Netflix Turns Focus Back to Disc

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

This is why when an official capping policy is introduced, and appropriate pay rates introduced, businesses won't feel "threatened".

No one will refuse to take your (extra) money.

You mean like Canada's? Which is NO CAP? Base charges on bandwidth, not consumption? Can't WAIT!

I have an unlimited cap and several ISPs offer them. They are selling points. Other companies lowering caps just makes the ones without them more attractive.

As it is now, I regularly download 210+ GB per month streaming (at 253gb for this month per my router's meter). The unlimited business account I have is the same price as the 250gb capped residential account. No brainer. And I stream much more than the average user and don't always go over 250 gb, the residential cap. So for many the current caps are OK.

People see that NetFlix is 1/3 of U.S. streaming. They equate that with NetFlix putting a burden on the system instead of people watching that instead of YouTube, which holds a large percent of streaming data.

There is a so much misconception and deception going on that eventually someone is going to get burned by the FCC or a Congressman whose got businesses are losing subscribers because of data caps. Data caps do one thing. Make ISPs and their backbones richer.

[Steedeel]

Slick, crackle looks like crap (in my opinion) because the bit rate is not sufficent. Nothing to do with a roku or ps3. Once again you are maki g excuses for inferior, weak streaming quality in my opinion.

[Anthony P]

I have an unlimited cap and several ISPs offer them. They are selling points. Other companies lowering caps just makes the ones without them more attractive

for now, but the issue is that as more and more ISPs add caps the hogs move to the ones without caps, while the normal users don't have an issue with the ISP they currently have. So the capless get "bad for business users" while the rest get "good for business" users. So the ones with out caps have two choices, either add caps (why the number of ISPs with caps is constantly increasing) or charge more (in order to pay for people using more BW).

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

As it is now, I regularly download 210+ GB per month streaming (at 253gb for this month per my router's meter). The unlimited business account I have is the same price as the 250gb capped residential account. No brainer. And I stream much more than the average user and don't always go over 250 gb, the residential cap. So for many the current caps are OK.

This is a pretty bizarre logic there a la "I have a company car and therefore the price of gas does not matter"

More than likely the future will look like this: There will be regulated caps and metered pricing - which automatically implies that the current caps and pricing will change. I would also add that the pricing maturation will more than likely mirror the one we saw with the cable companies.

Pro-B

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

This is a pretty bizarre logic there a la "I have a company car and therefore the price of gas does not matter"

More than likely the future will look like this: There will be regulated caps and metered pricing - which automatically implies that the current caps and pricing will change. I would also add that the pricing maturation will more than likely mirror the one we saw with the cable companies.

Pro-B

If you think the U.S. government is going to impose caps, that is truly bizarre. You are confusing the internet highway with the real one. Go to http://www.broadband.gov and read the Strategic Plan. They see the internet as a a place to spur the economy, education and medicine. The last thing they want to do is stifle it. Conversely they want to have low cost HSI available to 95% of the country.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

If you think the U.S. government...

I never mentioned the U.S. government, so I am unsure why you are bringing it into the discussion. You could regulate without the U.S. government.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

This is a pretty bizarre logic there a la "I have a company car and therefore the price of gas does not matter"

More than likely the future will look like this: There will be regulated caps and metered pricing - which automatically implies that the current caps and pricing will change. I would also add that the pricing maturation will more than likely mirror the one we saw with the cable companies.

Pro-B

if that's the case then this nation is truly sad. the rest of the world enjoys unfettered broadband at RIDICULOUS speeds compared to us and the U.S. has to sit behind and meter it's bandwidth because they were too short sighted to put their profits into upgrading the whole backbone in the U.S. instead of spending them on multi million and billion dollar bonuses

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

I never mentioned the U.S. government, so I am unsure why you are bringing it into the discussion. You could regulate without the U.S. government.

Up until it crosses state lines, then it falls into the jurisdiction of the Federal government. But that's neither here nor there!
Caps will happen! It's an eventuality of simple math:
The internet using population of the US is rising faster than current infrastructure bandwidth will allow. In order to limit that activity, there will be a price to pay for those that glutton off the system.
Just ask anyone living in Austrailia that uses the internet!

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Up until it crosses state lines, then it falls into the jurisdiction of the Federal government. But that's neither here nor there!
Caps will happen! It's an eventuality of simple math:
The internet using population of the US is rising faster than current infrastructure bandwidth will allow. In order to limit that activity, there will be a price to pay for those that glutton off the system.
Just ask anyone living in Austrailia that uses the internet!

For pete's sake, GO AND READ the Strategic Broadband plan.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

For pete's sake, GO AND READ the Strategic Broadband plan.

I've been witness to numorous government "plans" that never materialize. I prefer to let history be my guide!
You really don't have to out-think the room on this one:
Limited Bandwidth + Increasing amount of users = Restrictions.

So any "proposed government plan" doesn't mean squat until it's signed, sealed & delivered!

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by rickah88

I've been witness to numorous government "plans" that never materialize. I prefer to let history be my guide!
You really don't have to out-think the room on this one:
Limited Bandwidth + Increasing amount of users = Restrictions.

So any "proposed government plan" doesn't mean squat until it's signed, sealed & delivered!

What limited bandwidth????????? Where are you seeing limited bandwidth??? Where????? The only thing I can find on it is speculation there may be an issue...in 2015.

I've heard of a federal internet tax for 15 years and have yet to see that either.

What kind of internet connection did you have 5,10 and 15 years ago? That should give an inkling of what is happening.

15 years ago I had a 28.8k modem and was paying $19.99/month
10 years ago I had 1.5 mbps dsl and was paying $40/month
5 years ago I had 6.0 mbps dsl and was paying $39.99/month
Now I have 15mbps cable and pay $60/month. But what I actually get is:



So I am getting what, 1000x the speed at only 3x the cost of 15 years ago. Less if you account for inflation. I expect that in 5 more years to be paying roughly the same for 100mbps, the Strategic Plan's goal speed to be accessible to 95% in the next 10 years. Now if there was all this "bandwidth shortage", speeds would be getting slower and costing much more. I would have frequent problems with outages and slow surfing. I don't. AT&T offers DSL for like $14.99 here. WHERE IS THE SHORTAGE? I streamed 254 GB last month, not a hitch.

[slick1ru2]

Instead of bandwidth, you all should be more concerned with the current proposed censorship bill that would ban any website with illegally used streamed copyrighted material. It would be blocked to all U.S. citizens and any that actually do have access, if you stream a copyrighted song or video, you are subject criminal fines and jail time. That would include this website were in the forums there are YouTube videos with clips from movies.

http://americancensorship.org/

Website Blocking

If SOPA or Protect IP passes, the government can order internet providers to block any site for its users' infringing posts, using the same DNS-blocking methods as China or Iran.

Risk of Jail for Ordinary Users

It becomes a felony with a potential 5 year sentence to stream a copyrighted work that would cost more than $2,500 to license, even if you are an ordinary noncommercial user. Singing a pop song on Facebook could be a felony.

Chaos for the Internet

Thousands of sites that are legal under the DMCA would face new legal threats. People trying to keep the internet more secure wouldn't be able to rely on the integrity of the DNS system.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by wormraper

if that's the case then this nation is truly sad. the rest of the world enjoys unfettered broadband at RIDICULOUS speeds compared to us and the U.S. has to sit behind and meter it's bandwidth because they were too short sighted to put their profits into upgrading the whole backbone in the U.S. instead of spending them on multi million and billion dollar bonuses

That is not true. The speeds are not good in the US nor adoption and it is expensive, but caps of some sort are almost everywhere. Each place is different and it depends on infrastructure as well as what is allowed. In Australia it is heavily throttled (practically dial up, here in Canada it tends to be overage charges (like AT&T), in Japan it is kicking people out(like Comcast), in the UK you have some with hard caps and some with soft caps AKA "fair use policy" (i.e. if they decide you are over using for your area they will either throttle or send you an email telling you that you are near the limit of what is fair in your area and will be charge extra when passing it)

The reason "caps" exist is to lead to more reasonable usage. To pick a different example, I live in Brossard and here water is metered, once a year they read the meter and charge for what was used beyond the minimum, I have a friend that lives in Montreal where there is no metering, one day I was there and I told him, "your toilet bowl is running" his response "I know, but does not matter" and I go “you know that the water is purified and pumped to you and so it costs the municipality more and you pay it through your taxes” and he just shrugged. The reality is that until something affects people directly people tend to be oblivious and apathetic to what is happening.

Also I think you are missing the obvious, before 2008 Comcast had no cap (as far as I know), I think it was last year when AT&T added their cap, caps are added by telcos when demand becomes a big problem for the infrastructure in place, just because a company does not have a cap today does not mean they won’t next week, next month or next year or some other time.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Limited Bandwidth + Increasing amount of users

if that was true it would not be an issue since more users = more revenue to pay for more BW and infrastructure changes. It should be:
Limited Bandwidth + Increasing amount of usage = Restrictions.

[Anthony P]

15 years ago I had a 28.8k modem and was paying $19.99/month
10 years ago I had 1.5 mbps dsl and was paying $40/month
5 years ago I had 6.0 mbps dsl and was paying $39.99/month
Now I have 15mbps cable and pay $60/month. But what I actually get is:

so in 15 years your cost increased 3x to surf the web which was something you could do 15 years ago. The speed is imaterial, the action is the same.

[Anthony P]

you all should be more concerned with the current proposed censorship bill that would ban any website with illegally used streamed copyrighted material.

why? paying 3x more is bad for a person, why should a normal person care if a new bill makes it harder for people involved in criminal activities?

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

WHERE IS THE SHORTAGE? I streamed 254 GB last month, not a hitch.

There are plenty of shortages in big cities. Anyone who has owned an iPhone in places like New York, especially when they were first released, knows that there are bandwidth limitations.

I see you live in the South and I suspect in a sparsely populated area. I am shocked that you are getting speeds that exceed the advertised rates. I have never, ever gotten anything close to advertised speeds.

So having said that, I just tested and have (surprisingly) gotten my advertised speeds:
Speed Test #99832103 by dslreports.com
Run: 2011-12-03 13:17:13 EST
Download: 14739 (Kbps)
Upload: 1988 (Kbps)
In kilobytes per second: 1799.2 down 242.6 up
Tested by server: 56 java
User: 2 @ dslreports.com
User's DNS: rcn.com

I have a 15Mbps down and 800Kbps up connection. However, I think testing this during the week would have a totally different result - there are fewer users on weekends. And most of the bandwidth shortages that people are talking about are not over DSL/Cable modem connections, but over 3G/4G wireless connections.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

That is not true. The speeds are not good in the US nor adoption and it is expensive, but caps of some sort are almost everywhere. Each place is different and it depends on infrastructure as well as what is allowed. In Australia it is heavily throttled (practically dial up, here in Canada it tends to be overage charges (like AT&T), in Japan it is kicking people out(like Comcast), in the UK you have some with hard caps and some with soft caps AKA "fair use policy" (i.e. if they decide you are over using for your area they will either throttle or send you an email telling you that you are near the limit of what is fair in your area and will be charge extra when passing it)

The reason "caps" exist is to lead to more reasonable usage. To pick a different example, I live in Brossard and here water is metered, once a year they read the meter and charge for what was used beyond the minimum, I have a friend that lives in Montreal where there is no metering, one day I was there and I told him, "your toilet bowl is running" his response "I know, but does not matter" and I go “you know that the water is purified and pumped to you and so it costs the municipality more and you pay it through your taxes” and he just shrugged. The reality is that until something affects people directly people tend to be oblivious and apathetic to what is happening.

Also I think you are missing the obvious, before 2008 Comcast had no cap (as far as I know), I think it was last year when AT&T added their cap, caps are added by telcos when demand becomes a big problem for the infrastructure in place, just because a company does not have a cap today does not mean they won’t next week, next month or next year or some other time.

sorry, been to Korea, Japan, Austria, Italy etc.. I've seen bandwidth that just RIPS us to SHREDS, no caps. full duplexes as standard etc. the U.S. has NOT upgraded it's infrastructure for years. they oversell their bandwidth and wonder why them come up short. believe me this has become a BIG problem. they have NOT increased their backbones for a LONG time. they keep adding customers and taking hte profits not cycling them back in for upgrades. it's pure stupidity (and Australia?? that's a point for caps. Australia Caps EVERYTHING, they are one of the worst socialist nations in the world)

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

There are plenty of shortages in big cities. Anyone who has owned an iPhone in places like New York, especially when they were first released, knows that there are bandwidth limitations.

I see you live in the South and I suspect in a sparsely populated area. I am shocked that you are getting speeds that exceed the advertised rates. I have never, ever gotten anything close to advertised speeds.

So having said that, I just tested and have (surprisingly) gotten my advertised speeds:
Speed Test #99832103 by dslreports.com
Run: 2011-12-03 13:17:13 EST
Download: 14739 (Kbps)
Upload: 1988 (Kbps)
In kilobytes per second: 1799.2 down 242.6 up
Tested by server: 56 java
User: 2 @ dslreports.com
User's DNS: rcn.com

I have a 15Mbps down and 800Kbps up connection. However, I think testing this during the week would have a totally different result - there are fewer users on weekends. And most of the bandwidth shortages that people are talking about are not over DSL/Cable modem connections, but over 3G/4G wireless connections.

I am not talking streaming on a mobile device, an entire different animal than from cable or dsl because you have to deal with cell towers, node overload and reception issues. However, part of the national strategic plan is for FREE internet in cities along with one Gbps access point that is also free. Most likely at a library. I think they mean cellular too. But it could be wifi. Several cities have free wifi.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

There are plenty of shortages in big cities. Anyone who has owned an iPhone in places like New York, especially when they were first released, knows that there are bandwidth limitations.

I see you live in the South and I suspect in a sparsely populated area. I am shocked that you are getting speeds that exceed the advertised rates. I have never, ever gotten anything close to advertised speeds.

So having said that, I just tested and have (surprisingly) gotten my advertised speeds:
Speed Test #99832103 by dslreports.com
Run: 2011-12-03 13:17:13 EST
Download: 14739 (Kbps)
Upload: 1988 (Kbps)
In kilobytes per second: 1799.2 down 242.6 up
Tested by server: 56 java
User: 2 @ dslreports.com
User's DNS: rcn.com

I have a 15Mbps down and 800Kbps up connection. However, I think testing this during the week would have a totally different result - there are fewer users on weekends. And most of the bandwidth shortages that people are talking about are not over DSL/Cable modem connections, but over 3G/4G wireless connections.

I have 12 mbps dsl and i max out my connection every single day. never had a shortage. I run about 500 gigs a month down and THANK GOD no caps.