AfterDawn Forums
These messages are comments to this news item:

Latest Netflix data shows the perils of bandwidth caps

news article released on:

Following in the footsteps of other ISPs like Comcast, AT&T began its broadband bandwidth caps earlier this month, giving subscribers "generous" caps of 150-250GB, depending on your subscription package. The company claimed that only 2 percent of all users ever go over 250GB, so the cap will hardly affect anyone. New data from Netflix (via DSL) makes it abundantly clear that those ...

Read full article

This discussion thread has 46 messages.

#1
That's the whole point of these 'generous' bandwidth caps. They are trying to stop any other source like Netflix from gaining any traction on 'their' lines. AT&T, Comcast, Charter all sell cable television/video and want people to watch television and films there, not via 3rd parties 'leeching' their lines for virtually nothing.

It's a crappy situation for us consumers, but who is going to foot the bill for all these expensive Internet lines? Why should a company invest in high quality fibre optic lines if third parties are just going to sell services over them without paying the owner? It's like the road has its own tax, gas. (In the US gas tax pays for some road repair/maintenance.) If that wasn't the case, we would not have 'free' roads.
▼▼ This topic has 45 answers - they are below this advertisement ▼▼
AfterDawn Advertisement
#2
Why should they invest in lines? Because they are going to be charging monthly fees to tons of people...that is where they should be making their money, I could say some mean things about Verizon, but FiOS is great...that is how internet should be done. Unlimited bandwidth both ways, and fast upload speeds too. Yes, they sell TV packages and pay-per-view, and other such stuff...but they let me leave netflix on as background noise for the entire month, or they let me stream a movie from my desktop at home to my workstation at work, as an original quality MPEG2 DVD rip!

FiOS has been kicking around our local cable company...every time they build to a new neighborhood, FiOS takes over very fast. The cable company has been forced to forgo all the bandwidth caps because they are doing bad enough as it is; bandwidth caps would cut their market down to the ever-shrinking area where they are still a monopoly. Of course, this is happening anyway...the cable co has not upgraded their HD-DVR in many years; the hard drive is tiny, the compression is extremely lossy but not compact, and the external hard disk port is disabled by the cable company. I would say they should upgrade their hardware, but the network is actually in worse shape. I just hope they stick around in some form...not because I want their services, but because they keep Verizon honest...and that isn't an easy thing to do.


#3
There is truth to what you both say. FIOS is now to the point of caps. Comcast has been raising their bandwidth to keep up with FIOS. There is a new way to multiplex cable. I know a person that helped develope it. Initially it will double the bandwidth but it could speed up to a max of 10x. Comcast may be using it.

Notice who created the report. The great boogie man of the internet! That company sells all the traffic shaping, anti P2P tools and data logging. As its name suggests, the software has many long tenticals connecting to an AI. Usually it keeps to the shadows. All ISP use their software.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 May 2011 @ 9:03
#4
Originally posted by tatsh:
That's the whole point of these 'generous' bandwidth caps. They are trying to stop any other source like Netflix from gaining any traction on 'their' lines. AT&T, Comcast, Charter all sell cable television/video and want people to watch television and films there, not via 3rd parties 'leeching' their lines for virtually nothing.

It's a crappy situation for us consumers, but who is going to foot the bill for all these expensive Internet lines? Why should a company invest in high quality fibre optic lines if third parties are just going to sell services over them without paying the owner? It's like the road has its own tax, gas. (In the US gas tax pays for some road repair/maintenance.) If that wasn't the case, we would not have 'free' roads.

Ah, but see, the third party's do pay for their traffic. Netflix (and everyone else) pays for it's bandwidth used. They don't get a free ride on the cable lines.

So the cable company's are double-dipping, so to speak. They hit the stream-er, the stream-ee, then hit the stream-er again if they go over their data cap.

All that cash coming in is the very reason not to upgrade their infrastructure.

#5
Who couldn't see this coming? Comcast and others don't have caps to prevent other streaming providers as they can deal with that problem easily in other ways. All providers apply caps for one very good reason, their backbone would collapse if they didn't regulate it. The problem with everything being done on the same line is exactly what Netflix is addressing and is an obvious and know issue from the get go. It's not like this wasn't seen up front as times are changing and that is why you see phone & broadband companies moving to fiber and high speed networks.
#6
As I piss & moan redundantly, control, control, control, mixed in with oil tankers full of cash... Comcast, Turner, AT&T (whoever else is on the BFing bandwagon) want to maximize the minimum and then ass rape the consumer 'just' enough to demoralize them enough to keep them from going to the cops, but stand in the shower with a wire brush and scalding water for 3 hours.

One thing I learned in college (all those so many years ago) is that you can make statistics say ANYTHING.

What all those fancy graphs aren't telling you is that folks aren't downloading movies on their consoles (or anything else) because the DL rate is for shite (1) and most of the movies available for download at the time were shite. Both adding up to a double edged sword.

Not to mention, I pay out the ass for a higher bandwidth service (don't hate). So when I HAD Netnuts and more than enough bandwidth to watch a movie unencumbered, Netnuts belched and farted like an $2 epileptic hooker. Thus, indicating that Netnuts STILL is neither up to the task or (like the broadband services) won't step up to the plate to offer the proper service they claim to be able to offer because they too only want to maximize the minimum.

Although I know this rambling sounds close to conspiracy (which I loath) I do admit it reeks of the tired old 80's business model of "you bought it, you deal with it". Which summarizes, if these tired assed companies get to continue to sodomize the consumer with this kind "revolution" (of sorts) when are we (the consumers) going to revolt & burn down (theoretical, let's not start main lining jalapeno enemas here) their golden towers & demand higher expectations.

These same hippie fucks get military individuals executed for frivolous combat actions (debate later, not now) when this guy is paid less than minimum wage has the weight of the world on his shoulders & still has a life of death decision in his hands. Yet the same stupid hippie won't go after the ass wipe gazillionaire who pinched .00002 cents off the cost of brakes on your Toyota that now won't stop, but that shit's OK.

Sorry for the rant & no, I'm not trying to correlate The top 4 communication giants with mass murder (although it would make for a great spy novel), I am saying however... Consumers need to stop falling for the old Roman Colosseum gladiator distraction and start running our noses up the asses of our politicians and capitalists again.

What's the worst that could happen? We actually start getting quality craftsmanship again?

#7
It is definitely true we pay way too much for the bandwidth we get and our bandwidth limit should only be what we can use at the moment and not a accumulative amount. Networks have to be balanced and limited but advertising 20M service and only truly getting 3M max, excluding peak times, is a total rip off. Communication companies are the worst and biggest at screwing us and since the gov is in their pockets they get away with murder and monopolies they should not be allowed to have. The only businesses worst are the petroleum companies with the banking/stock-market short behind.
#8
What most people don't understand, and it is apparent from earlier comments, is that WE own those "lines", not the telecommunication companies. See those fiber optic lines were put in at taxpayer expense, the telecommunication companies were paid to put them in, but they do not own them. If the telecommunication companies legitimately owned the lines then they could block 3rd party access, however that belief has been disproven by court case after court case where the companies have been reminded they do not in fact own those lines. The companies do however have ownership of the servers that they "rent" out to consumers on a monthly basis to allow them access to the internet, which by the way is supposed to be FREE. So why do we pay so much for access to the internet that is free for the entire world, after we already paid to have those very lines of communication installed by these companies. See in the end we're the ones getting screwed all around, because we paid for all this n the first place.
#9
Originally posted by bhetrick:

Ah, but see, the third party's do pay for their traffic. Netflix (and everyone else) pays for it's bandwidth used. They don't get a free ride on the cable lines.

So the cable company's are double-dipping, so to speak. They hit the stream-er, the stream-ee, then hit the stream-er again if they go over their data cap.

All that cash coming in is the very reason not to upgrade their infrastructure.

But the 3dr parties pay a whole sale rate. So it is not really the same. To take the ISPs side for argument's sake...
When they created their rate structure no one was using this kind of band width. Netflix is competing with most if not all cable companies, selling it cheaper. Comcast will sell you more bandwidth with a larger cap for more money.

I can see wanting a lot more service for no extra charge but that might be wishful thinking.
#10
Originally posted by rick930:
What most people don't understand, and it is apparent from earlier comments, is that WE own those "lines", not the telecommunication companies. See those fiber optic lines were put in at taxpayer expense, the telecommunication companies were paid to put them in, but they do not own them. If the telecommunication companies legitimately owned the lines then they could block 3rd party access, however that belief has been disproven by court case after court case where the companies have been reminded they do not in fact own those lines. The companies do however have ownership of the servers that they "rent" out to consumers on a monthly basis to allow them access to the internet, which by the way is supposed to be FREE.
Maybe that is the case in your country but in the US the ISPs own the lines from their servers to the consumers just like the power companies own the lines from the power plants to your house. Because I buy power from a different company and still get charged for the lines, I can tell you for me the lines cost more than the power.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 May 2011 @ 14:43
#11
I ask you all this...........where is the sensibility in capping bandwidth (which I don't mind in principle) at the very threshold of online video streaming kicking into high gear?

That's like going on vacation when you just lost your job and struggle for money.
#12
You are all like kids looking at candy in the candy store and wanting it real bad. Just because you want it real bad doesn't mean you ought to get it for free. That is up to the owner not you. If anything need makes the price go up not down.

Mind you I would like to get something for nothing, we all do including the ISPs. For the ISPs caps are a smart move. Now that they have Sandvines, they can can monitor all their users and know how much bandwith they use. They can stop some users for sucking up all the band width so others get poor service. It is fair. Instead or renting a video you can stream it and save the money and effort. Unfortunatly the ISP has their hand out and wants you to pay them instead of Blockbuster.
#13
Originally posted by rick930:
What most people don't understand, and it is apparent from earlier comments, is that WE own those "lines", not the telecommunication companies. See those fiber optic lines were put in at taxpayer expense, the telecommunication companies were paid to put them in, but they do not own them. If the telecommunication companies legitimately owned the lines then they could block 3rd party access, however that belief has been disproven by court case after court case where the companies have been reminded they do not in fact own those lines. The companies do however have ownership of the servers that they "rent" out to consumers on a monthly basis to allow them access to the internet, which by the way is supposed to be FREE. So why do we pay so much for access to the internet that is free for the entire world, after we already paid to have those very lines of communication installed by these companies. See in the end we're the ones getting screwed all around, because we paid for all this n the first place.
Here, here!!! Other than the electricity and possibly 'access' software needed for those people who don't know how to run around on the net by themselves, the actual 'wear & tear' on the server hardware for access to the net, there doesn't seem to be much more expense other than personal or professional information storage and we have all seen where that will get you now a days. But I have been known to be wrong in the past, but not by a gross margin.

#14
Originally posted by hearme0:
I ask you all this...........where is the sensibility in capping bandwidth (which I don't mind in principle) at the very threshold of online video streaming kicking into high gear?

That's like going on vacation when you just lost your job and struggle for money.
Streaming would still be brilliant if the damn thing would be a bit more fool proof. The host computer still has to 'restart' the video (unless it is a 'live' feed) which takes up computation cycles. Flash and compression will help, but only so much. Throw in the greed factor, the small peter - gotta control human behavior Freudian complex manipulation of what movies or video content is going to actually be available for viewing and that whole copyright mess and we have a whole ocean of sodomizing stink called intellectual property choking the courts for money and control instead of trying actual criminals again.

It boils down to "how can these assholes double tap your wallet 'again' without spending anymore of their money, again". Plain and simple.

#15
Originally posted by Mez:
You are all like kids looking at candy in the candy store and wanting it real bad. Just because you want it real bad doesn't mean you ought to get it for free. That is up to the owner not you. If anything need makes the price go up not down.

Mind you I would like to get something for nothing, we all do including the ISPs. For the ISPs caps are a smart move. Now that they have Sandvines, they can can monitor all their users and know how much bandwith they use. They can stop some users for sucking up all the band width so others get poor service. It is fair. Instead or renting a video you can stream it and save the money and effort. Unfortunatly the ISP has their hand out and wants you to pay them instead of Blockbuster.
Just to clarify... You're 'interpreting' the bulk of the writers here as wining about wanting free broadband internet? And that they can't have it because ISPs have now figured out how the 'big boys' are going to do it in the big leagues... so some folks that happen to have a movie account - can watch a movie on-line are now 'bad guys' & are "sucking down" the band width so we should cap them?

That's a bit absurd, for one... If you have a 3mb service, that's all you get, so I have no idea what you're babbling about. As for what this article/forum is supposed to about is the TOTAL amount of service used in a billing cycle. So what your lesson/comment regarding economics is about eludes me.

As for the ISPs needing more of my money, I already pay a premium for access. The rate is established in my contract & duly paid monthly, how often I access it is my business not theirs. This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as apposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.

I already pay for their TV services and their internet access, to pay additional for theoretical access within is illegal. That is putting all of us into a science fiction world of mind crimes for christ's sake; "Minority Report" here we come...
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 May 2011 @ 18:23

#16
netflix pays for it's internet connection to upload that huge amount of data.

consumers pay for an "unlimited" internet connection ranging in speed from 500kb to 100mb speeds.

no one is losing out on costs to keep the lines open.

they should not offer high speed if everyone can't utilize it. why pay for 50mb service if you can't use it.

would kind of suck if only 1 person in a 1 mile radius could use a cell phone.
#17
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
It is definitely true we pay way too much for the bandwidth we get and our bandwidth limit should only be what we can use at the moment and not a accumulative amount. Networks have to be balanced and limited but advertising 20M service and only truly getting 3M max, excluding peak times, is a total rip off. Communication companies are the worst and biggest at screwing us and since the gov is in their pockets they get away with murder and monopolies they should not be allowed to have. The only businesses worst are the petroleum companies with the banking/stock-market short behind.
I agree with you about the bandwidth caps. I also pay for 20M service, but can only get 2.5M per download. That is, unless I go to speedtest.net, or any of other speed testing sites. Then I have a "*there's* my lost bandwidth" moment. ISPs have got to be one of the only types of businesses that can engage dishonest business practice...and get away wit it.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 May 2011 @ 19:28
#18
Originally posted by rick930:
What most people don't understand, and it is apparent from earlier comments, is that WE own those "lines", not the telecommunication companies. See those fiber optic lines were put in at taxpayer expense, the telecommunication companies were paid to put them in, but they do not own them. If the telecommunication companies legitimately owned the lines then they could block 3rd party access, however that belief has been disproven by court case after court case where the companies have been reminded they do not in fact own those lines. The companies do however have ownership of the servers that they "rent" out to consumers on a monthly basis to allow them access to the internet, which by the way is supposed to be FREE. So why do we pay so much for access to the internet that is free for the entire world, after we already paid to have those very lines of communication installed by these companies. See in the end we're the ones getting screwed all around, because we paid for all this n the first place.
WE DON'T OWN THE LAND LINES!!! Whoever gets the benefit of using them pays for them, maintains them, and upgrades them plus possibly a little pay-Ola to the local government to have the privilege and then taxes added on top of that to the provider(s).
#19
Well, as soon as I got their message I opted out of their services in favor of earthlink. Got the same speed over the same lines for $5 a month cheaper than ATT. Plus got three months for $19,95 amonth, and no caps notifications yet. Now, checking if I couldn't do better with their telephone services too. When that happens, goooood Byyyyye ATT!
#20
Originally posted by LordRuss:

As for the ISPs needing more of my money, I already pay a premium for access. The rate is established in my contract & duly paid monthly, how often I access it is my business not theirs. This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as opposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.

Wow. Too true. Great point.
#21
Zoo_Look Suspended account
Originally posted by rpwilso:
Originally posted by LordRuss:

As for the ISPs needing more of my money, I already pay a premium for access. The rate is established in my contract & duly paid monthly, how often I access it is my business not theirs. This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as opposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.

Wow. Too true. Great point.
Except other people don't use your house... THEY DO use the lines that you're connected to. Unless you are saying every house has its own direct link to the central hub of its provider.

If that's true, each house in fact needs a separate and distinct line to EVERY provider in existence, and god forbid when a new provider decides to start trading. Every house would then need a new line simultaneously connected on the same (first) day they start trading.
#22
Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
Originally posted by rpwilso:
Originally posted by LordRuss:

As for the ISPs needing more of my money, I already pay a premium for access. The rate is established in my contract & duly paid monthly, how often I access it is my business not theirs. This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as opposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.

Wow. Too true. Great point.
Except other people don't use your house... THEY DO use the lines that you're connected to. Unless you are saying every house has its own direct link to the central hub of its provider.

If that's true, each house in fact needs a separate and distinct line to EVERY provider in existence, and god forbid when a new provider decides to start trading. Every house would then need a new line simultaneously connected on the same (first) day they start trading.
Actually if you have friends & family over they most certainly do share your house or better yet dwelling whether it be rental or owned. Your point, or dispute here, just doesn't make sense.
#23
Zoo_Look Suspended account
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
Originally posted by rpwilso:
Originally posted by LordRuss:

As for the ISPs needing more of my money, I already pay a premium for access. The rate is established in my contract & duly paid monthly, how often I access it is my business not theirs. This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as opposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.

Wow. Too true. Great point.
Except other people don't use your house... THEY DO use the lines that you're connected to. Unless you are saying every house has its own direct link to the central hub of its provider.

If that's true, each house in fact needs a separate and distinct line to EVERY provider in existence, and god forbid when a new provider decides to start trading. Every house would then need a new line simultaneously connected on the same (first) day they start trading.
Actually if you have friends & family over they most certainly do share your house or better yet dwelling whether it be rental or owned. Your point, or dispute here, just doesn't make sense.
Um... the point is there is ONE household per ONE property... with line rental, several hundred households are connected from the exchange to the central server...

Yuor being argumentative and you know it!
#24
Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
Originally posted by rpwilso:
Originally posted by LordRuss:

As for the ISPs needing more of my money, I already pay a premium for access. The rate is established in my contract & duly paid monthly, how often I access it is my business not theirs. This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as opposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.

Wow. Too true. Great point.
Except other people don't use your house... THEY DO use the lines that you're connected to. Unless you are saying every house has its own direct link to the central hub of its provider.

If that's true, each house in fact needs a separate and distinct line to EVERY provider in existence, and god forbid when a new provider decides to start trading. Every house would then need a new line simultaneously connected on the same (first) day they start trading.
Actually if you have friends & family over they most certainly do share your house or better yet dwelling whether it be rental or owned. Your point, or dispute here, just doesn't make sense.
Um... the point is there is ONE household per ONE property... with line rental, several hundred households are connected from the exchange to the central server...

Yuor being argumentative and you know it!
Um there are several roads to one house Um da your argument still doesn't make sense Um.....
#25
Guys, guys, guys... I just supplied the debate, I don't want it going on in my front room. Take it out side.

Now what does that symbolize? I sure as hell can't charge you money for it. Yet it sounds like the ISPs want to.

It's starting to get muddy here. Our taxes paid for the roads leading to our own homes (here in the US) so that's a mute point (except for Chicago & other township areas where you have to pay tolls for the "privilege" to drive on the roads & I don't know how bad they have that f&$ed up). Electrical wires and cables coming and going from a residence are a one time expenditure that are purchased well below wholesale & recouped within 90 days of purchase under the hospices of the lowest available 'retail' customer account. Corporate America 'ain't' hurting. So I won't apologize for coming off bitchy for not defending them.

Everyone here also knows that these corporate jerk-offs will cram multiple accounts onto one service feed as hard and fast as they possibly can in order to (here it comes again) MAXIMIZE THE MINIMUM! Until greed becomes a executable crime the consumer will never get a fair shake. And before we get a hippie brow beating me over the death penalty I'm talking about ass bandits that swindle billions from Mom & pops of their pensions, professional politicians, tort lawyers, shit like that.

Of course the last paragraph has probably opened a whole new can of worms for debate surrounding control of the human condition & the corruption of greed (blah, blah, blah...) or I've drank from the Wapatoolie Punch tub from the Jonestown 'hoedown' and I'm seeing too many pretty lights.

This discussion thread has been automatically closed, as it hasn't received any new posts during the last 180 days. This means that you can't post replies or new questions to this discussion thread.

If you have something to add to this topic, use this page to post your question or comments to a new discussion thread.