gut;1584474 wrote:I agree. That really has nothing to do with net neutrality, though. If Comcast and Netflix want to buy/sell one lane of the highway for Netflix exclusive use, that's just capitalism. Yeah, it potentially an issue for the little guy to navigate the other more crowded lanes now...but then it really becomes a discussion about barriers to entry.

I believe Comcast was throttling traffic from Netflix, so yes, this does have a bit to do with net neutrality.

dlazz;1584476 wrote:The same question can be applied to you. You obviously don't have a grasp on what an ISP actually does but want to throw your Business degree at it.

LOL

LMAO....More strawman arguments. You appear to be clueless about how or why businesses make money. You even made the classic entitlement argument about "the road is already built, shouldn't cost anything to use it"...which was entirely predictable. I hear it all the time with regard to various things "there's no marginal cost [which is wrong] so it should be free [which is just ignorant]"

No, I think you're the one who doesn't understand the dynamics as well as you believe. This article gives a little better summary of what is actually happening here.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-24/netflixs-deal-with-comcast-isnt-about-net-neutrality-except-that-it-is

gut;1584463 wrote:What are you talking about? My post you quoted had nothing to do with utilities, that's a strawman argument you are attempting to make confusing two completely different points.

The point made was most utilities price based on usage. In fact, there aren't many services, period, that are priced "all you can eat".

In one post, you say they should be like other utilities. Then in another post you explain it in a way that is not like other utilities. So I am confused which way it should be.

gut;1584463 wrote:What are you talking about? My post you quoted had nothing to do with utilities, that's a strawman argument you are attempting to make confusing two completely different points.

The point made was most utilities price based on usage. In fact, there aren't many services, period, that are priced "all you can eat".

And usage for something like the internet is based on bandwidth not a quantity transferred. It would be the same way if say water was infinitely abundant and there wasn't a marginal cost to transferring more units. They would charge for how many gpm you could access since that would cost more or less depending on the size of pipe you had to build.

Same thing with the internet. A 1000mbps line will cost more than a 100mbps line but it shouldn't matter how frequently it's used as there isn't additional costs associated with that.

Jawbreaker;1584479 wrote:I believe Comcast was throttling traffic from Netflix, so yes, this does have a bit to do with net neutrality.

Read the article I linked. Probably much more complicated than that. And during peak hours everyone's service is slower, and if to keep speeds from getting even slower they have to throttle bandwidth hogs they have ALWAYS maintained that power in their agreements. They have only ever "guaranteed" (debatable) minimal speeds - throttling is entirely within their power to maintain certain quality service standards. And that's very pertinent to this agreement, because what Netflix has done here is contract to connect directly to Comcast and PAY for a guaranteed minimal level of service.

gut;1584490 wrote:Read the article I linked. Probably much more complicated than that. And during peak hours everyone's service is slower, and if to keep speeds from getting even slower they have to throttle bandwidth hogs they have ALWAYS maintained that power in their agreements. They have only ever "guaranteed" (debatable) minimal speeds - throttling is entirely within their power to maintain certain quality service standards. And that's very pertinent to this agreement, because what Netflix has done here is contract to connect directly to Comcast and PAY for a guaranteed minimal level of service.

So they are looking in the driver's trailer.

I Wear Pants;1584489 wrote: Same thing with the internet. A 1000mbps line will cost more than a 100mbps line but it shouldn't matter how frequently it's used as there isn't additional costs associated with that.

Again, you're making the mistake assuming bandwidth is unlimited. This is simply not true. I see speeds of maybe 50-60% of my max during peak hours, because just like a road during rush hour the throughput demanded is exceeding the capacity, so everything moves slower because of cuing.

It's simply a flawed legacy pricing system that is becoming antiquated. HD video, and to a lesser extent music streaming is just blowing data usage out of the water. So it comes down to data caps or throttling, or "reserving" bandwidth....because when traffic jams occur, should everyone suffer equally or should high data users not infringe on the speeds of lower data users?

gut;1584498 wrote:Again, you're making the mistake assuming bandwidth is unlimited. This is simply not true. I see speeds of maybe 50-60% of my max during peak hours, because just like a road during rush hour the throughput demanded is exceeding the capacity, so everything moves slower because of cuing.

It's simply a flawed legacy pricing system that is becoming antiquated. HD video, and to a lesser extent music streaming is just blowing data usage out of the water. So it comes down to data caps or throttling, or "reserving" bandwidth....because when traffic jams occur, should everyone suffer equally or should high data users not infringe on the speeds of lower data users?

Or advancing the technology, which won't happen in this country. Most internet using countries are already blowing us out of the water in speed and price. But people like you will leave us stuck in the internet dark ages.

WebFire;1584486 wrote:In one post, you say they should be like other utilities. Then in another post you explain it in a way that is not like other utilities. So I am confused which way it should be.

Re-read the posts, you'll get it eventually. The question was a lack of alternatives, and I said you have alternatives to Netflix - you confused a point with content with one about distribution in terms of pricing/competition.

gut;1584498 wrote:Again, you're making the mistake assuming bandwidth is unlimited. This is simply not true. I see speeds of maybe 50-60% of my max during peak hours, because just like a road during rush hour the throughput demanded is exceeding the capacity, so everything moves slower because of cuing.

It's simply a flawed legacy pricing system that is becoming antiquated. HD video, and to a lesser extent music streaming is just blowing data usage out of the water. So it comes down to data caps or throttling, or "reserving" bandwidth....because when traffic jams occur, should everyone suffer equally or should high data users not infringe on the speeds of lower data users?

Many if not most people see fractions of their billed bandwidth in actual use regardless of whether it's during peak hours or not.

Another point you've made about them paying for the infrastructure isn't really valid either since ISPs have received billions and billions in government money at all levels for infrastructure improvements. They didn't build the networks by themselves.

The internet is a requirement for a modern life and needs to be treated as such just like water, electricity, sewer, etc.

WebFire;1584499 wrote:Or advancing the technology, which won't happen in this country. Most internet using countries are already blowing us out of the water in speed and price. But people like you will leave us stuck in the internet dark ages.

It's apples to oranges. People like you don't understand scope and scale of the investment. It's relatively easy to bring affordable internet to Manhattan because of density, but you gotta wire the whole country and it's a whole lot more expensive when you get out of urban areas.

So if you understood economics, then you'd understand that the big urban areas have to subsidize the other 98% of the country's footprint, otherwise only people in large cities would have access to remotely affordable internet. And we can't that kind of inequality!

The issue is also a lot deeper and more complicated than you make it out to be. It's not like you can just go and dig-up 5th Ave to lay fiber optic, or plop down a cell tower anywhere you want. Every darn FOOT of cable has to be secured with an easement/right of way, as does every single tower. Property rights are a bitch, except when they aren't.

I Wear Pants;1584501 wrote: Another point you've made about them paying for the infrastructure isn't really valid either since ISPs have received billions and billions in government money at all levels for infrastructure improvements. They didn't build the networks by themselves..

LMFAO...did you really bust out the "you didn't build that" line? So the govt subsidized PART of the cost (and you realize in most places the govt CONTINUES to collect right of use fees?) and that means the price should be whatever IWP feels like it should be?

Comcast operating margin is around 20%. Do you want to attempt to make a rational, fact-based argument on what a fair margin is based on comparables (to companies that are, you know, doing business in the US and have similar demographics/geographies to deal with in their investment)? Because isn't what this is really all about, that Comcast is extracting monopoly rents and gouging consumers? So then demonstrate why their prices are too high for reasons other than you just think you should pay less.

gut;1584502 wrote:It's apples to oranges. People like you don't understand scope and scale of the investment. It's relatively easy to bring affordable internet to Manhattan because of density, but you gotta wire the whole country and it's a whole lot more expensive when you get out of urban areas.

So if you understood economics, then you'd understand that the big urban areas have to subsidize the other 98% of the country's footprint, otherwise only people in large cities would have access to remotely affordable internet. And we can't that kind of inequality!

The issue is also a lot deeper and more complicated than you make it out to be. It's not like you can just go and dig-up 5th Ave to lay fiber optic, or plop down a cell tower anywhere you want. Every darn FOOT of cable has to be secured with an easement/right of way, as does every single tower. Property rights are a bitch, except when they aren't.

I understand that perfectly, thanks. But we aren't even doing that much (urban build-up). So what's your point?

gut;1584504 wrote:LMFAO...did you really bust out the "you didn't build that" line? So the govt subsidized PART of the cost (and you realize in most places the govt CONTINUES to collect right of use fees?) and that means the price should be whatever IWP feels like it should be?

Comcast operating margin is around 20%. Do you want to attempt to make a rational, fact-based argument on what a fair margin is based on comparables (to companies that are, you know, doing business in the US and have similar demographics/geographies to deal with in their investment)? Because isn't what this is really all about, that Comcast is extracting monopoly rents and gouging consumers? So then demonstrate why their prices are too high for reasons other than you just think you should pay less.

The easement issues can be handled if chosen.

Gut, do you disagree with how electricity is distributed?

gut;1584498 wrote:Again, you're making the mistake assuming bandwidth is unlimited. This is simply not true. I see speeds of maybe 50-60% of my max during peak hours, because just like a road during rush hour the throughput demanded is exceeding the capacity, so everything moves slower because of cuing.

LOL. This is obviously you being a moron and not understanding how the internet works.

GTFO with this shit. You clearly don't belong in an argument regarding ISP's and their business model.

ISP's don't own the Internet, they only provide the means to get you there. It should be illegal for them to say it costs $x to surf one thing and $y to surf another.

Whatever business model you are preaching probably works for a lot of things. The internet is not one of them. Again, if you understood how the internet worked, you'd realize that. It's not a utility and shouldn't be billed like one, now matter how much you want to claim it is.

gut;1584504 wrote:LMFAO...did you really bust out the "you didn't build that" line? So the govt subsidized PART of the cost (and you realize in most places the govt CONTINUES to collect right of use fees?) and that means the price should be whatever IWP feels like it should be?

Comcast operating margin is around 20%. Do you want to attempt to make a rational, fact-based argument on what a fair margin is based on comparables (to companies that are, you know, doing business in the US and have similar demographics/geographies to deal with in their investment)? Because isn't what this is really all about, that Comcast is extracting monopoly rents and gouging consumers? So then demonstrate why their prices are too high for reasons other than you just think you should pay less.

I'm primarily concerned with access and speeds rather than prices. The prices right now concern me far less than the fact that we have abysmal access to high speed connections compared to the rest of the developed world and it's something that is and will hurt us.

You'll notice I've made no arguments that state that Comcast makes too much profit or that their margins are too large. I'm saying US ISPs deliver sub par services compared to the rest of the world and this harms us economically and socially. If we're going to be the best nation in the world we should have the best infrastructure in the world. We don't and that's an issue that the status quo will never fix.

I Wear Pants;1584521 wrote: You'll notice I've made no arguments that state that Comcast makes too much profit or that their margins are too large. I'm saying US ISPs deliver sub par services compared to the rest of the world and this harms us economically and socially. If we're going to be the best nation in the world we should have the best infrastructure in the world. We don't and that's an issue that the status quo will never fix.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/05/isps-costs-revenues-dont-support-data-cap-argument/

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c38fb80a0d/comcast-doesn-t-give-a-f-ck

I'm getting jerked around by TWC right now:

I moved into my new apartment today. I didn't have my PC hooked up when the tech came to hook everything up, so he just connected it outside and my modem synced and he left. After I finished unpacking, I ran a speed test and saw I was getting about 9Mbps down instead of the 30Mbps I was paying for.

Support try 1 (webchat): Rep had me reboot my modem. When that didn't help, he transferred me to a "specialist". He tried the same thing. Didn't work. Gave me a phone number to call (25 minutes total).
Support try 2 (call): called the number. hold for 10 minutes. First rep has me reboot my modem again. Also has me run a tracert (which is useless in this scenario). Transfers me to a "Tier 3 tech". Hold for 25 minutes, call drops.
Support try 3 (call): hold for about 8 minutes. Rep answers, I explain the issue. He puts me on hold for about 5 minutes, then says he's transferring me to "level 3". I get the hold music again. After about 15 minutes I get someone on the line and explain the situation. She is thoroughly confused, and rightfully so, after about 10 minutes into the call I asked if she was Tier 3, to which she replies "No, I'm in customer support" (the guy put me back into the original queue I had called). She transfers me to Tier 3. Hold for 10 minutes. Tier 3 tech answers and knows what he's doing and identifies the problem fairly quickly (original tech fucked up--sending someone out to fix his fuckup tomorrow).


And that's been my evening so far.

Looks like Ohio (or at least some Ohio markets) may be spared this behemoth merger. If it goes through, at least some of Ohio will be spun off to Charter to keep the new behemoth below the 30% market threshold

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80035579/

I don't know much about Charter, but considering TWC and Comcast are the worst, it has to at least be a small victory

ts1227;1610485 wrote:Looks like Ohio (or at least some Ohio markets) may be spared this behemoth merger. If it goes through, at least some of Ohio will be spun off to Charter to keep the new behemoth below the 30% market threshold

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80035579/

I don't know much about Charter, but considering TWC and Comcast are the worst, it has to at least be a small victory

I'm pretty sure in terms of overall dissatisfaction, it goes

1. Comcast
2. TWC
3. Charter

Regardless, I would be stunned if they gave up the big Ohio markets (Columbus, Dayton, etc)

I actually just saw another article on the Dispatch too, they're saying it's all of Ohio in their article

Has this been approved by the govt yet?

Commander of Awesome;1610494 wrote:Has this been approved by the govt yet?

Nope. This is to try to appease them to get approval. Ohio would only switch to Charter if the Comcast/TWC combo goes through.