Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Pushes FCC To Crack Down On Data Caps (dslreports.com)
Netflix hates data caps. The on-demand movies and TV shows service has asked the US Federal Communications Commission to declare that home internet data caps are unreasonable and that they limit customers' ability to watch online video. From an article on DSLReports:Netflix has long has an adversarial relationship with ISPs, and often for good reason. Usage caps on fixed-line networks are specifically designed to protect ISP TV revenues from Netflix competition, allowing an ISP to both complicate and generate additional profit off of the shift away from legacy TV. "Data caps (especially low data caps) and usage based pricing ("UBP") discourage a consumer's consumption of broadband, and may impede the ability of some households to watch Internet television in a manner and amount that they would like," said Netflix in a new filing with the FCC. "For this reason, the Commission should hold that data caps on fixed Âline networks ÂÂand low data caps on mobile networksÂÂ may unreasonably limit Internet television viewing and are inconsistent with Section 706." Netflix's filing comes as ISP's increasingly turn to broadband usage caps to take advantage of the lack of broadband competition in many markets. Fearing FCC crackdown both Comcast and AT&T raised their caps to one terabyte, though many ISPs still cap usage at much-lower allotments. High, low, or somewhere in between, Netflix highlights that there is no good reason to implement caps on well-managed fixed-line networks, despite a decade of ISPs trying to justify the price gouging.
I hate the data cap too, but I don't like the lack of control I have over stream quality - on most devices it looks like it just does some automatic detection.
I much prefer the control in, say, YouTube where I can specify the resolution quality. I'd also like to be able to optimize the stream for audio or prefer certain programs in SD. The kids don't need to watch Pokemon in 4K!
g=
Their official policy is that you have to pay them for TV no matter what. Either you subscribe to TV, or your internet connection is capped, and you will pay them for TV anyway in the form of overages.
Seemed like a pretty good plan "Lets punish consumers and make them pay for our ill-conceived acquisition of Direct TV"
Gee, I wonder why they are losing subscribers.
The kids don't need to watch Pokemon in 4K!
The Orange Islands episodes are an exception. And the Beauty and the Beach episode for the same reason, though that only aired once in the US (and had chunks cut) and isn't available on Netflix.
the whole point of ISP mergers was to create larger networks that bypass Level 3 and other backbone carriers. And with everyone hosting content inside the ISP's own networks or at major peering centers then this traffic should be excluded at the very least.
or at the very least create something like T-Mobile's BingeOn where 720p and below isn't counted
This will be a continuing problem so long as the people who own the infrastructure also sell services over it.
They almost got this right with the ILEC/CLEC split with DSL. The only problem is that they let the ILEC sell services over the infrastructure they owned.
Don't let the guys who own the wires sell any services and this problem will fix itself.
Personally, if I'm sold a 30Mbps/5Mbps cable/dsl connection, I expect to be able to saturate that channel 24/7 if I want to. ISPs should provision accordingly.
And also the ability to delay or offload content in cache. For example, if your bandwidth is currently funky (as is typical with oligopoly ISP's), then set the play to notify you when the download is complete or the buffer reaches a certain percent complete. A fuller menu would look something like:
Bandwidth and Delay Options:
Quality (higher quality may slow download):
[x] Automatic
[_] High-Definition [rate value here]
[_] Medium [rate value here]
[_] Low [rate value here]
[_] Etc.
Delayed Playback:
[x] Don't play until buffer has ____ seconds of video [with a default but editable number]
[_] Don't play until entire video is cached on your computer, Auto-Play
[_] Don't play until entire video is cached on your computer, Pop-Up-Notification
[_] Don't play until entire video is cached on your computer, No notification (click video window to play when "Ready" indicated)
But companies can argue these kind of options are too confusing to most consumers. Maybe a good UI designer could make them friendlier...
Table-ized A.I.
The solution to a problem created by there being too much government regulation is more government regulation.
A drug-addict's logic.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Centrylink DSL: 250GiB cap
Centrylink Fiber: uncapped
Other than the last-mine of data transfer, it is the same Centrylink back-haul network. So why does one get capped (who can and does use significantly more bandwidth) versus the slower connection that is easier manage and do shared provisioning for?
WALP, whatever their weird justifications, I'm currently pushing ~1TiB/week on my CL Fiber line from torrent seeding. It would be more, but torrents only go as fast as the other end is willing to download.
Adjustable quality would be a nice user control to have, if you're paying for bandwidth, you should be able to decide how much bandwidth to use on what downloads.
My wife and I live alone and we use 600 - 1000 GB a month. And that is a month where I don't boot up an old computer and install/update hundreds of steam games. I can't imagine what would happen to my internet bill if comcast decided to enforce a data cap.
If people only knew how little it costs per household for ISPs to provide cable TV and internet service! While no real figures are published, by some estimates it costs most ISPs less than $15.00 a month per household to provide both broadband Internet and cable TV, in some cases less than half of that figure.
Not only should the FCC remove all data caps, prices for broadband Internet service, and cable TV should be capped at $29.95 per month each. Our taxes have paid for the infrastructure for these services, yet we are massively price gouged for these services. One reason that this price gouging goes on is that ISPs have managed to stifle any hint of competition in most locations in the U.S., even buying draconian laws against cities that wish to provide their citizens with reasonably prices broadband Internet and Cable TV services.
I would also like to see the FCC mandate that as long as costumers are paying for their cable TV service, it should be commercial free, as we were promised at the very beginning of cable TV roll-outs!
If it waits to play until the entire video is "cached', then it's no longer truly streaming...
There's a point there where the content providers get itchy about how the content is being delivered... and insist on new licensing terms.
Anonymous told everybody years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7WHoqsRuxU
When I turned my Uverse equipment in, the guy at the UPS store and I had a good laugh about the huge surge of AT&T equipment getting turned in. I was content with my 12Mb/s internet. It wasn't the fastest, but it was fine. Now I have 50Mb/s cable with a $4/month VPN service and things have been running great for a few months now.
Its costing me less, and I'm getting better service. I should actually be thanking AT&T for making me get off my ass and finally switch.
It's streaming to cache.
It's a user choice.
Given that Comcast enjoys government granted monopolies in its markets, it seems reasonable for the government to require them to remove data caps.
Of course, the better approach would be to tell Comcast fine, charge whatever you like, but we're going to open all of your markets to competition.
"Pixellated indistinct blobs, gotta catch em all!"
Table-ized A.I.
...because people tend to max out their bandwidth all at the same time during the day, creating a headache for network data management. To encourage people to schedule their torrents to throttle back during the day, ISPs should make their data caps only apply during peak usage periods, similar to "unlimited nights and weekends" cell phone plans.
There's a service called NightShift that helps people watch Netflix on bandwidth-constrained connections like dialup. It works by scheduling downloads to occur overnight so they're ready to watch the next day. Netflix could do something similar to bypass time-of-use data caps. "Do you wish to stream this program now or download to watch later? [Stream] [Download]" Then the ISPs might realize that the data caps don't need to apply to overnight downloads.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
NetFlix has no hope here.
They did not pay as much for the FCC Chairman as the cable companies did. The cable companies bought him fair and square.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
AT&T's response: Hang on there. That's just crazy talk. Instead, provide us with a monopoly, and we will promise to provide the best services at the cheapest prices. So you see, customers will have to deal with only 1 company. No more confusing choices. And we can provide the best services as a result. That is a win-win. Oh, and we can also contribute to your politicians' campaigns, so you don't have to. That's a triple win!
Take it a step further and make "the wires" a public utility company, or at least the last mile, which is where the natural monopoly lives.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The key problems with Data Caps is the fact the business cannot keep up with the technology.
20 years ago 50 Megs data cap was more than enough for most dial up users.
10 years ago 5 Gigs data cap was more than enough for most broadband users.
Today 50 Gigs data cap is currently what is considered decent for home use.
For the most part our behavior hasn't changed that much, we more or less download data 2 hours a day. However as speed increases the amount of data we download increases.
In terms of stream quality. Netflix usually will go the max quality that the show is broadcasted for. So some of your old shows it will be at a much lower resolution. If Pokemon is streaming 4k that means that the show was made for 4k.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
My kids don't care when I drop youtube down to 240 resolution, still looks fine on 13" screen too. Wish I could do the same with netflix.
Indeed that's the point: an easy choice. If your bandwidth is currently hosed by Evil ISP, then it would be nice to switch to caching instead of streaming without closing your browser/viewer and going to a different utility.
Table-ized A.I.
My kids don't care when I drop youtube down to 240 resolution,
Someone calls child care services at once!
Which VPN service are you using?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Caps should really be focused on those who truly are bandwidth addicts who exceed all reasonable levels of usage. They should really be on a tier of service that actually provides them with more data. I am never concerned about reaching my cap I think its at 1024GB and I don't come close to exceeding that. Maybe the better case would be made to raise caps based on levels of speed. In general those with slower speeds would most likely use less bandwidth and those with HD streaming and even 4K with bigger user numbers would opt for a higher tier. You should pay for what you use but I think most people don't see caps as a real problem only as a artificial ceiling that many wouldn't reach but still don't like.
would be the FTC (Fereral Trade commission) and ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission). They were both set up to deal with the same issue decades ago... Fair pricing for carriage of "goods". In this case the good are packets and then it was beef and grain on the railroads, but the ISPs (carriers of goods) are acting not, like the railroad did then. Similar issues should be solvable by similar means
Indeed
They already to. You can select your default playback quality in user settings.
Why does Netflix have a limit of concurrent streams and they charge more for more streams? If Netflix is serious about having various levels of service at different prices is unacceptable Netflix should lead the way by going to a single fixed price for all customers.
4K or not, any number of concurrent streams, etc. It all could be the same price.
The reason why it isn't is the same reason ISPs don't charge everyone the same price. You can make more money by offering differentiated services at different prices.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
ctrl+shift+D and select the quality(bitrate) that you want. You can even select multiple. It has been possible since 5 years ago.
Ok, I heard of the 'hugely profitable' telecom companies for years, so I finally looked up the public filings of some telecom companies:
Charter Communications, Inc.
Revenue 12/31/2015 12/31/2014 12/31/2013
Total Revenue 9,754,000 9,108,000 8,155,000
Cost of Revenue 6,426,000 5,973,000 5,345,000
Gross Profit 3,328,000 3,135,000 2,810,000
Operating Expenses
Research Development - - -
Selling General and Administrative 89,000 62,000 47,000
Non Recurring - - -
Others 2,125,000 2,102,000 1,854,000
Total Operating Expenses - - -
Operating Income or Loss 1,114,000 971,000 909,000
Interest Expense 1,306,000 911,000 846,000
AT&T, Inc. (T)
Revenue 12/31/2015 12/31/2014 12/31/2013
Total Revenue 146,801,000 132,447,000 128,752,000
Cost of Revenue 67,046,000 60,145,000 51,191,000
Gross Profit 79,755,000 72,302,000 77,561,000
Operating Expenses
Research Development - - -
Selling General and Administrative 32,954,000 41,817,000 28,414,000
Non Recurring - - -
Others 22,016,000 18,273,000 18,395,000
Total Operating Expenses - - -
Operating Income or Loss 24,785,000 12,212,000 30,752,000
Interest Expense 4,120,000 3,613,000 3,940,000
So, Charter, a cable company, has an operating income around 10 percent, before interest. AT&T, a landline phone, and wireless phone company, has an operating income which bounces around from 10 to 20 percent. Those operating margins are good, but not 'hugely profitable'.
This will be a continuing problem so long as the people who own the infrastructure also sell services over it.
They almost got this right with the ILEC/CLEC split with DSL. The only problem is that they let the ILEC sell services over the infrastructure they owned.
Don't let the guys who own the wires sell any services and this problem will fix itself.
And don't let anyone who owns wires or provides service also create/sell content.
Mod above post up. What we need is smarter (for the public) regulations as opposed to smart-assed (for the corporations) regulations.
People paid for "internet" service. Don't make them pay a second or third time in taxes to gangsters running a protection raquet.
It's not because of network congestion. The reason for data caps is to limit how much you can stream. But if there isn't a congestion issue, they why limit streaming?
.
Ta da . .
In order to charge money on the other end to streaming providers to be "Zero Rated".
Basically because they have a monopoly on the last mile and want to exploit it.
Whoever will pay the biggest amount to "partner" with the ISP for Zero Rating will get all of their streaming through without trouble.
If data caps went away, then Zero Rating would simply not exist. Netflix is right to pick this particular battle rather than go after zero rating.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
I don't get why I see posts of people here saying that they don't have an issue with an artificial limitation placed on their internet usage.
Any and every reason ISPs and mobile providers give to justify a Data cap is a complete lie. It's all a cash grab, and its to make you feel uncomfortable with using your internet, and data plans.
Even this guy explains it best too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyuIiG4c4Go
[Why Data Caps Suck: The Animated Examination]
Actually, a stream limit is the same thing as a bandwidth limit. Netflix is fine with bandwidth limits. It is not fine with data CAPS. There's a big difference. By analogy, if Netflix were doing the same thing, they would impose a limit on the total amount of Netflix you are allowed to stream in a given month. As long as you stay under the stream limit, you can watch every stream 24/7x30 per their rules...
If they define a "Cache" as less than 15 seconds, then you can only cache 15 seconds of a stream before you have to pay more for some other type of licensing. That's what they meant by "insist on new licensing terms".
I'd also like to know. There's a ton of new competition in the VPN space, and for those who value their privacy and security, it's been a tough market to shop in.
I currently use IPredator and they've been great so far, but they only have servers in Sweden so if I'm trying to get around a geoblock, I have no real way around it.
Really they should be pushing it as an anti-trust issue. The same companies implwmenting the caps have a vested interest in their own video platforms, be it cable or Internet based.
Now take the CEOs multi (m/b)illions out of the equation (that job can be done by a robot or script). What do the operating margins look like now?
Translation: Tel-cos shouldn't be earning money from sunk-cost assets. Strange Netflix, I make exactly the same claim for all your movies. You should be charging your customers for actor's/musician's royalties only.
I'm thinking the browser/viewer could encrypt the cache somehow and give you up to a few hours of delay (or whatever the content author allows). But with hacking cat/mouse games, sometimes that's easier said than done.
Table-ized A.I.
I went with PIA since they let me use a Walmart gift card to pay. No name or credit card tied to the account.
I'm fine with data caps, as long as they stop calling it "unlimited". Call it something like "1 GB plus" if you get one GB of data per month and then limp along at dialup speeds, for example.
I wonder if you could set up rules to do this locally via your router, limit bandwidth from Netflix until after the kids go to bed. (I'm sensitive to issue, thanks to my regional ISP and its 300 GB data cap.)
I own an ISP (WISP) that is virtually the only option outside of the two large incumbent carriers, Centrylink and Comast that residential users have. The other CLECs mainly, if not exclusively, sell commercial service. We have seen in the last 5 years demand for bandwidth increase nearly 500% mostly due to video streaming. The cost of the fiber and equipment has come down to be sure, but no where near 500%. So far we have been able to keep providing an essentially unlimited service. However if current trends continue, I'm not sure for how much longer.
Cable companies spend 10x more money upgrading their cable networks every 5-8 years than the cost of a fiber network that won't need to be upgraded for several decades. They're throwing money in the wind. Average cost to install 1Gb/1Gb fiber, $1.5k/house, cost to upgrade an existing cable network from DOCSIS 2.0 to DOCSIS 3.0, $10k/house. DOCSIS 3.1 will be more expensive for anywhere they plan to actually provide the "3.1" speeds, otherwise you're stuck with 3.0 speeds until they split nodes, which is hugely expensive.
That's not even including the ~20% industry average reduction in Op-ex costs going fiber, which is a lot of something that consumes 60% of your revenue.
So, Charter, a cable company, has an operating income around 10 percent, before interest. AT&T, a landline phone, and wireless phone company, has an operating income which bounces around from 10 to 20 percent. Those operating margins are good, but not 'hugely profitable'.
Thanks for the data. IIRC, the median net margin for public companies is in the 7% range. 10%-20% is relatively high. Walmart's 2-3% is wafer thin. Apple's 25% is virtually unmatched.
Way to difficult. Much easier to sell modem/router/firewalls with caching capability. Invisible to the user except the unit advises them when delivery is best delayed by making use of the onboard cache. What happens after that is what ever happens after that.
You could make them much more secure than current offerings and they would be far more resistant to attacks, receiving and as a result of that (bot nets) delivering.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?...
Ads rob speed, security (malvertising) & privacy (tracking).
Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively.
Works vs. caps & PUSH ads.
Avg. page = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of it.
Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity.
Compliments firewalls (blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load).
Gets data via 10 security sites.
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )
AT&T Uverse, as of May 2016, installed data caps on all internet service contracts. To return to a cap free internet service; AT&T Uverse requires you to purchase a television package whether you are interested in their cable TV service or not.
I can see no reason to purchase a cable TV package at all unless you are addicted to professional sports. Personally, I can think of nothing more irrelevant to my life than a bunch of burly guys in spandex Capris pants trying to insert what looks like a leather suppository into someone's end zone. (Ed Howdershelt quote there...)
NRRPT/RCT
When I turned my Uverse equipment in, the guy at the UPS store and I had a good laugh about the huge surge of AT&T equipment getting turned in. I was content with my 12Mb/s internet. It wasn't the fastest, but it was fine. Now I have 50Mb/s cable with a $4/month VPN service and things have been running great for a few months now.
Its costing me less, and I'm getting better service. I should actually be thanking AT&T for making me get off my ass and finally switch.
It's pretty bad when cellular service actually offers better service than landline. I know of at least 3 people (including myself) who completely ditched both dsl and cable because I can get faster, cheaper, and more reliable internet using a hotspot in my home.
If it waits to play until the entire video is "cached', then it's no longer truly streaming...
There's a point there where the content providers get itchy about how the content is being delivered... and insist on new licensing terms.
I was just going to say this
The only reason I haven't done the same is the cellular data caps. My pfSense firewall is already setup with a wifi dongle to tether off my phone in case of a cable outage. Speed tests often come back with higher rates on the LTE.