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
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.
Originally posted by bhetrick: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...
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.
Originally posted by rick930: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.
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.
Originally posted by rick930: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.
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.
Originally posted by hearme0: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.
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.
Originally posted by Mez: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?
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.
Originally posted by Mr-Movies: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.
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.
Originally posted by rick930: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).
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.
Originally posted by LordRuss:Wow. Too true. Great point.
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.
Originally posted by rpwilso: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.
Originally posted by LordRuss:Wow. Too true. Great point.
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.
Originally posted by Zoo_Look: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.
Originally posted by rpwilso: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.
Originally posted by LordRuss:Wow. Too true. Great point.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Mr-Movies: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...
Originally posted by Zoo_Look: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.
Originally posted by rpwilso: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.
Originally posted by LordRuss:Wow. Too true. Great point.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Zoo_Look:Um there are several roads to one house Um da your argument still doesn't make sense Um.....
Originally posted by Mr-Movies: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...
Originally posted by Zoo_Look: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.
Originally posted by rpwilso: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.
Originally posted by LordRuss:Wow. Too true. Great point.
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.
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.
Yuor being argumentative and you know it!
Subscribe to AfterDawn's weekly newsletter.
