Correct. On a per household level (streaming, patches, steam game downloads) we're not talking a huge allotment.
And one also needs to ask if ISPs will grow those caps alongside usage, or if they'll squeeze to make more profit from more people. As companies that need improved quarterly earnings bumps, I think the answer to that should be pretty obvious.
Brain fart, sorry. Was thinking "former Verizon regulatory lawyer" and wrote former commissioner instead. Or maybe it's wishful thinking, since I think the guy's an absolute revolving door regulation embarrassment.
"With what Netflix did, isn't that they did it, it's that they allegedly did it without notifying the customers, or giving them a choice."
Yep! And you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody that disagrees with that.
The problem is with O'Rielly pointing that out, but insisting that a generation of anti-competitive behavior by incumbent telecom operators is some kind of mass hallucination.
With a few exceptions where their hand has been forced by muni or other operations (parts of North Carolina), they're primarily offering gigabit speeds to places where fiber was already in the ground and no real cost or work is involved. Read: housing developments, campus condos.
I think they'll probably hang on to these customers for a while, but by and large they're just cherry picking the places where there's minimal effort and expense involved.
They want the public to believe they're engaging in full city builds, they're just not.
Plus they're fighting to keep the rules alive in the courts, I imagine they're not keen to begin too many proceedings only to find the bedrock under their feet has turned to sand.
Re: Re: You are not helping yourself or your message
"One thing Karl always talks about is the benefit of developing a formal, businesslike sterility with the widest consumer appeal possible, at the expense of an active and involved reader community."
Sorry about that, quite honestly thought I'd plugged in a link. Added. It's the No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act tabled by Representative Adam Kinzinger:
The assault on net neutrality is however largely a GOP baby, though yes I've noted time and time again the fact this is even a partisan debate is idiotic.
Re: Re: 'Competition' means more than one viable choice
"Is that a truly honest play?"
Raising the definition of broadband from a pathetic 4 Mbps is dishonesty? I think it makes perfect sense, and it's not the FCC's fault that AT&T refuses to upgrade technology operating on roughly half of the company's network after receiving billions in subsidies to build and maintain it.
The biggest problem to me (aside from the fact this is an obvious and aggressive cash grab) remains how nobody in government gives two shits that companies like AT&T and Comcast, with an indisputable history of fraud, are metering usage with no objective third party confirming whether the meters are accurate.
Yeah we're still waiting to see how that shakes out.
The irony is ESPN's contracts with cable operators say that if ESPN creates a streaming option, that very provision in the contract restricting cable operators from taking ESPN out of the core tier evaporates.
So ESPN's stuck between a rock and a hard place: launch a streaming video option and invite more cord cutting but adapt, or fight adaptation to protect your legacy cash cow.
I think the former option is the only real path forward, but it will probably take ESPN another year to realize it.
I tend to agree. I tend toward balanced regulation and find the auto-anti-regulation position kind of a nnoying, but I agree that the government doing nothing here would probably result in the best possible outcome.
The course is set, and Internet video will have a profound and painful impact on the legacy TV cash cow. Makes more sense to keep an eye on the broadband front, where usage caps are going to be the real pain point as streaming truly starts to take off...
On the post: ISPs Now Charging Broadband Users A Steep Premium If They Want To Avoid Usage Caps
Re: Re: Re: Flimsy excuses
And one also needs to ask if ISPs will grow those caps alongside usage, or if they'll squeeze to make more profit from more people. As companies that need improved quarterly earnings bumps, I think the answer to that should be pretty obvious.
On the post: AT&T Tries To Claim That Charging Users More For Privacy Is A 'Discount'
Re: Re:
On the post: FCC Commissioner: Gov't Should Never Interfere In Private Markets...Unless ISPs Have A Chance To Mock Netflix
Re: Re:
On the post: FCC Commissioner: Gov't Should Never Interfere In Private Markets...Unless ISPs Have A Chance To Mock Netflix
Re:
On the post: FCC Commissioner: Gov't Should Never Interfere In Private Markets...Unless ISPs Have A Chance To Mock Netflix
Re: The problem...
Yep! And you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody that disagrees with that.
The problem is with O'Rielly pointing that out, but insisting that a generation of anti-competitive behavior by incumbent telecom operators is some kind of mass hallucination.
On the post: 5G Wireless Hype Overshadows Fact Nobody Actually Knows What 5G Is Yet
Re: Verizon's Magical Beans?
On the post: No, Virtual Reality Won't Make Us Fat, Stupid Slaves Of Mark Zuckerberg
Re:
On the post: No, Virtual Reality Won't Make Us Fat, Stupid Slaves Of Mark Zuckerberg
Re: Re: Meh. This is a revolution?
I'm not sure how this works, exactly.
On the post: AT&T Makes It Clear: It Bought DirecTV So It Doesn't Have To Upgrade Its Lagging Networks
Re: But AT&T is actively laying fiber now
I think they'll probably hang on to these customers for a while, but by and large they're just cherry picking the places where there's minimal effort and expense involved.
They want the public to believe they're engaging in full city builds, they're just not.
On the post: AT&T Makes It Clear: It Bought DirecTV So It Doesn't Have To Upgrade Its Lagging Networks
Re: AT&T's "New" Product
On the post: The Cable Industry Is Absolutely Terrified Of Set Top Box Competition
Re: Re:
The concerns about security, privacy, piracy and diversity are quite simply bullshit cover for captive revenue protection.
On the post: House Rushes To Gut FCC Authority To Prevent Inquiry Into Comcast Broadband Caps
Re: You are not helping yourself or your message
On the post: House Rushes To Gut FCC Authority To Prevent Inquiry Into Comcast Broadband Caps
Re:
On the post: House Rushes To Gut FCC Authority To Prevent Inquiry Into Comcast Broadband Caps
Re: Re: You are not helping yourself or your message
I do say this. ALL THE TIME. So true.
On the post: House Rushes To Gut FCC Authority To Prevent Inquiry Into Comcast Broadband Caps
Re: And who are the sponsors of the bill?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2666/text
The assault on net neutrality is however largely a GOP baby, though yes I've noted time and time again the fact this is even a partisan debate is idiotic.
On the post: AT&T Whines That FCC Report Highlights Broadband Coverage Gaps Company Helped Create
Re: Re: 'Competition' means more than one viable choice
Raising the definition of broadband from a pathetic 4 Mbps is dishonesty? I think it makes perfect sense, and it's not the FCC's fault that AT&T refuses to upgrade technology operating on roughly half of the company's network after receiving billions in subsidies to build and maintain it.
On the post: With Fixed Costs And Fat Margins, Comcast's Broadband Cap Justifications Are Total Bullshit
Re:
On the post: Canada Prepares To Force Cable Companies To Provide Cheaper, A La Carte TV
Re: here in the US
The irony is ESPN's contracts with cable operators say that if ESPN creates a streaming option, that very provision in the contract restricting cable operators from taking ESPN out of the core tier evaporates.
So ESPN's stuck between a rock and a hard place: launch a streaming video option and invite more cord cutting but adapt, or fight adaptation to protect your legacy cash cow.
I think the former option is the only real path forward, but it will probably take ESPN another year to realize it.
On the post: Canada Prepares To Force Cable Companies To Provide Cheaper, A La Carte TV
Re: Governments can just "wait" on this idea...
The course is set, and Internet video will have a profound and painful impact on the legacy TV cash cow. Makes more sense to keep an eye on the broadband front, where usage caps are going to be the real pain point as streaming truly starts to take off...
On the post: Canada Prepares To Force Cable Companies To Provide Cheaper, A La Carte TV
Re: ?? what is cable tv?
Next >>