Fucking terrible. This will have a hard time getting through.
Fucking terrible. This will have a hard time getting through.
No it will pass with ease, since the two companies don't compete in the same markets.
The only losers will be the consumers
The worst part of this for us Time Warner customers is that TW has NEVER had any monthly data caps on their home broadband service. This is something that Comcast has been dying to do for a while now, the only thing keeping them from pulling the trigger was that their main competition(Time Warner) didn't do it. So much for that.
Say hello to having home cable internet that now charges you or throttles you when you go over your data cap. Fucking great.
Even though they don't compete in the same markets for customers, it gives them HUGE leverage over the content providers. Something like the blackouts may not happen if comcast can simply strong arm everyone.
Yeah no one is really happy about this (except TWC shareholders probably). All pretty negative articles from just one publication, Business Insider, this morning.
Comcast Time Warner Deal Customers - Business Insider
What Time Warner-Comcast Means For Customers - Business Insider
How Comcast Time Warner Could Be Stopped - Business Insider
One day I hope to be as attractive and well spoken as Tuco!
What the FCC needs to worry about is how Comcast is treating rival streaming business' like netflix. Users are throttled and capped on bandwidth so comcast can protect its video profits.
Hopefully net neutrality can get back on the books.
Unfortunately we are moving more towards a Zorg Inc instead of the Bell breakup of the 80's. Very sad.
Lol it's alright we are America land of shitty service providers who rip us off every chance they get.
I'm not too upset about caps. I download and keep up on dozens of shows, and download and play games, and stream Netflix, and I rarely get even close to my 250gb cap.
Wtf are people doing? Granted, I changed over all my shows to SD instead of HD versions, so that saves some, but still. Downloading and deleting your entire Steam library every month for fun or something? shit.
Is there a throttle cap versus a hard monthly cap? My ISP let's me go full bore up to the cap, and while I've never hit it, I assume at that point they'd start to throttle me. There are not any mid-month cap or limits.
And SD on Netflix looks like shit compared to the SD files I download. SD shit I download is still widescreen, and looks just fine compared to the terrible 4:3 ratio SD stuff on Netflix.
Am I ok with caps? Sure. Am I ok with them throttling the net for certain services, in an effort to promote their own services? No, but what you going to do? Not have internet?
No, you are going to choose an alternative when you can and offer whatever meager support you can to initiatives that support net neutrality. Sure, if everyone just torrents decent looking SD rips instead of actually using the Internet then I guess they would be fine, but why should we settle for that?
That is where I would focus my rage, not really at the caps, because I feel the caps are pretty high, even if you are streaming stuff all the time? But then again, I have 250gb cap, which may be pretty high compared to most other people.
Why cant I replace my $120/month TV bill, my $50/month phone bill, and $80 internet bill with a $50 cable internet connection? You mean being one of the users that would not even exist if it weren't for oversell ratios and throttling? Or would you prefer to pay $10/meg (at a minimum, for wholesale and transport) for a dedicated pipe and use all you want?
Why cant more companies be like google? You are asking why more multi billion dollar non ISPs dont invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in FTH projects in single cities at a net loss to deliver niche speeds?
People bitching who know nothing of actually operating an ISP. Ask away if you want to know the answer to other dumb questions.
ISPs used to run a 100:1 oversell ratio. Now I can barely manage 4:1 due to streaming traffic. I would imagine you will actually see speeds go down over the next 5-10 years until infrastructure is completely replaced.
EDIT: For the record, I am a supporter of net neutrality. But people need to be realistic. If you want to have 100mbps for $50/month, you cant have 5 12mbps streams going 20 hours a day. And yes, people really do this. I think net neutrality will provide more realistic advertised speeds, but people are going to bitch about *only* getting 20mbps.
Last edited by Remit; 02-14-2014 at 01:08 AM.
I spent 2 years with a 10gb/month cap because there was only one real ISP and if you wanted more than 10gb/month you had to sell your first born child or some shit. That's where the U.S. is heading.
Comcast is specifically targetting their competition for throttling. That is exactly the kind of shit monopoly laws were designed to prevent. They have the bandwidth, they want you using it on NBC/Universal properties.
Bro I got rid of Comcast, thank christ. You should see how quickly my neighborhood dropped Comcast once Verizon moved in. Funny, somehow now I don't have caps and there is no (discernible, but who really knows...) traffic shaping going on, and yet the global economy didn't collapse.
Oh wait, you can, because Comcast is using your home router as a public wi-fi hotspot for their other customers and have a website showing them. Awesome.
I dont think anyone really understands the impact on infrastructure or the costs involved with traffic increasing 20+x in a period of 3 years. I have 2 DS3s and pay $2675/month for them
And how is Verizon's FTH projects working out for them....
Yeah, I don't care about their troubles. You are trying to make me feel sorry for a multi-billion dollar industry that specifically gets infrastructure grants from taxpayer money to provide their service, and trying to convince me that it can't be done when it can and is being done. And not in some crazy overseas country (when did they start being technology leaders anyway?) and not by Google, but in my house, right now, today.
And, no other country in the world has better infrastructure over such a minimal density than the US.
I don't care what you feel. I'm explaining why.
Your why really doesn't hold water, though. You are saying "they can't" without context, ignoring the money they take and the money they are making, and ignoring the real reason behind Comcast's particular case of throttling. Sure, it would cost me a lot of money to open my own ISP. YOU GOT ME! But that isn't even remotely comparable to the resources they have.
You dont understand what it takes to be an ISP. Fuck yeah comcast makes fat stacks. However, they are just trying to handle the increased load until they can get infrastructure replaced (time and money)
One guy does a test and multiple people confirm that,idk, I'm not waiting for Comcast to release a press statement about how hard they are fucking their customers.
Again, I don't have to understand what it takes to be an ISP. I have my own job, one that I don't have the liberty of just assuming anyone who criticizes the way me or my company do business just doesn't get it. I imagine 100 years ago very similar conversations to this happening irt the telephone system.
However, until customers get realistic expectations about throughput (which is probably to blame on the cable companies again for advertising insane unsustainable speeds), everyone is going to be unhappy. Would you even glance at a competitor if they were offering 10Mbps uncapped, unthrottled for $50/month? Sooner or later, the consumer will have to pay about half wholesale/transport vs the 20:1 they are used to.
HissyFitWatch: Canadian Telecom Companies Annoyed Consumers Getting The Upper Hand | Stop the Cap!
Or in other countries, where people get faster service at cheaper prices
British Supermarket Chain Tesco to Provide Unlimited Fiber Broadband for $12.50 a Month | Stop the Cap!
80% of Qatar Has Fiber Optic Broadband; Fastest Nationwide Rollout of Fiber in the World | Stop the Cap!
Comcast and other ISP's are putting bandwidth caps in place simply to stifle competition and protect their video service profits. There is a reason why Comcasts own streaming services don't count against your monthly allowance.
But also I am with Arative. We need something big to happen in this country to force competition. What we have now is not competition. It isn't even choice.
Where I operate, there are 5! (yes 5) ISPs serving a town of 800 houses. All of my competitors advertise speeds nearly 3 times what I do for the same price. It took 3 years, but now I have more customers than I could ever want. However, this ONLY works in a small town. If I was sending out fliers for 1.5Mbps they would end up in the trash with other junk mail.
I live in a suburb of DC with thousands upon thousands of homes that had no choice but Comcast basically ever since broadband was a thing. I moved out here and put up with their shit (remember back when they "weren't" traffic shaping and torrents "weren't" being throttled?) for about 2 years before Verizon finally rolled out. And I talked to a guy working the orders, he said the response from the community was overwhelming. People were starved for change. Comcast rolled out a bunch of changes right after that to try and lure back customers but I don't think it had much effect.
Verizon FTTH was suspended for a large period of time, and is only scheduled to hopefully hit 300k customer upgrades this year. That is an incredibly slow pace, and from one of the largest providers in the country.
The end result is still the same though. Say Verizon didn't offer service in your area. Would you drop Comcast for 10Mbps unthrottled, uncapped for $50/month for the next few years?
They should spend this 45 billion on infrastructure upgrades instead of trying to fuck consumers yet again. Wah poor ISP's have it so rough.
Oh and 10MBS with no caps is what I have. 50 bucks a month. Fastest offered in my area. Its a tiny bit pricey but works great. So your theoretical bullshit is dumb. People have it right now all over.
Last edited by Chanur; 02-14-2014 at 03:07 AM.
What we need is for the government to open cable lines for competition like phone lines were and we'll see faster speeds, uncapped bandwidth and cheaper prices for all. All this deal does is screw consumers.
Now they'll have a monopoly.
Last edited by Remit; 02-14-2014 at 04:56 AM.
This thread turned interesting as shit. Keep going!
I live in Arizona, and a hot issue is talking about illegal workers. Everyone wants to pay $1 for that head of lettuce at the store, and don't really care how they get it.
I'd venture to guess that uninformed outside this forum feel the same way about their internet. They don't care how they get it, or that their streaming habits are a detriment to the "system" but damn it they'll be mad when it doesn't work!!
There is a balance that needs to be had but I honestly don't feel we will ever see it in America. I would feel much better about paying my monthly bill, or be ok with rate increases if in the end the company wasn't raking in billions of dollars. I'm all for capitalism but sometimes it gets a little stupid.
But people see this and just say "MONOPOLY! WE NEED GOOGLE" when 1Gbps FTTH is not sustainable, feasible, or affordable in any way shape or form for a profitable business model. Traffic is fucking insane since streaming video. Yeah we need to deal with it. But there isnt a simple fix of just regulation that will magically send companies knocking down your door to get you great service.
How do you feel about Netflix taking on some of that cost? Or being more strict about their sharing? But again, no one wants that bad press or to be the ones that actually impose limits on people. We are Americans, damn it, and we'll burn anyone that tries to restrict what we do!!
I mean you said streaming 5 lines in HD, for 20 hours a day. Seriously? That's insane. Those are the people that need to be hit with a throttle.
Would it be cost effective to target the highest users? The ones that pay $45 a month, and expect no limits or caps?
Well where do you think technology is going to go? Eventually 1Gbps fiber will be the reality.Is it feasible today? Nah. Would I LOVE for Google to come in here and save the day? Fuck yes. But that isn't going to happen, Google's fiber is a side project they do with their "fuck you" money, like the wireless balloons and all the other crazy shit they do. There is a middle ground between live-saving superhero Google saves the day and the bullshit that is our current internet distribution system in the US.
BTW, yeah, I'd take 10Mbps over Comcast even today. But I hate the shit out of Comcast. The bottom line is that as a company they can't be trusted to even deliver what they promise or to be honest with you about what services you are receiving, so they can go to hell.
I would say 40% of my customers stream upwards of 10 hours a day. Stay at home moms, shift working dads, and TV to parent the kids. The unemployed it is more like 80+% stream 10+ hours a day. I have 1 house that just increased their plan from 1.5Mbps to 3Mbps because they could only stream to 3 devices, and they wanted it on 5. And really, the only time that it matters is 7-11pm, as that is when traffic peaks. But, thats when EVERYONE wants to steam. And they should be able to (but not to 4 devices for $50/month...)
The old target the 5% who use 95% is dead. That is what caps used to hit, the torrenters and useneters of the old internet. Now you would be hitting 40+% of your customers, and I think that is just bad for business.
But there has to be a way to target some of those people that use so much? I feel like that's a better answer than just throttling everyone that's using Netflix, no matter if that was their first time turning it on that month, or the 20th hour of the day they had been doing it.
I'm a useneter, and for the last 2 years I was fine staying under my 250gb cap on $70 per month, 50down/5up internet from Cox Communications. I discovered torrents, and after 3 weeks I had to call and upgrade to the 150/30 plan not for the speeds, but for the increase to 400gb cap.
I'm pretty sure I can say that torrents are dirty, and the cause of our internet problems? Go usenets! haha
Yeah I'm sure the FAA would have a few problems with that in the US. I just hope they are working directly with Ubiquiti to solve some of their firmware issues
I hate torrents but only because of dumb end users. People that don't understand seeding so I get copyright violation notices I have to forward on or call to complain their Internet is slow when pushing 800 connections through their net gear router. Streaming is so easily accessible and will only grow, where as your average Joe doesn't even know what a torrent is these days.
I think the solution is sustainable advertised speeds, and that's what I started with 4 years ago. I don't even burst or allow higher speeds on off peak hours, as customers will complain during peak hours even if they are getting more than advertised speeds
Last edited by Remit; 02-14-2014 at 05:45 AM.
streaming eats fuckton of bandwidth. one hour of 720 raped through my bandwidth limit like a crack addict on heroin. 1-2 gig. That's one hour. Now multiply that by 4 people plus downloading some foreign drama and movies. We would be eating through 8-10 gig per day with one ISP if it wasn't for the second business connection we have. Right now, we are sitting at 250 GB limit on one connection that is 30 mbps (upgraded from 20 mbps because we needed more bandwidth) and unlimited on 5 mbps (lolwut).
We found a way to limit our usage. We do not watch our streams in high definition. Youtubes are streamed in 480. I sure as fuck would love to stream them in HD but this bandwidth limit is killing it.
Some ISPs do offer unlimited download window between 2 AM to 6 AM (low traffic, cost of bandwidth differs like the electricity in Canada apparently, to third party ISPs, which I believe is regulated by the government board).
Incumbent ISPs also offers unlimited packages ($10/month) but only in bundles (TV/phone).
I don't know if this is the future of American ISP. We used to have some trouble with torrent throttling but they gave the fuck up and just said fuck it. They would rather gauge the customer with overage fees than let that sweet nectar of money go wasted.
Last edited by Trollface; 02-14-2014 at 09:55 AM.
To quote her primarily, and she was just at a massive conference on the subject within the past few weeks in/near DC - 95% of traffic is still pretty much a handful of people still, below 5% - because while the average consumption has gone up the highend users have gone up pretty much in line with it and the old number was inflated anyhow and was closer to 2-3% that was consuming previously. Additionally due to who provides what and how the cost structure works out including TAX BREAKS the idea that we're remotely near the point where throttling is sensible or anything is horseshit - sure it's not a 10000% profit anymore and closer to 500% profit on traffic, but that's still an astronomic profit on being nothing but a "gateway service".
Edit Addition: She added something else to FB as I finished up relaying - we do have to worry about hitting a cap eventually but with current market growth of consumption and CURRENT TECH available assuming everyone upgraded properly you're looking at about 20 years for your worries to become a thing. It's not impossible it's a problem for YOU because your supplier is being cheap about upgrading to try to gouge YOU and indirectly your customers by proxy. This is not indicative of the system as a whole.
Hell, to quote her on your concept that "Google Fiber isn't sustainable nationwide" - Google fiber is only a SLIGHT loss for Google at this point besides the install costs which they mostly swallow - the actual service costs are close to breaking even at this point with how things have started to adjust as of the last few months, and due to the basic infrastructure costs might actually just be a matter of getting a larger installed base (didn't think to ask her how much of the current loss is because of the core infrastructure costs - just theorizing that myself here...). There's no math out there that supports that it can't occur with appropriate hardware upgrades throughout the system - hell the servers she's working with these days are supposed to increase traffic managed by a factor of 100 or something ridiculous like that.
Last edited by Vaclav; 02-14-2014 at 12:46 PM.
I don't know shit about this stuff, but I do know there are still tons of people subscribing to the internet and doing next to nothing with it. Pretty much everyone I know over 40 just uses facebook and literally nothing else or maybe Facebook and Gmail. I was talking to a guy yesterday that has cable internet just so he can download books to his kindle. He doesn't even have a damn computer. I told him that he could just go to Starbucks or McDonald's or something and do that but he doesn't know how and is afraid of screwing something up (he's in his 60s). Younger folks are using shitloads of Netflix but I know plenty of people that could probably get by with a 2 gig cap including my mother and grandmother.
I also think a lot of torrent people wouldn't download half the shit that they do if it cost them something. I know people with 30,000 songs and more movies stored on hard drives than they could ever watch. It's some sort of sick data hoarding and has nothing to do with how much content they actually consume.
The biggest issue I have with bandwidth caps and throttling is that companies like comcast are stifling competition with them in favor of their own services, which proves that the bandwidth caps and throttling are just bullshit excuses to charge customers more and stop people from using rival services. That's why we need true net neutrality in this country.
The other issue is cable and phone companies buying off state and local politicians to enact laws that will prevent municipalities from building their own fiber networks. You can see this in North Carolina and now Kansas. Laws in North Carolina go so far as to limit down to the street level where municipal owned networks can service customers. That's completely anti-competitive.
Time Warner Cable Monopoly Protection Act Heads to North Carolina Governor | community broadband networks
But then there are places like Tenn, where a community owned fiber network is connecting people with 1gbps connections. So it can be done and cost effectively
Connected Tennessee Notes 5.3% of State Now Has Access to 1Gbps Broadband, Thanks to EPB Fiber | Stop the Cap!
That google saying it will bring 10gigabit in 3 years.
Government money, IE tax breaks and grants, will be given to rural broadband expansion in the future, not bringing city folk 1Gbps upgrades to 10Gbps. Just because Google can doesnt mean ANYONE else will, or that Google will do it in more than a handful of cities. I'm in a meeting right now with the FCC on broadband expansion funding.
Last edited by Remit; 02-14-2014 at 04:04 PM.
Target speeds for application are network communities without ubiquitous 3Mbps down/768kbps up today. This is SLOWER than the last round in 2011 of funding which was shooting for 4Mbps down/1Mbps up.
She's been with Google, British Telecom and now the IETF working on the internet backbone itself to some degree the entire time - it's possible I misphrased something there or put a number grammatically backwards from what I'm relaying but someone deep on the inside definitely considers your worries to be something that's a "far down the line, assuming communication tech doesn't continue to improve" thing not a "OMG this has to be done today! Tech isn't keeping up!" thing like you're trying to claim.
It's a potential worry much further down the line IF tech tops out. And AVERAGE consumption is up but not to any degree that is unsustainable - while there's still a pocket few that use drastically more than the rest even with all the improvements that occurred.
I've got the feeling you, as a micro-ISP or equivalent, are seeing a very select market and not realizing what the effect your small market actually means in the real world of the internet as a whole and assuming your customer base of 0.01% or less of America (frankly likely needs many more 0's) is indicative of general use. I'm sure if I check with our local micro-ISPs that their numbers would be off as well, because due to their nature they're not going to appeal to the mass market. The random grandmother than wants a huge pipe to just do emails isn't going to go hunting around with solo providers, she's going to go with her TV provider.
As a niche market you're going to get the more hardcore users by and far, because the benefits of going with a Micro-ISP only really apply to the hardcore by and far.
The technology is not the problem. The problem is a change in usage of the average user causing a reduction of oversell ratio, with customer ignorance to the increase in costs involved with this change.
As a "micro-ISP", of course my data is anecdotal. However, it is in no means niche. WISP carriers are the standard in rural America. I also talk with much much larger ISPs on a daily basis (some of whom are even non ILEC FTTH carriers). My points still stand.
My parents have Fios and do nothing but email and light browsing. They also subscribe to all the movie networks and DVR their content. They use shit for bandwidth on the internet. I'm sure for every power user there are 20 of her.
EDIT: And nobody reply with insider info on what Google's FTTH oversell is. It doesnt fucking apply and you know it.
Last edited by Remit; 02-14-2014 at 04:38 PM.
I really, really doubt what you're saying about the average using streaming 10 hours of streaming content per day. I have three young kids and my wife is a stay at home mom, and I'm betting we cap out at maybe 5 on high volume days. And we are definitely not the average user. Other people in my neighborhood do light browsing and email, like Cad said about his parents. And they pay an outrageous amount for their cable, because more channels brah. I would be absolutely shocked if Verizon wasn't printing money in the DC area. Shocked to the point that the only explanation could be mismanagement.
I serve enough to make a living.
Last edited by Remit; 02-14-2014 at 04:57 PM.
Sorry if this was answered before. Remit, if it's too expensive to provide faster internet to cities, why are other countries (France, South Korea etc) increasing their speeds while increasing their penetration?
Last edited by Remit; 02-14-2014 at 05:06 PM.
Since 2004 when my local cable company was bought by the biggest ISP in the country, I've been paying 12$ / month for my internet (from 2 mbps up to 100 mbps over the years).
They've launched a 1gbps service last year in all major cities for 18$/month. There's no caps, no throttling, no shaping. Everyone around here torrents everything or streams from free websites. Some websites are pretty well done and don't seem to server any malware or shit like that so I'm not sure how they're making a profit but with the speed we get I'd rather torrent everything (I use about 1tb down / 1.5tb up a month).
They have a monopoly on internet/cable in over 70% of the country and yet they invest in infrastructure and their service is impeccable. I get more blackouts than internet outages.
For example for about 50$ you can max out everything and by that I mean 1gbps internet, max number of cable channels (~150 with 30-40 of them HD, HBO and other premium), landline (no clue about the prices), mobile plan (1500 international minutes, 5gb traffic, ~0.35 cents(not dollars) / minute after), 3g sim+stick (another 5gb traffic that throttles after).
For comparison Romania has a population density of 218 people / square mile (population of 23m if anyone is wondering), US has 83.69 people / square mile.
Wtf I'm moving to Romania!
My guess is, Romania owns the internal "backbone", and so within country transport is uncapped and unlimited and is completely subsidized. Outside content transport probably the only place where costs are incurred.
This would be an awesome in a perfect world, but in America it doesnt work like that.
Nope, they own their shit (I remember when they had to pull the fiber from the telephone polls and bury it because the state owned landline provider made a fuss).
Also that 1gbps speed isn't limited within the country
I go over 100 mbps even with some servers in the US but there's to many to check right now. I get 50-800 mbps in all of Europe.
Yeah, but do you stream netflix to 5 devices at the same time?
Well, punk, do you?
I download 8-16gb 1080 movies so that's about 5 netflix streams, right ?
Rural is probably her disconnect with you Remit she's always working on and at major hubs. Hubs are always going to be in population centers with diminishing returns as you move outwards. That's how any engineering is going to work I'd imagine.
Now how rural is also a matter - VA has amazing rural coverage for example - 80% won't fall under the rural but poor infrastructure criteria. Honestly I'd bet it's closer to 30-40% of territory, probably 5% of population.
PS Tried to buzz a local ISP Quantum that I used to sub to in Carroll County back when broadband was new, and he's "out for a meeting" - making me wonder if it's you.
Also, who gives a fuck about rural? Until Comcast is reporting even something approaching slim profit margins, I am not going to give one flying fuck about their poor infrastructure upgrade costs and timesinks. Boohoo, someone didn't plan their business model correctly. Streaming has been big for long enough to plan for it. I refuse to accept this is the asshole consumer wrecking their poor little infrastructure.
Last edited by Deathwing; 02-14-2014 at 05:37 PM.
It isn't asshole consumers. I encourage streaming. My posts have went a little to left field but I support net neutrality. My original point is exactly that. Urban Internet as a whole will not get better until one of the three limits are imposed or rates increase. Because Com cast and the government don't care.
Niche market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The definition of words disagrees with you.
1. streaming will always have a lower bitrate compared to what you can get from torrents.
2. it's fast enough to download everything in minutes. I wanted to say seconds but by the time it connects to enough seeders to go over 300-400 mbps it's already done(hmm, third world internet problems?!).
3. the minimum wage here is ~220$ / month so even if netflix/hulu were unblocked, no one will pay for that.
Fun fact that I forgot earlier, Romania is one of the most corrupt country in the European Union. If you think your providers are bribing the goverment, think about what you can do here not that anyone would dare to fuck with our internet.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)