Remember how Net Neutrality wasn't going to raise prices?
On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 6:26:33 PM UTC-4, ChairMan wrote:
This whole net neutrality nonsense was a classic case of libs
stepping in to fix problems that didn't exist in a technology
business that has performed splendidly for the most part.
The FCC wasn't even going to do anything, until Obama personally
called the members and leaned on them. Given how well Obama
has performed on all the things he's tasked with, what gives
anyone confidence that he even understands broadband issues at all?
I especially loved one of the female FCC commissioners conjuring
up how net neutrality had to be enforced to save children, so they
wouldn't be denied high speed internet to do their homework.....
Good grief, what an idiot. Actually, liar is more like it.
What lead to the above boogy man and similar was just some broadband
providers thinking about charging content providers that use a lot of
their bandwith some service fees. Sounds very consumer friendly to me.
I don't stream from Netflix and Amazon, why should my broadband fees
have to help cover the infrastructure that's being consumed by those
other users? It's very much like cell phone companies, where 5% of
the users consume 80% of the bandwith. The cell phone companies figured
out ways to deal with that too.
We will not see the real change in the network/cable/satellite
business until they unbundle these companies like NBC/Comcast.
That is what freed up the telephone and computer business.
If cable was like phone, you would buy bandwidth from the cable
company and content would come from whomever you want, as much or as
little as you want.
The FIOS companies are already starting to offer mini packages of
closely related shows, so you don't need to buy 250 channels, just to
get ESPN2 because it is in the top tier.
On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 8:57:45 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
That's a valid point, *if* it ever started to happen, ie where those
companies were charging prices that blocked Netlfix. Nothing I've
seen shows that it was though. And if they did, antitrust laws already
exist, or they could have passed something to only address that potential,
narrow, overcharging problem. What they did instead is to ban charging
high bandwith providers anything at all. Which means I'm paying for
the infrastructure to support the streaming video customers.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 06:50:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
I suspect you are going to see data being metered some day or at least
a tier system where heavy data users pay more than light users.
That solves the problem.
With the advances in DVRs you could see tiers about how fast you want
"demand" video too. If you actually want a show right now, it could be
one price but if you are willing to get it by tomorrow or the next day
it could be cheaper because they could send it to you at off peak
times and they might even be able to broadcast it to a large number of
people at one time.
I think the idea that every TV in the country, getting a separate
video stream, may be asking too much of the data networks.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.