, and that the users may decide to
> drop Netflix streaming as a result.
>
> You have to wonder about a business model that relies on another
> company continuing to provide an unlimited service.


It's a two-way street. Services like Pandora and Hulu are why many of us
can justify spending what we spend on broadband internet. If I just
wanted a little web browsing and email, I could still be using a sub-
$10/month dialup account. The sole purpose of an ISP is to connect us to
the internet to use the variety of services available, otherwise we could
go back to the walled gardens of circa-1985 AOL and Compuserve.
In my own case, I was perfectly happy with my provider's 1Mb/s
(eventually 3Mb/s) budget tier of service, but I upgraded to 7Mb/s for
$10/month more solely for Netflix's $8/month streaming package to work
acceptably. They're making more from my Netflix usage than Netflix is!

On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:21:47 -0700, John Higdon <higgy@kome.com>
wrote:

>Business customers can use as much as they like but home users have to
>be restricted?

Business and residential users generally get different rates. If I
used my (unlimited) home phone for a business I expect Cox would be
inviting me to change to a business plan. Why would an ISP be
different?

On 5/22/12 14:52 , David Kaye wrote:
> I can see a time when Comcast will give preference to NBC-related
> programming (CNBC, MSNBC, Syfy, Telmundo, G4, Hulu, etc) such as maybe
> making it all basic tier, while competing programming (CNN, Discovery,
> History, Biography, Univision, etc) are relegated to higher-priced tiers.


They already do.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:55:38 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

>The sole purpose of an ISP is to connect us to
>the internet to use the variety of services available,

The ISP is a business, not a charity. The *sole purpose* is to make
shareholders happy (if a public company).

>otherwise we could
>go back to the walled gardens of circa-1985 AOL and Compuserve.

Really? You could go back? Do the walled gardens still exist?

>In my own case, I was perfectly happy with my provider's 1Mb/s
>(eventually 3Mb/s) budget tier of service, but I upgraded to 7Mb/s for
>$10/month more solely for Netflix's $8/month streaming package to work
>acceptably. They're making more from my Netflix usage than Netflix is!

Simple. If you're displeased vote with your wallet. Or else do like
everyone else here. Pay the price and ***** about it...

In article <jpgntj$mdp$1@dont-email.me>,
"D. Peter Maus" <dpetermaus@att.net> wrote:

> In other words, the moves are intended to induce consumer choice
> limits...which is kind of antithetical to the intent of the internet.

Which is why content providers should not be data carriers and visa
versa. Note the sonic.net has comparable rates to Comcastf, but does not
impose limits.

Sonic.net is not a content provider. Funny thing, that.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400

"D. Peter Maus" <dpetermaus@att.net> wrote

>
> They already do.

I'm on Comcast and they don't give preference to NBC programming. Discovery
is on channel 15, which is basic cable. Faux News, CNN, MSNBC, et al are
all gathered together on basic and look comparable to the customer.
Likewise, Comcast also offers History, Biography, and similar channels on
basic.

What I'm saying is that there'll come a time when Comcast offers a "basic
basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
and local brodcasters. I'd bet that you won't be seeing Biography, History,
Discovery, CNN, or Weather on that service.

In article <jph0dn$gmr$1@dont-email.me>,
David Kaye <sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"D. Peter Maus" <dpetermaus@att.net> wrote
>> They already do.
>
>...
>What I'm saying is that there'll come a time when Comcast offers a "basic
>basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
>and local brodcasters. I'd bet that you won't be seeing Biography, History,
>Discovery, CNN, or Weather on that service.

They already do.

It's called "Limited Basic" and you have to ask for it since it isn't
widely advertised. I pay ~$15/month for it. In addition to the locals,
this is what I get on it (as of the last time I did a scan of the
PAT/CAT/PMT tables and SCTE65 data):

WGN-HD (717)
HSN-HD (718)
Discover (29)
CSPAN (22)
CSPAN2 (109)
HSN (11)
QVC (23)
Local (99)
History (62)
HGTV (75)
CAL Channel (108)
CHNSB - Comcast Hometown Network South Bay (104)
Educational Access (27)
Public Access 1 (15)
community (30)
Government Access 1 (26)
TVGC (111)
OnDemand commercial
color bars (998)
GEMS TV (77)
CSNBP-FSN+/Jewlry TV (116)
WGN (33)
JWLTV (28)

At 22 May 2012 14:01:37 -0700 AJL wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:55:38 -0600, Todd Allcock
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> >The sole purpose of an ISP is to connect us to
> >the internet to use the variety of services available,
>
> The ISP is a business, not a charity. The *sole purpose* is to make
> shareholders happy (if a public company).

True, but they chose their business, and they don't own the internet.
They're making money leeching off of established infrastructure just like
Netflix and Pandora are. Just as every brick and mortar store is
dependent on roads they didn't build. As I said, it's a two-way street-
we pay Comcast, Verizon, et al for access to the content they're trying
to prevent us from accessing.

> >otherwise we could
> >go back to the walled gardens of circa-1985 AOL and Compuserve.
>
> Really? You could go back? Do the walled gardens still exist?

No. They connect to the internet now, instead of to their old proprietary
content. My point was that ISPs now want to favor their own proprietary
content over third-party content, just like AOL over a quarter-century ago.



> >In my own case, I was perfectly happy with my provider's 1Mb/s
> >(eventually 3Mb/s) budget tier of service, but I upgraded to 7Mb/s for
> >$10/month more solely for Netflix's $8/month streaming package to work
> >acceptably. They're making more from my Netflix usage than Netflix is!
>
> Simple. If you're displeased vote with your wallet. Or else do like
> everyone else here. Pay the price and ***** about it...


I'm not displeased. My ISP (CenturyLink) doesn't have caps (yet.) I
understand I need a fast enough connection to stream Netflix, and I'm
willing to pay for it. My point was that the access to the third-party
services that the ISPs think are "leeching" their bandwidth and profits
are actually what we're paying the ISP for- not whatever pathetic excuse
for content they're cobbling up themselves.

When it becomes too expensive for me to use Netflix (or Hulu, or whatever)
either because of speed tiers or usage caps, I'll drop my service to a
slower, cheaper, tier. I don't need 7Mb/s for email, web browsing, or
Facebook. I dropped to 256kbps (from 1Mbps) one year because they
wouldn't extend some promo rate I had that expired, and I took a speed
hit rather than a price increase.

On 5/22/12 2:29 PM, David Kaye wrote:
> "D. Peter Maus"<dpetermaus@att.net> wrote
>
>>
>> They already do.
>
> I'm on Comcast and they don't give preference to NBC programming. Discovery
> is on channel 15, which is basic cable. Faux News, CNN, MSNBC, et al are
> all gathered together on basic and look comparable to the customer.
> Likewise, Comcast also offers History, Biography, and similar channels on
> basic.
>
> What I'm saying is that there'll come a time when Comcast offers a "basic
> basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
> and local brodcasters. I'd bet that you won't be seeing Biography, History,
> Discovery, CNN, or Weather on that service.
>
If by "Weather" you mean "The Weather Channel", that's another
"property" in the Comcast/NBC-Universal stable. (You can trace the start
of TWC's decline to the day NBC got its paws on it.)

On 5/22/12 2:23 PM, John Higdon wrote:
> In article<jpgntj$mdp$1@dont-email.me>,
> "D. Peter Maus"<dpetermaus@att.net> wrote:
>
>> In other words, the moves are intended to induce consumer choice
>> limits...which is kind of antithetical to the intent of the internet.
>
> Which is why content providers should not be data carriers and visa
> versa. Note the sonic.net has comparable rates to Comcastf, but does not
> impose limits.
>
> Sonic.net is not a content provider. Funny thing, that.
>
Sonic is also superbly responsive to subscribers, something neither
Comcast nor AT&T can say with a straight face.

On 5/22/12 16:29 , David Kaye wrote:
> "D. Peter Maus" <dpetermaus@att.net> wrote
>
>>
>> They already do.
>
> I'm on Comcast and they don't give preference to NBC programming. Discovery
> is on channel 15, which is basic cable. Faux News, CNN, MSNBC, et al are
> all gathered together on basic and look comparable to the customer.
> Likewise, Comcast also offers History, Biography, and similar channels on
> basic.
>
> What I'm saying is that there'll come a time when Comcast offers a "basic
> basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
> and local brodcasters. I'd bet that you won't be seeing Biography, History,
> Discovery, CNN, or Weather on that service.
>
>
>
>
>
When I looked at Comcast for my television, they were doing it
already, here.

On May 22, 5:53*pm, "D. Peter Maus" <dpeterm...@att.net> wrote:
> On 5/22/12 16:29 , David Kaye wrote:
>
>
>
> > "D. Peter Maus" <dpeterm...@att.net> wrote
>
> >> * *They already do.
>
> > I'm on Comcast and they don't give preference to NBC programming. *Discovery
> > is on channel 15, which is basic cable. *Faux News, CNN, MSNBC, et alare
> > all gathered together on basic and look comparable to the customer.
> > Likewise, Comcast also offers History, Biography, and similar channels on
> > basic.
>
> > What I'm saying is that there'll come a time when Comcast offers a "basic
> > basic" service very cheaply which will consist largely of their own channels
> > and local brodcasters. *I'd bet that you won't be seeing Biography, History,
> > Discovery, CNN, or Weather on that service.
>
> * *When I looked at Comcast for my television, they were doing it
> already, here.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

By constantly attacking cell phone streaming, this is SMS's indirect
way of promoting OTA HD Radio.

Neil wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 14:50:16 -0700]:
> On 5/22/12 2:29 PM, David Kaye wrote:
>>
> If by "Weather" you mean "The Weather Channel", that's another
> "property" in the Comcast/NBC-Universal stable. (You can trace the start
> of TWC's decline to the day NBC got its paws on it.)
>

yeah, remember when you could turn on the weather channel and find out the
weather?

AJL wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 14:01:37 -0700]:
>
>>In my own case, I was perfectly happy with my provider's 1Mb/s
>>(eventually 3Mb/s) budget tier of service, but I upgraded to 7Mb/s for
>>$10/month more solely for Netflix's $8/month streaming package to work
>>acceptably. They're making more from my Netflix usage than Netflix is!
>
> Simple. If you're displeased vote with your wallet. Or else do like
> everyone else here. Pay the price and ***** about it...

Most of us don't have that option, we're relegated to at most 3 choices
and only one being acceptable.

At 22 May 2012 22:43:34 +0000 Justin wrote:
> Neil wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 14:50:16 -0700]:
> > On 5/22/12 2:29 PM, David Kaye wrote:
> >>
> > If by "Weather" you mean "The Weather Channel", that's another
> > "property" in the Comcast/NBC-Universal stable. (You can trace the
start
> > of TWC's decline to the day NBC got its paws on it.)
> >
>
> yeah, remember when you could turn on the weather channel and find out
the
> weather?

That's crazy talk! Next you'll tell you used to be able to tune into MTV
and hear music...

On 5/22/2012 2:46 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 22 May 2012 14:01:37 -0700 AJL wrote:

>> The ISP is a business, not a charity. The *sole purpose* is to make
>> shareholders happy (if a public company).
>
> True, but they chose their business, and they don't own the internet.

Nobody owns the Internet. And...lots of people do.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/in...-internet1.htm

>They're making money

Hopefully. Otherwise it's bankruptcy.

>leeching off of established infrastructure

No leeching (at least not much). Interconnections are negotiated
business agreements between the corporations (and the mom and pops too).

>just like Netflix and Pandora are.

Netflix (and ilk) may be leeching for now, and causing ISPs to take
action to control the load. But my guess is that eventually there will
be a business agreement with these sites too

> we pay Comcast, Verizon, et al for access to the content they're trying
> to prevent us from accessing.

They're just trying to get paid for Netflix's water that's flowing
through their pipes.

>My point was that ISPs now want to favor their own proprietary
>content over third-party content,

I think they're just trying to level the playing field. They can't
compete with $8/mo movies when Netflix gets to use their pipes for free.

>just like AOL over a quarter-century ago.

Not so. I was on AOL also. You just brought up a browser and went to the
Internet at large, you certainly weren't trapped in AOL's walled garden.

> I'm not displeased. My ISP (CenturyLink) doesn't have caps (yet.)

I abandoned CL for a better deal at Cox. I voted with my wallet. That's
the way the free market works.

>My point was that the access to the third-party
> services that the ISPs think are "leeching" their bandwidth and profits
> are actually what we're paying the ISP for-

But of course you're not really paying for unlimited use. I don't know
your TOS but I'll bet there is fine print.

The ISPs could offer the 'illusion' of unlimited service as long as most
people used an average amount of data. That went along fine until video
sites started to ramp up that average. Something has to give, they can't
just keep providing more and more data service without raising prices or
decreasing service.

I get my phone service for $17/mo. No talk limit as far as I know,
though there's probably some fine print there too. But if everybody
started talking 10 hours a day you know there would be some changes.

Too much load on the phone lines actually happened in the AOL days if
you'll remember. The phone companies were scrambling to keep up with the
increased load of dial-up. It actually crashed the lines in my area a
few times.

> When it becomes too expensive for me to use Netflix (or Hulu, or whatever)
> either because of speed tiers or usage caps, I'll drop my service to a
> slower, cheaper, tier.

As I said vote with your wallet. Cox was killing CL here so now CL has
that $19.95/mo for 5 year promotion. When enough people vote with their
wallet things change, often for the better...

>The ISP is a business, not a charity. The *sole purpose* is to make
>shareholders happy (if a public company).
A corporation needs to keep its shareholders *satisfied*, but that's not
it's sole goal. The government charters corporations and lets them "own"
property, use the courts to settle disputes, and generally act a lot like
a citizen. From the taxpayer's viewpoint, this is so the corporation will
do useful things for taxpayers. And we shouldn't forget management, which
certainly acts as if an important goal to is to pay spectacular salaries.
Like any other "life form", a corporation has to satisfy a bunch of
requirements in order to continue to exist. Talk about "goals" ("make
money for shareholders", "serve our customers", "let our employees share
in our mission to change the world", etc) is rhetoric for CEO speeches.

AJL wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700]:
> On 5/22/2012 2:46 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 22 May 2012 14:01:37 -0700 AJL wrote:
>
>
>>just like Netflix and Pandora are.
>
> Netflix (and ilk) may be leeching for now, and causing ISPs to take
> action to control the load. But my guess is that eventually there will
> be a business agreement with these sites too

Netflix is not leeching anything, they are paying someone to get their data
into the internet

>> we pay Comcast, Verizon, et al for access to the content they're trying
>> to prevent us from accessing.
>
> They're just trying to get paid for Netflix's water that's flowing
> through their pipes.

It's not Netflix's water, it's their customer's, who are paying the ISPs
to deliver it.

>>My point was that ISPs now want to favor their own proprietary
>>content over third-party content,
>
> I think they're just trying to level the playing field. They can't
> compete with $8/mo movies when Netflix gets to use their pipes for free.

Netflix doesn't get to use their pipes for free, they pay to get data onto
the network. Customers pay to receive it.

> I get my phone service for $17/mo. No talk limit as far as I know,
> though there's probably some fine print there too. But if everybody
> started talking 10 hours a day you know there would be some changes.

Those changes weren't made when plenty of people had two phone lines,
one for voice and one for dialup. I used hundreds of hours a month of dialup
and never heard a peep.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:55:38 -0600, Todd Allcock wrote:

> ... If I just
> wanted a little web browsing and email, I could still be using a sub-
> $10/month dialup account ...

Todd, Todd, how many days would the next Patch Tuesday Windows Updates take
you then, at such dial-up speeds? Add browser and Adobe updates, and you'd
never get to your email for a week at a stretch. At least, contemplate
$15/month Basic rate DSL :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

At 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700 AJL wrote:
> On 5/22/2012 2:46 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:

> >just like Netflix and Pandora are.
>
> Netflix (and ilk) may be leeching for now, and causing ISPs to take
> action to control the load. But my guess is that eventually there will
> be a business agreement with these sites too


Perhaps, but there shouldn't have to be. The free market tends to sort
these things out. If Comcast can't provide sufficient access, some other
provider (hopefully) will.

> > we pay Comcast, Verizon, et al for access to the content they're
trying
> > to prevent us from accessing.
>
> They're just trying to get paid for Netflix's water that's flowing
> through their pipes.


But that's just it- I'm paying them for use of the pipes, not the water.
If I rent a piece of real estate to open a sandwich shop, the landlord is
entitled to rent- not a cut of my business (though I realize some malls
negotiate a percentage of gross sales, ostensibly to cover advertising,
etc.)

With an ISP, I'm renting the pipes, not the water.


> >My point was that ISPs now want to favor their own proprietary
> >content over third-party content,
>
> I think they're just trying to level the playing field. They can't
> compete with $8/mo movies when Netflix gets to use their pipes for free.


Why not? Do you think Netflix's infrastructure is free? If we're
accepting the premise that they are a significant cause of every ISP's
congestion problems (what's that stat floating around? That Netflix is
responsible for 20-30% of North American internet traffic?), how does
Netflix find the bandwidth to send all of these bits to all of us?
Obviously Netflix pays for the bandwidth to send all that data out. Why
doesn't Comcast or Cox have the bandwidth to receive it and distribute it
to us? If anything, the ISPs with ties to video content owners should
have an easier time. Who probably has a better chance of securing, say,
NBC content: Comcast or Netflix?

Just like the cell phone guys, ISPs have no problem selling access to
anyone and everyone who wants to sign up, then whining they're using too
much service. When a restaurant doesn't have enough tables on a Friday
night, they don't crowd six families in one booth, they make you take a
number and wait. If you don't have the infrastructure to support your
customers, you can buy more infrastructure, or stop adding customers!
Degrading service isn't the only option.


I was always impressed by Wildblue, the satellite internet company. Not
by the service itself, but by their policy of suspending sales in certain
areas when that area's assigned satellite transponder was "full". They
didn't want to oversell the service. They allowed X# customers for a
certain amount of infrastructure and that was that.

Have you ever heard a wired ISP tell you or anyone else, "gee, we'd love
to sign you up, but the node in your area is full. If you'd like to
leave us your number or email address, we'll contact you when we can take
on more customers in your area..."

> >just like AOL over a quarter-century ago.
>
> Not so. I was on AOL also. You just brought up a browser and went to
> the Internet at large, you certainly weren't trapped in AOL's walled
> garden.

Noob! AOL predates consumer browsers like Netscape or IE. Even more
so if you count their predecessors Q-Link (for Commodore 64s) or PC-Link
(for PCs.) AOL didn't get a browser until version 2.5 or 3.0 in the mid
90s, and even then there was a plethora of content available without ever
launching the browser. That seems to be the model the Comcasts of the
world want to return to; you don't need Netflix, Youtube, or Hulu-
there's Xfinity video! And Xfinity video usage won't count toward your
caps or cause those nasty overage charges like those other services will!


> > I'm not displeased. My ISP (CenturyLink) doesn't have caps (yet.)
>
> I abandoned CL for a better deal at Cox. I voted with my wallet. That's
the way the free market works.

Absolutely. CL, at least here in Denver, has no limits or caps. If
that's a differentiator to entice users to use them instead of Comcast,
that's the free market at work.


> >My point was that the access to the third-party
> > services that the ISPs think are "leeching" their bandwidth and
profits
> > are actually what we're paying the ISP for-
>
> But of course you're not really paying for unlimited use. I don't know
> your TOS but I'll bet there is fine print.

I'm sure there is. But there's no hard limit, and no one on any message
board like Broadband Reports has complained CL has threatened them.

> The ISPs could offer the 'illusion' of unlimited service as long as
> most people used an average amount of data. That went along fine until
> video sites started to ramp up that average. Something has to give,
> they can't just keep providing more and more data service without
> raising prices or decreasing service.

Or diverting some those profits into infrastructure, like AT&T Mobility
was forced to over the last few years? Or AOL had to nearly 20 years ago
when their first unlimited dialup plan resulted in nothing but busy
signals during peak periods?


> I get my phone service for $17/mo. No talk limit as far as I know,
> though there's probably some fine print there too. But if everybody
> started talking 10 hours a day you know there would be some changes.
>
> Too much load on the phone lines actually happened in the AOL days if
> you'll remember. The phone companies were scrambling to keep up with
> the increased load of dial-up. It actually crashed the lines in my area
> a few times.


Manure in the sticks, but in the cities, the phone companies handled the
load fine. It was AOL who didn't have the infrastructure to handle the
incoming calls.


> > When it becomes too expensive for me to use Netflix (or Hulu, or
whatever)
> > either because of speed tiers or usage caps, I'll drop my service
to a
> > slower, cheaper, tier.
>
> As I said vote with your wallet. Cox was killing CL here so now CL has
> that $19.95/mo for 5 year promotion. When enough people vote with their
> wallet things change, often for the better...

Yes, when companies respond to consumer demand. Not when companies run a
stealth campaign to turn customers against each other by creating
bogeymen like "data hogs". You talk about voting with your wallet, but
you're really hoping your provider successfully rounds up all of those
"abusers", that if left unchecked, will steal your fair share of the
service. Then you expect once they kick them awful "data hogs" out of
Dodge, they'll reward you with lower rates and better service.

It's a fairy tale. As Paul pointed out, the total usage isn't a problem,
and caps aren't the solution. Peak congestion is the issue, and punishing
the guy downloading OS service packs or using an online backup service at
3AM for his data consumption won't fix congestion at 8PM. Why do you
think cell companies started offering free nights and weekends way back
when? Because it was a huge perceived value perk for consumers that cost
carriers essentially nothing to provide- the network infrastructure was
in place and ran at a tiny fraction of capacity outside business hours.
There are no "data hogs" at 3AM on your ISP. Just sleepy users occupying
a minute fraction of essentially unused infrastructure.

Todd Allcock wrote on [Tue, 22 May 2012 21:44:55 -0600]:
> At 22 May 2012 16:37:36 -0700 AJL wrote:
>> On 5/22/2012 2:46 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> >just like Netflix and Pandora are.
>>
>> Netflix (and ilk) may be leeching for now, and causing ISPs to take
>> action to control the load. But my guess is that eventually there will
>> be a business agreement with these sites too
>
>
> Perhaps, but there shouldn't have to be. The free market tends to sort
> these things out. If Comcast can't provide sufficient access, some other
> provider (hopefully) will.

The market isn't free. The cable companies are given a monopoly for a fee


> there's Xfinity video! And Xfinity video usage won't count toward your
> caps or cause those nasty overage charges like those other services will!

It gets a higher packet priority, too

In article <mrtnr7h78812ckemckabjl0hlsb5vq65mo@4ax.com>,
AJL <1233346@no--mail.com> wrote:

> Business and residential users generally get different rates. If I
> used my (unlimited) home phone for a business I expect Cox would be
> inviting me to change to a business plan. Why would an ISP be
> different?

That's all meaningless. Business telephone service has unlimited plans
that would put residence plans to shame. (I haven't paid for a call to
anywhere in the US or Canada that incurred a charge in over ten years.)
I have Comcast Business Class Internet because the service is taken
seriously by the provider who doesn't hesitate to send a technician to
my location on a Sunday within four hours rather than simply tell me to
"reboot the router". I'm willing to pay more for that kind of service.

But neither Sonic (whose Fusion service I also have) nor Comcast
Business Class have caps on data. No business would put up with that
sort of crap that uses the Internet for anything real. Sonic doesn't
even differentiate between "business" and "residence" service since it
is a meaningless distinction.

If you want Internet service that is delivered in a robust way, then you
should choose accordingly. If you don't mind being brushed off by the
provider who nickels and dimes you with "caps" and other artificial
nonsense, you can have that as well.

--
John Higdon
+1 415 852-3811

At 22 May 2012 23:33:11 -0400 tlvp wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:55:38 -0600, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > ... If I just
> > wanted a little web browsing and email, I could still be using a sub-
> > $10/month dialup account ...
>
> Todd, Todd, how many days would the next Patch Tuesday Windows Updates
> take you then, at such dial-up speeds?

Who'd need them? The connection would be too slow to download a virus!
> Add browser and Adobe updates,
> and you'd never get to your email for a week at a stretch. At least,
> contemplate $15/month Basic rate DSL :-) .

You do realize you're talking to a guy who still uses free "unlimited"
14.4kbps QNC data on his circa-2004 PagePlus smartphone as a backup for
his T-Mo 3G phone. My cheapness knows no bounds!

I call my PagePlus phone, a Samsung i730 (as thick as a brick, and twice
as heavy), the "$2.50/month email machine", because it costs me $10 every
four months to keep it active.

And yes, I've even tethered my netbook to it in a pinch, when I was way
off the beaten path and it was my only source of internet access!