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.

(Yahoo)   FCC examines why internet download speed is slow, besides the usual explanation of "because you have AOL"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 58
    More: Followup, Federal Communications Commission, internet, Internet traffic jams, privileged access, Capitol Hill in Washington, Netflix  
•       •       •

1586 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Jun 2014 at 10:50 AM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-17 09:01:10 AM
Because the cable companies have a monopoly?  I'm sure they won't come up with that reason, but that is the root cause.  Broadband always seems to get cheaper and faster when competition moves in.
 
2014-06-17 09:38:00 AM
Because the ISP's have been raking in the dough without increasing bandwidth?  They continue to add subscribers, but fail to increase capacity at the same time.
 
2014-06-17 09:40:01 AM

EvilEgg: Because the cable companies have a monopoly?  I'm sure they won't come up with that reason, but that is the root cause.  Broadband always seems to get cheaper and faster when competition moves in.


Done in one. They're slowly narrowing the internet pipeline to a default speed in anticipation of Net Neutrality failing. If it does, they will offer the fast pipeline for the low, low price of just $49.95 per month*

* six-month introductory offer only which auto-bills to $129.99 per month after
 
2014-06-17 10:19:47 AM
Yep. Not only do cable companies have monopolistic control, they've also been collecting a system upgrade fee on all broadband cable bills since (I believe) 1998. That fee was designed to expand and upgrade the broadband infrastructure in the United States.

Now take a guess as to how much of that has been spent upgrading the actual infrastructure, and then compare that versus C-level and lobbyist pay.

It's a seriously, seriously farked-up system. The USA pays more for braodband than very nearly any other developed nation, and we have very nearly the slowest broadband speeds. But hey, this whole laissez-faire approach to corporate structure is fine, right? We don't want socialism! We also certainly don't need to treat the Internet as a utility. In fact, we should probably just move back to gas lamps, too, because regulation on the energy sector is choking American eagles and freedoms and global climate change is a myth perpetrated by Barack HUSSEIN Soetoro Obama and his liberal Marxist totalitarian cronies.

/That...was hard to type.
 
2014-06-17 10:27:13 AM
You know, net neutrality would solve a lot of these issues.
 
2014-06-17 10:52:40 AM

nmrsnr: You know, net neutrality would solve a lot of these issues.


We've had net neutrality for the past several decades, and those issues exist, so no, it's not a magic pill that will solve everything. It still should remain for many  other reasons, but that's not one of them.
 
2014-06-17 10:55:58 AM

nmrsnr: You know, net neutrality would solve a lot of these issues.


Oh, but if you're referring to this:
knowmore.washingtonpost.com
... then yeah, net neutrality would help.
 
2014-06-17 10:57:54 AM
FARKING DECLARE IT A UTILITY ALREADY.
 
KIA
2014-06-17 11:00:10 AM
More monopoly power isn't the answer.
 
2014-06-17 11:02:02 AM

Theaetetus: and those issues exist


Which issues? This is about Netflix and traffic issues. Infrastucture not being able to support the bandwidth use (which isn't yet the case) and ISP monopolies are clearly not things that net neutrality would fix. But now it's getting to be a question of "how slow can your service be before we lose you as a customer, while still being able to charge you for higher speeds." ISPs are trying to find out where that sweet spot is.
 
2014-06-17 11:04:28 AM
I'm sure the FCC will hold a thorough investigation.  Exhaustive.  I'm sure they will be shocked, SHOCKED to discover that it is network neutrality holding Comcast back.
 
2014-06-17 11:04:28 AM
It's slow because we have the oldest infrastructure on the planet when it comes to interneting.

It doesn't get faster because the ISPs prefer to transfer their ridiculous rake from customers to lawyers and lobbyists rather than building out new infrastructure.

The whole argument with Netflix, for example, is utterly asinine. The only reason they're complaining about Netflix's massive impact on their datacenters is that they've failed, in some cases for nearly two decades now, to make even the slightest attempt to predict new trends and build up their businesses to support new customer demands. They sold people 10+ Mb/s connections at a time when most people were just browsing the web and using email and didn't need more than about 200Kb/s at the absolute max. Every now and then you had nerds playing games online who would be downloading big updates, but they were the exception so it didn't really matter, plus they were "proof" that you could actually get the service you were paying for, in theory.

Now, the obvious has happened as equipment has advanced and digital entertainment has become possible for just about anybody without any technical expertise being required. You got 80 year old grannies out there with a set top box watching Expendable 2 in 1080p over the internet. It's not just nerds using their connections, it's everybody using them to their supposed capacity.

But the malicious idiots running companies like Comcast are still running networks built for email and Geocities pages and they're mad that now they might have to actually spend some money to upgrade their infrastructure to meet the demands of their customers. Basically, they're angry that they might have to actually spend some money fulfilling their obligations (perfectly foreseeable obligations) instead of giving that money to executives to buy another set of golden dildos.

And since the FCC and Congress are spineless, quivering dolts who will take those dildos in any orifice the executives choose to use them in I somehow doubt that's going to change anytime soon.
 
2014-06-17 11:08:21 AM
Porno.
 
2014-06-17 11:11:20 AM
www.speedtest.net
 
2014-06-17 11:11:36 AM
Because a farkload of people are clogging up the lines with torrents?
 
2014-06-17 11:21:20 AM

narkor: Because a farkload of people are clogging up the lines with torrents?


I prefer to think of them as distributed remote backups.
 
2014-06-17 11:22:39 AM

foo monkey: [www.speedtest.net image 300x135]


Who do you buy your internet from and how much does it cost?

Same region - 9Mb/s rather than Comcast's claimed 50Mb/s...
 
2014-06-17 11:26:33 AM
Kind of off topic but I was thinking about this the other day...

What would you pay to stream every movie on day of DVD release, every TV show 24 hours after original air-date, and older stuff added as soon as it could be...all without commercials?
 
2014-06-17 11:31:56 AM

EmperorSled: Kind of off topic but I was thinking about this the other day...

What would you pay to stream every movie on day of DVD release, every TV show 24 hours after original air-date, and older stuff added as soon as it could be...all without commercials?


I'm basically looking at this at the moment (well, as close as you can get it right now). It's looking more and more that Internet + Netflix + Amazon Prime + occasional iTunes is a much better deal than Cable, I just have to wait a little while for certain series to be available to buy.
 
2014-06-17 11:34:23 AM

EmperorSled: What would you pay to stream every movie on day of DVD release, every TV show 24 hours after original air-date, and older stuff added as soon as it could be...all without commercials?


Depends... How much is the discount for streaming the movie a week later?
 
2014-06-17 11:35:43 AM

Target Builder: EmperorSled: Kind of off topic but I was thinking about this the other day...

What would you pay to stream every movie on day of DVD release, every TV show 24 hours after original air-date, and older stuff added as soon as it could be...all without commercials?

I'm basically looking at this at the moment (well, as close as you can get it right now). It's looking more and more that Internet + Netflix + Amazon Prime + occasional iTunes is a much better deal than Cable, I just have to wait a little while for certain series to be available to buy.


Except for HBO. If you want to watch Game of Thrones online, you have to have a cable subscription  and subscribe to HBO. Then you can use HBOGo to stream it. So, you literally have to pay for a separate service you're not using.
 
2014-06-17 11:36:24 AM
My ISP just bumped me to 100 mbps at no additional charge. Tripled my download speed.

/weird
//Charter
 
2014-06-17 11:36:33 AM

foo monkey: [www.speedtest.net image 300x135]


Williamsburg-ite here, how in the hell would I get that kind of service?  Farking Cox is charging me $60 for 15.
 
2014-06-17 11:37:49 AM

nmrsnr: But now it's getting to be a question of "how slow can your service be before we lose you as a customer, while still being able to charge you for higher speeds." ISPs are trying to find out where that sweet spot is.


By far one of the smartest statements I've read on the issue to date.

/neteng
 
2014-06-17 11:38:31 AM

EvilEgg: Because the cable companies have a monopoly?  I'm sure they won't come up with that reason, but that is the root cause.  Broadband always seems to get cheaper and faster when competition moves in.


This. The only worse thing than a government-run entity as far as service and efficiency is a government-sanctioned monopoly.
 
2014-06-17 11:39:41 AM

Theaetetus: Except for HBO. If you want to watch Game of Thrones online, you have to have a cable subscription  and subscribe to HBO. Then you can use HBOGo to stream it. So, you literally have to pay for a separate service you're not using.


Yup - that would be the series I have to wait to buy. But then 12 months of cable is a very very high price to pay for getting one or two series before they're available to buy.
 
2014-06-17 11:46:19 AM

Target Builder: Theaetetus: Except for HBO. If you want to watch Game of Thrones online, you have to have a cable subscription  and subscribe to HBO. Then you can use HBOGo to stream it. So, you literally have to pay for a separate service you're not using.

Yup - that would be the series I have to wait to buy. But then 12 months of cable is a very very high price to pay for getting one or two series before they're available to buy.


I would be happy to pay HBO 2 or 3 bucks an episode, if it was possible. But having to wait a year for it to come out on DVD is just obnoxious.
 
2014-06-17 11:46:40 AM
60.89 down, 11.32 up, but that's only on the test server they use for your area, and it is NOT indicative of your typical online experience.  I'm lucking to get 20 down on CNN or Fark, or any almost any other website.

Speedtest.net doesn't mean jack squat, unless you like being satisfied that such is the only place you'll come close to advertized speeds.


Fark speedtest.net.

The Internet got addled by the FCC a couple months ago and it shows.
 
2014-06-17 11:48:59 AM
*lucky

And I got wretched Comcast.

Getting good results at speedtest.blahdyfark is like driving your car on a stretch of recently laid blacktop-nice-until the road goes back to cobblestone.

Thanks, FCC. You've really outdone yourself this time.
 
2014-06-17 11:53:50 AM

Target Builder: EmperorSled: Kind of off topic but I was thinking about this the other day...

What would you pay to stream every movie on day of DVD release, every TV show 24 hours after original air-date, and older stuff added as soon as it could be...all without commercials?

I'm basically looking at this at the moment (well, as close as you can get it right now). It's looking more and more that Internet + Netflix + Amazon Prime + occasional iTunes is a much better deal than Cable, I just have to wait a little while for certain series to be available to buy.


Just did that a couple of months ago. We have Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu. Problem with those is that you don't get access to all movies on day of DVD release, and Hulu still has commercials.
 

Theaetetus: EmperorSled: What would you pay to stream every movie on day of DVD release, every TV show 24 hours after original air-date, and older stuff added as soon as it could be...all without commercials?


Depends... How much is the discount for streaming the movie a week later?


No discounts; just access at all times from one service. You don't have to subscribe to two, three, or four different ones to get all the content. You don't have to buy the physical disk first and then redeem a code to only be able to watch it on one app, (Blu, Ultraviolet, etc...)

I know there are a lot of studios, channels, and companies that you would have to deal with and to get those stipulations those companies are going to want a lot of money. It would be expensive to the end-user but would it be worth $50 a month? $100?
 
2014-06-17 12:04:39 PM

EmperorSled: Target Builder: EmperorSled: Kind of off topic but I was thinking about this the other day...

What would you pay to stream every movie on day of DVD release, every TV show 24 hours after original air-date, and older stuff added as soon as it could be...all without commercials?

I'm basically looking at this at the moment (well, as close as you can get it right now). It's looking more and more that Internet + Netflix + Amazon Prime + occasional iTunes is a much better deal than Cable, I just have to wait a little while for certain series to be available to buy.

Just did that a couple of months ago. We have Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu. Problem with those is that you don't get access to all movies on day of DVD release, and Hulu still has commercials.
 Theaetetus: EmperorSled: What would you pay to stream every movie on day of DVD release, every TV show 24 hours after original air-date, and older stuff added as soon as it could be...all without commercials?


Depends... How much is the discount for streaming the movie a week later?

No discounts; just access at all times from one service. You don't have to subscribe to two, three, or four different ones to get all the content. You don't have to buy the physical disk first and then redeem a code to only be able to watch it on one app, (Blu, Ultraviolet, etc...)

I know there are a lot of studios, channels, and companies that you would have to deal with and to get those stipulations those companies are going to want a lot of money. It would be expensive to the end-user but would it be worth $50 a month? $100?


To make sure I understand, you're talking one flat rate for full access?  No pay-per-view shiat like with Amazon?  Basically Netflix's business model, but with quicker releases and more comprehensive content?  Yeah, I'd be willing to pay $50 for that easy.
 
2014-06-17 12:14:37 PM
Last Man on Earth:
 To make sure I understand, you're talking one flat rate for full access?  No pay-per-view shiat like with Amazon?  Basically Netflix's business model, but with quicker releases and more comprehensive content?  Yeah, I'd be willing to pay $50 for that easy.


That's what I don't understand about these companies. People want a service like that: no commercials, new movies on day of DVD release, all studios/companies though one service; and they're willing to pay a lot of money for it.

It surprises me that either nobody has tried this. Or are all the different studios too stubborn to go along with it?
 
2014-06-17 12:24:42 PM
 
2014-06-17 12:33:34 PM
How about instead of selling "up to" speeds, sell to average speeds?
 
2014-06-17 12:36:43 PM

EmperorSled: It surprises me that either nobody has tried this. Or are all the different studios too stubborn  greedy to go along with it?


FTFY. And not just the studios. Everyone wants the biggest slice of the pie, and all will argue (from the studios to the A-list actors, to the content providers to the ISPs) as to who is the most important, vital link in that chain.
 
2014-06-17 12:38:23 PM

EmperorSled: Last Man on Earth:
 To make sure I understand, you're talking one flat rate for full access?  No pay-per-view shiat like with Amazon?  Basically Netflix's business model, but with quicker releases and more comprehensive content?  Yeah, I'd be willing to pay $50 for that easy.


That's what I don't understand about these companies. People want a service like that: no commercials, new movies on day of DVD release, all studios/companies though one service; and they're willing to pay a lot of money for it.

It surprises me that either nobody has tried this. Or are all the different studios too stubborn to go along with it?


It's not that no one has tried it - a lot of people are trying it. A lot of people trying it results in the obvious problem - if there are 4 or 5 companies trying to secure maximum content, you're going to have content mixed amongst them as they vy for exclusivity while other content producers may want to restrict content to certain periods or get more direct profits from the provider so that they're not losing money they would have gained on DVD sales.

This is really just an ideal for consumers - The reality is that as soon as one provider had all content, they have a monopoly and you're going to end up getting screwed anyway.
 
2014-06-17 12:40:06 PM

EmperorSled: Last Man on Earth:
 To make sure I understand, you're talking one flat rate for full access?  No pay-per-view shiat like with Amazon?  Basically Netflix's business model, but with quicker releases and more comprehensive content?  Yeah, I'd be willing to pay $50 for that easy.


That's what I don't understand about these companies. People want a service like that: no commercials, new movies on day of DVD release, all studios/companies though one service; and they're willing to pay a lot of money for it.

It surprises me that either nobody has tried this. Or are all the different studios too stubborn to go along with it?


Partly a mix of stubbornness with existing exclusivity deals and contracts, but you also have to look at the business models for movie studios and cable companies.  The networks make their money off advertising, and why would people watch the commercialed version if they could watch commercial-free the next day?  It's not like one service has the resources to pay off every network to compensate.  Cable companies have a similar problem, since they make assloads of money from cable subscriptions.  Netflix and the like already result in widespread cord-cutting, what would happen if everything was immediately available from one source?  Movie studios would see DVD profits fall into the crapper, because it would remove any incentive to ever buy a DVD again.

tl;dr:  Networks, cable companies, and film studios are all VERY bound up into their existing business model.  It may be woefully outdated, but it's always made them shiatloads of money, and it continues to do so.  They'll strongly resist some new player coming in to shake everything up and make a lot of what they do obsolete.
 
2014-06-17 12:42:37 PM

EmperorSled: Last Man on Earth:
 To make sure I understand, you're talking one flat rate for full access?  No pay-per-view shiat like with Amazon?  Basically Netflix's business model, but with quicker releases and more comprehensive content?  Yeah, I'd be willing to pay $50 for that easy.


That's what I don't understand about these companies. People want a service like that: no commercials, new movies on day of DVD release, all studios/companies though one service; and they're willing to pay a lot of money for it.

It surprises me that either nobody has tried this. Or are all the different studios too stubborn to go along with it?


Seriously? $50/month for all of that content is nothing. Especially when there are already 90 million homes paying $90/month just for cable.
 
2014-06-17 01:06:43 PM
If only we would just free the market then we would have fast internet and chocolate rainbow BJs will rain upon us.
 
2014-06-17 01:11:24 PM
fark AOL

... totally on-topic, MoDZ
 
2014-06-17 01:15:04 PM

nocturnal001: chocolate rainbow BJs will rain upon us.


www.tubefilter.com
**I move away from the wang to breathe in**
 
2014-06-17 01:16:06 PM

nocturnal001: If only we would just free the market then we would have fast internet and chocolate rainbow BJs will rain upon us.


Well... a lot of the same people keep promising me a trickle down effect and I have yet to see THAT.

/ farking teases....
 
2014-06-17 01:27:30 PM

EmperorSled: Kind of off topic but I was thinking about this the other day...

What would you pay to stream every movie on day of DVD release, every TV show 24 hours after original air-date, and older stuff added as soon as it could be...all without commercials?


Won't happen for decades, if ever.

These companies will not work together. They believe keeping their content behind walls is their best option. You already see pissing contests where companies remove certain channels as part of hissy fits.
 
2014-06-17 02:19:07 PM
The FCC is going to find we need to let big political contributor Comcast buy out Time Warner if we want faster speeds.  I don't know why they waste public funds on studies like this when they could be out buying assault weapons and body armor like the USDA.  That would keep the illegal downloaders in line.
 
2014-06-17 02:34:32 PM

Target Builder: foo monkey: [www.speedtest.net image 300x135]

Who do you buy your internet from and how much does it cost?

Same region - 9Mb/s rather than Comcast's claimed 50Mb/s...


OpenBand.  It's a FTTD residential network built in the mid-2000's.  Only available in certain neighborhoods in Loudoun County.  The Internet connectivity is unreal, but the television service sucks.  It's all bundled together in the HOA package.
 
2014-06-17 03:09:40 PM

Theaetetus: nocturnal001: chocolate rainbow BJs will rain upon us.

[www.tubefilter.com image 250x180]
**I move away from the wang to breathe in**


i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-17 03:14:04 PM

Poot beer: My ISP just bumped me to 100 mbps at no additional charge. Tripled my download speed.

/weird
//Charter


Charter is one of the highest ranked ISPs in terms of customer satisfaction, depending on the survey.  They actually seem to upgrade their shiat regularly like, y'know, a reputable ISP should, rather than relying on a monopoly to let them do whatever the hell they want.

That's as an internet provider though.  As a TV provider they're usually ranked kind of low.  Weird, but there you go.
 
2014-06-17 03:26:59 PM

foo monkey: [www.speedtest.net image 300x135]


www.speedtest.net

Wheee!
 
2014-06-17 03:41:10 PM

Dragonflew: foo monkey: [www.speedtest.net image 300x135]

[www.speedtest.net image 300x135]

Wheee!


3ms ping?  Where are you, Botswana?  Get a real connection, man!
 
2014-06-17 03:59:42 PM

Khellendros: Dragonflew: foo monkey: [www.speedtest.net image 300x135]

[www.speedtest.net image 300x135]

Wheee!

3ms ping?  Where are you, Botswana?  Get a real connection, man!


I'm about seven feet from the server room, I work at an ISP. ;)
 
Displayed 50 of 58 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