Hulu for sale and it's future in doubt. Another blow to streaming?

[valnar]

Originally Posted by david1234

Except this isn't how the internet works. I pay my ISP for access to bandwidth. Netflix pays their ISP for access to bandwidth. The ISPs get together and agree to some sort of peering arrangement.

You pay for a burst of bandwidth at speed X, not a constant. Not everyone at the same time anyway.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by valnar

I don't know. Do you?

Comcast and Time Warner have posted higher earning in spite of losses in Cable TV subscriptions. I'd say they are doing just fine. Smaller ISPs are having issues, but mainly due to loosing their internet subscribers to the big guys.

Once all the smaller guys are out of the picture, wait for rates to increase even more. YAY! Can't wait until I'm paying $90 a month + $.50 per GB!! Darn it Netflix and Hulu, why did you offer a service that forced major ISPs into such an unprofitable position?!?

[valnar]

Our saving grace will be the cost of higher bandwidth technology will go down. 10GB and 40GB Ethernet module prices are going down for the big routers from Cisco, Juniper and Extreme and newer protocols can get 40GB over a single pair of fiber (used to require 4 pairs). As long as we can optimize the existing fiber runs around North America the costs shouldn't go up much. But if we have to run more fiber? Yah, that's a big increase.

On the plus side...hey! More jobs!

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by valnar

Our saving grace will be the cost of higher bandwidth technology will go down.

That assumes that price is directly related to the cost of equipment -- but it's not. It's related to perceived value, just like everything else we purchase. If you can increase the perceived value, you make ridiculous profits. Price fixing is one popular way to do this (just don't get caught), crushing your competition and building a monopoly so you exclusively control your channel is another.

Unless that cheap equipment breaks the monopoly other players have, you haven't made a dent in the perceived value. And in this case, the equipment you cite certainly increases the raw available bandwidth, but that doesn't mean the ISP will charge you less -- they'll just make larger profits, unless you can lower the perceived value of the service they are offering.

Yes. Supply and demand. But here "supply" is not the available bandwidth, rather available ISPs supplying that bandwidth at competitive prices. Something we lack in most areas. We have low supply (few ISPs), and high demand (many people wanting broadband) -- hence our high prices.

[wayner]

But if there is competition this cannot or will not happen. It is possible that there will be more competition for broadband - either legislated to allow 3rd parties access to "the last mile" or new technologies - reasonable 4G wireless pricing could become competition for broadband, at least at the lower end.

Other countries have this, particularly places like South Korea and Japan. Why not North America?

[david1234]

Originally Posted by wayner

But if there is competition this cannot or will not happen. It is possible that there will be more competition for broadband - either legislated to allow 3rd parties access to "the last mile" or new technologies

I have Fios now and it's nice, but we're in the part of Fios that Frontier bought

I miss the old DSL days when I could have a local ISP, with local tech support. Opening the last mile of the cable and fiber systems would make small ISPs competitive again.

[wayner]

We have some of this in Canada with competition from small companies - a opular one is called Teksavvy. The problem is that they are somewhat hobbled - the fastest speed that they offer via cable is 15/1 vs 50/2 from the cable co. But they have no bandwidth limits and are cheaper for comparable service.

But I don't know that you would get the "ma & pa" ISPs like we had 15 years ago.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by wayner

Why not North America?

See:

Originally Posted by wayner

Legislated to allow 3rd parties access to "the last mile"

And:

Originally Posted by brainbone

an apparent majority of my fellow taxpayers seem to have been duped by those spouting off that any additional regulation, or enforcement of existing regulation, is going to "kill jobs", and insist on voting these numb-skulls into office.

[sandor]

Originally Posted by valnar

Maybe then we can get back to quality oriented video instead of quantity.

from where? cable companies and satellite companies that are continually increasing compression, causing more artifacts?


i walk a line of balance and availability, with choice/availability being the higher priority. i will sacrifice quality to watch what i want, when i want. hence the reason i have sagetv - to be able to set my schedule, not have it dictated.

[sandor]

Originally Posted by valnar

We pay for electricity and water based on consumption. Why not bandwidth?

then we need the local/state/federal government to regulate pricing, just like they do for gas, water and electricity.

think ISPs will like to send out a bill for $0? my water, gas and elec company do it when i go a month without usage. the issue is that ISPs want to charge an "access fee" (there normal, non-nominal monthly charge) and consumption fees on top of it. thats where they lose me.

[david1234]

Originally Posted by wayner

But I don't know that you would get the "ma & pa" ISPs like we had 15 years ago.

They're still around in my area, although I think they're primary business these days is hosting web sites and email for small businesses.

I've still got an account where I pay a couple bucks a month to a local ISP (the one we used when we were on dial-up and later DSL) so that I don't have to change 2 email addresses that my wife and I have been using for the last 15 years. Plus, if Frontier implodes, I have a dial-up backup (although the modem hasn't been turned on in something like 10 years).

[Audacity]

I think that the bandwidth problem will go away over time because the ability to add new bandwidth (over wired internet, I'm not talking wireless here) will exceed the rate of new consumption from streaming video; primarily because of improved networking technology.

For example, my ISP has recently updated their plans and significantly raised the bandwidth caps and speeds. The local phone company (Telus) is working on laying fiber to the home so they can continue to compete. If any competitive market, if one player pulls the trigger on high performance networking to the home, the competition will follow along - especially if the cost of upgrading their gear is relatively inexpensive compared to the revenue generated by those subscribers.

Some people think that their internet performance and bandwidth allocation won't improve much over the next few years. I think they are wrong.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by valnar

You pay for a burst of bandwidth at speed X, not a constant. Not everyone at the same time anyway.

Nope. I pay for an unlimited internet connection each month limited to a certain amount of data per sec.

Somehow, my ISP, QWEST which is available in pretty much the most rural spread out part of the country, can afford to not have data caps, and provide (nearly) their max advertised bandwidth even during peak hours.

Originally Posted by valnar

We pay for electricity and water based on consumption. Why not bandwidth?

Because there's an actual marginal cost associated with electricity. The more electricity used the more coal/uranium/nat gas the power co has to purchase. That is not the case with internet. Once the lines, routers etc are in place there is virtually no marginal cost for an ISP on their own network. As far as sending internet traffic through networks backbone there is a small charge. I'd gladly pay double what they do, almost certainly under a penny a GB.

[clayfree]

Originally Posted by valnar

I love unlimited bandwidth as much as the next guy, but I don't understand the hostility towards providers that want to make sure their circuits don't get overloaded. We pay for electricity and water based on consumption. Why not bandwidth?

Like I said, I would love it unlimited too, but I can't understand how people call it unfair. It's not. If you knew anything about routers, switches and fiber, you'd understand it's not an arbitrary number they can just crank up on demand. There are real costs.

While paying for what you use is fair in principle I have to disagree with you. I don't think this has anything to do with bandwidth.

I have been saying for a year this cap business is not about abusers it is about protecting their core revenue stream. If they limit bandwidth they kill off Netflix & Hulu. Funny how bandwidth is not a concern if you are subscribed to their service. If AT&T is so concerned about bandwidth why are they shoving everyone to U-Verse? In fact my cable company offered me a discount on internet if I would subscribe to digital cable. No discount if I went with analog cable. That does not sound like someone concerned about data usage. They know those caps will only affect people trying to stream video.

[valnar]

Originally Posted by clayfree

While paying for what you use is fair in principle I have to disagree with you. I don't think this has anything to do with bandwidth.

I have been saying for a year this cap business is not about abusers it is about protecting their core revenue stream. If they limit bandwidth they kill off Netflix & Hulu. Funny how bandwidth is not a concern if you are subscribed to their service. If AT&T is so concerned about bandwidth why are they shoving everyone to U-Verse? In fact my cable company offered me a discount on internet if I would subscribe to digital cable. No discount if I went with analog cable. That does not sound like someone concerned about data usage. They know those caps will only affect people trying to stream video.

I think you are making the assumption that only Netflix and the like causes caps to be implemented. Before Netflix, some providers were already doing that because of bittorrent traffic.

None of the providers expected their users to consume 100% of their subscribed bandwidth for hours on end. If you think otherwise, you are wrong.

[Fuzzy]

My brother just moved into a new place, and he has a choice among 6 different broadband internet services (Free Municipal WiFi, AT&T DSL, AT&T UVerse, Verizon DSL, Verizon FiOS, Charter Cable). The options range from the free wifi provided by SmartRiverside.com, the cheapest paid DSL plan Plan at <$20/month, to FiOS's 150/35 plan for $200/month. The monopolies of the past, where the cable companies signed right of way agreements with municipalities restricting competition from offering to the same locations, are rapidly being struck down in courts. It will only be a matter of time before this level of options starts to spread, which will drive down costs due to the competition. They DID have a monopoly, and they HAVE been broken.. but something like this (utilities) that takes a decent amount of investment/time to spread, will take a while to recover. The spread also has to make business sense. If they dont' think they will be able to snatch up a decent amount of customers from the incumbent provider, it won't be worth trying. This is why FiOS's spread has slowed from initial estimates.

[david1234]

Originally Posted by valnar

I think you are making the assumption that only Netflix and the like causes caps to be implemented. Before Netflix, some providers were already doing that because of bittorrent traffic.

None of the providers expected their users to consume 100% of their subscribed bandwidth for hours on end. If you think otherwise, you are wrong.

Nobody's arguing that Netflix or bittorrent don't have the potential to use up bandwidth (although I believe that you overstate the impact). The complaint is how the "caps" are implemented.

The ISPs are creating an extra burden on an on-demand service like netflix, but exempt their own on-demand offerings from the cap, in order to make the ISP's offering more attractive. By forcing caps on their competitors, they can claim that they're service is "unlimited" while forcing artifical limits on Netflix. The ISPs services use the same bandwidth, and have exactly the same impact on the network. It's this that's just plainly unfair- a company isn't supposed to use one service (the physical wires) to harm competitors of their other services (on-demand video).

If a cap is necessary, then it should be applied to any service using the wire.

This wouldn't be a problem if the giant ISPs weren't also trying to provide content services. It creates a very unhealthy competitive market, where the caps are used as a barrier to entry for upstart companies. It's simply not a level playing field; a big ISP can squash a small company with "bandwidth caps" in order to keep people from unsubscribing to their own over-priced and massively profitable content. If ISPs had to really compete for customers for their bandwidth and services, you wouldn't see any of these caps.

[valnar]

Originally Posted by david1234

Nobody's arguing that Netflix or bittorrent don't have the potential to use up bandwidth (although I believe that you overstate the impact). The complaint is how the "caps" are implemented.

The ISPs are creating an extra burden on an on-demand service like netflix, but exempt their own on-demand offerings from the cap, in order to make the ISP's offering more attractive.

You're acting like that is unfair? It's not.

I think I made the point earlier that broadband providers don't play in a vacuum. It's different when, to use a phone term, they need to go "off net". When everything resides on their own network, there is no additional cost to them. When they hook up with Verizon, AT&T, XO, Level3 or all the other ISP's in the world, costs are different.

I manage my MPLS network at work. Any VoiP we use between offices is free*. If I need to hit the PSTN, that costs extra. Same thing with cellular carriers. Mobile-to-mobile on the same provider is generally free*. Verizon to AT&T uses up minutes. Are you arguing that someone from one cell carrier should be able to talk to somebody on another carrier ad nauseum? After all, the pipes are already bought and paid for, right?


[*free = already within monthly payment]

[clayfree]

Originally Posted by david1234

Nobody's arguing that Netflix or bittorrent don't have the potential to use up bandwidth (although I believe that you overstate the impact). The complaint is how the "caps" are implemented.

The ISPs are creating an extra burden on an on-demand service like netflix, but exempt their own on-demand offerings from the cap, in order to make the ISP's offering more attractive. By forcing caps on their competitors, they can claim that they're service is "unlimited" while forcing artifical limits on Netflix. The ISPs services use the same bandwidth, and have exactly the same impact on the network. It's this that's just plainly unfair- a company isn't supposed to use one service (the physical wires) to harm competitors of their other services (on-demand video).

If a cap is necessary, then it should be applied to any service using the wire.

This wouldn't be a problem if the giant ISPs weren't also trying to provide content services. It creates a very unhealthy competitive market, where the caps are used as a barrier to entry for upstart companies. It's simply not a level playing field; a big ISP can squash a small company with "bandwidth caps" in order to keep people from unsubscribing to their own over-priced and massively profitable content. If ISPs had to really compete for customers for their bandwidth and services, you wouldn't see any of these caps.

Exactly! Problem is that these companies have always had a monopoly and they do not like competition. They're all cut from the Ma Bell cloth.

There is a seismic shift taking place in the video market and they are all scrambling. The middlemen are in danger of being cut out.

Netflix killed Blockbuster
Apple wants to do with tv what they did to music
Google wants to do the same thing
Hulu wants an online network but then they get scared when people actually watch it.
AT&T, Time Warner, etc are in danger of just being a pipe when for years they have been skimming profit off of other peoples content.

Content providers are so finicky about making content available online, just look at Hulu's on again, off again relationship with just about everyone. Then they wonder why people bittorrent.

The content producers are in good shape, they make what everyone wants. They now have to walk a fine line between their original local affiliates, the cable/sat providers and now they have online providers knocking on their door everyday.

This whole ISP cap is just a trumped up reason to squeeze the up and comers. They complain about bandwidth now when they feel their cable business is threatened but look how fast they all jumped on VOIP so they could stick a knife in the telcos. Didn't hear a single word about bandwidth then.

They want to make it easier(less painful) to keep their crappy cable service, (shopping channel included with your base level ) rather than let you really take a look at what Apple, Google, Netflix and Hulu have to offer.

[david1234]

Originally Posted by clayfree

They want to make it easier(less painful) to keep their crappy cable service, (shopping channel included with your base level ) rather than let you really take a look at what Apple, Google, Netflix and Hulu have to offer.

I really don't see any reason for the Cable Co's or even for middle-men like Netflix/Hulu/Apple/Google anymore.

Imagine if we could get everyone to agree to an actual internet video standard, there's no reason that if I want to watch something on Discovery I couldn't go direct to the source and point my "TV Appliance" at shark-week.discovery.com. I want to watch a Packers game, same thing, point my box at video.packers.com.

There just isn't any technical reason for all the middle-men, when we can go anywhere online that we want.