Then time warner needs better peering agreements. Net neutrality will do nothing to fix their crappy network. You should switch to DSL.

They already have control of content. Go watch the latest season of game of thrones on netflix. Oh wait you can't. And not because of net neutrality.

And I got a starter for my 911 from napa.

slackjaw, is your argument "because they already have some control we might as well give them more control" ?
I CAN watch Game of Thrones on HBO GO -- at least until Time Warner decides otherwise.

Re: starter, I stand corrected. I'm surprised Wayne allows that.

Re: peering, companies like Netflix are pushing for Net Neutrality to address that. But again, "there are already some situations where business interests run counter to consumer interests" is not an argument for allowing more situations.

My argument is that everything the net neutrality people claim will happen is false. ISPs want to give you a good experience and things like voip require lower latency than things like torrents. Nobody is going to shut off your netflix or charge extra for access to YouTube. If they do end up throttling something it will be so small you won't even notice it. Reasonable network management is what the ISPs want to do.


Netflix used to use cogent for ip transit. No wonder. Cogent gets peering agreements pulled all the time because they suck. Here is an article that explains it.

The Comcast-Netflix Deal: Fact vs. Fiction

Cable companies want to make as much money as possible, like every other company. When that's in line with "giving me a good experience" sure, I agree. But every cable company horror story (like the one that started this thread) suggests more often than not, it ain't. The hundreds of millions they've spent lobbying the government to pass legislation the public previously rejected, or block legislation they've supported, suggests it ain't.

If this will actually benefit consumers, why are companies like Amazon, Google and Netflix against it?
If it will improve the VOIP experience, why Skype is against it?

None of those companies have any actual network infrastructure. Of course they are for it. They can pay someone like cogent dirt cheap ip transit and the ones that actually built infrastructure have no choice but to allow it. People never blame amazon, they blame their ISP.

Lets forget peering agreements and focus on one example: take Time Warner Cable and Skype.

Time Warner wants to give Skype/VOIP traffic priority, to improve the Skype service for its end users, so they're lobbying against Net Neutrality. But Skype doesn't want improved service, so they're lobbying for Net Neutrality.

Do I have that right?

Skype wants a cheaper pipe. Skype probably doesn't care about it since nobody blames them anyways.

For the most part traffic is currently treated neutrally.
Net Neutrality aims to codify what is (again, peering aside) current practice,
so more precisely, rather than making the pipe cheaper it'll prevent it from getting more expensive.

As I Skype user, I don't want those increased costs passed on to me. Why shouldn't I (and anyone who uses internet services like Netflix, Amazon, etc.) be for net neutrality?

Seems like Google has figured out how much it costs to put fiber in the ground to let anarchy rule on their pipes probably isn't a good idea. Did they flip flop on Net Neutrality?

Now That It’s in the Broadband Game, Google Flip-Flops on Network Neutrality | Threat Level | WIRED

I think their position is "evolving". Looks like they figured out an agnostic attitude towards what's in their pipes probably will cut into their youtube, google online shopping, google centric traffic...

It's more about stopping outfits like cogent being able to offer dirt cheap transit and then just handing off all their traffic to those with infrastructure. But whatever dude. I'm sure it will end up passing. It's going to slow down broadband buildout. Whatever, I give up. No longer care.

That headline's pretty misleading.

The language does seem overly broad but equal treatment of traffic (net neutrality) has little to do with restricting certain types of upstream usage. Every residential ISP service I've purchased has similar TOS.

That's not true. Even in the article it gives a link to the FCC web page. It is not misleading at all.

"Moreover, the net neutrality rules (.pdf)regarding devices are plain and simple: ”Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.”

Direct TV is here now installing equipment. We were going to keep Comcast for our internet but wifey cancelled that as well and went with AT+T.

Bite me Comcast!!SmileWavy

Internet should be considered a utility. It is.

mods spam mods spam mods spam

Still haven't gotten my refund. Every time I call, I am told that a check will be issued. Any ideas on things I can do to force Comcast's hand?

If it won't cost you much, file a suit in your local small claims court.

I'm considering that.

In socialist republic of Sweden, we were recently offered a fiber-to-house installation (with 1Gbit media converter) for 2000$. When fiber is installed, we are free to pick the provider. Thus local fiber is one-time expense and owned by municipality. You then pick the provider you fancy. We call this "city network".

I can chose between seven providers. All offer at least 100/10Mbit, some offer 1Gbit symmetric.

100/10M bit connection costs roughly 30$ month. 1Gbit is around 100$ a month. This way, you are free to pick any provider you want (provided they peer with "local fiber") and if you don't like their throttling, you just switch. The fibre network is 1Gbit-to-home, then throttled down to what you pay for.

I'm somewhat miffed that you have expensive monopole situation regarding broadband connections in USofA. Personally I see it as utility, just as water/electricity/sewage system etc.

Our utilities are monopolies as well... just regulated monopolies that have to get approval for rate changes.

While it's easy to get riled up about the statistically slower average household speeds and higher costs we see in the US, ISPs also have higher costs here. As mentioned, fiber is about $20/foot - our wide open spaces mean we have to cover a lot of feet.

Not that I'm crying for Comcast or Time Warner - they are wildly profitable. Nothing wrong with that. (I just have a hard time believing they haven't broken any antitrust laws to get where they are, given the apparent monopolies in every major market.)

Oh oh, you just ordered up the #1 company for the worst customer service in Americs.Good luck

Does your state have a Board/office for Public Utilities? In NJ, file a complaint with BPU, and they have to answer....

Go back to school. The Supreme Court doesn't make laws and they don't take donations. Congress does. And Congress is composed of greedy members from both parties not just one. But if you want to look it up you will find that Comcast gives a lot more money to Democrats than they do to Republicans. Opensecrets.org. It's all there- check and see how much your representative took.

I think the problem here is that provider owns the lines going to home, which makes it "natural monopoly" and can charge whatever they want.

Here in socialist paradise, the state usually pitches in in order to even out the field (thus, fibre roll out to "hard to reach" places is subsidized and "last mile" fibre rings are usually owned by municipality). That way, the ISP cannot corner the market by owning the last mile and locking you in. They are free to compete for customer in virtue of speed/content/price etc.

This way, average hose owner can choose between seven ISP's on fibre (if fibre is installed), four over ADSL and probably three-four over 4G wireless, depending on location.

the party line is: "good internet speed/connectivity/penetration is good for country as whole", and I actually agree...

Around here, some states/municipalities allow multiple companies to lay cable, and some do not. The ones that do not are largely bought off by the cable companies.

Eff Comcast
 

It makes me lol to hear of people paying so much for this. Anyone remember in the 1980s when cable TV was a new technology? I do. Their biggest selling points were (1) more of the kind of (risqué) content people seemed to want that wouldn't be allowed on broadcast networks and (2) NO COMMERCIALS. It took these points (more boobies and innuendos and no commercials) to convince people that television was actually worth paying for.

Years later, the price is 4x what it was then, the content is worse and a third to half of the programming is commercials - many of which are self-promotional BS for the cable company (if their product is so wonderful, why do they constantly need to pitch it to people that are already subscribing, hmmm?) Any "good" shows are buried in tiers bundled with hundreds of channels of utterly unwatchable rubbish in order to milk every last dollar possible out of a public already being fleeced.

While I support the right of businesses to make a profit and the right of stupid consumers to be taken advantage of for their stupidity, I find it troubling that this whole industry was built on negotiating sweetheart deals with local municipalities (dedicated / monopoly rights - no competition in exchange for putting in cabling in a lot of places).

This is akin to the state taking a public road, paid for with public money, then putting a toll on it, raising the toll repeatedly while letting the road fall into disrepair and become clogged with traffic to the point it's worse than alternates (Massachusetts Turnpike anyone?)

The infrastructure has long paid for itself. There should be competition between companies in the same way people are able to pick providers for long-distance land line telephone providers. If so, providers would actually have to compete for business on the basis of content and it might actually get a little better.

In the meantime I'll keep my internet-based on-demand occasional viewing through my Apple TV box or laptop and snicker at those who shell out mightily month after month for such horrendous "service" by companies like comcast, time warner, cox and all the rest of the scheisters.

If I could get my wife to do it, we would drop DirectTV like a red hot rock.

My ISP throttles the hell out of my netflix, sometimes it straight up does not work. I have had increasing problems trying to do electronic medical records at home, to the point that it just does not work as a practical matter.

Had Surewest, which was great, screaming fast fiber optic connection. They got bought out by Consolidated Communications and now it sucks sweaty donkey balls. Going to tell them to pound sand pretty quick here. They are going to lose the home and office business. They really stick it to you on telecommunication/internet for business.

How is it they tell me it is 18 mps, and the best speed I can get out of it is 5 mps, with the router telling me it is connected at 54 mps? The guy from the ISP just told me it must be the router, but the speed never changes whether I am plugging the computer directly into the line coming out of the wall or using the router, or it did not the last 10 times I checked. I am thinking the guy is just FOS and they need to go pound sand.

As much as I hate all of them I have to say Verizon FIOS is the best product out there. I have a 50/25 connection that they just upgraded us to 50/50 for free. Just sent me an email, "yo, have this, on us". I'll take it.

The problem with Netflix is not all on the cable provider end.

Part of Netflix and their whole net neutrality stance really comes down to one thing, Netflix are cheap ****ers.

As much as I hate last mile providers because they all suck the reality Netflix does abuse cable providers and they have a legitimate beef with NF.

Everyone has multiple pipes coming into their network. Companies like google, apple, amazon, microsoft, hulu, etc... all split their traffic so it does not all come through the same pipe. Netflix shoves it all through the one pipe.

Other companies place their hardware inside the cable providers network to handle the traffic they send. Netflix shoves it all through the cable providers hardware, they don't provide any infrastructure to a) take the load off the cable provider and b) more importantly, ensure their customers have a positive experience.

In a nutshell, your problem with Netflix is more likely NF themselves, not your provider.

You have to be careful about what is being reported by devices.

54 mbs is wireless g. What you are seeing is the theoretical speed of the protocol and not necessarily the actual line throughput.

Don't forget the speed you are provisioned for on your end is only half the equation. The other half is where you are connecting to. Meaning you won't get more than they can give.

All that being said cable providers suck and you probably are not being given what you are paying for and they don't care because they have no competition in your area.

+100. Had FIOS for years, never went down unless you count the time "I" accidentally severed the fiber optics line with my shovel, great speed, great lineup, good price.

I just moved and all I have now is...Comcast or nothing. Argh !! 1/2 the lineup, slower internet, and....80% more expensive. And it goes down 3x a day for a few seconds, both TV and internet. Their modem comes with one ethernet port only, and tries to prevent you from plugging a wireless router behind it (you have to clone the Mac)... If anything can convince you monopolies are bad, this is it. Not sure how long I'm gonna stick with them, I think I owe them a kidney if I cancel.

Interesting.

US cable giants calls on FCC to block cities' expansion of high-speed internet | Business | theguardian.com

How do you block a local or state government from creating public infrastructure?

"Free market" for products that are essentially natural monopolies will not end up well. Imagine GM owning a stretch of road to your house and only allowing you to drive F150, priced 40000$.

Finally got a check in the mail today. It seems that the threat of a lawsuit (that I fully intended to follow through on) finally got them motivated to do the right thing. I still will never do business with Comcast again.