Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
don't confuse net neutrality with bandwidth management.
1 - its not an issue. Look at any tech site, and you will find the real story is that data rates are falling like computers. . and that infrastructure to support data is cheap
2 - what really happening is . . .a pretend issue. So these companies are selling you 50mbs internet or whatever. Your lucky to get 25mpbs. And these customers all want netflix, its the most popular. Now that is the customers decision right? you give me 50mbs I should be able to spend it how I want? you promise me 50mbs. . you should have the infrastructure to deliver?
nope - because Netflix competes with the ISP for video. . .so they are going to either 1 - not build out to support their customer needs 2- de-priortize traffic from netflix 3 - all of the above. .
its a scam. Its not about congestion. Its about not wanting to be a dumb pipe and trying to throw up roadblocks to competition.
|
I believe this to be 100% accurate. Bandwidth is really not an issue for companies like AT&T and Comcast. Modern transistor technology, fiber optic networks, etc... Are all technological advancements that are cheap (on a relative basis) to provide and install - if the infrastructure isn't already in place. One of the core issues is that Comcast and AT&T are two of the largest providers of paid TV programming.
Comcast, of course, has its cable TV operation and AT&T has been in bed with DirecTV for a long time (and recently purchased them). Now, take me for example. I have been a DirecTV customer for some 10 years or so and I also have DSL. But, I'm finding that probably 90% of what I watch is either through Netflix or perhaps some other function (like iTunes) via my AppleTV. As I crunch these numbers, I've realized that there are only a handful of network programs I like to watch every single week: "The Walking Dead" and "Game of Thrones." Other than that, my TV is only on for the local news and the NBC nightly news and Sunday football.
So, I pay something like $70 a month for DirecTV and a little over $50 a month for DSL. I can put an antenna in my attic for about a $100 flat fee in which I can pick up all the local stations and get my Sunday football and local and evening news programs. The Walking Dead is released on iTunes either the evening after its premier and sometimes the night of - and I can buy the episode for $3 and watch it commercial free. For Game of Thrones, I either have to pay for HBO through my DirecTV ($17.99/month) or I can wait for it to come out on iTunes and buy each episode for something like $5. With HBO announcing it will be offering online streaming services starting in 2015, I can, if I want to, pay the streaming service for it.
My normal bill is as such:
$70 - DirecTV
$54 - DSL
$10 - Netflix
$18 - HBO
$10 - Random purchases through iTunes (avg.)
___________
$ 162
But, if I decide to switch to streaming video only and purchase the shows only I want to watch:
$54 - DSL
$10 - Netflix
$18 - HBOGo (Asssuming the HBOGo price will be the same price as its cable package)
$4.50 - 18 episodes of Walking Dead over a 12 month period purchased at $3 an episode
$8.33 - Price of a $100 antenna installation averaged out over 12-months - after 12-months its paid for
$10 - Random purchases through iTunes (avg.) - could possibly double after switching to streaming
_____________
$104.83 (possibly as high as $114.83 if my streaming purchases double).
That's a savings of approx. $57 a month or $684 a year! And, effectively what has happened is I have taken away that money almost entirely from AT&T. The only difference is that I am now streaming my data through the internet rather than paying for satellite (which, by the way, shouldn't we be asking why I'm not charged more from DirectTV if I leave my TV on 24/7 and watch "unlimited" TV?).
Now, I'm not a heavy TV watcher, so my numbers are probably a little lower than some people's numbers will be but if we ratchet down the savings to, say a nice, even $500/year that everyone saves, and a million people do that... You're talking about $500 million in revenue that AT&T loses. Not to mention the fact that as we've discussed before, the infrastructure in place is not that expensive to maintain. Thus, that $500 million has a lot of profit. Profit that AT&T loses out on.
If two million customers switch to a streaming only package? Now we're talking about over a billion dollars being taken out of the hands of AT&T and Comcast. So, naturally, one of the things they're trying to push to recoup some of that is bandwidth throttling. This would enable them to keep customers paying for their cable/satellite services or pay for it out of the bottom line by increased internet charges. And, it would also effectively eliminate or severely hamper an emerging technology that is going to reign supreme in the end.
Even worse is that once corporations can take hold of what was once a free and open internet, there is nothing really stopping them from placing ads all over the place before you can proceed to a website. Let's say I type in "www.city-data.com/forum" because I want to go read the forums... As it is right now, I type it in and I'm ported directly here. But, what if every time I did that, I had to watch a 30 second ad because my internet provider has the freedom to control what I see, when I see it, and when I have to interrupt my browsing to watch their "commercials." Then, since I hate my bandwidth limit for the month, I can either only view 1/3rd of the page, or I have to break out my wallet and pay to see what's on City-Data!
Now a purely capitalist might say "Well, let the companies battle it out - that's what's best for everyone from the top down." But, that's not really different than an anarchist society - which will ultimately cede power to the most powerful. In other words, there might be a scrum in the beginning, but eventually the least powerful will die off or cede power to the largest and most powerful and most resourceful. And, in that case, when you're at the mercy of that one large company, there is no longer a "free market" and, hence, no longer any sort of capitalism. So, as a way to prevent that we have anti-trust laws to keep that in check. But, all that has given us is two large companies, like Comcast and AT&T who can still pull the strings of everything we do. And, by the way, though they're competitors, I'm sure they're working very hard together to come up with a plan that benefits them both. The whole "enemy of my enemy" kind of deal.
Now, in a lot of countries with super fast bandwidth - South Korea, Japan, France, etc... There are not two or three content providers but 10,20,30 or even 40. And, though there is regulation, the competition is so stiff that price gouging is not really an issue. Faster internet is cheaper than our slower internet - and upgrades are constantly being doled out to outcompete one another. THAT is a better idea of capitalism, in my opinion. Don't be fooled by the idea that zero regulation is capitalism - it's not. Maybe in the very beginning it is, but it quickly turns away from that.
Now, I understand there are a lot of people who hate Obama and think everything he does is pure evil. But, in this particular scenario, he is right. The man can be right once in a while. Even if you hate his guts, you can chalk it up to a blind squirrel finding a nut every once in a while. But, to argue in favor of AT&T and Comcast, you're doing nothing but keeping money out of YOUR pocket! Possibly to the tune of about $500 a year or maybe even more.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
