Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, Jan 7, 2014.
Sounds like a great idea...until Netflix jacks your bill up to cover the added cost of bandwidth.
Fuck AT&T, that's why I dumped them.
AT&T can go F*%# themselves, the greedy Sh*@$
What does this tell me?
They have more bandwidth then they can sell with their monthly plans.
Instead of increasing monthly caps, they try and sell sponsored data... Makes sense I guess.
Wonder why I jumped though hoops to keep my unlimited monthly plan (and stream netflix when at my cabin)?
this kind of shit was predicted when the ISPs started to pu caps on. Watch soon we will be getting caps that are pittiful compared to what we have now but we can always get the youtube or steam packages at the low cost of $25 a month. Shit boils my blood. Instead of fucking lining you pocket upgrade your damn network and stop over provisioning it. while we are at it instead of having ISP as lobbyists make them network engineers. Oh and while we are at it we need some regs that state there needs to be so many phisical line ISP providers in the area.
RIP Internet 2014
I like the idea of sponsored data.. I'm sure it won't work this way, but it would be awesome if every time I downloaded from say.. microsoft.. it was at 1Gbps. BF4 Premium Plus.. 0 ping.
I see AT&T stopped wanting customers. RIP AT&T 2014.
I wasn't a big fan of Net Neutrality so I don't see an issue with this ... I have sometimes paid extra for a service for preferred access (cough cough "preboarding" ... "preferred airline seats" ... cough cough ) ... I view this as a similar exercise ... if I could pay an extra $5 and get unbuffered, uncapped, or increased speed feeds I don't see an issue with that (as long as the unpaid less preferred service remains available) ... let the market sort this out ... if people are willing to support it, it will survive ... if people are not then it will wither and die ... let's see how it goes (preferred airline seating and paid preboarding doesn't seem to be going anywhere)
At least ATT is giving the option for a bandwidth sucking application to not count against our caps. Personally this should be done at no extra cost to Netflix to do, it should be a law that any services that relies on bandwidth not be counted against your monthly cap (since you aren't actually downloading, just streaming).
It opens up the doors at the very least. Once competition kicks in and offers better pricing or maybe even free we start to win as a consumer. Because right now we are losing big time, with this we are starting to get some freedom back.
Honestly I don't think caps are lawful to begin with and will be looking for any uncapped service I can once I settle down. If there is any by that time.
*caps are un-lawful
How would data caps be unlawful ... is it unlawful for airlines to have only so many seats in a given price range and charge more for seats with extra features ... folks seem to want capitalism only when it benefits the consumer ... although I am not personally a fan of caps (my FIOS service doesn't currently have caps) ... it should still be up to the market to decide if capped or uncapped services will win (not the government)
It begins. Cable Service dies. Partitioning and monetizing of the internet is born.
Here goes the neighborhood.
Time for ISPs to start charging sites and services protection money.
I'd sure be a shame if you customers couldn't connect...
Sounds like the gangsters of old.
Why must companies be forced to subsidize their competitors ... AT&T competes with Netflix in some areas because AT&T also offers streaming services ... some of AT&Ts competitors in the data market (Verizon/Redbox) also compete in the streaming market ... I would not support blocking a competitor but I do not see any issue with charging them for preferred treatment (or offering preferred treatment to your own services) ...
even though the limits are very high there are still physical limits on internet services and I don't have any issue with the market sorting out where caps or preferred access are viable and where they are not ... if people didn't support caps at some level we would have two mobile carrriers in the USA (Sprint and TMobile ... since they are the only carriers without caps) ... but Verizon and AT&T are about 70% of the mobile market and continuing to grow ... caps haven't impacted their ability to get customers (even where all 4 carriers are available in a given market)
How is it subsidizing?
Netflix pays for bandwidth as does the customer.
If I buy a Lowe's Garden hose, does that mean I can only use it to transport water supplied by Lowe's?
Your argument makes no sense.
Preferred access is only going to benefit ISPs. Big companies will pay up to keep customers, but the little guy is screwed as always.
You lost me when you compared something like the internet which has massive resources available to it to an airplane which has a fixed available amount resources (seats). You aren't going to look for an airplane with an almost unlimited amount of seats available.
Either way, I think it's unlawful because the model was unlimited, then changed over night. I don't care how they partition out their resources, it is their but to suddenly change it on customers giving no options (initially) seems unlawful.
I also think business that are bandwidth reliant should have some backing that prevents bandwidth caps from blocking their business model.
Except the internet isn't truly unlimited and ISPs are a business, not a charity ... in my area I have access to at least two high speed providers (neither with caps) ... if one implemented caps I would switch to the other ... if both had caps I would go with the cheaper ... if both were the same price I would choose the better features ... etc
Unless an ISP has a contract that states they will provide indefinite unlimited access (none of them have such a contract) then no rules have been broken if they implement caps or decide to offer preferred services to customers who are willing and able to pay for them ... all I am saying is let the market decide if this is a good or bad thing (that's how capitalism is supposed to work )
The reason I brought up airlines is that they are a perfect example of how the market should operate ... we used to have free checked bags (now that is a paid feature ... after a couple of failed attempts) ... we used to be able to sit anywhere within our class of service (now there are multiple economy subclasses with different fees) ... we used to be able to change flights relatively easily (and now there are multiple fees involved) ... the market selected which features or changes were appropriate and the timing of those changes ... internet services should be able to operate the same way
We all know bandwidth actually 'caps' (throughput saturates) a specific medium at session-time, not over an arbitrary billing period. That is, a network connection is only capable of moving as many packets across a line in a given moment as its hardware or software allows. If network saturation was actually an issue and caused service interruption, real-time throttling could be used per-connection on cell towers or hard-line cable/fiber nodes to ensure one connection doesn't impact other users.
OH WAIT, THAT INFRASTRUCTURE ALREADY EXISTS!
Data caps are inherently bullshit, (exactly like minutes of talk time) should absolutely be illegal and are not remotely comparable to airplanes because there is no finite limit to how much 'data' can enter or exit via your device in question. Data is duplicated on the fly and copied every time it hits a switch or router or any device's memory buffer. It is not a finite resource that can run out like a municipal water supply, electricity or seats on a goddamn plane.
More to the point, I already pay a premium over 'normal users' for my internet service for (drum roll) HIGHER THROUGHPUT which is controlled by the provider via the aforementioned infrastructure that throttles individual connections.
If you want a comparable analogy, the Department of Transportation now decrees that you can only drive 500 miles per month. No matter what kind of vehicle you have, what kind of gas (if any) it uses, if you drive with snow chains on/off, you simply cannot drive more than 500 miles on its roadways. How much sense does that make? If your answer to that quesiton is anything other than 'none' then you're an idiot.
You mean the businesses that have been bailed out by the government at least twice.
opposed to ISPs which seem to be quite profitable running unmetered?
Caps and Sponsored Data are purely about squeezing the consumer trying to protect the traditional broadcast model.
It seems like the current business model is, charge as much as the market will bear, then add on some fees under the line, then slowly reduce functionality, and create a higher tier that doesn't include that reduced level of service. Rinse and Repeat until you get a slap on the wrist fine, and continue.
Most ISP's already offer different speeds and allowances for usage. What you're asking for is preferential traffic. If your local ISP becomes congested the people not paying the premium would become very slow or possibly unusable.
One of the true dangers of not having Net Neutrality is eliminating competition. The ISP could charge a premium to ensure Netflix traffic gets preference. New start up companies that want to provide similar service will be at a severe disadvantage by not having the funds to pay all the ISP's to ensure they can stream traffic without it getting choked.
Thats one of the more retarded thing's I've read today.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how Netflix is getting a free ride?
Given the other sentiments in this thread I doubt this would survive but I am still a Laissez-Faire capitalist type on these sorts of questions ... let AT&T try this ... if it works it will be a little painful and if it fails that is how the market is supposed to work ... economics is supposed to be Darwinian in nature (the best survive ... not always the prettiest)
Right now Netflix offers only two streaming plans (based on the number of devices you wish to stream to concurrently ... essentially a regular and family plan) ... they offer a large number of consumption based plans for discs based on how many you want simultaneously and whether you want Blu Ray or DVD
Other streaming companies offer different streams (at different prices) based on whether you want standard or High Def resolution streaming (sometimes more than one type of HD stream at different prices) ... there are also multiple devices that are capable of streaming different services
If the companies decide that some form of cross market cooperation is beneficial to them, then they should be able to attempt it ... and the consumer can choose whether they will support that model or not ...
for example, maybe Amazon decides that they want to expand their streaming service so they negotiate with AT&T for their service to receive 1 MBps faster service than any other company and no data cap impact (and they pay AT&T for that service) ... that benefits Amazon (they have a more competitive service offering), benefits AT&T (they get more money from a high bandwidth customer), and good for the consumer who uses Amazon (they get an improved service) ... the consumer can still stay with Netflix if they so choose, so the market can decide which solution is best
In a normal market this is true. However it seems as though the large providers are using an oligopoly.
Or they are just sheep and copy the first thing that another does that even looks like it might promote revenue.
Your Amazon example, yes Amazon would pay for preferred access, and then 5 seconds later the price for Amazon prime would rise, then other streaming providers will do the same until the market is equal again. With the customer getting charged more for the same service they had to start with.
The ISP is the only winner in this sick game.
Customers pay more for less.
New companies can't afford to compete and innovation stalls.
Because the airlines didn't already have the government subsidizing their infrastructure roll-out... I'm all for this once they pass legilation that forces the big ISPs to allow smaller companies to resell their services for a reasonable amount. Until they break up these bullshit monopolies this shit will keep happening. Like my choice for TW cable or shitty Verizon DSL. NO other options at all.
'sponsored data' should be illegal
We better get rid of Google then ... isn't that pretty much their entire business model ... they make their money off of internet based advertising and search so they give their mobile operating system away for free and offer low price high speed internet access
The last thing we need in the USA is MORE regulations, we have too many as it is, the last thing I would want is for us to become the EU
Thank you. This exactly why data caps are crap.
" let the market sort this out "
This assumes there is NO monopoly or duopoly.
It is this blasé mindset that is eroding our freedom in the digital universe.
Your argument tired and all your points have been refuted a decade ago.