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.

7 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Push netflix to have adjustable resolution/quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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=

  2. Re:Push netflix to have adjustable resolution/qual by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

  3. Re:Channel saturation by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    You wouldn't be able to afford it if they did. A dedicated full-time 30/5 line to the border gateway would cost more than you want to pay. A line that you share with 100 other people is much cheaper.

    The caps are not put in place by ISPs to make people pay for TV as the summary claims. (Why would an ISP that has no video services at all have caps if that were truly the reason? What is T-Mobile's TV service?) They're put in place to keep people who think they ought to have 100% fulltime use of a shared resource from keeping other users from getting what they are paying for.

  4. Re:no caps on internal or CDN traffic by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I kinda wish it was like the old days of dialup.
    You have two bills.
    1 for the Infrastructure (Telephone Line)
    1 for your ISP

    The problem now is they are both the same... I should be able to say choose from Cable/Satellite/Cell/Fiber Optic. Pay x per month for the infrastructure which has its fixed peak speeds.
    Then you choose your ISP, who pays so much for caps or no caps, IP Address... Email and any other feature you want and don't want.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  5. Re:They should give you what they sold you by knightghost · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bandwidth is following Moore's law - doubling per dollar every 2 years. Despite that, my 2 local options for internet have gone from 0 caps to 350gb to 300gb to now 250gb - while raising prices. If there was actual competition then they'd be doubling my cap for the same dollar every 2 years.

    Evil corporations.

  6. Re:Using government to advance one's business by mi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why must the organization that owns and maintains the physical wires also control the traffic that runs across the wire?

    It may not have to. But it will — because that's the nature of government.

    For example, AT&T "NSA closet" will seem quaint, once all traffic passes government-owned wires. Censoring content crossing government-owned equipment will also become much easier — seriously, would somebody, please, think of the children?! And, yeah, encryption is legal, but, if you use it on publicly-owned wires, the government must be able to decrypt it. And only government-approved (and registered) equipment can be thus connected too. Hasn't the sorry story of public roads taught you anything? Do you think, Internet-access license and uniquely-identifying IDs for your computer(s) will be far behind?

    And, of course, instead of violating Terms of Service, (ab)users will be violating lawsfeds are already seeking to "curb trolling", owning the last mile to every house will allow them to act on that urge.

    No, thanks.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  7. ISP perspective by pcjunky · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.