Pocket Ninja: technically correct

Which, all things remain and equal, is the best kind of correct.

Oh Hi. Look at all of the suddens I care.

TommyymmoT: Pocket Ninja: For all intensive purposes, subby, it really doesn't matter alot if you say "all of the sudden" instead of "all of a sudden." But visa vee strict grammar rules, only one is technically correct.

Yeesh.
Intents, and purposes.
Unless I'm missing the joke.

Rotsky'd.

TommyymmoT: Pocket Ninja: For all intensive purposes, subby, it really doesn't matter alot if you say "all of the sudden" instead of "all of a sudden." But visa vee strict grammar rules, only one is technically correct.

Yeesh.
Intents, and purposes.
Unless I'm missing the joke.

You are missing the joke.

thomps: just checking to make sure i'm reading this article correctly: this has nothing to do with network neutrality, right?

this has more to do with network hardware and configuration, and lots of pissin and moaning from time warner

Relatively Obscure: TommyymmoT: Pocket Ninja: For all intensive purposes, subby, it really doesn't matter alot if you say "all of the sudden" instead of "all of a sudden." But visa vee strict grammar rules, only one is technically correct.

Yeesh.
Intents, and purposes.
Unless I'm missing the joke.

Walked right past "alot" and "visa vee" to ask whether it's a joke?

Unless I'm missing the joke.

Thanks for the laughs guys.

Pocket Ninja: For all intensive purposes, subby, it really doesn't matter alot if you say "all of the sudden" instead of "all of a sudden." But visa vee strict grammar rules, only one is technically correct.

I want to hug you and punch you in the face. Maybe not in that order.

TommyymmoT: Pocket Ninja: For all intensive purposes, subby, it really doesn't matter alot if you say "all of the sudden" instead of "all of a sudden." But visa vee strict grammar rules, only one is technically correct.

Yeesh.
Intents, and purposes.
Unless I'm missing the joke.

Your missing the joke.

Also, I followed the link in the article to the super hd Netflix site, and Comcast isn't good enough for this Netflix service. Why am I not surprised?

I just wish I lived in an area that was able to get a 5 Mbps connection.

Agent4573: I just wish I lived in an area that was able to get a 5 Mbps connection.

I live in a Seattle suburb and I can't get that.

Pocket Ninja: For all intensive purposes, subby, it really doesn't matter alot if you say "all of the sudden" instead of "all of a sudden." But visa vee strict grammar rules, only one is technically correct.

This hurt.

ajgeek: Pocket Ninja: For all intensive purposes, subby, it really doesn't matter alot if you say "all of the sudden" instead of "all of a sudden." But visa vee strict grammar rules, only one is technically correct.

Ow, my balls.

This. Another fabulous job by PocketNinja.

 Does anyone else worry that thew cable companies/ISPs are one day going to destroy Netflix by simply implementing strict data cap policies?

It seems like that could easily happen.

It's not like people would do anything about it.

doczoidberg: Does anyone else worry that thew cable companies/ISPs are one day going to destroy Netflix by simply implementing strict data cap policies?

It seems like that could easily happen.

It's not like people would do anything about it.

It appears as if Comcast is already trying.

ZoSo_the_Crowe: doczoidberg: Does anyone else worry that thew cable companies/ISPs are one day going to destroy Netflix by simply implementing strict data cap policies?

It seems like that could easily happen.

It's not like people would do anything about it.

It appears as if Comcast is already trying.

That 250gb is a soft cap, where they'll harass you about network security. I've approached a terabyte almost every month and have told them that they can even bring in their van and sit in my driveway to try to break in to my wireless network--I tried, and I can't.

ecmoRandomNumbers: So how does Netflix screw me on this? I know I'm going to get screwed, I just don't know how. Am I going to have to get rid of this, too? Dammit. Just as I was starting to watch The West Wing.

And welcome to piracy.

doczoidberg: Does anyone else worry that thew cable companies/ISPs are one day going to destroy Netflix by simply implementing strict data cap policies?

It seems like that could easily happen.

It's not like people would do anything about it.

Many of us CAN'T do anything about it. My only option is Comcast.

Mike Chewbacca: doczoidberg: Does anyone else worry that thew cable companies/ISPs are one day going to destroy Netflix by simply implementing strict data cap policies?

It seems like that could easily happen.

It's not like people would do anything about it.

Many of us CAN'T do anything about it. My only option is Comcast.

..or satellite. What most people mean to say is is my only 'good' choice.

Mike Chewbacca: Agent4573: I just wish I lived in an area that was able to get a 5 Mbps connection.

I live in a Seattle suburb and I can't get that.

I wish I lived in an area that could get connections. The city I live in has no cable company / cable internet and AT&T is not allowed to do business here. You can get dial-up or MiFi or nothing. (And I'm 20 miles from a city of 1.5 million people in a town of 10,000 people.)

The Snow Dog: Mike Chewbacca: Agent4573: I just wish I lived in an area that was able to get a 5 Mbps connection.

I live in a Seattle suburb and I can't get that.

I wish I lived in an area that could get connections. The city I live in has no cable company / cable internet and AT&T is not allowed to do business here. You can get dial-up or MiFi or nothing. (And I'm 20 miles from a city of 1.5 million people in a town of 10,000 people.)

Look into Satellite internet, like HughesNet. Its overpriced and has some strict data caps, but it still beats dial up.

or satellite, but I live in an apartment where you can't mount dishes on the roof--and I'm on the worng side of the building to put it on my porch.

Kimpak: The Snow Dog: Mike Chewbacca: Agent4573: I just wish I lived in an area that was able to get a 5 Mbps connection.

I live in a Seattle suburb and I can't get that.

I wish I lived in an area that could get connections. The city I live in has no cable company / cable internet and AT&T is not allowed to do business here. You can get dial-up or MiFi or nothing. (And I'm 20 miles from a city of 1.5 million people in a town of 10,000 people.)

Look into Satellite internet, like HughesNet. Its overpriced and has some strict data caps, but it still beats dial up.

Yeah, have problems with mounting and I hate data caps. I only have 5 more months on my lease and I'm gone to greener pastures. There's a wireless internet company here that has no caps, but as with satellite, you have to erect it in line-of-sight and the lease says "no siree Bob".

ecmoRandomNumbers: So how does Netflix screw me on this? I know I'm going to get screwed, I just don't know how. Am I going to have to get rid of this, too? Dammit. Just as I was starting to watch The West Wing.

Netflix is putting pressure on ISPs to cooperate by denying their customers their top quality streaming until they play ball. The only way I can see this screwing you is if your ISP caves and uses it as an excuse to make up some new fee to pad your bill.

I'm a little biased since I work for a cable company/ISP. We've looked into this and its not exactly 'free'. What netflix is trying to do is get cable companies to direct connect to their servers and/or install their crap on the cable companies dime. From what I can tell its free infrastructure for Netflix under the guise of 'easing network congestion'. I call shenanigans. Netflix is going to have to do something soon though, as more and more ISP's adopt data caps. Its only a matter of time, data caps are here and are not going away.

So download a few 1080p netflix movies and you'll cap yourself out for a month. Either netflix dies, or work's with ISP's to allow their content to not count against your cap. Or something like that.

Goddamn, really? I thought everywhere had 30 mbps by now. I got the cheapo service and it's hard to go under 15 mbps. I think I pay for 12 but for some reason routinely blow through that.

ajgeek: Pocket Ninja: For all intensive purposes, subby, it really doesn't matter alot if you say "all of the sudden" instead of "all of a sudden." But visa vee strict grammar rules, only one is technically correct.

Ow, my balls.

Ow, you're balls what?

jigger: Goddamn, really? I thought everywhere had 30 mbps by now. I got the cheapo service and it's hard to go under 15 mbps. I think I pay for 12 but for some reason routinely blow through that.

Everywhere with at least moderate population density. Everyone seems to forget there's a lot more to the united states than its coast line states. All your major ISP's are going to be primarily located where the people are. Who can blame them for that. However that screws all the people who live in any of the rural states. Its expensive to build out a network to a town with only 200-300 people in it. So those people are either stuck with some niche ISP with shiatty speeds or has to go with satalite or dial up. No 30 mips for us.

So, net neutrality is all about allowing content to travel freely over any wire without the end user having to pay extra, right? The whole idea is that we as users want free access to any website or service out there without the ISP or another middleman charging us extra.

This doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality, then. This is about network architecture - Netflix is tired of paying CDN fees to connect to other networks and the cost of paying those fees on this new huge load of data is prohibitive. So, Netflix says, if you want to offer this data to your customers, you have to tie in to our network directly. We're not paying a third party just to get to your customers.

That makes perfect sense to me, anyway. Netflix now has the demand and the clout to start pushing ISPs to do stuff like this, I guess, and any time a content company starts pushing the aging telecoms into network upgrades, I'm all for it.

Kimpak: jigger: Goddamn, really? I thought everywhere had 30 mbps by now. I got the cheapo service and it's hard to go under 15 mbps. I think I pay for 12 but for some reason routinely blow through that.

Everywhere with at least moderate population density. Everyone seems to forget there's a lot more to the united states than its coast line states. All your major ISP's are going to be primarily located where the people are. Who can blame them for that. However that screws all the people who live in any of the rural states. Its expensive to build out a network to a town with only 200-300 people in it. So those people are either stuck with some niche ISP with shiatty speeds or has to go with satalite or dial up. No 30 mips for us.

Don't hand me that. Even in the highest population areas of the US, high-bandwidth internet is either unavailable or prohibitively expensive. Meanwhile, Sonic.NET in the Bay Area and Google in Kansas City are offering high-speed fiber on the cheap, in areas that aren't particularly dense at all. I get that some rural areas might be problematic (and that's why we need a new-millennium FDR to start a Rural Broadband Project and just get it done), but the only reason it's not more widespread than it is, is because the entrenched players don't want it to be.

phyrkrakr: So, net neutrality is all about allowing content to travel freely over any wire without the end user having to pay extra, right? The whole idea is that we as users want free access to any website or service out there without the ISP or another middleman charging us extra.

This doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality, then. This is about network architecture - Netflix is tired of paying CDN fees to connect to other networks and the cost of paying those fees on this new huge load of data is prohibitive. So, Netflix says, if you want to offer this data to your customers, you have to tie in to our network directly. We're not paying a third party just to get to your customers.

That makes perfect sense to me, anyway. Netflix now has the demand and the clout to start pushing ISPs to do stuff like this, I guess, and any time a content company starts pushing the aging telecoms into network upgrades, I'm all for it.

This is not an upgrade though. What Netflix wants is akin to what VOD is for cable. VOD content provider has equipment that connects to the cable companies HFC plant so you can order movies on your set top box. Essentially Netflix wants to do the same thing, but they want to do it for free? Why in the hell would you as a cable company want to do that? Especially if you've already got a perfectly good VOD network for your customers to order movies from.

HeartBurnKid: Kimpak: jigger: Goddamn, really? I thought everywhere had 30 mbps by now. I got the cheapo service and it's hard to go under 15 mbps. I think I pay for 12 but for some reason routinely blow through that.

Everywhere with at least moderate population density. Everyone seems to forget there's a lot more to the united states than its coast line states. All your major ISP's are going to be primarily located where the people are. Who can blame them for that. However that screws all the people who live in any of the rural states. Its expensive to build out a network to a town with only 200-300 people in it. So those people are either stuck with some niche ISP with shiatty speeds or has to go with satalite or dial up. No 30 mips for us.

Don't hand me that. Even in the highest population areas of the US, high-bandwidth internet is either unavailable or prohibitively expensive. Meanwhile, Sonic.NET in the Bay Area and Google in Kansas City are offering high-speed fiber on the cheap, in areas that aren't particularly dense at all. I get that some rural areas might be problematic (and that's why we need a new-millennium FDR to start a Rural Broadband Project and just get it done), but the only reason it's not more widespread than it is, is because the entrenched players don't want it to be.

Don't get me wrong, I agree to a certain extent. Google is the sticky wicket though. Not every ISP can do what Google did. The resources just aren't there. Google had the advantage of starting from the ground up, with essentially an infinite money cheat code activated. Which is awesome if you live in an area where they roll it out. As for Google shameing other ISP's into doing the same thing....it just isn't going to happen. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. Fiber isn't cheap, there's the physical lines, the networking equipment, the installers and maintenance people, county/state/federal permits etc.. If you were a cable ISP and wanted to convert to fiber to the house...you'll have to replace everyone's cable modems, get rid of all your CMTS's, add new networking equipment to the customer, and all the end points of your network, that are currently electrical based. Not an easy task.

But that's a tangent....and a topic for a different thread.