If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(GigaOM)   Comcast and Netflix appear to have reached a peering agreement, so get ready for price hikes   (gigaom.com) divider line 97
    More: Interesting, Comcast, Netflix, Netflix appear, interconnections  
•       •       •

8104 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Feb 2014 at 11:37 PM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-21 08:27:40 PM
Well, I don't have Comcast OR Netflix.

/or Time Warner
//or Cox Communications
///or AT&T Uverse
 
2014-02-21 08:43:40 PM
So they're both going to spy on us together?

/dnrtfa
 
2014-02-21 08:57:18 PM
Never had Comcast and Netflix I could take or leave. It's streaming is cheap but the selection has something to be desired. Don't have patience for the the snail mail bullshiat,
 
2014-02-21 09:02:19 PM
This is Comcast playing nice as they try to get the merger with Time Warner approved.  "See, we aren't going to do any of that awful stuff you're accusing us of!  Honest!"

Let's see how long this lasts after the deal goes through, though.  I just hope it doesn't.
 
2014-02-21 10:31:20 PM
I just wrote this for another thread on TFD, so I'm going to repost it here, because lots of people don't understand net neutrality and what it really means.

Net neutrality can be understood with an analogy to a hypothetical road network. Suppose all of the roads in the US were privately owned, and there were many private owners that each controlled a different section of the road network.

The way that the internet *currently* works is that you only pay a subscription fee to the person who controls the road network around your house. This gives you free, unlimited access to the entire road network, including the right to move over other private networks without paying those operators. The idea is that each individual operator has enough 'local subscribers' that they can pay for the upkeep of their own road network. In this situation, the concept of 'road neutrality' refers to the fact that you can drive over anyone's roads, even though you only directly paid the operator that controls the roads around your house. All road operators agree to treat all traffic the exact same, regardless of whether or not they are local subscribers, and the agreement between the different road operators that ensure this freedom is call the 'road peering agreement' (specifically, the agreement says that each road network promises to accept all traffic from other road networks, on the condition that all those road networks will accept the traffic that they themselves generate).

This has certain benefits but also certain disadvantages. For one, it makes the road network very easy to use- once you get initial access, there are no further tollbooths or access controls that would charge you extra or restrict the places you can drive. It makes the business side much easier too- all you worry about is collecting fees from your local subscribers... you don't have to concern yourself with where a specific vehicle is from or where it's going or what it's doing in order to determine how much to charge it. On the downside, and this is the crux of the ISP's complaints, the fact that there are no access controls can lead to what some people would consider unfair behavior.

Suppose a new concrete factory opens up and suddenly one specific network starts generating a lot of very heavy, very noisy, very dirty trucks that cause congestion and excessive wear and tear on the roads. Under the 'road neutrality' agreement, the only person who is able to charge the concrete factory for their excessive road usage is the specific local operator that the concrete factory purchases road access through. Once they leave the confines of that local network, all the neighboring networks have to carry these heavy, noisy, dirty trucks under the existing 'road peering agreement'. These networks are only built to carry small passenger cars from place to place, so the presence of all these trucks causes a lot of problems, and more importantly cost, to the various networks that carry them. It is very important to note that the concrete company is the sole cause of the problem (i.e. their road networks are sufficient to carry all traffic if the concrete company didn't exist).

Well, all the other networks don't like how these trucks are costing them money, so they start looking for a way to recoup. There are only three possible sources of income:

A) They could try to bill the concrete company directly.
B) They could try to bill the road network that contains the concrete company.
C) They could try to bill the customers of the concrete company who reside on their local road networks.
D) Suck it up and eat the cost.

Choice A presents several problems. First, the surrounding networks are *required* by their road peering agreements to carry the traffic from the concrete company. They could go to the concrete company and politely ask them to chip in for the maintenance of the road network, but the concrete company is under no obligation to do so, and if they refuse, there's nothing the road networks can do about it.

Choice B has traditionally been the way that these sorts of disputes have been worked out. In the linked article, suppose Verizon and Cogent are local road providers. Verizon is asking Cogent for extra money, but Cogent doesn't want to pay. As a result, their road peering agreement breaks down, and nobody makes necessary road improvements because they can't agree on who should be responsible. If you take the hard-line net neutrality view, Verizon should be responsible for upgrading their own network, regardless of what traffic they carry and where it comes from.

Choice C is the fear of most consumer advocates. Under this situation, your local road network would charge you extra whenever you get a shipment from the concrete company in order to defray the extra cost from wear and traffic. Under this plan, your local road provider (that controls the area around your house) would offer two plans: one would entitle you to use passenger cars on the road network, and the more expensive plan would entitle you to make purchases from the concrete company. In internet terms, this would result in tiered pricing plans, where your ISP might require a surcharge on people who are heavy users.

Choice B and D both correspond to consumer net neutrality- all of this is worked out between companies and the end consumers never have to worry about it. The physical reality is that internet usage has exploded in the last few years, and keeping up with the flow is becoming an increasing burden for ISPs. In truth, someone is going to have to pay for infrastructure upgrades, and the big fight over net neutrality is essentially over who will ultimately shoulder the burden.

The one thing I will say about the current situation is that the telcos had lots of warning and opportunity to upgrade their networks before now, but have sacrificed that in favor of a better yearly bottom line and stock price. They've created their own crisis, and are now blaming the content companies and consumers in order to extract more money out of the system. Any fool could have told you in 1995 that the 2014 internet would make huge demands on bandwidth (people have been doing streaming video since the early 90's, and were talking about it before then... the writing was definitely on the wall by 2005, the year Youtube came out) so there's really no excuse for the current state of the networks. Net neutrality is entirely about the backbone telco-telco connections, not the end mile, so the current network providers really have no excuse as to why they haven't gotten this capacity sorted out yet.

In the analogy I gave above, it'd be like the road network providers all knowing and understanding that *everyone* would be ordering concrete every day in 20 years from now, them doing the bare minimum to plan ahead, and then claiming that the unknowable and unprecedented growth of concrete consumption has totally overburdened them. It's pure BS.
 
2014-02-21 10:41:22 PM

albert71292: Well, I don't have Comcast OR Netflix.

/or Time Warner
//or Cox Communications
///or AT&T Uverse

upload.wikimedia.org
You, too, will be assimilated.
 
2014-02-21 10:50:46 PM

Fubini: I just wrote this for another thread on TFD, so I'm going to repost it here, because lots of people don't understand net neutrality and what it really means.

Net neutrality can be understood with an analogy to a hypothetical road network. Suppose all of the roads in the US were privately owned, and there were many private owners that each controlled a different section of the road network.

The way that the internet *currently* works is that you only pay a subscription fee to the person who controls the road network around your house. This gives you free, unlimited access to the entire road network, including the right to move over other private networks without paying those operators. The idea is that each individual operator has enough 'local subscribers' that they can pay for the upkeep of their own road network. In this situation, the concept of 'road neutrality' refers to the fact that you can drive over anyone's roads, even though you only directly paid the operator that controls the roads around your house. All road operators agree to treat all traffic the exact same, regardless of whether or not they are local subscribers, and the agreement between the different road operators that ensure this freedom is call the 'road peering agreement' (specifically, the agreement says that each road network promises to accept all traffic from other road networks, on the condition that all those road networks will accept the traffic that they themselves generate).

This has certain benefits but also certain disadvantages. For one, it makes the road network very easy to use- once you get initial access, there are no further tollbooths or access controls that would charge you extra or restrict the places you can drive. It makes the business side much easier too- all you worry about is collecting fees from your local subscribers... you don't have to concern yourself with where a specific vehicle is from or where it's going or what it's doing in order to determine how much to charge it. On the downside, and this is the crux of the ISP's complaints, the fact that there are no access controls can lead to what some people would consider unfair behavior.

Suppose a new concrete factory opens up and suddenly one specific network starts generating a lot of very heavy, very noisy, very dirty trucks that cause congestion and excessive wear and tear on the roads. Under the 'road neutrality' agreement, the only person who is able to charge the concrete factory for their excessive road usage is the specific local operator that the concrete factory purchases road access through. Once they leave the confines of that local network, all the neighboring networks have to carry these heavy, noisy, dirty trucks under the existing 'road peering agreement'. These networks are only built to carry small passenger cars from place to place, so the presence of all these trucks causes a lot of problems, and more importantly cost, to the various networks that carry them. It is very important to note that the concrete company is the sole cause of the problem (i.e. their road networks are sufficient to carry all traffic if the concrete company didn't exist).

Well, all the other networks don't like how these trucks are costing them money, so they start looking for a way to recoup. There are only three possible sources of income:

A) They could try to bill the concrete company directly.
B) They could try to bill the road network that contains the concrete company.
C) They could try to bill the customers of the concrete company who reside on their local road networks.
D) Suck it up and eat the cost.

Choice A presents several problems. First, the surrounding networks are *required* by their road peering agreements to carry the traffic from the concrete company. They could go to the concrete company and politely ask them to chip in for the maintenance of the road network, but the concrete company is under no obligation to do so, and if they refuse, there's nothing the road networks can do about it.

Choice B has traditionally been the way that these sorts of disputes have been worked out. In the linked article, suppose Verizon and Cogent are local road providers. Verizon is asking Cogent for extra money, but Cogent doesn't want to pay. As a result, their road peering agreement breaks down, and nobody makes necessary road improvements because they can't agree on who should be responsible. If you take the hard-line net neutrality view, Verizon should be responsible for upgrading their own network, regardless of what traffic they carry and where it comes from.

Choice C is the fear of most consumer advocates. Under this situation, your local road network would charge you extra whenever you get a shipment from the concrete company in order to defray the extra cost from wear and traffic. Under this plan, your local road provider (that controls the area around your house) would offer two plans: one would entitle you to use passenger cars on the road network, and the more expensive plan would entitle you to make purchases from the concrete company. In internet terms, this would result in tiered pricing plans, where your ISP might require a surcharge on people who are heavy users.

Choice B and D both correspond to consumer net neutrality- all of this is worked out between companies and the end consumers never have to worry about it. The physical reality is that internet usage has exploded in the last few years, and keeping up with the flow is becoming an increasing burden for ISPs. In truth, someone is going to have to pay for infrastructure upgrades, and the big fight over net neutrality is essentially over who will ultimately shoulder the burden.

The one thing I will say about the current situation is that the telcos had lots of warning and opportunity to upgrade their networks before now, but have sacrificed that in favor of a better yearly bottom line and stock price. They've created their own crisis, and are now blaming the content companies and consumers in order to extract more money out of the system. Any fool could have told you in 1995 that the 2014 internet would make huge demands on bandwidth (people have been doing streaming video since the early 90's, and were talking about it before then... the writing was definitely on the wall by 2005, the year Youtube came out) so there's really no excuse for the current state of the networks. Net neutrality is entirely about the backbone telco-telco connections, not the end mile, so the current network providers really have no excuse as to why they haven't gotten this capacity sorted out yet.

In the analogy I gave above, it'd be like the road network providers all knowing and understanding that *everyone* would be ordering concrete every day in 20 years from now, them doing the bare minimum to plan ahead, and then claiming that the unknowable and unprecedented growth of concrete consumption has totally overburdened them. It's pure BS.


Except I am paying for the ability to have concrete delivered to my house, and I am not allowed to have any other options.
 
2014-02-21 11:46:00 PM
Well when the cable companies make like 97% profit on their subscribers, and then complain that the traffic is to much for their infrastructure. I kind of stop caring.

http://bgr.com/2013/02/06/cable-company-internet-service-margins-316 53 2/

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/cable-companies-make-97-margin-on.h tm l
 
2014-02-21 11:50:10 PM
I misread the headline as "reached a peeing agreement "
 
2014-02-21 11:52:11 PM

albert71292: Well, I don't have Comcast OR Netflix.

/or Time Warner
//or Cox Communications
///or AT&T Uverse


You must have a LOT to impart on this discussion then. I can't wait to hear it!
 
2014-02-21 11:54:07 PM

albert71292: Well, I don't have Comcast OR Netflix.

/or Time Warner
//or Cox Communications
///or AT&T Uverse


Is that similar to those people who say, "I don't own a TV"?  Not really sure what you're bragging about or the point of that statement.  Are we supposed to be jealous?  Feel sorry for you?  Please enlighten us
 
2014-02-21 11:54:41 PM
It appears that water is wet. Prepare for price hikes.
 
2014-02-21 11:57:35 PM

Fubini: I just wrote this for another thread on TFD, so I'm going to repost it here, because lots of people don't understand net neutrality and what it really means.

Net neutrality can be understood with an analogy to a hypothetical road network. Suppose all of the roads in the US were privately owned, and there were many private owners that each controlled a different section of the road network.

The way that the internet *currently* works is that you only pay a subscription fee to the person who controls the road network around your house. This gives you free, unlimited access to the entire road network, including the right to move over other private networks without paying those operators. The idea is that each individual operator has enough 'local subscribers' that they can pay for the upkeep of their own road network. In this situation, the concept of 'road neutrality' refers to the fact that you can drive over anyone's roads, even though you only directly paid the operator that controls the roads around your house. All road operators agree to treat all traffic the exact same, regardless of whether or not they are local subscribers, and the agreement between the different road operators that ensure this freedom is call the 'road peering agreement' (specifically, the agreement says that each road network promises to accept all traffic from other road networks, on the condition that all those road networks will accept the traffic that they themselves generate).

This has certain benefits but also certain disadvantages. For one, it makes the road network very easy to use- once you get initial access, there are no further tollbooths or access controls that would charge you extra or restrict the places you can drive. It makes the business side much easier too- all you worry about is collecting fees from your local subscribers... you don't have to concern yourself with where a specific vehicle is from or where it's going or what it's doing in order to determine how much to ...



tl;dr but aren't you discounting the fact that netflix et al already pay for upstream bandwidth? and aren't you discounting the big peering arrangements all along the chain. the telcoms  want to get paid 2 or 3 or 4 times for the same packets. they want to take from both ends and every step along the way. they ultimately want to force customers to be in their walled garden, taking cuts and rising prices as they go.

their ass wrote bandwidth checks that their drive for ever higher margins apparently decided not to cash.

Didn't we pay some 300 billion dollars for national broadband once in the 90s? shouldn't we nationalize that shiat now that the telcoms decided to not ever ever deliver?
 
2014-02-21 11:59:51 PM

albert71292: Well, I don't have Comcast OR Netflix.

/or Time Warner
//or Cox Communications
///or AT&T Uverse


You're rate will still go up.
 
2014-02-22 12:00:44 AM

drumhellar: albert71292: Well, I don't have Comcast OR Netflix.

/or Time Warner
//or Cox Communications
///or AT&T Uverse

Your rate will still go up.


FTFM
 
2014-02-22 12:01:33 AM
Mr. Consumer please prepare to bend over and spread your cheeks.
 
2014-02-22 12:02:38 AM
Cut the cord. $80 or $180 a month or whatever to watch crap on TV is ridiculous.

I have one of these, I think it was $25.00. Dozens of channels. $0/month.
www.winegard.com

You can build one for $10
www.uvm.edu

Antennaweb gives you an idea of reception in your area and recommends antenna types.
 
2014-02-22 12:03:04 AM
I'm so fricking glad we have Charter out here. I used to live in Comcast country, and they farking suck harder than a top secret Dyson prototype from the year 2098.
 
2014-02-22 12:05:12 AM
Fubini:

We could nationalize the roads, pay for as many of them as possible to be 6 lane interstate highways, and let anyone who has the hardware to open their own shipping company. But that's socialism and it makes baby Jesus cry.
 
2014-02-22 12:05:53 AM

mjones71822: Well when the cable companies make like 97% profit on their subscribers, and then complain that the traffic is to much for their infrastructure. I kind of stop caring.

http://bgr.com/2013/02/06/cable-company-internet-service-margins-316 53 2/

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/cable-companies-make-97-margin-on.h tm l


this.
 
2014-02-22 12:07:08 AM
Now if only Comcast would fix their crap with twitch.tv
 
2014-02-22 12:07:57 AM

Fubini: I just wrote this for another thread on TFD, so I'm going to repost it here, because lots of people don't understand net neutrality and what it really means.

Net neutrality can be understood with an analogy to a hypothetical road network. Suppose all of the roads in the US were privately owned, and there were many private owners that each controlled a different section of the road network.

The way that the internet *currently* works is that you only pay a subscription fee to the person who controls the road network around your house. This gives you free, unlimited access to the entire road network, including the right to move over other private networks without paying those operators. The idea is that each individual operator has enough 'local subscribers' that they can pay for the upkeep of their own road network. In this situation, the concept of 'road neutrality' refers to the fact that you can drive over anyone's roads, even though you only directly paid the operator that controls the roads around your house. All road operators agree to treat all traffic the exact same, regardless of whether or not they are local subscribers, and the agreement between the different road operators that ensure this freedom is call the 'road peering agreement' (specifically, the agreement says that each road network promises to accept all traffic from other road networks, on the condition that all those road networks will accept the traffic that they themselves generate).

This has certain benefits but also certain disadvantages. For one, it makes the road network very easy to use- once you get initial access, there are no further tollbooths or access controls that would charge you extra or restrict the places you can drive. It makes the business side much easier too- all you worry about is collecting fees from your local subscribers... you don't have to concern yourself with where a specific vehicle is from or where it's going or what it's doing in order to determine how much to charge it. On the downside, and this is the crux of the ISP's complaints, the fact that there are no access controls can lead to what some people would consider unfair behavior.

Suppose a new concrete factory opens up and suddenly one specific network starts generating a lot of very heavy, very noisy, very dirty trucks that cause congestion and excessive wear and tear on the roads. Under the 'road neutrality' agreement, the only person who is able to charge the concrete factory for their excessive road usage is the specific local operator that the concrete factory purchases road access through. Once they leave the confines of that local network, all the neighboring networks have to carry these heavy, noisy, dirty trucks under the existing 'road peering agreement'. These networks are only built to carry small passenger cars from place to place, so the presence of all these trucks causes a lot of problems, and more importantly cost, to the various networks that carry them. It is very important to note that the concrete company is the sole cause of the problem (i.e. their road networks are sufficient to carry all traffic if the concrete company didn't exist).

Well, all the other networks don't like how these trucks are costing them money, so they start looking for a way to recoup. There are only three possible sources of income:

A) They could try to bill the concrete company directly.
B) They could try to bill the road network that contains the concrete company.
C) They could try to bill the customers of the concrete company who reside on their local road networks.
D) Suck it up and eat the cost.

Choice A presents several problems. First, the surrounding networks are *required* by their road peering agreements to carry the traffic from the concrete company. They could go to the concrete company and politely ask them to chip in for the maintenance of the road network, but the concrete company is under no obligation to do so, and if they refuse, there's nothing the road networks can do about it.

Choice B has traditionally been the way that these sorts of disputes have been worked out. In the linked article, suppose Verizon and Cogent are local road providers. Verizon is asking Cogent for extra money, but Cogent doesn't want to pay. As a result, their road peering agreement breaks down, and nobody makes necessary road improvements because they can't agree on who should be responsible. If you take the hard-line net neutrality view, Verizon should be responsible for upgrading their own network, regardless of what traffic they carry and where it comes from.

Choice C is the fear of most consumer advocates. Under this situation, your local road network would charge you extra whenever you get a shipment from the concrete company in order to defray the extra cost from wear and traffic. Under this plan, your local road provider (that controls the area around your house) would offer two plans: one would entitle you to use passenger cars on the road network, and the more expensive plan would entitle you to make purchases from the concrete company. In internet terms, this would result in tiered pricing plans, where your ISP might require a surcharge on people who are heavy users.

Choice B and D both correspond to consumer net neutrality- all of this is worked out between companies and the end consumers never have to worry about it. The physical reality is that internet usage has exploded in the last few years, and keeping up with the flow is becoming an increasing burden for ISPs. In truth, someone is going to have to pay for infrastructure upgrades, and the big fight over net neutrality is essentially over who will ultimately shoulder the burden.

The one thing I will say about the current situation is that the telcos had lots of warning and opportunity to upgrade their networks before now, but have sacrificed that in favor of a better yearly bottom line and stock price. They've created their own crisis, and are now blaming the content companies and consumers in order to extract more money out of the system. Any fool could have told you in 1995 that the 2014 internet would make huge demands on bandwidth (people have been doing streaming video since the early 90's, and were talking about it before then... the writing was definitely on the wall by 2005, the year Youtube came out) so there's really no excuse for the current state of the networks. Net neutrality is entirely about the backbone telco-telco connections, not the end mile, so the current network providers really have no excuse as to why they haven't gotten this capacity sorted out yet.

In the analogy I gave above, it'd be like the road network providers all knowing and understanding that *everyone* would be ordering concrete every day in 20 years from now, them doing the bare minimum to plan ahead, and then claiming that the unknowable and unprecedented growth of concrete consumption has totally overburdened them. It's pure BS.


I like your analogy with one exception. The reason re companies didn't build out starting in 2005 is because they believed that everybody would build their own concrete company's so everybody would build out together. They didn't anticipate a future in which one concrete company would comprise 30% of the traffic on everybody's roads.
 
2014-02-22 12:08:39 AM
"Peering agreement?"  So I'm going to be subjected to their entire routing table?  Am I going to have to start running BGP4 at home to watch "Downtown Abbey" and will it fail over to "Top Gear?"

Great, this is the next phrase that is going to take on a meaning not-at-all-related to its actual meaning just because it sounds savvy.
 
2014-02-22 12:09:45 AM

mjones71822: Well when the cable companies make like 97% profit on their subscribers, and then complain that the traffic is to much for their infrastructure. I kind of stop caring.

http://bgr.com/2013/02/06/cable-company-internet-service-margins-316 53 2/

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/cable-companies-make-97-margin-on.h tm l


You do know that 97% number is a lie right? That it doesn't count any infrastructure costs that the cable companies incur?
 
2014-02-22 12:11:32 AM

jaytkay: Cut the cord. $80 or $180 a month or whatever to watch crap on TV is ridiculous.

I have one of these, I think it was $25.00. Dozens of channels. $0/month.
[www.winegard.com image 480x380]

You can build one for $10
[www.uvm.edu image 500x646]

Antennaweb gives you an idea of reception in your area and recommends antenna types.


HAve you thought about giving Aereo a shot? IIRC, about $6-$8  per month. Watch any of your local channels and record online.
 
2014-02-22 12:12:27 AM
Bittorrent, still free.
 
2014-02-22 12:14:20 AM

Nix Nightbird: "sucks harder than a top secret Dyson prototype from the year 2098."


Thank you for that.  I lol'd and it has made my day!
 
2014-02-22 12:14:51 AM

jaytkay: Cut the cord. $80 or $180 a month or whatever to watch crap on TV is ridiculous.

I have one of these, I think it was $25.00. Dozens of channels. $0/month.
[www.winegard.com image 480x380]

You can build one for $10
[www.uvm.edu image 500x646]

Antennaweb gives you an idea of reception in your area and recommends antenna types.


Most cord cutters use the Internet for their video. That's what this is all about. I haven't paid for cable TV for many years. I get it all from Netflix, Hulu, and other services.

An antenna is great if you like broadcast TV and plan to watch on their schedule AND want to deal with their ads. I don't have the time, effort, or patience for that. The only time I see ads (grudgingly) is on Hulu.I watch my shows whenever I darn well feel like it. I'm not going back to the old "be on the couch at 8 pm on Tuesday night" crap. That was sucky when I was younger, and I have no desire to sit there and watch 20 minutes of advertising to see a 40-minute show.

Most shows are online-- on the network's website for free with few or no ads-- 24 hours after the show airs. I can wait a day to watch most stuff. They also get stuff on Hulu Plus pretty quickly now.
 
2014-02-22 12:18:18 AM

uber humper: HAve you thought about giving Aereo a shot? IIRC, about $6-$8 per month. Watch any of your local channels and record online.


I'm doing fine with the antenna, and I don't watch TV often anyway. Aereo looks pretty nifty, though.
 
2014-02-22 12:18:26 AM

Squik2: Nix Nightbird: "sucks harder than a top secret Dyson prototype from the year 2098."

Thank you for that.  I lol'd and it has made my day!


Good. Then I guess my job is done here.


astouffer: Bittorrent, still free.


As long as you don't get one of those DMCA letters and an offer to settle for $400 (or whatever).

/VPN folks... It's worth the $7 a month if you plan to hit the torrents.
//My policy is never to torrent movies.
///Or commercial porn. Porn-traps are all over the place. Not worth it.
 
2014-02-22 12:19:16 AM
For most people cable is a monopoly, there is only one game in town and that one game knows it and prices accordingly which is high. They don't give a crap about your experience cuz where you going to go? To DSL? LOL.

When we can say fark you comcast I am switching to a different broadband cable then they have to compete and prices lower and consumer experience generally improves, but by government mandate that is not possible.

Since government has removed choice to Comcast's benefit, Comcast SHOULD suck up the infrastructure costs, or tier price with competition, no other option is fair to the consumer.
 
2014-02-22 12:20:21 AM
Fark going Galt on this issue.  Go Yellowbeard.
 
2014-02-22 12:27:37 AM

jaytkay: Cut the cord. $80 or $180 a month or whatever to watch crap on TV is ridiculous.

I have one of these, I think it was $25.00. Dozens of channels. $0/month.
[www.winegard.com image 480x380]

You can build one for $10
[www.uvm.edu image 500x646]

Antennaweb gives you an idea of reception in your area and recommends antenna types.


I have one.  I get four channels.  Four.  If it weren't for one of them being PBS, it wouldn't be worth watching.

But I have broadband juuuuuust fast enough for standard-def Netflix.
 
2014-02-22 12:28:08 AM

jaytkay: Cut the cord. $80 or $180 a month or whatever to watch crap on TV is ridiculous.

I have one of these, I think it was $25.00. Dozens of channels. $0/month.


I watch quite a bit of antenna TV.  I also think it will be dead in ten years.  The network affiliates are addicted like crack-hos to re-transmission consent fees from the cable/satellite providers. Which is kind of an inherently unstable position when they're broadcasting the same exact shows OTA. Even with some increase in cord-cutting, it's still only 15% of the nation watching via antenna, and that 15% is mostly a mix of poor people and cheapskates like me.  So, not exactly primo ad targets.

Once the FCC opens the auction window allowing the cell networks to buy 'their' rights from the TV stations, they'll start to drop off the air.
 
2014-02-22 12:29:40 AM

Nix Nightbird: Squik2: Nix Nightbird: "sucks harder than a top secret Dyson prototype from the year 2098."

Thank you for that.  I lol'd and it has made my day!

Good. Then I guess my job is done here.


astouffer: Bittorrent, still free.

As long as you don't get one of those DMCA letters and an offer to settle for $400 (or whatever).

/VPN folks... It's worth the $7 a month if you plan to hit the torrents.
//My policy is never to torrent movies.
///Or commercial porn. Porn-traps are all over the place. Not worth it.



My rule:  If it's ever been broadcast, it's torrentable.
 
2014-02-22 12:30:36 AM

Nix Nightbird: An antenna is great if you like broadcast TV and plan to watch on their schedule AND want to deal with their ads.


I have a tivo, so would be able to record and FF through ads.

Problem is, I live in a valley, so don't get most signals (got an antenna, didn't get good signals, checked antennaweb, showed that I need an antenna 30 feet high to get signals (what you say?)).

uber humper: Aereo


Unfortunately, they have a very small coverage area right now (read, nothing on the west coast).
 
2014-02-22 12:46:30 AM
Anyone seen the stock info on Netflix? About $400, P/E over 200. Meaning it's a $40 stock, max. Unless they can figure out how to increase revenue ten times.
 
2014-02-22 12:46:47 AM

rugman11: infrastructure costs that the cable companies incur



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Best joke I've heard on fark, like, ever.
 
2014-02-22 12:47:29 AM
It's cute that both of these huge companies are ignoring the fact that their business model will soon be extinct.
 
2014-02-22 12:47:54 AM

Nix Nightbird: An antenna is great if you like broadcast TV and plan to watch on their schedule AND want to deal with their ads. I don't have the time, effort, or patience for that. The only time I see ads (grudgingly) is on Hulu.I watch my shows whenever I darn well feel like it. I'm not going back to the old "be on the couch at 8 pm on Tuesday night" crap. That was sucky when I was younger, and I have no desire to sit there and watch 20 minutes of advertising to see a 40-minute show.


I feed my antenna into my computer using a USB TV tuner, and Windows Media Center has the schedule for a week or two out. Set it to record, fill the hard drive. I'm also in an area with a lot of stations, so I might be kind of lucky. The fiancee and I have a pile of stuff to watch.

TVFool is good in addition to Antennaweb. Be sure to get the right antenna for your area (UHF, VHF hi, VHF lo) and an amplifier if need be.
 
2014-02-22 12:52:10 AM

DBrandisNC: It's cute that both of these huge companies are ignoring the fact that their business model will soon be extinct.


Comcast's main business now days is serving internet through their monopoly connections to households.  NetFlix's business is to serve up content over those monopoly connections.  Please enlighten us how how those two business models will become extinct?

/grabs popcorn
 
2014-02-22 12:57:03 AM
Meanwhile, in unofficial news.

A friend who is one of the top sellers for Comcast, Will lose his position along with many others, after March 21.  All because of the merger, according to his supervisor to him.  Then he was promised that he "may" have a position "somewhere" available.
 
2014-02-22 12:57:42 AM

cwolf20: Meanwhile, in unofficial news.

A friend who is one of the top sellers for Comcast, Will lose his position along with many others, after March 21.  All because of the merger, according to his supervisor to him.  Then he was promised that he "may" have a position "somewhere" available.


Top seller in Knoxville, TN I mean.
 
2014-02-22 12:58:37 AM

gingerjet: DBrandisNC: It's cute that both of these huge companies are ignoring the fact that their business model will soon be extinct.

Comcast's main business now days is serving internet through their monopoly connections to households.  NetFlix's business is to serve up content over those monopoly connections.  Please enlighten us how how those two business models will become extinct?

/grabs popcorn


Hell, I'm curious.  Amazon seems to be doing well on their end too.
 
2014-02-22 01:11:39 AM

Fubini: The one thing I will say about the current situation is that the telcos had lots of warning and opportunity to upgrade their networks before now,


didn't they also get billions (with a B) of our tax dollars to do that upgrade? i don't live in the sticks but it's not downtown NYC and fiber is finally getting to my house. mid LAST year. 2013 for god's sake.
 
2014-02-22 01:12:59 AM

SuperT: tl;dr but aren't you discounting the fact that netflix et al already pay for upstream bandwidth? and aren't you discounting the big peering arrangements all along the chain. the telcoms  want to get paid 2 or 3 or 4 times for the same packets. they want to take from both ends and every step along the way. they ultimately want to force customers to be in their walled garden, taking cuts and rising prices as they go.


No- that's implicit in the analogy. The concrete company pays their local provider, but they don't pay anyone else.

So is your second situation- the worst-case situation from a net-neutrality point of view is that every packet becomes tracked and charged for each network it traverses (like how long distance telephone was charged back in the day). If all peering agreements broke down, it would be up to the individual user to ensure that their packets can get to their destination. (In reality, your local ISP would do this for you, but charge you 'long distance' packet charges.) In the analogy, it'd be like if you had toll booths for every municipality/county you went through.

When you phrase the question as one of network traversal, no one is getting paid twice. You privately arrange for all of your packets to be transmitted across networks, and Netflix privately arranges for their packets to be transmitted across networks. Each network gets paid once by each party to the transaction. Technologically, you can make a solid argument that the internet requires two-way communication, so it makes sense that your subscription to your local telco should cover not only your outbound packets to Netflix, but also the return packets they send you in response. That is probably one of the reasons why these peering agreements originated in the first place (the technical problem becomes much simpler when you assume symmetry in the communication network, i.e. if party A can reach party B, then party B can reach party A).

But, strictly speaking, when you buy internet from your local provider, you're only buying access to that provider's network. You're not buying it from all the intermediaries between you and your destination. That intermediary access has historically been provided by the peering agreements, which are the agreements that are now in jeopardy. Unless your contract has specific language that guarantees you access to all of the internet (and I guarantee you it does not) you could suddenly find yourself unable to contact certain internet services simply because the peering arrangement between your ISP and the neighboring ISP has broken down, and there's probably nothing you could do about it (including cancelling your contract).

Now that some ISPs have decided that they're getting the short end of the stick (having to carry all the heavy trucks without being compensated extra) the legislative-judicial process is going to have to answer whether or not an internet service provider can be legally obligated to provide universal internet access, or whether they can be allowed to selectively discriminate against other networks (by throttling or otherwise modifying their packets).

Frankly, I think the legal question will come down on against net neutrality. The courts will decide that networks have the right to competitively bargain for their peering agreements, and that a network cannot be compelled to have a peering agreement with another network.  However, what I really hope happens, and what I think has a decent chance of happening based on individual privacy and market-fairness grounds, is that the courts will decide that if a network does have a peering agreement, then they are required to treat all traffic equally. For example, they can't charge more for traffic specifically to or from Netflix, but they can impose an additional fee on end users or other ISPs to cover the increased cost of facilitating peering agreements. In effect, this allows ISPs to reflect the cost of peering in their pricing structure, but prohibits tiered pricing plans that require additional fees for specific services (e.g. extra money for streaming, or for news websites, or for online gaming).
 
2014-02-22 01:13:54 AM
Joke's on both of them! I use Pirate Bay!
 
2014-02-22 01:15:38 AM

Watubi: albert71292: Well, I don't have Comcast OR Netflix.

/or Time Warner
//or Cox Communications
///or AT&T Uverse

Is that similar to those people who say, "I don't own a TV"?  Not really sure what you're bragging about or the point of that statement.  Are we supposed to be jealous?  Feel sorry for you?  Please enlighten us


They might have Google Fiber. If that's the case, fark you albert.
/Comcast
 
2014-02-22 01:16:04 AM

jaytkay: Cut the cord. $80 or $180 a month or whatever to watch crap on TV is ridiculous.

I have one of these, I think it was $25.00. Dozens of channels. $0/month.
[www.winegard.com image 480x380]

You can build one for $10
[www.uvm.edu image 500x646]

Antennaweb gives you an idea of reception in your area and recommends antenna types.


Good luck buying or building a TV antenna that can be used for internet access.
 
2014-02-22 01:16:49 AM

Fubini: The courts will decide that networks have the right to competitively bargain for their peering agreements, and that a network cannot be compelled to have a peering agreement with another network.


The courts have already decided that the FCC has this very power.

/the rest of your comment is also bullshiat
 
Displayed 50 of 97 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report