Re: [videoblogging] Re: the coming Broadband limit?
Heath, It was both the supreme court and the FCC. First, the supreme court ruled, as you said, that cable was not a communication network, so not covered by common carriage, so they could have a monopoly on their lines. Then later the FCC ruled the same for DSL, ironically, to "increase competition". The idea being that if the cable companies could be monopolies, so could the DSL companies, so we'd have a duopoly. (Of course, if they just allowed common carriage, there were be far more than two companies to choose from). ... best ... Richard On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Heath wrote: > > > I had forgetten it was a supreme court ruling, I had thought it was just an > FCC ruling... > > If I remember correctly the crux of the arguement, was that telephone > companies wanted the cable companies to lease their lines like they had to, > as cable companies were begining to get in on providing internet service. > They argued since they had to do it, so should the cable companies, but the > cable companies were able to argue that they were not a telecommuncation > service, they were just providing bits of data. > > Well most consumer groups and others who actually care about these types of > things knew this was bunkbut the boneheads who are in charge of the > supreme court bought the cable companies arguement...and what do we have? No > real competition and continued price hikes and the little guy getting > screwed again... > > In fact if I remember correctly, the cable companies argued that by > allowing their lines to be leased they would have to raise rates and > possibly go to tiered pricing which would be bad for consumers > > I guess the only recouse any of us have is that the FCC and Congress gets > their heads out of their asses and adjust the laws accordingly and take > control of the issue. > > So I guess we should just bend over now, right > > Heath > http://heathparks.com > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com , > "Richard (Show) Hall" wrote: > > > > For the record, ISP competition was squelched legally, so it's not even > > really possible to have competition with high speed internet. > > > > The supreme court ruled in 2005 that cable companies were not bound by > > common carriage laws (they did not have to allow competitors use their > lines > > like phone companies have to). This was followed by a decision by the FCC > > that DSL was also free to ignore common carriage. > > > > So, in most places in the US you have a choice of DSL or Cable and only > one > > company for each, and, in many places (like where I live) there is only > one > > choice (DSL). > > > > For anyone more interested in details I wrote a blog post about it a > while > > ago. > > > > > http://richardshow.org/blog/2008/02/15/free-market-net-neutrality-and-common-carriage/ > > > > ... Richard > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > Yes, it's true that it's limited in the UK. But there's a lot of > > > competition between providers, which I understand is not the case in > > > the US - or in Canada. Or at least there was a lot of competition > > > last time I looked. Hundreds of independent local companies. Elbows > > > would probably know more and confirm or deny this... > > > > > > On 10-Apr-09, at 2:09 PM, Jay dedman wrote: > > > > > > > I mentioned this in another thread, but I think it's important enough > > > > to repost here. In the US, the major broadband providers are planning > > > > to ending "unlimited" packages and start charging for broadband. > > > > Time/Warner is the test case. See below. > > > > > > > > I've heard that limiting bandwidth is common in Europe (true?), but > > > > this is new behavior in the US where broadband providers have now > > > > consolidated into just 4 major corporations that now control internet > > > > access in most regions. > > > > > > > > As private companies, they can do what they want. Customers now must > > > > start making a choice of who they want to support. > > > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > > > > > > Rep. Eric Massa was outspoken in his opposition to Time Warner > Cable's > > > > plan, calling it a monopolistic move to penalize robust Net users and > > > > "stagnate the 21st Century technology needed to rebuild America." > > > > > > > > What really happening is TWC is unfairly trying to protect its cable > > > > TV profits from people switching over to online video. By making it > > > > prohibitively expensive for their 8.4 million customers to do much > > > > more than email and basic Web surfing, they hope to kill Internet > > > > video before it's any more popular. > > > > > > > > We're going out to our 500,000 activists asking other members of > > > > Congress to join Massa and call for a thorough investigation of these > > > > ant-competitive practices. > > > > > > > > Making Time Warner the Internet's evil poster child is particularly > > > > urgent now. Other
[videoblogging] Re: the coming Broadband limit?
I had forgetten it was a supreme court ruling, I had thought it was just an FCC ruling... If I remember correctly the crux of the arguement, was that telephone companies wanted the cable companies to lease their lines like they had to, as cable companies were begining to get in on providing internet service. They argued since they had to do it, so should the cable companies, but the cable companies were able to argue that they were not a telecommuncation service, they were just providing bits of data. Well most consumer groups and others who actually care about these types of things knew this was bunkbut the boneheads who are in charge of the supreme court bought the cable companies arguement...and what do we have? No real competition and continued price hikes and the little guy getting screwed again... In fact if I remember correctly, the cable companies argued that by allowing their lines to be leased they would have to raise rates and possibly go to tiered pricing which would be bad for consumers I guess the only recouse any of us have is that the FCC and Congress gets their heads out of their asses and adjust the laws accordingly and take control of the issue. So I guess we should just bend over now, right Heath http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Richard (Show) Hall" wrote: > > For the record, ISP competition was squelched legally, so it's not even > really possible to have competition with high speed internet. > > The supreme court ruled in 2005 that cable companies were not bound by > common carriage laws (they did not have to allow competitors use their lines > like phone companies have to). This was followed by a decision by the FCC > that DSL was also free to ignore common carriage. > > So, in most places in the US you have a choice of DSL or Cable and only one > company for each, and, in many places (like where I live) there is only one > choice (DSL). > > For anyone more interested in details I wrote a blog post about it a while > ago. > > http://richardshow.org/blog/2008/02/15/free-market-net-neutrality-and-common-carriage/ > > ... Richard > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > Yes, it's true that it's limited in the UK. But there's a lot of > > competition between providers, which I understand is not the case in > > the US - or in Canada. Or at least there was a lot of competition > > last time I looked. Hundreds of independent local companies. Elbows > > would probably know more and confirm or deny this... > > > > On 10-Apr-09, at 2:09 PM, Jay dedman wrote: > > > > > I mentioned this in another thread, but I think it's important enough > > > to repost here. In the US, the major broadband providers are planning > > > to ending "unlimited" packages and start charging for broadband. > > > Time/Warner is the test case. See below. > > > > > > I've heard that limiting bandwidth is common in Europe (true?), but > > > this is new behavior in the US where broadband providers have now > > > consolidated into just 4 major corporations that now control internet > > > access in most regions. > > > > > > As private companies, they can do what they want. Customers now must > > > start making a choice of who they want to support. > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > > > > Rep. Eric Massa was outspoken in his opposition to Time Warner Cable's > > > plan, calling it a monopolistic move to penalize robust Net users and > > > "stagnate the 21st Century technology needed to rebuild America." > > > > > > What really happening is TWC is unfairly trying to protect its cable > > > TV profits from people switching over to online video. By making it > > > prohibitively expensive for their 8.4 million customers to do much > > > more than email and basic Web surfing, they hope to kill Internet > > > video before it's any more popular. > > > > > > We're going out to our 500,000 activists asking other members of > > > Congress to join Massa and call for a thorough investigation of these > > > ant-competitive practices. > > > > > > Making Time Warner the Internet's evil poster child is particularly > > > urgent now. Other cable and phone providers (including AT&T, Charter, > > > Cox and Comcast) are watching TWC's trial balloon with plans to > > > implement their own anti-video pricing schemes. > > > > > > The outreach is below. Here's the presser: > > http://www.freepress.net/node/56030 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Richard (Show) Hall > http://richardshow.org > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
[videoblogging] Re: the coming Broadband limit?
I have beat this drum for a long time now.the lack of competition and regulation is leading to a growing number of abuses and practices, at least here in the states... And while yes, as a private company they can charge whatever they want, as has been noted numurous times, what continues to happen is in most area's they have a vitural monolopy and with the FCC rulings in their favor, local muncipalities have not been able to do anything about arbritary rate hikes, etc. Almost all of the rules and regulations regarding cable and now broadband are completely outdated and in most cases don't apply or the rules have never taken into account the growth of broadband and the new delivery systems Not to mention that rural broadband is virtualy non-exsistant or so cost prohibitated that most people in the country don't even know what "high-speed" internet is. That and the fact you have providers who are now also producing and creating content, will that content be regulated?you and I know it won'tthey will strike deals or "exclusive contracts" with certain kinds of content or lock it up altogether and without meaningfull competition, where are we going to go? We will be stuck with a take it or leave it attitude and they will be able to get away with it, because in the end who really cares about us? We must let ourselves be heard, we must do something nowI firmly believe this with every fiber of my being Heath http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman wrote: > > > OK $150 a month for 'virtually unlimited' seems a tad pricey. Maybe > > $75/month for 100GB is slightly more sane though, does anybody who uses a > > lot of video online monitor their bandwidth to see if they get anywhere near > > 100GB a month? > > Its expensive enough to moan at the companies involved, but isnt extreme > > enough to confirm that 'they hope to kill Internet video before it's any > > more popular.' which is what that thing you pasted is trying to suggest in a > > rather hysterical way. > > Hmmmattention grabbing but not hysterical. > Currentlya single HD show is usually about 750MB. Almost a gig. > The size of files will only increase as quality gets better. > Start doing the math based on the things you watch. > > we arent even calculating the amount of bandwidth a person uses for > daily web use. > > If someone must think about every megabyte they download, this factor > weighs on the choice to download a video by some unknown. > > > If we are thinking that in the near future people will be watching many > > hours of high-def TV via the internet every day, then there are capacity > > issues which someone will have to pay for. I never heard what happened to > > the battle in the UK between the ISPs and the BBC who were using peer2peer > > to make TV shows available to customers, thus saddling the ISPs with a > > greater bandwidth bill, causing them to moan, All I know is that viewers > > have certainly embraced downloading TV shows legitimately via the net here, > > and so far there has not been any substantial change to ISP price structure > > or quality of service as a result. > > Until broadband providers give proof that the networks are overloaded, > I think this argument is specious. > > The strategy is to squeeze more profit out of broadband, especially if > people continue to cancel their cable TV subscriptions because they > are just pulling down the shows they want to watch. Fair enough. These > companies are private and can charge 10 per GB if they want. But > let's all be very aware of the truth behind the decisions, so > consumers can make clear choices. This also allows us as voters to > make sure government is not giving unfair monopolies to private > companies who are squeezing every cent out of their customers. > > Jay > > > -- > http://ryanishungry.com > http://jaydedman.com > http://twitter.com/jaydedman > 917 371 6790 >
Re: [videoblogging] Re: the coming Broadband limit?
Well, it is the case in France, where France Telecom, Free and other companies have been battling it out for years...all unlimited. 2009/4/13 Patrick Delongchamp > > > As a Canadian, it seems hysterical to me as well. > > If bandwidth concerns were in fact misleading than you would expect > countries with a lot of competition (e.g. UK) to have ISPs all offering > unlimited bandwidth at ultra low costs. The opposite seems to be the case. > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Jay dedman > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > OK $150 a month for 'virtually unlimited' seems a tad pricey. Maybe > > > $75/month for 100GB is slightly more sane though, does anybody who uses > a > > > lot of video online monitor their bandwidth to see if they get anywhere > > near > > > 100GB a month? > > > Its expensive enough to moan at the companies involved, but isnt > extreme > > > enough to confirm that 'they hope to kill Internet video before it's > any > > > more popular.' which is what that thing you pasted is trying to suggest > > in a > > > rather hysterical way. > > > > Hmmmattention grabbing but not hysterical. > > Currentlya single HD show is usually about 750MB. Almost a gig. > > The size of files will only increase as quality gets better. > > Start doing the math based on the things you watch. > > > > we arent even calculating the amount of bandwidth a person uses for > > daily web use. > > > > If someone must think about every megabyte they download, this factor > > weighs on the choice to download a video by some unknown. > > > > > If we are thinking that in the near future people will be watching many > > > hours of high-def TV via the internet every day, then there are > capacity > > > issues which someone will have to pay for. I never heard what happened > to > > > the battle in the UK between the ISPs and the BBC who were using > > peer2peer > > > to make TV shows available to customers, thus saddling the ISPs with a > > > greater bandwidth bill, causing them to moan, All I know is that > viewers > > > have certainly embraced downloading TV shows legitimately via the net > > here, > > > and so far there has not been any substantial change to ISP price > > structure > > > or quality of service as a result. > > > > Until broadband providers give proof that the networks are overloaded, > > I think this argument is specious. > > > > The strategy is to squeeze more profit out of broadband, especially if > > people continue to cancel their cable TV subscriptions because they > > are just pulling down the shows they want to watch. Fair enough. These > > companies are private and can charge 10 per GB if they want. But > > let's all be very aware of the truth behind the decisions, so > > consumers can make clear choices. This also allows us as voters to > > make sure government is not giving unfair monopolies to private > > companies who are squeezing every cent out of their customers. > > > > Jay > > > > -- > > http://ryanishungry.com > > http://jaydedman.com > > http://twitter.com/jaydedman > > 917 371 6790 > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > -- Jeffrey Taylor 912 Cole St, #349 San Francisco, CA 94117 USA Mobile: +14157281264 Fax: +33177722734 http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor http://organicconversations.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: the coming Broadband limit?
As a Canadian, it seems hysterical to me as well. If bandwidth concerns were in fact misleading than you would expect countries with a lot of competition (e.g. UK) to have ISPs all offering unlimited bandwidth at ultra low costs. The opposite seems to be the case. On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Jay dedman wrote: > > > > OK $150 a month for 'virtually unlimited' seems a tad pricey. Maybe > > $75/month for 100GB is slightly more sane though, does anybody who uses a > > lot of video online monitor their bandwidth to see if they get anywhere > near > > 100GB a month? > > Its expensive enough to moan at the companies involved, but isnt extreme > > enough to confirm that 'they hope to kill Internet video before it's any > > more popular.' which is what that thing you pasted is trying to suggest > in a > > rather hysterical way. > > Hmmmattention grabbing but not hysterical. > Currentlya single HD show is usually about 750MB. Almost a gig. > The size of files will only increase as quality gets better. > Start doing the math based on the things you watch. > > we arent even calculating the amount of bandwidth a person uses for > daily web use. > > If someone must think about every megabyte they download, this factor > weighs on the choice to download a video by some unknown. > > > If we are thinking that in the near future people will be watching many > > hours of high-def TV via the internet every day, then there are capacity > > issues which someone will have to pay for. I never heard what happened to > > the battle in the UK between the ISPs and the BBC who were using > peer2peer > > to make TV shows available to customers, thus saddling the ISPs with a > > greater bandwidth bill, causing them to moan, All I know is that viewers > > have certainly embraced downloading TV shows legitimately via the net > here, > > and so far there has not been any substantial change to ISP price > structure > > or quality of service as a result. > > Until broadband providers give proof that the networks are overloaded, > I think this argument is specious. > > The strategy is to squeeze more profit out of broadband, especially if > people continue to cancel their cable TV subscriptions because they > are just pulling down the shows they want to watch. Fair enough. These > companies are private and can charge 10 per GB if they want. But > let's all be very aware of the truth behind the decisions, so > consumers can make clear choices. This also allows us as voters to > make sure government is not giving unfair monopolies to private > companies who are squeezing every cent out of their customers. > > Jay > > -- > http://ryanishungry.com > http://jaydedman.com > http://twitter.com/jaydedman > 917 371 6790 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: the coming Broadband limit?
it is the reality of the situation. their are multiple concerns. one is whther or not people will have to pay subtantially more for bandwidth. another is, as you point out, consuming content from independent publishers. i think we'll still get a decent amount of bandwidth to download independent content but we should have some fresh discussion on how to protect this segment from unfair distribution obstacles. i know most prob dont want to have government involved but some interesting theories and ideas are floating around out there. no matter who helps the independents and not-for-profit content creators circumvent marginalization of bandwdith... there will be critics. because it likely needs to be built on the back of some huge entity. sull On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Jay dedman wrote: > > > > so yes, the potential exists to have our bandwidth cost us more. it > always > > existed. it's all a digital pipe and the content and services that use it > > are getting merged. for most of my adult life, i've spent between $40 and > > $100 for tv/internet. if it gets to the point that i am charged $150 for > > doing what i normally do... and this could happen since i work from home > and > > occasionally have to transfer large work related files... but if it gets > to > > that point, i'll first look into bandwidth saving tech and then cut back > on > > any unnecessary transfers and then start demanding that some services be > > excluded from bandwdth montoring like my roku box for netflix and > amazon > > vod. i would hope that back-end deals would be made between these > companies > > to exclude transfers from certain devices/services i see that as a > > possibility in order to sustain customer loyalty on all fronts. > > This is the exact argument for Net Neutrality. The Broadband providers > consolidate with just a couple gate keepers who own the network. They > create a false scarcity of of bandwidth resources. They make sure no > other competitors can easily opne up shop to provide alternative > access to the web. > > Then they start making deals with certain big content companies like > "like my roku box for netflix and amazon vod". So it's affordable for > me to get my content from these suppliers since they've brokered deals > with the Broadband provider. Independent content creators are further > marginalized because it would cost me more to get that content. > > There is nothing illegal is this logic. But we'd be silly to ignore > this coming world and refuse to have a conversation about it. > > Jay > > -- > http://ryanishungry.com > http://jaydedman.com > http://twitter.com/jaydedman > 917 371 6790 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: the coming Broadband limit?
> so yes, the potential exists to have our bandwidth cost us more. it always > existed. it's all a digital pipe and the content and services that use it > are getting merged. for most of my adult life, i've spent between $40 and > $100 for tv/internet. if it gets to the point that i am charged $150 for > doing what i normally do... and this could happen since i work from home and > occasionally have to transfer large work related files... but if it gets to > that point, i'll first look into bandwidth saving tech and then cut back on > any unnecessary transfers and then start demanding that some services be > excluded from bandwdth montoring like my roku box for netflix and amazon > vod. i would hope that back-end deals would be made between these companies > to exclude transfers from certain devices/services i see that as a > possibility in order to sustain customer loyalty on all fronts. This is the exact argument for Net Neutrality. The Broadband providers consolidate with just a couple gate keepers who own the network. They create a false scarcity of of bandwidth resources. They make sure no other competitors can easily opne up shop to provide alternative access to the web. Then they start making deals with certain big content companies like "like my roku box for netflix and amazon vod". So it's affordable for me to get my content from these suppliers since they've brokered deals with the Broadband provider. Independent content creators are further marginalized because it would cost me more to get that content. There is nothing illegal is this logic. But we'd be silly to ignore this coming world and refuse to have a conversation about it. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Re: the coming Broadband limit?
I haven't been running this lately, but I used it for a while last year when I was trying to determine a monthly upload estimate for a client. Good bandwidth monitor: http://www.analogx.com/contents/download/network/nsl.htm On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > Lets look at some detail about one of the proposed plans: > > > http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=216500302&subSection=News > > In particular: > > Options for 10 GB, 20 GB, 40 GB, and 60 GB a month also will be available > with overage charges of $1 per gigabyte a month. For $75 a month, a customer > can get 100 GB a month at download speeds of 10 MB per second and upload > speeds of 1 MB. > > The last offering would include overage charges of $1 per gigabyte a month, > which will be capped at $75. "That means that for $150 per month customers > could have virtually unlimited usage," Hobbs said. > > > OK $150 a month for 'virtually unlimited' seems a tad pricey. Maybe > $75/month for 100GB is slightly more sane though, does anybody who uses a > lot of video online monitor their bandwidth to see if they get anywhere near > 100GB a month? > > Its expensive enough to moan at the companies involved, but isnt extreme > enough to confirm that 'they hope to kill Internet video before it's any > more popular.' which is what that thing you pasted is trying to suggest in a > rather hysterical way. > > Yes they want to protect their revenue stream in general, but I dont think > they mind how people are getting their video, as long as they can still > extract about the same $/month per customer. > > If we are thinking that in the near future people will be watching many > hours of high-def TV via the internet every day, then there are capacity > issues which someone will have to pay for. I never heard what happened to > the battle in the UK between the ISPs and the BBC who were using peer2peer > to make TV shows available to customers, thus saddling the ISPs with a > greater bandwidth bill, causing them to moan, All I know is that viewers > have certainly embraced downloading TV shows legitimately via the net here, > and so far there has not been any substantial change to ISP price structure > or quality of service as a result. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman wrote: > > > > > > What really happening is TWC is unfairly trying to protect its cable > > TV profits from people switching over to online video. By making it > > prohibitively expensive for their 8.4 million customers to do much > > more than email and basic Web surfing, they hope to kill Internet > > video before it's any more popular. > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: the coming Broadband limit?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sullivan wrote: > beyond all that... maybe we will all go offline and bird watch more often ;) > > sull > i hope that the internet of today dies and a new internet is formed based on the cooperative idea and Wireless community network
Re: [videoblogging] Re: the coming Broadband limit?
good checks and balances are always needed. i think my point is that however they approach the billing, they need to have prices be somewhat reasonable with the times and demands of customers. so instead of saving money by cancelling tv, you look at it as eliminating the service that doesnt give you the level of granular on-demand media that you prefer. it's cheaper until this becomes a popular consumer decision, then they will modify their service offering to assure that ALL customers are paying within a price bracket no matter who you are. That price bracket may fluctuate but it has to be within reason I think. they run the risk of controversy if say, the cost of a households digital utility bill suddenly costs more than all other utility bills. maybe in time, it will. take a look at what you pay for electricity, heat, water. we are becoming almost as dependent on our bandwidth as we are on other utilities. they also dont want people to start sharing bandwidth with neighbors via wireless networking. increased prices will cause consumers to do that and/or start using public bandwidth more often or just cut back on their bandwidth usage... which lets face it... nobody really wants. those ads need impressions. so yes, the potential exists to have our bandwidth cost us more. it always existed. it's all a digital pipe and the content and services that use it are getting merged. for most of my adult life, i've spent between $40 and $100 for tv/internet. if it gets to the point that i am charged $150 for doing what i normally do... and this could happen since i work from home and occasionally have to transfer large work related files... but if it gets to that point, i'll first look into bandwidth saving tech and then cut back on any unnecessary transfers and then start demanding that some services be excluded from bandwdth montoring like my roku box for netflix and amazon vod. i would hope that back-end deals would be made between these companies to exclude transfers from certain devices/services i see that as a possibility in order to sustain customer loyalty on all fronts. beyond all that... maybe we will all go offline and bird watch more often ;) sull On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Jay dedman wrote: > > > > OK $150 a month for 'virtually unlimited' seems a tad pricey. Maybe > > $75/month for 100GB is slightly more sane though, does anybody who uses a > > lot of video online monitor their bandwidth to see if they get anywhere > near > > 100GB a month? > > Its expensive enough to moan at the companies involved, but isnt extreme > > enough to confirm that 'they hope to kill Internet video before it's any > > more popular.' which is what that thing you pasted is trying to suggest > in a > > rather hysterical way. > > Hmmmattention grabbing but not hysterical. > Currentlya single HD show is usually about 750MB. Almost a gig. > The size of files will only increase as quality gets better. > Start doing the math based on the things you watch. > > we arent even calculating the amount of bandwidth a person uses for > daily web use. > > If someone must think about every megabyte they download, this factor > weighs on the choice to download a video by some unknown. > > > If we are thinking that in the near future people will be watching many > > hours of high-def TV via the internet every day, then there are capacity > > issues which someone will have to pay for. I never heard what happened to > > the battle in the UK between the ISPs and the BBC who were using > peer2peer > > to make TV shows available to customers, thus saddling the ISPs with a > > greater bandwidth bill, causing them to moan, All I know is that viewers > > have certainly embraced downloading TV shows legitimately via the net > here, > > and so far there has not been any substantial change to ISP price > structure > > or quality of service as a result. > > Until broadband providers give proof that the networks are overloaded, > I think this argument is specious. > > The strategy is to squeeze more profit out of broadband, especially if > people continue to cancel their cable TV subscriptions because they > are just pulling down the shows they want to watch. Fair enough. These > companies are private and can charge 10 per GB if they want. But > let's all be very aware of the truth behind the decisions, so > consumers can make clear choices. This also allows us as voters to > make sure government is not giving unfair monopolies to private > companies who are squeezing every cent out of their customers. > > Jay > > -- > http://ryanishungry.com > http://jaydedman.com > http://twitter.com/jaydedman > 917 371 6790 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: the coming Broadband limit?
> OK $150 a month for 'virtually unlimited' seems a tad pricey. Maybe > $75/month for 100GB is slightly more sane though, does anybody who uses a > lot of video online monitor their bandwidth to see if they get anywhere near > 100GB a month? > Its expensive enough to moan at the companies involved, but isnt extreme > enough to confirm that 'they hope to kill Internet video before it's any > more popular.' which is what that thing you pasted is trying to suggest in a > rather hysterical way. Hmmmattention grabbing but not hysterical. Currentlya single HD show is usually about 750MB. Almost a gig. The size of files will only increase as quality gets better. Start doing the math based on the things you watch. we arent even calculating the amount of bandwidth a person uses for daily web use. If someone must think about every megabyte they download, this factor weighs on the choice to download a video by some unknown. > If we are thinking that in the near future people will be watching many > hours of high-def TV via the internet every day, then there are capacity > issues which someone will have to pay for. I never heard what happened to > the battle in the UK between the ISPs and the BBC who were using peer2peer > to make TV shows available to customers, thus saddling the ISPs with a > greater bandwidth bill, causing them to moan, All I know is that viewers > have certainly embraced downloading TV shows legitimately via the net here, > and so far there has not been any substantial change to ISP price structure > or quality of service as a result. Until broadband providers give proof that the networks are overloaded, I think this argument is specious. The strategy is to squeeze more profit out of broadband, especially if people continue to cancel their cable TV subscriptions because they are just pulling down the shows they want to watch. Fair enough. These companies are private and can charge 10 per GB if they want. But let's all be very aware of the truth behind the decisions, so consumers can make clear choices. This also allows us as voters to make sure government is not giving unfair monopolies to private companies who are squeezing every cent out of their customers. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: the coming Broadband limit?
Lets look at some detail about one of the proposed plans: http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=216500302&subSection=News In particular: Options for 10 GB, 20 GB, 40 GB, and 60 GB a month also will be available with overage charges of $1 per gigabyte a month. For $75 a month, a customer can get 100 GB a month at download speeds of 10 MB per second and upload speeds of 1 MB. The last offering would include overage charges of $1 per gigabyte a month, which will be capped at $75. "That means that for $150 per month customers could have virtually unlimited usage," Hobbs said. OK $150 a month for 'virtually unlimited' seems a tad pricey. Maybe $75/month for 100GB is slightly more sane though, does anybody who uses a lot of video online monitor their bandwidth to see if they get anywhere near 100GB a month? Its expensive enough to moan at the companies involved, but isnt extreme enough to confirm that 'they hope to kill Internet video before it's any more popular.' which is what that thing you pasted is trying to suggest in a rather hysterical way. Yes they want to protect their revenue stream in general, but I dont think they mind how people are getting their video, as long as they can still extract about the same $/month per customer. If we are thinking that in the near future people will be watching many hours of high-def TV via the internet every day, then there are capacity issues which someone will have to pay for. I never heard what happened to the battle in the UK between the ISPs and the BBC who were using peer2peer to make TV shows available to customers, thus saddling the ISPs with a greater bandwidth bill, causing them to moan, All I know is that viewers have certainly embraced downloading TV shows legitimately via the net here, and so far there has not been any substantial change to ISP price structure or quality of service as a result. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman wrote: > > > What really happening is TWC is unfairly trying to protect its cable > TV profits from people switching over to online video. By making it > prohibitively expensive for their 8.4 million customers to do much > more than email and basic Web surfing, they hope to kill Internet > video before it's any more popular.
[videoblogging] Re: the coming Broadband limit?
Lets look at some detail about one of the proposed plans: http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=216500302&subSection=News In particular: Options for 10 GB, 20 GB, 40 GB, and 60 GB a month also will be available with overage charges of $1 per gigabyte a month. For $75 a month, a customer can get 100 GB a month at download speeds of 10 MB per second and upload speeds of 1 MB. The last offering would include overage charges of $1 per gigabyte a month, which will be capped at $75. "That means that for $150 per month customers could have virtually unlimited usage," Hobbs said. OK $150 a month for 'virtually unlimited' seems a tad pricey. Maybe $75/month for 100GB is slightly more sane though, does anybody who uses a lot of video online monitor their bandwidth to see if they get anywhere near 100GB a month? Its expensive enough to moan at the companies involved, but isnt extreme enough to confirm that 'they hope to kill Internet video before it's any more popular.' which is what that thing you pasted is trying to suggest in a rather hysterical way. Yes they want to protect their revenue stream in general, but I dont think they mind how people are getting their video, as long as they can still extract about the same $/month per customer. If we are thinking that in the near future people will be watching many hours of high-def TV via the internet every day, then there are capacity issues which someone will have to pay for. I never heard what happened to the battle in the UK between the ISPs and the BBC who were using peer2peer to make TV shows available to customers, thus saddling the ISPs with a greater bandwidth bill, causing them to moan, All I know is that viewers have certainly embraced downloading TV shows legitimately via the net here, and so far there has not been any substantial change to ISP price structure or quality of service as a result. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman wrote: > > > What really happening is TWC is unfairly trying to protect its cable > TV profits from people switching over to online video. By making it > prohibitively expensive for their 8.4 million customers to do much > more than email and basic Web surfing, they hope to kill Internet > video before it's any more popular.
[videoblogging] Re: the coming Broadband limit?
I dont know if there are hundreds, but there are certainly plenty to choose from via phone lines in the UK. Via cable there isnt really any choice of companies, just Virgin, which offers higher speeds than the phone lines can manage at the moment. People in the UK are used to paying different prices for different speeds of service. The slower speeds tend to come with quite low monthly useage caps, and the faster/more expensive ones may offer 'unlimited use'. In practice its not quite unlimited as if you run it on max download & upload 24/7, the ISP will likely moan at you. I dont think there is much of an appetite here to charge customers per gig when they go over the limit, they mostly tell you to upgade to a better monthly package, or reduce your speed when you go over the limit, though this could change and I may be out of date. Im not sure about the rest of Europe. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert wrote: > > Yes, it's true that it's limited in the UK. But there's a lot of > competition between providers, which I understand is not the case in > the US - or in Canada. Or at least there was a lot of competition > last time I looked. Hundreds of independent local companies. Elbows > would probably know more and confirm or deny this... > > On 10-Apr-09, at 2:09 PM, Jay dedman wrote: > > > I mentioned this in another thread, but I think it's important enough > > to repost here. In the US, the major broadband providers are planning > > to ending "unlimited" packages and start charging for broadband. > > Time/Warner is the test case. See below. > > > > I've heard that limiting bandwidth is common in Europe (true?), but > > this is new behavior in the US where broadband providers have now > > consolidated into just 4 major corporations that now control internet > > access in most regions. > > > > As private companies, they can do what they want. Customers now must > > start making a choice of who they want to support. > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > __ > > > > Rep. Eric Massa was outspoken in his opposition to Time Warner Cable's > > plan, calling it a monopolistic move to penalize robust Net users and > > "stagnate the 21st Century technology needed to rebuild America." > > > > What really happening is TWC is unfairly trying to protect its cable > > TV profits from people switching over to online video. By making it > > prohibitively expensive for their 8.4 million customers to do much > > more than email and basic Web surfing, they hope to kill Internet > > video before it's any more popular. > > > > We're going out to our 500,000 activists asking other members of > > Congress to join Massa and call for a thorough investigation of these > > ant-competitive practices. > > > > Making Time Warner the Internet's evil poster child is particularly > > urgent now. Other cable and phone providers (including AT&T, Charter, > > Cox and Comcast) are watching TWC's trial balloon with plans to > > implement their own anti-video pricing schemes. > > > > The outreach is below. Here's the presser: > > http://www.freepress.net/node/56030 > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
