-
The first crack in the streaming wall
I knew this train was coming, and could see the lights on the track. Comcast is charging the internet backbone company Level 3 an extra fee to send traffic to its customers. No other cable company does this, as Comcast complains that traffic from Netflix(who Level 3 supports) is swamping their infrastructure, and they need to be paid for it. This is the same Comcast that wants to buy Universal/NBC, so they are already flexing their muscles ahead of the FCC decision. How long do you think it will be before AT&T, Cox, Warner, and all of the other cable and telecom's start protesting the amount of Netflix traffic coming through their network.
As I have said, streaming going into the future is going to get a lot more complicated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_789557.html
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I knew this train was coming, and could see the lights on the track. Comcast is charging the internet backbone company Level 3 an extra fee to send traffic to its customers. No other cable company does this, as Comcast complains that traffic from Netflix(who Level 3 supports) is swamping their infrastructure, and they need to be paid for it. This is the same Comcast that wants to buy Universal/NBC, so they are already flexing their muscles ahead of the FCC decision. How long do you think it will be before AT&T, Cox, Warner, and all of the other cable and telecom's start protesting the amount of Netflix traffic coming through their network.
As I have said, streaming going into the future is going to get a lot more complicated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_789557.html
So I'm not confused, does this mean that Comcast, if not paid, will refuse traffic from Netflix or Level 3? If this stands, does it mean that ISPs everywhere can shake down source providers for whatever fees they like? Or refuse connect source providers for various other reason, say, because they're "socialist"?
-
In America, where a company like Walmart can make money off an insurance claim on an employee's life, nothing the corporate mind comes up with to make another buck surprises me.
-
Money, get away
Get a good job with more pay
And your O.K.
Money, it's a gas
Grab that cash with both hands
And make a stash
New car, caviar, four star daydream
Think I'll buy me a football team
Money get back
I'm all right Jack
Keep your hands off my stack
Money, it's a hit
Don't give me that
Do goody good bull****
I'm in the hi-fidelity
First class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet
(Sax and guitar solos)
Money, it's a crime
Share it fairly
But don't take a slice of my pie
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil
Today
But if you ask for a rise
It's no surprise that they're
Giving none away
Away
Away
Away
Away...
"Hu Huh! I was in the right!"
"Yes, absolutely in the right!"
"I certainly was in the right!"
"You was definitely in the right. That geezer was cruising for a bruising!"
"Yeah!"
"Why does anyone do anything?"
"I don't know, I was really drunk at the time!"
"I was just telling him, he couldn't get into number 2. He was asking
Why he wasn't coming up on freely, after I was yelling and
Screaming and telling him why he wasn't coming up on freely.
It came as a heavy blow, but we sorted the matter out"
-
It must get more complicated... the old players in the music, movie and TV industries don't want to lose their lucrative deals... It's much like the oil companies blocking innovation for decades...
Eventually they will either get with the program or be made obsolete by new tech...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
It must get more complicated... the old players in the music, movie and TV industries don't want to lose their lucrative deals... It's much like the oil companies blocking innovation for decades...
Eventually they will either get with the program or be made obsolete by new tech...
Or cash in on it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
Or cash in on it.
lol... I kinda included 'cash in on it' in get with the program....
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
So I'm not confused, does this mean that Comcast, if not paid, will refuse traffic from Netflix or Level 3? If this stands, does it mean that ISPs everywhere can shake down source providers for whatever fees they like? Or refuse connect source providers for various other reason, say, because they're "socialist"?
End result will be that the fees will be passed on to the consumer as usual and in the end, it will just be cheaper and easier to rent movies for $1 at Redbox.
-
. It's not about the data amount, but the fact that Comcast is looking to make profits off other peoples business. To be honest I can see their point. Comcast is providing bandwith to a company that is in most cases stealing their PPV customers.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
lol... I kinda included 'cash in on it' in get with the program....
My bad. :blush2:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
. It's not about the data amount, but the fact that Comcast is looking to make profits off other peoples business. To be honest I can see their point. Comcast is providing bandwith to a company that is in most cases stealing their PPV customers.
Exactly! it is an uncompetitive practice, though I fully understand why they'd try it...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
It's not about the data amount, but the fact that Comcast is looking to make profits off other peoples business. To be honest I can see their point. Comcast is providing bandwith to a company that is in most cases stealing their PPV customers.
Sure, I can see their point too. Video streaming is going to put big stress on existing Internet infrastructure; (which ain't the greatest in either US or Canada). But who should pay for the upgrade? Best answer is the consumer, in this case, of stream video.
OK, so Comcast charges Level 3, the Netflix conduit, who then charges Netfix who then charges their streamed video viewers. So far no problem. :cornut: (I'm not into video streaming -- yet.)
But can Comcast refuse Level 3 if they don't pay up? Suppose another streamed video provider offers to pay Comcast more money to transmit their stuff than Netflix/Level 3 does? Should that other source provider get preferential service, i.e. they don't get throttled but Level 3 does?
Or like I said, suppose a Comcast or an upstream conduit decides they don't like a certain source provider because they're terrorists, socialists, Tea Party rednecks, or just plain unable to pay. What then? Hello, private censorship.
Some people have suggested a two-tiered Internet: (1) a faster, pricier #1 tier for video streaming or other sources willing to pay big bucks., and (2) a slower, cheaper #2 tier for everyone else. (On which tier would Audio Review end up?) Needless to say #1would get all the new development & resource while #2 would get 56kbps modem speeds.
Neither of the above is a pretty picture. No, it's not about the data amount, it's about ISPs deciding what we're going to see and what we aren't.
-
We already pay extra for the "faster" internet so that wifey can stream video with her family overseas. It's not cheap either.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
We already pay extra for the "faster" internet so that wifey can stream video with her family overseas. It's not cheap either.
Exactly! I'm paying my cable provider $49.95 a month for a 25mb connection. Who are they to tell me I can't use the full bandwith, or from whom I can connect to on the internet.
A good lawer would eat the cable co. objections to Netflix using their service to supply movies on demand to the cable co's subscribers for lunch. The problem is that it's probably going to take a couple years to drag it through the courts. During that time you'll be paying more for your connection.
-
So I pay for the bandwidth usage, and I'll pay for the bandwidth usage again (in the form of soon to be added fees from Netflix). Yeah, I like Redbox. Only $1.50/day for blu ray.
-
I'd be slightly more willing to believe Comcast is in their right to charge Level 3 IF Comcast didn't have a monopoly on providing internet access to my town...
I don't think it's right to charge the data pushers for the volume of data they send. Feanors hypotheticals hit the nail on the head there. Seems the more reasonable direction to go would be to charge the data receivers.
Comcast argues the issue is data volume. Flow should be blind to source. If I use more water, I pay the city more (well, actually, I don't 'cause I'm on a well...), if I use more electricity I pay more regardless of where the electricity came from. That, to me, is the only fair model that makes sense. All else is hypocrisy enabled by monopoly.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
I'd be slightly more willing to believe Comcast is in their right to charge Level 3 IF Comcast didn't have a monopoly on providing internet access to my town...
I don't think it's right to charge the data pushers for the volume of data they send. Feanors hypotheticals hit the nail on the head there. Seems the more reasonable direction to go would be to charge the data receivers.
Comcast argues the issue is data volume. Flow should be blind to source. If I use more water, I pay the city more (well, actually, I don't 'cause I'm on a well...), if I use more electricity I pay more regardless of where the electricity came from. That, to me, is the only fair model that makes sense. All else is hypocrisy enabled by monopoly.
Problem is, as others have rightly said so far; we already pay for better service... Anyone using the highest speed internet access pays more than those using the slowest service... The whole point of paying for fast service is to access all manner of streaming content... Comcast is just trying to be greedy and block online competitors to its cable TV service...
-
Here's how it's playing out over at MarketWatch;
Comcast in dispute over Netflix downloads
3:34p ET November 30, 2010 (MarketWatch)
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Comcast Corp. is coming under scrutiny from regulators after it demanded higher fees to carry streaming Netflix videos over its cable network.
Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said Tuesday he will seek more information about a dispute involving Comcast and Level 3 Communications Inc., the company that distributes Netflix videos over the Internet.
For now, the dispute is unlikely to affect Netflix customers. Level 3 has agreed to pay higher fees to Comcast while it takes it complaint to regulators.
Comcast has demanded that Level 3 pay a regular fee because of the number of Netflix videos downloaded over the cable network has soared. Level 3 is now sending far more Internet traffic over Comcast's network than Comcast sends over Level 3's network, the cable company said.
Level 3, for its part, has complained that Comcast is setting up a "toll booth" on the Internet to disadvantage its competitors and extract more money from them. Such an approach violates F.C.C .guidelines on "net neutrality" that are mean to ensure fair treatment of all Internet traffic, Level 3 argues.
The dispute has flared up at an awkward time for Comcast, also the nation's largest Internet operator with nearly 17 million customers. Regulators are in the late stages of a review of Comcast's proposed purchase of the NBC television network.
The F.C.C. any day now is also expected to announce new rules meant to promote net neutrality -- rules that could affect Comcast, AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. in a dramatic way.
Currency F.C.C. guidelines prohibit network operators from discriminating against other Internet companies by blocking or slowing down access to their websites. Yet a federal court ruling earlier this year in another case involving Comcast undercut the agency's authority and spurred the F.C.C. to pursue stronger measures.
Comcast insists it hasn't violated neutrality principles, saying it's not fair for Level 3 to send more traffic over its cable network without paying for it. Typically network operators exchange traffic for free when similar amounts flow in each direction.
Joe Waz, Comcast's public-policy counsel, said Level 3 itself has insisted on higher fees from other network operators when they send more traffic its way.
"Level 3's position is simply duplicitous," he wrote.
Earlier this month, Level 3 signed an agreement to house Netflix's huge video library. When a Netflix customer who subscribes to Comcast Internet service downloads a video, it's pulled from Level 3 servers.
The result is more traffic and further strain on Comcast's Internet network. The cable company said Level 3 -- and indirectly Netflix --- should bear some of the cost. Netflix eventually plans to distribute all its videos over the Internet.
"They don't want to pay the same costs as their competitors," said Sena Fitzmaurice, a senior Comcast executive involved in regulatory issues. She said Comcast is sending the F.C.C. information to explain its decision.
If the F.C.C. declines to get involved, Netflix could be forced to raise the fees it charges video customers to download movies.
-
1 Attachment(s)
This is about one thing, they (Comcast) have their own on demand product, and
don't want to support the competition, at least from their point of view.
They either need to quit griping about providing net service or quit providing net service.
THE USE of ANY broadband service to stream any kind of media is legit, as
long as its not pirated material. Comcast leans on NETFLIX, users of that service
might go elsewhere. THERE are options out there.
THIS IS ILL TIMED, if regulators see Commie cast as uncompetitive the NBC/UNIVERSAL
deal will sink faster than a east European submarine.:1:
-
The full statement from level 3 on the issue:
Quote:
On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content. By taking this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity delivered content. This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access markets as the nation’s largest cable provider.
On November 22, after being informed by Comcast that its demand for payment was ‘take it or leave it,’ Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions.
Level 3 operates one of several broadband backbone networks, which are part of the Internet and which independent providers of online content use to transmit movies, sports, games and other entertainment to consumers. When a Comcast customer requests such content, for example an online movie or game, Level 3 transmits the content to Comcast for delivery to consumers.
Level 3 believes Comcast’s current position violates the spirit and letter of the FCC’s proposed Internet Policy principles and other regulations and statutes, as well as Comcast’s previous public statements about favoring an open Internet.
While the network neutrality debate in Washington has focused on what actions a broadband access provider might take to filter, prioritize or manage content requested by its subscribers, Comcast’s decision goes well beyond this. With this action, Comcast is preventing competing content from ever being delivered to Comcast’s subscribers at all, unless Comcast’s unilaterally-determined toll is paid – even though Comcast’s subscribers requested the content. With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a ‘closed’ Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content.
It is our hope that Comcast’s senior management, for whom we have great respect, will closely consider their position on this issue and adopt an approach that will better serve Comcast and Comcast’s customers.
While Comcast’s position is regrettable, Level 3 remains open and willing to work through these issues with Comcast. However, Level 3 does not seek any ‘special deals’ or arrangements not generally available to other Internet backbone companies.
Given Comcast’s currently stated position, we are approaching regulators and policy makers and asking them to take quick action to ensure that a fair, open and innovative Internet does not become a closed network controlled by a few institutions with dominant market power that have the means, motive and opportunity to economically discriminate between favored and disfavored content.
http://www.audioholics.com/news/indu...blasts-comcast
-
To add some clarity or confusion to the whole issue, here's a Cnet analysis of the dispute:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20...?tag=cnetRiver
-
No surprise at all. This is just one fight in three-ring circus pitting service providers, content producers, content aggregators, hardware manufacturers, and all other media players in a mudslinging free-for-all to see who can grab the fattest slice of the revenue pie.
This shot has already been called in the mobile market where you see the telcos quietly discontinuing unlimited data plans. Wired internet service has a much more capacity, but all indications point to the growth in consumption outpacing growth in network capacity. If services like Netflix are causing these huge spikes in consumption, it's no surprise that the telcos are going to make the biggest consumers pay the most. This has been a long time in the making, and shouldn't surprise anyone.
But, bandwidth throttling is just one of the hurdles to this utopia of "free" unlimited streaming video on-demand. On demand streaming services like Hulu and ESPN3 have already implemented limits on who can and cannot view their content.
Hulu, for example, has basically shut out all set-top boxes (except for those whose manufacturers have paid a carriage fee for access to the service) and cut off the overhyped Google TV. Surprise surprise, the networks that own Hulu want to get paid if someone wants to view the video streams on devices other than PC browsers (where Hulu can serve up commercials and display ads). That's why they've started up a subscription-based service, and we'll see where that goes.
ESPN3 has taken a different tact in that they have gone straight to the ISPs and demanded carriage fees from them. If you can see ESPN3, that means that your ISP is paying ESPN for access and that cost is already built into your monthly bill. And I think this is an avenue that has not been discussed much, but might point to more of a trend in the future. With network TV content especially, I think you're going to see it get aggregated into a few websites/webfeeds.
Hulu's the most prominent example, because it aggregates content from multiple providers. And with more content aggregated into fewer hands, this gives those media players more leverage to go to the ISPs and start demanding carriage fees. It already works for ESPN.
And all the while, you have all of these ongoing pissing matches between the broadcast networks and cable/satellite service providers. This year has seen a record number of carriage fee disputes, resulting in consumers getting channels cut off.
The net result of these disputes is higher costs getting passed onto consumers. The net result of bandwidth throttling is reduced service and higher costs for consumers. The net result of ISPs getting charged for access to video streaming sites is higher costs. Notice a trend here?
I think that David Pogue, personal tech columnist for the NY Times had a very astute column last week.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/25/te...ref=technology
He pointed out that new technology in the consumer space does not always supplant the old technology, but rather splinters things. And I see all of this fitting in with that view. Streaming video is not necessarily going to replace cable/satellite service and packaged media. But, does add on another appendage to existing options and potentially brings additional costs.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
But, bandwidth throttling is just one of the hurdles to this utopia of "free" unlimited streaming video on-demand. On demand streaming services like Hulu and ESPN3 have already implemented limits on who can and cannot view their content.
Hulu, for example, has basically shut out all set-top boxes (except for those whose manufacturers have paid a carriage fee for access to the service) and cut off the overhyped Google TV. Surprise surprise, the networks that own Hulu want to get paid if someone wants to view the video streams on devices other than PC browsers (where Hulu can serve up commercials and display ads). That's why they've started up a subscription-based service, and we'll see where that goes.
I find that statement highly misleading, as it implies that if you surfed the Hulu website using the GoogleTV browser that no ads would be displayed... GoogleTV's web browser is just like the web browsers on your computer, so you will see all ads and content (that is not blocked by the provider)...
Hulu's motivation for blocking it's ad based service on GoogleTV is something else... They likely see it as an easy opportunity to charge more money for the same service without being sued...
-
Okay, okay already...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I knew this train was coming, and could see the lights on the track. Comcast is charging the internet backbone company Level 3 an extra fee to send traffic to its customers. No other cable company does this, as Comcast complains that traffic from Netflix(who Level 3 supports) is swamping their infrastructure, and they need to be paid for it. This is the same Comcast that wants to buy Universal/NBC, so they are already flexing their muscles ahead of the FCC decision. How long do you think it will be before AT&T, Cox, Warner, and all of the other cable and telecom's start protesting the amount of Netflix traffic coming through their network.
As I have said, streaming going into the future is going to get a lot more complicated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_789557.html
You were right okay? Are you satisfied? Don't you ever git tired of being "right"? LOL. Well truth be told you did call this one. I personally refuse to give Time Warner one more blessed dime. It's only a matter of time before they start charging people who use the internet to view programing they're no longer willing to pay Time Warner to provide. Wow, this is gonna be one great big effin' mess.
Worf
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by frahengeo
Yeah, I like Redbox. Only $1.50/day for blu ray.
I still have NO Cable/Sat/Dish at all. Only a roof antenna pulling in all the OTA digital channels. My Internet connection is still good old DSL, which Verizon wants desperately to kill with the daily advertisements in the mail. I am fine with Redbox and the occasional download of an old movie.
This problem is much like any other, as long as people throw their hard earned money at these companies, they will just continue to rape you back. It's a real shame so many people are so tied to their cable/high speed internet connections. I'm still wondering how everyone survived 20 years ago.
|