Jump to content
Paulding.com

Comcast to block Netflix


Recommended Posts

I am impressed by the people that have a little knowledge on something and speak on here as they know it all.. :mellow: There are more of what you call monoply companies involved in this than you see. Comcast only has one branch of the spider web. Next time you click, run a trace and look where your click goes. Also look at where the lag time is. You will be surprised.. :rolleyes: and YES its the company that ya keep saying is better. Everybody is getting paid.. So, providers should charge the companies for using their fiber and wiring. If they don't pay for it..We will.. :angry2: Still feeling COMCASTIC today.. Let the beatings begin :drinks: :drinks:

 

Aren't providers already being paid for use of their fiber and wiring by end users? Are you implying Comcast should have the right to double-dip?

 

I'd run a traceroute for that answer, because apparently traceroutes hold the answers to everything, but it's easier to just ask you, the expert.

 

 

mrnn

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Bandwidth is so ridiculously cheap these days that, while what you're saying may be the Comcast company line, it is an excuse. Based on your (Comcast) reasoning, you should be able to charge on both

We've finally had enough of Comcast. I love the service, but the price tag is ridiculous. We have NO premium channels, just upgraded basic service and internet service and our bill is $179.00 a mont

Yes and no... Getting bandwidth at a major point of presence (big business area) is cheap. Getting additional bandwidth to a house that shares a single connection with 10 to 100 other houses is not. L

:pardon: I don't claim to be an expert :rofl: What I'm referring to is companies such as Vonage, Magic Jack, NetFlix and several others. They charge customers for their service they provide, but they do not provide the means to get it to you. They also make $$ off their advertising with their product. So when people use their products, it requires alot of bandwidth which directly affects the other users on the network, which requires limits on existing customers. So, in comparision, its like Atlanta Gas, no ones has them as a provider, but we all use their system which results in that AGL charge on your gas bill. Which we all pay. So, if the cable companies charge the providers it will keep the cost off of us. But, like I said..I ain't NO EXPERT :yahoo: :drinks:
Link to post
Share on other sites

:pardon: I don't claim to be an expert :rofl: What I'm referring to is companies such as Vonage, Magic Jack, NetFlix and several others. They charge customers for their service they provide, but they do not provide the means to get it to you. They also make $$ off their advertising with their product. So when people use their products, it requires alot of bandwidth which directly affects the other users on the network, which requires limits on existing customers. So, in comparision, its like Atlanta Gas, no ones has them as a provider, but we all use their system which results in that AGL charge on your gas bill. Which we all pay. So, if the cable companies charge the providers it will keep the cost off of us. But, like I said..I ain't NO EXPERT :yahoo: :drinks:

 

 

But those companies (Vonage, Netflix, etc.) are paying backbone companies like Level3 to host and transmit their data. The revenues Netflix collects from you isn't 100% profit, they're paying Level3 (and Akamai and Limelight) considerable amounts of money to pass their movies to the local telcos like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc. Level3 then has to turn around and pay to maintain an enormous backbone network (fiber, equipment, etc.). Comcast has similar costs to Level3 but it generates its revenue not from Level3 but from end users/customers/you and I.

 

What Comcast is trying to do is collect from both customers AND from Level3. It's just not supposed to work that way.

 

 

edited to add: what level3 should have done was told Comcast to blow it out their you know what...unfortunately with Netflix, a contract they just won, it isn't a contract you fool around with unless you want to lose the contract as well as have a TON of bad press (kind of like Comcast is getting now).

mrnn

Edited by mrnn
Link to post
Share on other sites

I live out in the sticks and all that is available for me is satellite. I did have Direct and customer service sucks really badly so I dropped them. Any time you called you always talked with a David, Sam, and Paul overseas. They could not understand my southern accent and I could not understand their foreign accent. I'm now with Dish and have not had a problem (crossing fingers). The problem is when the wind blows, rain, ice, etc the satellite goes out. If Comcast would come to my area I would switch in a heartbeat!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, pubby and mrnn have given me more food for thought, although I still don't understand why the conservatives are against it. Is it simply due to someone putting controls on internet operation, thereby opening the door for more future controls (i.e., possible content control) in the future? Which would be BAD. But what's stopping them from trying to put content controls on the internet now? I mean, I am not connecting how this net neutrality thing is not in the end-user's best interest. I shall continue to look into this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I live out in the sticks and all that is available for me is satellite. I did have Direct and customer service sucks really badly so I dropped them. Any time you called you always talked with a David, Sam, and Paul overseas. They could not understand my southern accent and I could not understand their foreign accent. I'm now with Dish and have not had a problem (crossing fingers). The problem is when the wind blows, rain, ice, etc the satellite goes out. If Comcast would come to my area I would switch in a heartbeat!

What is your dish mounted to? My experience is those who have problem with wind have their dish mounted on a pole or other flexible surface. Ours is mounted directly on the house and the only time we have any problem is with very heavy rain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, pubby and mrnn have given me more food for thought, although I still don't understand why the conservatives are against it. Is it simply due to someone putting controls on internet operation, thereby opening the door for more future controls (i.e., possible content control) in the future? Which would be BAD. But what's stopping them from trying to put content controls on the internet now? I mean, I am not connecting how this net neutrality thing is not in the end-user's best interest. I shall continue to look into this.

 

I'll be accused of being partisan here, but I've seen no other explanation for being against net-neutrality other than the free market argument that a company should be allowed to make profits by any means possible. If you consider the internet a public utility then that argument goes out the window (there's no doubt, as Pubby alluded to, that treating it as a utility was the government's first intent). I am very adamant about this subject and am completely dumbfounded that there are politicians in office who are against net neutrality...point being, I can't give you a good answer other than campaign donations.

 

 

mrnn

Link to post
Share on other sites

But those companies (Vonage, Netflix, etc.) are paying backbone companies like Level3 to host and transmit their data. The revenues Netflix collects from you isn't 100% profit, they're paying Level3 (and Akamai and Limelight) considerable amounts of money to pass their movies to the local telcos like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc. Level3 then has to turn around and pay to maintain an enormous backbone network (fiber, equipment, etc.). Comcast has similar costs to Level3 but it generates its revenue not from Level3 but from end users/customers/you and I.

 

What Comcast is trying to do is collect from both customers AND from Level3. It's just not supposed to work that way.

 

 

 

You're halfway there... You're missing the Comcast half...

 

Netflix pays Level 3 for their connectivity. That gives them direct access to ONLY Level 3. From the Level 3 piers with other large carries with one of them being Comcast. This can be free or based on utilization. If it is mutually benefiting to both parties they may pier for free, if not one will pay the other.

 

Its obvious this a partnership doesn't benefit Level 3 and Comcast equally because of Netflix traffic.

 

Netflix requires a massive amount of bandwidth when compared to a "normal" user. Comcast's network is based on this traffic. When you add something like on demand video you cause havoc to the system that has be address. That means $$$ to upgrade all the pieces that handle that traffic. These start at the connections at Level 3 and end at you're cable box.

 

Cable technology has come a long way over the years, but there is still a finite amount of resources when it comes to bandwidth. What could have supported 10,000 normal users might only support 1,000 Netflix users now...

 

People say Comcast is only out for money, and that is the truth. But not for the reasons they think.

 

Comcast has On demand and charges for some it. The charges make Comcast money, but in the end this isn't the reason why they are having a hissy over Netflix. With their OnDemand the control the path and locations the services start and end. They can push a single copy to a location close to your and anyone that wants it goes to it for the content. With Netflix this isn't the case.

 

To make it simple think of drive your car. A Netflix movie 1,000 miles away while a Comcast movie is 10. Comcast pays the costs for each movie. They own the roads and delivery mechanism that gets the movie to your house.

 

As an individual or a business, would you cry foul if you had to drive 1,000 miles for the same cost as driving 10 for basically the same product?

 

Net neutrality isn't fair. With it you are taking away from someone in the end. People don't understand what is happening so the jump on the side that most directly affects them.

 

I am a Netflix user and watch a great deal over my PS3. I want this service as much as anyone! I will gripe if it gets taken away... But I understand why it would be if it happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is your dish mounted to? My experience is those who have problem with wind have their dish mounted on a pole or other flexible surface. Ours is mounted directly on the house and the only time we have any problem is with very heavy rain.

 

 

The Direct T.V. dish was mounted on the side of the house and when I switched I had Dish Network mount theirs on the roof. It's not as bad as it once was but it still goes out when the weather picks up heavily.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand why the conservatives are against it.

 

Basically it says you, the owner and payee of a company, do not have control over which is yours. It's the same thing as the government saying you must open you bedroom and refrigerator to everyone who wants to use. Oh, and you don't have to be compensated in any way either. It is all free to whom ever wants it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically it says you, the owner and payee of a company, do not have control over which is yours. It's the same thing as the government saying you must open you bedroom and refrigerator to everyone who wants to use. Oh, and you don't have to be compensated in any way either. It is all free to whom ever wants it.

 

 

Bandwidth is so ridiculously cheap these days that, while what you're saying may be the Comcast company line, it is an excuse. Based on your (Comcast) reasoning, you should be able to charge on both sides of your network because you never invested enough in your own facilities? Is it fair that Comcast single out Level3 because they carry Netflix? What about AT&T or Global Crossing dropping off YouTube or Hulu traffic to Comcast, is that not enough traffic to place a toll on? How are they drawing that line?

 

Point being, you'll have a difficult time convincing me this isn't Comcast trying to knock down Netflix and the way the internet is cutting in on subscription TV.

 

 

mrnn

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW :good: The valid points are coming out now.... I think I will now just BOW to The people that are the experts in this political mess.. :pardon: As for me... You can color me COMCASTIC..all the colors of the rainbow...anybody got any Skittles????? :rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, converse is making sense. Maybe if we keep this going, I might have some semblance of understanding by Christmas. :D

 

In the simplest terms that is what Net Neutrality does. It tells companies that must allow others to access it without worried of being denied or charged for it.

 

The argument is that not allowing this access prevents growth of needed or desired services.

 

Companies like Comcast have been doing this kind of thing for a long time. What is happening now is there is big money going in to congress from companies who want something for free and companies who have to pay something to give it to them free. Both sides are spending big $$$ to get their way.

 

I can see both sides of this and there isn't an easy answer...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bandwidth is so ridiculously cheap these days that.

 

Yes and no... Getting bandwidth at a major point of presence (big business area) is cheap. Getting additional bandwidth to a house that shares a single connection with 10 to 100 other houses is not. Look at a telephone pole and the wire on it near your house. That is where your "internet" comes from. When you need more "internet", more wires have to be hung from those poles. Do you really think that is cheap?

 

 

Point being, you'll have a difficult time convincing me this isn't Comcast trying to knock down Netflix and the way the internet is cutting in on subscription TV.

 

mrnn

 

I don't think I'll be able to change your mind because you won't accept any other outcome. What I am doing to trying to explain the truth behind this argument so others can make up their own minds.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no... Getting bandwidth at a major point of presence (big business area) is cheap. Getting additional bandwidth to a house that shares a single connection with 10 to 100 other houses is not. Look at a telephone pole and the wire on it near your house. That is where your "internet" comes from. When you need more "internet", more wires have to be hung from those poles. Do you really think that is cheap?

 

 

 

 

I don't think I'll be able to change your mind because you won't accept any other outcome. What I am doing to trying to explain the truth behind this argument so others can make up their own minds.

 

 

Fair enough....you're right, we won't agree. I'm not saying that the status quo is an equitable arrangement for all parties, but picking and choosing which services to place a toll on turns quickly into controlling an end-user's internet experience. No other utility would ever be allowed to operate in that manner.

 

I work on a backbone network and it is ridiculously cheap to deploy new bandwidth, including metro deployments. You can overlay a 1.6TB system on existing metro fiber ring for a couple hundred grand...that's cheap, man. I can't speak on behalf of Comcast costs, so perhaps you're correct in that for some reason they can't deploy at a reasonable cost (nevermind UVerse and FIOS being good investments for T and VZ).

 

mrnn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Converse not with standing, what we have is a contract with comcast (or other ISP)'s to give us unlimited access to the Internet ... i.e. to not discriminate what sites we might visit based on whether or not the content providers pay or not.

 

That is the contract that is being abrogated by abandoning net neutrality.

 

I can remember in the old days that it cost a nickel a minute to be on aol past the ten or twenty hours (can't remember) that came with the monthly fee.

 

The other thing is that all the providers, including cable, got special 'deals' - tax cuts, easing of regulations, etc. as part of the telecom act of 1996.

 

For instance, you probably forgot this, but at one time the rates that you paid for cable tv in Dallas had to come before and be approved by the Dallas City Council ... and city and county commissions - thousands of them - nationwide.

 

Congress, in one fell swoop, wrote these long established consumer protections out of the law and now, of course, we have $160-200 cable bills - because the FCC is in their pocket and they're the one's regulation rates.

 

But part of that deal that allowed the telecos and cable companies to gain deregulation of rates (which they took full advantage of, I might add), was that they would do the job of broadband right.

 

All totaled, they got over $300 billion in rate increases, tax breaks, accelerated depreciation, etc. for that on their promise of which they didn't spend one-third of it on expanding broadband. (two thirds in their own pockets.)

 

And their effort to wreck net neutrality is simply another breach of that contract with America they made with the GOP Congress in 1996.

 

pubby

 

PS: The FCC's ruling on net neutrality and the actions of the congress in the next Congress will tell us whether we really have the best or worst government money can buy. The issue is net neutrality.

 

Oh and Hank, jr. I can appreciate your position and I applaud your loyalty. However, the in the end, you won't make a nickel more or less because of the abandonment of net neutrality. Oh, and frankly, no one will change Phil Gingrey's mind, he's a reliable staunch corporatist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

Oh and Hank, jr. I can appreciate your position and I applaud your loyalty. However, I just wanted to let you know..That You Da Man and tell you how much I love SKITTLES!!!! :yahoo:

 

Thank you very much Pubby.. You are doing an awesome job :ninja:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Net neutrality in my mind is all about an ISP not discriminating against a certain type of data bit and I am totally in favor of it. If you believe they should be able to discriminate, then to be consistent you should also believe that it is acceptable for the electric company to place restrictions on how you use electricity as well as the gas and water companies doing the same thing. We currently pay these three utility companies for the amount of their products we consume and I think it would be reasonable for the ISP's to do the same. It is not reasonable for the electric company to limit me to only using their brand of light bulb nor is it reasonable for an ISP to limit me to only using their brand of a particular type of data bit while discriminating against all others. If an ISP is incapable of higher levels of data consumption, then fine. They should limit all types of data equally until their networks can be upgraded to satisfy customer demand. As for the Level 3/Comcast dispute, I have read so many conflicting explanations, that I'm not sure what the right thing to do is. But I do know that in the end, we should (and will) be the ones that pay for the amount of data that we consume which only seems reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Converse not with standing, what we have is a contract with comcast (or other ISP)'s to give us unlimited access to the Internet ... i.e. to not discriminate what sites we might visit based on whether or not the content providers pay or not.

 

 

Actually there is a 250GB limit in the agreement.

 

Comcast has established a monthly data consumption threshold per Comcast High-Speed Internet account of 250 Gigabytes ("GB").

 

The link below is to a PDF document on the Comcast website.

https://www.comcast....or_Internet.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I work on a backbone network and it is ridiculously cheap to deploy new bandwidth, including metro deployments. You can overlay a 1.6TB system on existing metro fiber ring for a couple hundred grand...that's cheap, man. I can't speak on behalf of Comcast costs, so perhaps you're correct in that for some reason they can't deploy at a reasonable cost (nevermind UVerse and FIOS being good investments for T and VZ).

 

mrnn

 

You're working on existing pipes that probably have lots of dark fiber and plenty of open conduit. It's cheap to run now because all of the massive overhead costs has been spent earlier. All the work needed to turn on or run new fiber under roads, across bridges, and into building has been completed. Now the easy part is sending light down a cable. Bandwidth is very cheap when all your nodes are connected via fiber and the backbone connecting those points have bandwidth to grow.

 

That isn't the case for most of rural America. You're still talking T1's to DS3's in a lot of places! How many HD streams do you think it will take to fill those pipes? Sure they may be connected to a couple hundred Gig of bandwidth back to the cable headend, but it is the pieces that connect those headends to the "Internet" that matter when it comes to this! Why do you think large and even small providers pier directly to companies like Google?

 

The big business Internet providers WANT Neutrality because it'll line their pockets. They get paid for bandwidth! Its the cable and end user companies who loose in this. Actually, it will be us that loose in the form of higher Internet charges or crappier services. Someone WILL pay for the bandwidth in the end...

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: The FCC's ruling on net neutrality and the actions of the congress in the next Congress will tell us whether we really have the best or worst government money can buy. The issue is net neutrality.

 

Oh and Hank, jr. I can appreciate your position and I applaud your loyalty. However, the in the end, you won't make a nickel more or less because of the abandonment of net neutrality. Oh, and frankly, no one will change Phil Gingrey's mind, he's a reliable staunch corporatist.

 

Don't act like you're some kind of neutral party in this. This type of law directly affects businesses like yours and you know it. You are, if not more so, in the same boat as Hank, Jr....

 

If you don't like your Internet service, you can always find another. Problem is you'll need to pay more for it. If you want a guaranteed amount of bandwidth you can start with a T1 and move up from there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We just switched to Comcast from Directv. So far so good for us! We have the triple play for $159.99. We get free HD DVR's in all rooms for no CHARGE! We don't have to pay for the HD or DVR access either. We are locked in for this rate for our 2 year contract, which is a whole lot better than what we were paying at Directv. I also get to speak to people who speak english and can understand everything I say!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, found this VERY interesting article which explains a lot more to me:

 

http://biggovernment.com/pkerpen/2010/12/01/congress-must-stop-fccs-internet-regulations/

 

I do agree access should be equal for all, but I do NOT agree with this radical agenda of the backers of this thing. And I do not agree with the FCC regulations of same; I think something like this should go through Congress. (Not that I want their scurvy stinkin' fingers on it, either, though.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, found this VERY interesting article which explains a lot more to me:

 

http://biggovernment...et-regulations/

 

I do agree access should be equal for all, but I do NOT agree with this radical agenda of the backers of this thing. And I do not agree with the FCC regulations of same; I think something like this should go through Congress. (Not that I want their scurvy stinkin' fingers on it, either, though.)

 

I'm sure the author of the article is a fine writer when he is somewhat familiar with the particular subject he is writing about. In this case he wasted his time and mine. He should have chosen to respond to the proposal that was communicated today, but he never even mentioned one of the proposals, nor did he even provide a link to the letter that contains the proposals which is here. Instead he tries to label the concept as left wing socialism. The last time I checked, most socialist seemed to be in the anti free speech camp and this dude wants to join them but he is so ignorant he does not even realize that. To be consistent, he should also support a paper company's "right" to only allow certain words to be printed on their paper or a telephone company's "right" to only allow certain conversations to take place. The only thing we agree on is whether or not the FCC has the authority to implement these rules. I'm not an expert on the subject, but since the Transportation Department has been playing God for years in distributing takeoff and landing slots for the airlines along with many other rules, it seems reasonable that the FCC should have the same type of power. The proposals contained in the letter are below and I find nothing objectionable.

 

First, consumers and innovators have a right to know basic information about broadband service,

like how networks are being managed. The proposed framework therefore starts with a

meaningful transparency obligation, so that consumers and innovators have the information they

need to make smart choices about subscribing to or using a broadband network, or how to

develop the next killer app. Sunshine can help solve problems early, reducing the number of

issues that even come to the FCC.

 

Second, consumers and innovators have a right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic -- to go

where they want and say what they want online, and to use the devices of their choice. Thus, the

proposed framework would prohibit the blocking of lawful content, apps, services, and the

connection of non-harmful devices to the network.

 

Third, consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. No central authority, public

or private, should have the power to pick which ideas or companies win or lose on the Internet;

that's the role of the market and the marketplace of ideas. And so the proposed framework

includes a bar on unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful network traffic.

 

The proposed framework also recognizes that broadband providers must have the ability and

investment incentives to build out and run their networks. Universal high-speed Internet access is

a vital national goal that will require very substantial private sector investment in our 21st century

digital infrastructure. For our global competitiveness, and to harness the opportunities of

broadband for all Americans, we want world-leading broadband networks in the United States

that are both the freest and the fastest in the world.

 

To this end, broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage their networks -- for

example, to deal with traffic that's harmful to the network or unwanted by users, and to address

the effects of congestion. Reasonable network management is an important part of the proposal,

recognizing that what is reasonable will take account of the network technology and architecture

involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This paragraph in the letter you posted is the money paragraph to me:

 

The proposed framework also recognizes that broadband providers must have the ability and investment incentives to build out and run their networks. Universal high-speed Internet access is a vital national goal that will require very substantial private sector investment in our 21st century digital infrastructure. For our global competitiveness, and to harness the opportunities of broadband for all Americans, we want world-leading broadband networks in the United States

that are both the freest and the fastest in the world.

 

This sounds much more sensible. As you can tell, I'm still nowhere near figuring out what I think. BUT I think I am beginning to understand the issues a wee bit more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I live out in the sticks and all that is available for me is satellite. I did have Direct and customer service sucks really badly so I dropped them. Any time you called you always talked with a David, Sam, and Paul overseas. They could not understand my southern accent and I could not understand their foreign accent. I'm now with Dish and have not had a problem (crossing fingers). The problem is when the wind blows, rain, ice, etc the satellite goes out. If Comcast would come to my area I would switch in a heartbeat!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRLwKw9up3s

 

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basic Cable with on demand and internet and phone: 70$

Ive been with comcast for 4 years and my rates have only gone down from day one. I have zero complaints. I dont know why all you people have these multi hundred dollar bills per month but I dont see it myself and so I cant blame comcast. Ive loved my service with them. And no I dont work for them, i dont know anyone who does work for them. I call good business when I see good business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basic Cable with on demand and internet and phone: 70$

Ive been with comcast for 4 years and my rates have only gone down from day one. I have zero complaints. I dont know why all you people have these multi hundred dollar bills per month but I dont see it myself and so I cant blame comcast. Ive loved my service with them. And no I dont work for them, i dont know anyone who does work for them. I call good business when I see good business.

 

How are you getting that rate? The least expensive package on their website now is $100 for the first 2 years and then it goes up. You must be grandfathered in or something. Also, I could not live with just basic cable or the slowest internet speed that they offer. I think the pricing between ATT uVerse and Comcast is about the same. The only difference to me is that ATT seems to have customer service people with an IQ higher than that of a retarded cantaloupe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got that rate on a special, they were afraid i would leave them so they let me keep it, then i paid my bills on time every time for three years so they reduced it. Ive never needed their customer service excep[t when i moved to a place where there wasnt a pre-existing cable run to the house. they came out and installed it easily, properly, and on time. And comcasts connectivity speeds are blazing. youtubes loaded as soon as i click on a video, torrents of several gigs download in under an hour. my games never lag. I have ZERO complaints about comcast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe "melonist" is the proper term? Based on my experience, I don't think any of the melons are that smart. I mean there is no comparing them to something like a cucumber or tomato. :lol:

 

 

 

boblarry.gif

 

Broccoli, celery, gotta be...VeggieTales!

Lima beans, collard greens, peachy keen...VeggieTales!

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...