Net Neutrality Dealt A Blow (1 Viewer)

[Jim11]

Damn GOP helping big business again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/15/fcc-approves-plan-to-allow-for-paid-priority-on-internet/

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers.

 

[MattFancy]

Would be a terrible idea

 

[mquinnjr]

Damn GOP helping big business again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/15/fcc-approves-plan-to-allow-for-paid-priority-on-internet/

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers.

Yeah, it will change the way consumers experience the internet, since it will cost 3 gazillion times more to experience it once the costs are borne by all of us.

Seems reasonable.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Explain net neutrality again?

...

Yeah, it will change the way consumers experience the internet, since it will cost 3 gazillion times more to experience it once the costs are borne by all of us.

Seems reasonable.

Yep, sounds like we will be getting charged higher fees in the interest of "better quality".

 

[Rayderr]

Hard to believe that a former Cable lobbyist would be in favor of such a plan that will net cable providers boatloads of cash.

 

[mquinnjr]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

 

[Bucky86]

#### THIS ####

 

[Amused to Death]

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

 

[matttyl]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

 

[Bucky86]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

 

[mquinnjr]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

I agree with you, but I feel like this is a trap.

I could see that cap getting lower over time "as the usage data shows," or whatever excuse they use to justify it going down. Plus, if you use any competing streaming video services, those shatter through the limits, getting you in the neighborhood or over the cap if you're a heavy streaming usage user.

 

[Josie Maran]

The government giving a massive windfall to big corporations at the expense of the citizenry? Unpossible!!

 

[MattFancy]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

 

[Rayderr]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

So they're going after their business customers.

 

[MattFancy]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

True that it probably doesn't effect the average person, but it's the fact that they're putting a cap on something that was previously unlimited and charging the same price. Just like cell phone companies did with data. Got rid of unlimited data but charge the same for 2GB.

 

[Josie Maran]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

So they're going after their business customers.

No, they're going after cord cutters to make it more expensive and thus a less attractive option.

 

[coyote5]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

So they're going after their business customers.

No, they're going after cord cutters to make it more expensive and thus a less attractive option.

 

[matttyl]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

100? I honestly don't know. I'm a semi cord cutter and I don't think I've ever topped three digits.

 

[matttyl]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

I agree with you, but I feel like this is a trap.

I could see that cap getting lower over time "as the usage data shows," or whatever excuse they use to justify it going down. Plus, if you use any competing streaming video services, those shatter through the limits, getting you in the neighborhood or over the cap if you're a heavy streaming usage user.

Isn't HD quality video like one GB per hour? This cap would be between 350 and 500 hours per month. How much TV are you streaming?!

 

[mquinnjr]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

So they're going after their business customers.

No, they're going after cord cutters to make it more expensive and thus a less attractive option.

The infrastructure is there to really not need a video subscription any more. These video/internet providers weren't just going to let customers walk away from video easily. I have to presume this is how they're going to keep people on their dole for video, data caps on internet usage and ownership of rights to live sports.

 

[matttyl]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

Is it really that high? Or is that the new 4k video quality or whatever it's called? Also, how much of Netflix' library is in this 3GB/hr range? I thought much of their stuff was either 720p or even SD quality?

 

[MattFancy]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

Is it really that high? Or is that the new 4k video quality or whatever it's called? Also, how much of Netflix' library is in this 3GB/hr range? I thought much of their stuff was either 720p or even SD quality?

That was from help.netflix.com. Said SD video can be up tp 1 GB/hr and HD can be up to 3GB/hr.

 

[mquinnjr]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

Is it really that high? Or is that the new 4k video quality or whatever it's called? Also, how much of Netflix' library is in this 3GB/hr range? I thought much of their stuff was either 720p or even SD quality?

Well, that's a good point. What happens when we evolve to the next wave of picture resolution, but the caps "aren't in sync" with the new resolutions and the data they consumer (e.g., 1080p, 4k)?

THAT is where I see this headed. No matter how it shakes out, I don't see it being a win for consumer value.

 

[matttyl]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

Is it really that high? Or is that the new 4k video quality or whatever it's called? Also, how much of Netflix' library is in this 3GB/hr range? I thought much of their stuff was either 720p or even SD quality?

That was from help.netflix.com. Said SD video can be up tp 1 GB/hr and HD can be up to 3GB/hr.

Hmm, maybe I was thinking DVD quality video being 1 GB/hr. Sorry for the mixup. Even so, that's still 4-5.5 hours of HD quality video being streamed each day. Still wouldn't affect most people.

 

[matttyl]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

Is it really that high? Or is that the new 4k video quality or whatever it's called? Also, how much of Netflix' library is in this 3GB/hr range? I thought much of their stuff was either 720p or even SD quality?

Well, that's a good point. What happens when we evolve to the next wave of picture resolution, but the caps "aren't in sync" with the new resolutions and the data they consumer (e.g., 1080p, 4k)?

THAT is where I see this headed. No matter how it shakes out, I don't see it being a win for consumer value.

So (putting on my capitalist/company hat), you want to get something in the future that doesn't yet exist.....and you don't want to pay for it?

Again, I'm totally with you and against any cap, but also looking to be realistic. Back in the day when I had a pentium 3 in college, I didn't expect to get a pentium 4 when they eventually came out and not have to pay more for it. How's this different?

 

[Josie Maran]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

Is it really that high? Or is that the new 4k video quality or whatever it's called? Also, how much of Netflix' library is in this 3GB/hr range? I thought much of their stuff was either 720p or even SD quality?

That was from help.netflix.com. Said SD video can be up tp 1 GB/hr and HD can be up to 3GB/hr.

Hmm, maybe I was thinking DVD quality video being 1 GB/hr. Sorry for the mixup. Even so, that's still 4-5.5 hours of HD quality video being streamed each day. Still wouldn't affect most people.

Sometimes more than one person can live in a house and use the Internet for streaming content.

 

[matttyl]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

Is it really that high? Or is that the new 4k video quality or whatever it's called? Also, how much of Netflix' library is in this 3GB/hr range? I thought much of their stuff was either 720p or even SD quality?

That was from help.netflix.com. Said SD video can be up tp 1 GB/hr and HD can be up to 3GB/hr.

Hmm, maybe I was thinking DVD quality video being 1 GB/hr. Sorry for the mixup. Even so, that's still 4-5.5 hours of HD quality video being streamed each day. Still wouldn't affect most people.

Sometimes more than one person can live in a house and use the Internet for streaming content.

Totally understand, and my wife and I do this ourselves. (Puts capitalism/company hat back on) Of course, we're only paying one internet charge (and one Netflix charge) when before we were married and living together we each had to pay for our own. We could have a roommate or two move into our basement and share our internet and Netflix as well (not sure of the legality of the 2nd one, there) and our costs wouldn't go up....why is that fair to me the internet company or Netflix?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

Is it really that high? Or is that the new 4k video quality or whatever it's called? Also, how much of Netflix' library is in this 3GB/hr range? I thought much of their stuff was either 720p or even SD quality?

That was from help.netflix.com. Said SD video can be up tp 1 GB/hr and HD can be up to 3GB/hr.

Hmm, maybe I was thinking DVD quality video being 1 GB/hr. Sorry for the mixup. Even so, that's still 4-5.5 hours of HD quality video being streamed each day. Still wouldn't affect most people.

What about a family of four?

 

[Jim11]

I'm streaming MLB using a Roku device. Plus Netflix & Amazon. Right now Comcast isn't enforcing any limits, but once they do...

 

[matttyl]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

Is it really that high? Or is that the new 4k video quality or whatever it's called? Also, how much of Netflix' library is in this 3GB/hr range? I thought much of their stuff was either 720p or even SD quality?

That was from help.netflix.com. Said SD video can be up tp 1 GB/hr and HD can be up to 3GB/hr.

Hmm, maybe I was thinking DVD quality video being 1 GB/hr. Sorry for the mixup. Even so, that's still 4-5.5 hours of HD quality video being streamed each day. Still wouldn't affect most people.

What about a family of four?

(Wearing company/capitalism hat) Why aren't you paying some per person rate, like your cell phone plan does? If your family of 4 joins a gym, are you just paying the same rate as I would pay alone?

 

[matttyl]

I'm streaming MLB using a Roku device. Plus Netflix & Amazon. Right now Comcast isn't enforcing any limits, but once they do...

How much are you using? I tried to look at my comcast account earlier today to find that number, but I couldn't.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

Is it really that high? Or is that the new 4k video quality or whatever it's called? Also, how much of Netflix' library is in this 3GB/hr range? I thought much of their stuff was either 720p or even SD quality?

That was from help.netflix.com. Said SD video can be up tp 1 GB/hr and HD can be up to 3GB/hr.

Hmm, maybe I was thinking DVD quality video being 1 GB/hr. Sorry for the mixup. Even so, that's still 4-5.5 hours of HD quality video being streamed each day. Still wouldn't affect most people.

What about a family of four?

(Wearing company/capitalism hat) Why aren't you paying some per person rate, like your cell phone plan does? If your family of 4 joins a gym, are you just paying the same rate as I would pay alone?

Don't answer a question with a question. And my response was related to your suggestion that people couldn't possibly use 350-500 gig per month because they only need 1 gig an hour for HD streaming. Please don't become Tim. Generally I like you but this post is classic Tim behavior.

 

[Limp Ditka]

I'm streaming MLB using a Roku device. Plus Netflix & Amazon. Right now Comcast isn't enforcing any limits, but once they do...

You won't be able to post here anymore?

 

[Josie Maran]

I'm streaming MLB using a Roku device. Plus Netflix & Amazon. Right now Comcast isn't enforcing any limits, but once they do...

You won't be able to post here anymore?

No one said there wouldn't be any benefits.

 

[mquinnjr]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

Is it really that high? Or is that the new 4k video quality or whatever it's called? Also, how much of Netflix' library is in this 3GB/hr range? I thought much of their stuff was either 720p or even SD quality?

Well, that's a good point. What happens when we evolve to the next wave of picture resolution, but the caps "aren't in sync" with the new resolutions and the data they consumer (e.g., 1080p, 4k)?

THAT is where I see this headed. No matter how it shakes out, I don't see it being a win for consumer value.

So (putting on my capitalist/company hat), you want to get something in the future that doesn't yet exist.....and you don't want to pay for it?

Again, I'm totally with you and against any cap, but also looking to be realistic. Back in the day when I had a pentium 3 in college, I didn't expect to get a pentium 4 when they eventually came out and not have to pay more for it. How's this different?

I would say to the gentleman in the capitalist/company hat, is it costing you more to provide me with the same product (infrastructure, speed, etc.)? In your Pentium 3 to Pentium 4 example, there's alot of R&D and manufacturing costs that need to be re-couped, and I understand how that would cause the price to increase for the newer Pentium 4 processor, should I choose to upgrade to it. If my infrastructure (wiring from Comcast pole to my house) and speed (25 down/5 up) does not change...why is it costing me more to use the same data?

Is it costing you more?

If not, seems like you're gouging me, with the value proposition to me the customer for the price increase being...passage of time?

 

[matttyl]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

Is it really that high? Or is that the new 4k video quality or whatever it's called? Also, how much of Netflix' library is in this 3GB/hr range? I thought much of their stuff was either 720p or even SD quality?

That was from help.netflix.com. Said SD video can be up tp 1 GB/hr and HD can be up to 3GB/hr.

Hmm, maybe I was thinking DVD quality video being 1 GB/hr. Sorry for the mixup. Even so, that's still 4-5.5 hours of HD quality video being streamed each day. Still wouldn't affect most people.

What about a family of four?

(Wearing company/capitalism hat) Why aren't you paying some per person rate, like your cell phone plan does? If your family of 4 joins a gym, are you just paying the same rate as I would pay alone?

Don't answer a question with a question. And my response was related to your suggestion that people couldn't possibly use 350-500 gig per month because they only need 1 gig an hour for HD streaming. Please don't become Tim. Generally I like you but this post is classic Tim behavior.

Please don't compare me to Tim. I won't post again for the rest of the week if you take that back!

I'm just using the example of myself - a family of 2. Should I pay half (roughly) of what a family of 4 would. Sure a family of 4 could bump up against a cap of 500 GB in a month, and maybe it's fair for them to pay more for that. My family of 2 likely won't hit that cap, and as such we should pay less.

Maybe that family of 4 should spend some quality time together as a family rather than each of them being in a different room streaming video to a separate TV, just saying.

 

[coyote5]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

Is it really that high? Or is that the new 4k video quality or whatever it's called? Also, how much of Netflix' library is in this 3GB/hr range? I thought much of their stuff was either 720p or even SD quality?

Well, that's a good point. What happens when we evolve to the next wave of picture resolution, but the caps "aren't in sync" with the new resolutions and the data they consumer (e.g., 1080p, 4k)?

THAT is where I see this headed. No matter how it shakes out, I don't see it being a win for consumer value.

So (putting on my capitalist/company hat), you want to get something in the future that doesn't yet exist.....and you don't want to pay for it?

Again, I'm totally with you and against any cap, but also looking to be realistic. Back in the day when I had a pentium 3 in college, I didn't expect to get a pentium 4 when they eventually came out and not have to pay more for it. How's this different?

I would say to the gentleman in the capitalist/company hat, is it costing you more to provide me with the same product (infrastructure, speed, etc.)? In your Pentium 3 to Pentium 4 example, there's alot of R&D and manufacturing costs that need to be re-couped, and I understand how that would cause the price to increase for the newer Pentium 4 processor, should I choose to upgrade to it. If my infrastructure (wiring from Comcast pole to my house) and speed (25 down/5 up) does not change...why is it costing me more to use the same data?

Is it costing you more?

If not, seems like you're gouging me, with the value proposition to me the customer for the price increase being...passage of time?

I think there are bandwith limitations which require additional infrastructure to exceed. In other words, as more and more people cut the cord and start using 100s of gigs of data per month it will put a strain on the network. I saw an article the other day talking about how it's already happening and that the ISPs have little to no interest in adding capability

 

[matttyl]

I would say to the gentleman in the capitalist/company hat, is it costing you more to provide me with the same product (infrastructure, speed, etc.)? In your Pentium 3 to Pentium 4 example, there's alot of R&D and manufacturing costs that need to be re-couped, and I understand how that would cause the price to increase for the newer Pentium 4 processor, should I choose to upgrade to it. If my infrastructure (wiring from Comcast pole to my house) and speed (25 down/5 up) does not change...why is it costing me more to use the same data?
Is it costing you more?

If not, seems like you're gouging me, with the value proposition to me the customer for the price increase being...passage of time?

But you're not using the same data, you're using more data, thus hitting the cap. If you're only watching SD video for 10 hours a day, then that's 300 GB a month (lets assume this is what you did in 2008, "pre HD"). You're good. If you're watching HD video for 10 hours a day, now you're at 900 GB, or 600 GB of new data - so you're not using "the same data", you're using 3x as much. This is what you're doing in 2014-2016 when HD content is "the norm". What about in 2017 when 4k becomes the norm and it's 6 GB per hour (a guess there). The same 10 hours a day would now be 1,800 GB a month, so obviously not "using the same data," you're using drastically more.

And I'm no computer/internet wizard, but I would have to imagine that it would be costing the internet provider much more to provide each of their customers 1,000 GB of data a month than 100 GB a month (additional infrastructure, servers, electric, etc.).

 

[matttyl]

I think there are bandwith limitations which require additional infrastructure to exceed. In other words, as more and more people cut the cord and start using 100s of gigs of data per month it will put a strain on the network. I saw an article the other day talking about how it's already happening and that the ISPs have little to no interest in adding capability

Again, no computer expert, but that sounds very reasonable.

 

[Bogeys]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

Is it really that high? Or is that the new 4k video quality or whatever it's called? Also, how much of Netflix' library is in this 3GB/hr range? I thought much of their stuff was either 720p or even SD quality?

That was from help.netflix.com. Said SD video can be up tp 1 GB/hr and HD can be up to 3GB/hr.

Hmm, maybe I was thinking DVD quality video being 1 GB/hr. Sorry for the mixup. Even so, that's still 4-5.5 hours of HD quality video being streamed each day. Still wouldn't affect most people.

What about a family of four?

(Wearing company/capitalism hat) Why aren't you paying some per person rate, like your cell phone plan does? If your family of 4 joins a gym, are you just paying the same rate as I would pay alone?

The provider sold me X size water line and is charging me the amount for that pipe size. If I use it all in one spigot or use it in 10 different spigots I still only get that same size line so in theory it shouldn't matter to my provider how I use it once it gets to my house. That is how it is sold to the consumer. The providers are now figuring out that they really can't provide everyone the speed they sold them if people actually use it on a regular basis so now they want the government to change the rules in their favor so they can charge the people who actually use what the company sold to them in the first place more for the product they had already agreed to provide.

Not exactly the same thing but how it makes more sense to me.

ETA: This is just like the cell phone companies that got all the smart phone customers to sign up with unlimited data plans that were the most expensive options at the time...now if you change anything they want to throw you into a capped plan where you pay the same about for 3 megs or less of data. Some of it is capacity and some is just turing it into a profit center like the airlines and baggage fees.

 

[mquinnjr]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

Is it really that high? Or is that the new 4k video quality or whatever it's called? Also, how much of Netflix' library is in this 3GB/hr range? I thought much of their stuff was either 720p or even SD quality?

Well, that's a good point. What happens when we evolve to the next wave of picture resolution, but the caps "aren't in sync" with the new resolutions and the data they consumer (e.g., 1080p, 4k)?

THAT is where I see this headed. No matter how it shakes out, I don't see it being a win for consumer value.

So (putting on my capitalist/company hat), you want to get something in the future that doesn't yet exist.....and you don't want to pay for it?

Again, I'm totally with you and against any cap, but also looking to be realistic. Back in the day when I had a pentium 3 in college, I didn't expect to get a pentium 4 when they eventually came out and not have to pay more for it. How's this different?

I would say to the gentleman in the capitalist/company hat, is it costing you more to provide me with the same product (infrastructure, speed, etc.)? In your Pentium 3 to Pentium 4 example, there's alot of R&D and manufacturing costs that need to be re-couped, and I understand how that would cause the price to increase for the newer Pentium 4 processor, should I choose to upgrade to it. If my infrastructure (wiring from Comcast pole to my house) and speed (25 down/5 up) does not change...why is it costing me more to use the same data?

Is it costing you more?

If not, seems like you're gouging me, with the value proposition to me the customer for the price increase being...passage of time?

I think there are bandwith limitations which require additional infrastructure to exceed. In other words, as more and more people cut the cord and start using 100s of gigs of data per month it will put a strain on the network. I saw an article the other day talking about how it's already happening and that the ISPs have little to no interest in adding capability

Yeah, see that's a major problem for me personally.

I would be fine with price increases if I knew ISP's we're expanding their networks to allow for excess capacity, and providing me with an unlimited service offering. Hard to argue against that if we can see it in what we get in terms of satisfactory performance.

I have a major problem with limiting people's usage, and making it a profit center, because ISP's either didn't see this coming and didn't make their infrastructure scalable enough to accommodate, or want to force people to purchase their video offerings, another (becoming) antiquated offering.

This is where competition needs to be in place, a la something like Google Fiber, and why allowing these companies to merge into one another is bad for us all. I see Google Fiber as doing this right infrastructure wise, and giving customers what they want for an agreeable price.

 

[matttyl]

The provider sold me X size water line and is charging me the amount for that pipe size. If I use it all in one spigot or use it in 10 different spigots I still only get that same size line so in theory it shouldn't matter to my provider how I use it once it gets to my house. That is how it is sold to the consumer. The providers are now figuring out that they really can't provide everyone the speed they sold them if people actually use it on a regular basis so now they want the government to change the rules in their favor so they can charge the people who actually use what the company sold to them in the first place more for the product they had already agreed to provide.

Not exactly the same thing but how it makes more sense to me.

And in your water example everything was going fine when people were just showering and flushing toilets. Now they are watering their lawns for 10 hours a day and emptying and refilling their 80,000 gallon pools each week. In this example....something's gotta give.

 

[Bogeys]

The provider sold me X size water line and is charging me the amount for that pipe size. If I use it all in one spigot or use it in 10 different spigots I still only get that same size line so in theory it shouldn't matter to my provider how I use it once it gets to my house. That is how it is sold to the consumer. The providers are now figuring out that they really can't provide everyone the speed they sold them if people actually use it on a regular basis so now they want the government to change the rules in their favor so they can charge the people who actually use what the company sold to them in the first place more for the product they had already agreed to provide.

Not exactly the same thing but how it makes more sense to me.

And in your water example everything was going fine when people were just showering and flushing toilets. Now they are watering their lawns for 10 hours a day and emptying and refilling their 80,000 gallon pools each week. In this example....something's gotta give.

I understand that. The way the providers are wanting it is the consumers to eat all the extra costs without doing anything about the infrastructure on their end.

Also, if they want to charge by usage they need to do that instead of just charging for speed which is all they are still advertising...any caps will be in the fine print at the bottom that they know most people don't read. And since they are granted exclusive rights by the government in most areas it isn't like the consumer is going to have much choice.

 

[GoFishTN]

Dealt a blow? Net neutrality in the US is dead, sad to say.

 

[matttyl]

The provider sold me X size water line and is charging me the amount for that pipe size. If I use it all in one spigot or use it in 10 different spigots I still only get that same size line so in theory it shouldn't matter to my provider how I use it once it gets to my house. That is how it is sold to the consumer. The providers are now figuring out that they really can't provide everyone the speed they sold them if people actually use it on a regular basis so now they want the government to change the rules in their favor so they can charge the people who actually use what the company sold to them in the first place more for the product they had already agreed to provide.

Not exactly the same thing but how it makes more sense to me.

And in your water example everything was going fine when people were just showering and flushing toilets. Now they are watering their lawns for 10 hours a day and emptying and refilling their 80,000 gallon pools each week. In this example....something's gotta give.

I understand that. The way the providers are wanting it is the consumers to eat all the extra costs without doing anything about the infrastructure on their end.

Also, if they want to charge by usage they need to do that instead of just charging for speed which is all they are still advertising...any caps will be in the fine print at the bottom that they know most people don't read. And since they are granted exclusive rights by the government in most areas it isn't like the consumer is going to have much choice.

How do you know they aren't and won't continue to improve the infrastructure on their end? What are all these Comcast trucks doing all the roads all the time?

And who's to say they won't (or even if they can due to infrastructure limitations) do away with speed charges and go to a pure usage based pricing model?

I think you're making some assumptions here that don't hold water.

 

[fasteddie_21]

http://wimp.com/explainingneutrality/

 

[coyote5]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

How many GB's does the average cord cutter use?

Could use up to 3GB/hr on HD video from Netflix.

Is it really that high? Or is that the new 4k video quality or whatever it's called? Also, how much of Netflix' library is in this 3GB/hr range? I thought much of their stuff was either 720p or even SD quality?

Well, that's a good point. What happens when we evolve to the next wave of picture resolution, but the caps "aren't in sync" with the new resolutions and the data they consumer (e.g., 1080p, 4k)?

THAT is where I see this headed. No matter how it shakes out, I don't see it being a win for consumer value.

So (putting on my capitalist/company hat), you want to get something in the future that doesn't yet exist.....and you don't want to pay for it?

Again, I'm totally with you and against any cap, but also looking to be realistic. Back in the day when I had a pentium 3 in college, I didn't expect to get a pentium 4 when they eventually came out and not have to pay more for it. How's this different?

I would say to the gentleman in the capitalist/company hat, is it costing you more to provide me with the same product (infrastructure, speed, etc.)? In your Pentium 3 to Pentium 4 example, there's alot of R&D and manufacturing costs that need to be re-couped, and I understand how that would cause the price to increase for the newer Pentium 4 processor, should I choose to upgrade to it. If my infrastructure (wiring from Comcast pole to my house) and speed (25 down/5 up) does not change...why is it costing me more to use the same data?

Is it costing you more?

If not, seems like you're gouging me, with the value proposition to me the customer for the price increase being...passage of time?

I think there are bandwith limitations which require additional infrastructure to exceed. In other words, as more and more people cut the cord and start using 100s of gigs of data per month it will put a strain on the network. I saw an article the other day talking about how it's already happening and that the ISPs have little to no interest in adding capability

Yeah, see that's a major problem for me personally.

I would be fine with price increases if I knew ISP's we're expanding their networks to allow for excess capacity, and providing me with an unlimited service offering. Hard to argue against that if we can see it in what we get in terms of satisfactory performance.

I have a major problem with limiting people's usage, and making it a profit center, because ISP's either didn't see this coming and didn't make their infrastructure scalable enough to accommodate, or want to force people to purchase their video offerings, another (becoming) antiquated offering.

This is where competition needs to be in place, a la something like Google Fiber, and why allowing these companies to merge into one another is bad for us all. I see Google Fiber as doing this right infrastructure wise, and giving customers what they want for an agreeable price.

I agree.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Literally just saw this link on Google finance after posting the above re:Comcast charging for data overages like cell phone carriers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/comcast-data-limits/

While I'd be totally opposed to any cap, it doesn't seem like it would affect many people:

"He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month."

In that case, I will take the 500 option.

 

[Bogeys]

The provider sold me X size water line and is charging me the amount for that pipe size. If I use it all in one spigot or use it in 10 different spigots I still only get that same size line so in theory it shouldn't matter to my provider how I use it once it gets to my house. That is how it is sold to the consumer. The providers are now figuring out that they really can't provide everyone the speed they sold them if people actually use it on a regular basis so now they want the government to change the rules in their favor so they can charge the people who actually use what the company sold to them in the first place more for the product they had already agreed to provide.

Not exactly the same thing but how it makes more sense to me.

And in your water example everything was going fine when people were just showering and flushing toilets. Now they are watering their lawns for 10 hours a day and emptying and refilling their 80,000 gallon pools each week. In this example....something's gotta give.

I understand that. The way the providers are wanting it is the consumers to eat all the extra costs without doing anything about the infrastructure on their end.

Also, if they want to charge by usage they need to do that instead of just charging for speed which is all they are still advertising...any caps will be in the fine print at the bottom that they know most people don't read. And since they are granted exclusive rights by the government in most areas it isn't like the consumer is going to have much choice.

How do you know they aren't and won't continue to improve the infrastructure on their end? What are all these Comcast trucks doing all the roads all the time?

And who's to say they won't (or even if they can due to infrastructure limitations) do away with speed charges and go to a pure usage based pricing model?

I think you're making some assumptions here that don't hold water.

Because if they were improving the infrastructure they would be selling people the better services and charging more for them since it is a monopoly ...or at best you might have 2 options since competition is kept out by law. They may be connecting more areas and I guess that would be an upgrade for the infrastructure in those areas, but they have obviously not added the needed capacity to service what has already been sold to the consumers.

And I have no problem with the providers doing away with the current model and replacing it with a usage model although I doubt the public would stand for it and they would end up with competition at that point...which they don't want. Look at what is and has happened in places with google fiber, faster speeds and lower prices from the same folks pushing for the caps because they actually have some competition.

You are the one making the assumptions in this thread, I am dealing with the facts of how plans are being and have been sold and marketed.

 

[culdeus]

Yeah, this isn't good.

Comcast is putting in 60MB/s connections all over so it is not a speed issue, nor a capacity issue. They just want to grab money. It isn't that hard.