Could this court decision affect the adoption of 4k?

[Gillvane]

@Gillvane and @adkimery: I get your points, but I really think it's not that different. I do not have the same hosting as richer players have. And I don't have a private jet, which other people do have, so it takes me longer to go from one point to another. And it's not the end of the world.

Plus, I still believe in a non-neutral internet the content providers would badly squeeze the ISPs. Really, an internet connection without Google or Facebook is not an internet connection.

Of course, first-best probably is that it remains neutral.

IMO, you're somewhat missing the point by using an incorrect analogy. It is not the same as me or you not having money to buy a private jet.

It is we buy a private jet, but we have to ask Delta for permission to fly it anywhere. If Delta says no, we don't get to fly our private jet even though we paid for it just like anyone else, and it goes all the way DOWN as well as up.

You don't get to even ride your bicycle, the one you bought, or just walk down teh sidewalk, unless AT&T says you can. Really very different than not being able to afford a private jet.

Like I said, you can buy hosting from Bluehost.com right now and your blog or cat video site will be as fast as the CNN site, or Amazon, or whatever big corporation you care to name. You'll pay more if you need more bandwidth, but you'll be just as fast as the big guys at the bandwidth you can afford.

 

[adkimery]

Looks like there are rumors that Amazon is thinking about starting a live TV subscription service, link. I wonder how ISPs like Comcast and TW will take to people signing up for an IPTV service from Amazon instead of buying a traditional cable TV package?

 

[Razz16mm]

Looks like there are rumors that Amazon is thinking about starting a live TV subscription service, link. I wonder how ISPs like Comcast and TW will take to people signing up for an IPTV service from Amazon instead of buying a traditional cable TV package?

If you don't bundle the cable TV package they charge more for internet service.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

If you don't bundle the cable TV package they charge more for internet service.

One of the many reasons I can't wait for municipal broadband. This is what the ISPs really fear…the local utilities taking on internet service as a utility. Today internet has become a necessity. You can't run most businesses without it, and I suppose you could live without it as much as you could live without electricity or running water, but it's a basic service that is key to living in the modern world. For those of us in the US, we pay more and get less with our ISPs because profits.

 

[Gillvane]

One of the many reasons I can't wait for municipal broadband. This is what the ISPs really fear…the local utilities taking on internet service as a utility. Today internet has become a necessity. You can't run most businesses without it, and I suppose you could live without it as much as you could live without electricity or running water, but it's a basic service that is key to living in the modern world. For those of us in the US, we pay more and get less with our ISPs because profits.

I believe every library in the country has internet available for people to access, not to mention free wifi at every Star Bucks and McDonalds. You pay more because of over regulation that stops competition, not "profits".

 

[Razz16mm]

I believe every library in the country has internet available for people to access, not to mention free wifi at every Star Bucks and McDonalds. You pay more because of over regulation that stops competition, not "profits".

To a great extent it is that "over regulation" that protects open access to content for us.

 

[Mike Harvey]

IMO, you're somewhat missing the point by using an incorrect analogy. It is not the same as me or you not having money to buy a private jet.

It is we buy a private jet, but we have to ask Delta for permission to fly it anywhere. If Delta says no, we don't get to fly our private jet even though we paid for it just like anyone else, and it goes all the way DOWN as well as up.

You only have to ask Delta permission if you're using their facilities, which is where your analogy falls apart. The sky itself is unter the control of the FAA. However with the internet has no equivalent of the "sky". At all times, your information must pass through someone else's property. Generally speaking, most people get to have some say in what does and doesn't occur on their property that they bought, paid for, and developed.

Not saying I'm for or against this, only that the ISP's do have a valid point... and that the internet does not exist in the equivolent of the "sky", but on private property.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

I believe every library in the country has internet available for people to access, not to mention free wifi at every Star Bucks and McDonalds. You pay more because of over regulation that stops competition, not "profits".

This has nothing to do with what I said. Most cities bigger than a town have some kind of infrastructure for data in place, usually fiber, to serve their needs independently of Comcast or Verizon. What these cities should, and many are starting to do, is to expand that fiber network to serve the citizens as an ISP. This isn't free usually, but treated as a municipal utility just like electricity. In the cases that I've seen where they've done this, the internet bill is half to a quarter of what Comcast charges. A city owned utility isn't looking to reap profits for their investors, but to provide the service and cover the costs.
Regulation is a bs boogeyman trotted out like "fascist" or "socialist" to gin up fear or anger while misdirecting the real cause of the problem. Electricity here in Seattle is cheap…really cheap. Why? A big part is because we use hydroelectric, but the other reason is because it's a government owned and run utility. Privatized utilities always cost more. Not because of regulation, but because of profits. Remember Enron? Yeah, well I saw my electric bill in CA go up 10x under "deregulation".

 

[Andrius Simutis]

You only have to ask Delta permission if you're using their facilities, which is where your analogy falls apart.

I think we've violated the Geneva Conventions with the amount of torture this analogy has suffered. The bottom line is that without net neutrality the ISPs can charge more money, limit service, and introduce unfair advantages or even censor content through denial of access. None of that is good for any of us end users. It only serves the profits of the corporation while reducing our quality of life. How can anyone (outside the boardroom of ISPs) defend that?

 

[Gillvane]

This has nothing to do with what I said. Most cities bigger than a town have some kind of infrastructure for data in place, usually fiber, to serve their needs independently of Comcast or Verizon. What these cities should, and many are starting to do, is to expand that fiber network to serve the citizens as an ISP. This isn't free usually, but treated as a municipal utility just like electricity. In the cases that I've seen where they've done this, the internet bill is half to a quarter of what Comcast charges. A city owned utility isn't looking to reap profits for their investors, but to provide the service and cover the costs.
Regulation is a bs boogeyman trotted out like "fascist" or "socialist" to gin up fear or anger while misdirecting the real cause of the problem. Electricity here in Seattle is cheap…really cheap. Why? A big part is because we use hydroelectric, but the other reason is because it's a government owned and run utility. Privatized utilities always cost more. Not because of regulation, but because of profits. Remember Enron? Yeah, well I saw my electric bill in CA go up 10x under "deregulation".

Political discussions are not allowed on dvxuser.

 

[Gillvane]

I think we've violated the Geneva Conventions with the amount of torture this analogy has suffered. The bottom line is that without net neutrality the ISPs can charge more money, limit service, and introduce unfair advantages or even censor content through denial of access. None of that is good for any of us end users. It only serves the profits of the corporation while reducing our quality of life. How can anyone (outside the boardroom of ISPs) defend that?

Political discussions are not allowed on dvxuser.

 

[Razz16mm]

You only have to ask Delta permission if you're using their facilities, which is where your analogy falls apart. The sky itself is unter the control of the FAA. However with the internet has no equivalent of the "sky". At all times, your information must pass through someone else's property. Generally speaking, most people get to have some say in what does and doesn't occur on their property that they bought, paid for, and developed.

Not saying I'm for or against this, only that the ISP's do have a valid point... and that the internet does not exist in the equivolent of the "sky", but on private property.

ISP's should be regulated as common carriers, just like traditional phone companies. Common carriers own their infrastructure, but the global communications network is a public trust that should be equally accessible to all. Phone companies lease public franchises for their service areas and have to maintain open network access to calls from any other carrier.
It is all interconnected digital network service infrastructure now, whether it is the phone companies, the cable companies, or the satellite companies. The same rules should apply to all services. There should be no discrimination based on the origination point or content of data between end users whether it is a cell phone call or a streaming movie. Netflix pays for their network bandwidth locally, I pay for my Charter network bandwidth locally which includes telephone, cable TV, and internet, but it is all one pipe. Charter should be free to manage their network to insure best quality of service for their customers by tiering services based on specific content requirements. They should not have the right to discriminate against my choice of content if I happen to choose Amazon or Hulu, or Youtube, or Netflix over their content offerings anymore than they can refuse to connect a phone call from aunt Ida in California or charge extra for calls from CA because it is not part of their network infrastructure. The public network is like the sky, it is part of the global commonwealth that local network carriers pay franchise fees to service. They don't own it.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

Political discussions are not allowed on dvxuser.

What's political about that post? A play on words for "tortured analogy"? :shocked: If I had said "that dead horse has beaten enough" would you claim my post is violent and not allowed? Sheeeesh.

 

[Mike Harvey]

...They should not have the right to discriminate against my choice of content if I happen to choose Amazon or Hulu, or Youtube, or Netflix over their content offerings anymore than they can refuse to connect a phone call from aunt Ida in California or charge extra for calls from CA because it is not part of their network infrastructure. The public network is like the sky, it is part of the global commonwealth that local network carriers pay franchise fees to service. They don't own it.

But the odds of them doing that are slim and nill. Possible, yes, but unlikely. Comcast carries multiple channels that are competitors of NBC Universal, and the reason is simple... carrying their competitors makes them more money. If they only carried NBC Universal properties and non-competitors, they would be ditched so fast it wouldn't be funny. People have options (Dish, DirectTV, in some places FiOS). Same with ISPs. If Comcast blocked or severly limited access to competitors content, people would ditch them for alternatives. Where I live, I have Comcast, but I could just as easily go to CenturyLink, ClearWire, a satellite provider, or another alternative (Fios is an option a few miles from me).

 

[alaskacameradude]

But the odds of them doing that are slim and nill. Possible, yes, but unlikely. Comcast carries multiple channels that are competitors of NBC Universal, and the reason is simple... carrying their competitors makes them more money. If they only carried NBC Universal properties and non-competitors, they would be ditched so fast it wouldn't be funny. People have options (Dish, DirectTV, in some places FiOS). Same with ISPs. If Comcast blocked or severly limited access to competitors content, people would ditch them for alternatives. Where I live, I have Comcast, but I could just as easily go to CenturyLink, ClearWire, a satellite provider, or another alternative (Fios is an option a few miles from me).

But you see, everyone doesn't live where you live. In cities and urban areas you may have that
ability. In many rural areas, there are two or even one option for your ISP. And they know it
and take advantage of it. Our government has allowed ISP's regional fiefs (basically monopolies)
in many parts of the country. With no competition guess what happens to prices?

 

[adkimery]

But the odds of them doing that are slim and nill. Possible, yes, but unlikely. Comcast carries multiple channels that are competitors of NBC Universal, and the reason is simple... carrying their competitors makes them more money. If they only carried NBC Universal properties and non-competitors, they would be ditched so fast it wouldn't be funny. People have options (Dish, DirectTV, in some places FiOS). Same with ISPs. If Comcast blocked or severly limited access to competitors content, people would ditch them for alternatives. Where I live, I have Comcast, but I could just as easily go to CenturyLink, ClearWire, a satellite provider, or another alternative (Fios is an option a few miles from me).

Not an apples to apples comparison. There is added value with Comcast cable carrying non-NBC Universal content but online streaming services (Hulu, Netflix, Apple, Amazon etc.,) are the reason people are canceling their cable subscriptions. Those streaming services are also one reason why people might pay for faster broadband, which is good for ISPs, but the major ISPs are also cable providers (which are getting into the streaming game too) so Netflix et al. are still the enemy at the gates.

For example, both Comcast and Time Warner already allow their respective subscribers who bundled Internet and cable services to stream their cable packages to various devices (Xbox, iPad, etc.,) in the home and none of that streaming counts towards the customer's data cap (I guess the ISPs bandwidth problems are overstated...). Customers could have a whole household streaming various TV shows and movies w/no data 'penalty' but the second someone decides to watch a movie on Netflix *boom* the meter starts rolling. Verizon, which has its own streaming service w/Redbox, has come under fire for throttling Netflix's bandwidth and it just came out the other day that Verizon bought intel's fledging IPTV unit which most likely means Verizon is going to get deeper into the streaming game. And this is all happening with the FCC hanging the threat of Net Neutrality over their heads. Now that the threat is gone I don't expect things to get better.

I agree that flat out blocking Netflix would be an obvious and dumb move, but just throttle Netflix so it buffers frequent and keep reminding customers that there's no data penalty if you stream movies directly from the ISP (movies which magically don't have any buffering problems) and people will stop watching Netflix as much. Also, FWIW, even though I'm in a major metro area my broadband options are TW cable or slower, more expensive DSL. No FiOS. No U-verse. No competing cable provider (which reminds me that Charter is currently trying to take over TW cable). I don't know how common it is, but a few of my friends live in apartment buildings where the landlords have standing agreements with ISPs, cable companies and telcos so tenants have no choice in the matter.


But like I mentioned in previous posts, Net Neutrality goes far beyond just streaming media giants and I don't see any upside to giving ISPs unlimited control of what has become the primary means of global communication and information sharing.

 

[Razz16mm]

Not an apples to apples comparison. There is added value with Comcast cable carrying non-NBC Universal content but online streaming services (Hulu, Netflix, Apple, Amazon etc.,) are the reason people are canceling their cable subscriptions. Those streaming services are also one reason why people might pay for faster broadband, which is good for ISPs, but the major ISPs are also cable providers (which are getting into the streaming game too) so Netflix et al. are still the enemy at the gates.

For example, both Comcast and Time Warner already allow their respective subscribers who bundled Internet and cable services to stream their cable packages to various devices (Xbox, iPad, etc.,) in the home and none of that streaming counts towards the customer's data cap (I guess the ISPs bandwidth problems are overstated...). Customers could have a whole household streaming various TV shows and movies w/no data 'penalty' but the second someone decides to watch a movie on Netflix *boom* the meter starts rolling. Verizon, which has its own streaming service w/Redbox, has come under fire for throttling Netflix's bandwidth and it just came out the other day that Verizon bought intel's fledging IPTV unit which most likely means Verizon is going to get deeper into the streaming game. And this is all happening with the FCC hanging the threat of Net Neutrality over their heads. Now that the threat is gone I don't expect things to get better.

I agree that flat out blocking Netflix would be an obvious and dumb move, but just throttle Netflix so it buffers frequent and keep reminding customers that there's no data penalty if you stream movies directly from the ISP (movies which magically don't have any buffering problems) and people will stop watching Netflix as much. Also, FWIW, even though I'm in a major metro area my broadband options are TW cable or slower, more expensive DSL. No FiOS. No U-verse. No competing cable provider (which reminds me that Charter is currently trying to take over TW cable). I don't know how common it is, but a few of my friends live in apartment buildings where the landlords have standing agreements with ISPs, cable companies and telcos so tenants have no choice in the matter.


But like I mentioned in previous posts, Net Neutrality goes far beyond just streaming media giants and I don't see any upside to giving ISPs unlimited control of what has become the primary means of global communication and information sharing.

Exactly. AVB network switches can automatically manage and tier traffic into layers based on bandwidth and QOS requirements without needing complex hands on management. They will significantly improve network efficiency as they are implemented. I think Charter does degrade Netflix on my service (46meg) it shouldn't be buffering as much unless their servers are really busy.