Comcast Agrees to Buy Time Warner Cable

Why cant I replace my $120/month TV bill, my $50/month phone bill, and $80 internet bill with a $50 cable internet connection? You mean being one of the users that would not even exist if it weren't for oversell ratios and throttling? Or would you prefer to pay $10/meg (at a minimum, for wholesale and transport) for a dedicated pipe and use all you want?

Why cant more companies be like google? You are asking why more multi billion dollar non ISPs dont invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in FTH projects in single cities at a net loss to deliver niche speeds?


People bitching who know nothing of actually operating an ISP. Ask away if you want to know the answer to other dumb questions.

chaos_sl said:

Comcast is definitely throttling Netflix, and its infuriating

Fuck comcast

Click to expand...

My anecdotal evidence suggests they are doing nothing of the sort.

ISPs used to run a 100:1 oversell ratio. Now I can barely manage 4:1 due to streaming traffic. I would imagine you will actually see speeds go down over the next 5-10 years until infrastructure is completely replaced.

EDIT: For the record, I am a supporter of net neutrality. But people need to be realistic. If you want to have 100mbps for $50/month, you cant have 5 12mbps streams going 20 hours a day. And yes, people really do this. I think net neutrality will provide more realistic advertised speeds, but people are going to bitch about *only* getting 20mbps.

Crone_sl said:

You are right, I don't think that we should settle for it. And if all of a sudden I was getting Netflix in terrible quality, I'd be really upset over it as well knowing it wasn't at all the capability of the internet but ISP imposed restrictions.

That is where I would focus my rage, not really at the caps, because I feel the caps are pretty high, even if you are streaming stuff all the time? But then again, I have 250gb cap, which may be pretty high compared to most other people.

Click to expand...

Caps are all bullshit. 250gb might be fine now for some people, but it won't be in the future.

I spent 2 years with a 10gb/month cap because there was only one real ISP and if you wanted more than 10gb/month you had to sell your first born child or some shit. That's where the U.S. is heading.

McCheese_sl said:

Caps are all bullshit. 250gb might be fine now for some people, but it won't be in the future.

I spent 2 years with a 10gb/month cap because there was only one real ISP and if you wanted more than 10gb/month you had to sell your first born child or some shit. That's where the U.S. is heading.

Click to expand...

It's going to be caps, speed reductions, or throttling. Take your pick, but there will have to be one.

Remit_sl said:

Why cant I replace my $120/month TV bill, my $50/month phone bill, and $80 internet bill with a $50 cable internet connection? You mean being one of the users that would not even exist if it weren't for oversell ratios and throttling? Or would you prefer to pay $10/meg (at a minimum, for wholesale and transport) for a dedicated pipe and use all you want?

Why cant more companies be like google? You are asking why more multi billion dollar non ISPs dont invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in FTH projects in single cities at a net loss to deliver niche speeds?


People bitching who know nothing of actually operating an ISP. Ask away if you want to know the answer to other dumb questions.

Click to expand...

You think I give a fuck? Comcast can use their billions in profit they make off the back of a publicly subsidized infrastructure to dry the tears caused by the unfair treatment of corporations by customers in our country.

Comcast is specifically targetting their competition for throttling. That is exactly the kind of shit monopoly laws were designed to prevent. They have the bandwidth, they want you using it on NBC/Universal properties.

chaos_sl said:

You think I give a fuck? Comcast can use their billions in profit they make off the back of a publicly subsidized infrastructure to dry the tears caused by the unfair treatment of corporations by customers in our country.

Click to expand...

Move close to interconnect, pay $10,000 for a fiber drop to your house and $3/meg from hurricane. Sorry for your suffering.

EDIT: Oh and I forgot the probably $5,000/month in colo costs.

Bro I got rid of Comcast, thank christ. You should see how quickly my neighborhood dropped Comcast once Verizon moved in. Funny, somehow now I don't have caps and there is no (discernible, but who really knows...) traffic shaping going on, and yet the global economy didn't collapse.

Oh wait, you can, because Comcast is using your home router as a public wi-fi hotspot for their other customers and have a website showing them. Awesome.

chaos_sl said:

Bro I got rid of Comcast, thank christ. You should see how quickly my neighborhood dropped Comcast once Verizon moved in. Funny, somehow now I don't have caps and there is no (discernible, but who really knows...) traffic shaping going on, and yet the global economy didn't collapse.

Oh wait, you can, because Comcast is using your home router as a public wi-fi hotspot for their other customers and have a website showing them. Awesome.

Click to expand...

Buy a surfboard and your own router?

I dont think anyone really understands the impact on infrastructure or the costs involved with traffic increasing 20+x in a period of 3 years. I have 2 DS3s and pay $2675/month for them

And how is Verizon's FTH projects working out for them....

Yeah, I don't care about their troubles. You are trying to make me feel sorry for a multi-billion dollar industry that specifically gets infrastructure grants from taxpayer money to provide their service, and trying to convince me that it can't be done when it can and is being done. And not in some crazy overseas country (when did they start being technology leaders anyway?) and not by Google, but in my house, right now, today.

chaos_sl said:

Yeah, I don't care about their troubles. You are trying to make me feel sorry for a multi-billion dollar industry that specifically gets infrastructure grants from taxpayer money to provide their service, and trying to convince me that it can't be done when it can and is being done. And not in some crazy overseas country (when did they start being technology leaders anyway?) and not by Google, but in my house, right now, today.

Click to expand...

You do know that Verizon is one of the major supporters of the anti net neutrality movement right? Mainly because their 4g sectors are tanked in most areas, and that is even with the insane costs of $8/hour to watch netflix. Your area will be hit with one of the 3 (caps, throttles, or speed reductions) in the next 5 years. I would almost bet on it.

And, no other country in the world has better infrastructure over such a minimal density than the US.

I don't care what you feel. I'm explaining why.

Your why really doesn't hold water, though. You are saying "they can't" without context, ignoring the money they take and the money they are making, and ignoring the real reason behind Comcast's particular case of throttling. Sure, it would cost me a lot of money to open my own ISP. YOU GOT ME! But that isn't even remotely comparable to the resources they have.

chaos_sl said:

Your why really doesn't hold water, though. You are saying "they can't" without context, ignoring the money they take and the money they are making, and ignoring the real reason behind Comcast's particular case of throttling. Sure, it would cost me a lot of money to open my own ISP. YOU GOT ME! But that isn't even remotely comparable to the resources they have.

Click to expand...

So your assumption of Comcast throttling Netflix (no real proof), AND a merger might happen (hasn't yet, but I bet it will), AND net neutrality being repealed (hasnt happened yet), on the basis that 2 years from now they MIGHT throttle Netflix but NOT their own streaming service (which they can cache locally, rather than paying gobs of money to Netflix to cache at the interconnect and then backhaul it all the way to you) holds more?

You dont understand what it takes to be an ISP. Fuck yeah comcast makes fat stacks. However, they are just trying to handle the increased load until they can get infrastructure replaced (time and money)

One guy does a test and multiple people confirm that,idk, I'm not waiting for Comcast to release a press statement about how hard they are fucking their customers.

Again, I don't have to understand what it takes to be an ISP. I have my own job, one that I don't have the liberty of just assuming anyone who criticizes the way me or my company do business just doesn't get it. I imagine 100 years ago very similar conversations to this happening irt the telephone system.

chaos_sl said:

One guy does a test and multiple people confirm that,idk, I'm not waiting for Comcast to release a press statement about how hard they are fucking their customers.

Again, I don't have to understand what it takes to be an ISP. I have my own job, one that I don't have the liberty of just assuming anyone who criticizes the way me or my company do business just doesn't get it. I imagine 100 years ago very similar conversations to this happening irt the telephone system.

Click to expand...

They probably are as it would save millions in bandwidth and transport costs vs legal fees. And, they probably wont upgrade shit and just run it into the ground and bleed it dry.

However, until customers get realistic expectations about throughput (which is probably to blame on the cable companies again for advertising insane unsustainable speeds), everyone is going to be unhappy. Would you even glance at a competitor if they were offering 10Mbps uncapped, unthrottled for $50/month? Sooner or later, the consumer will have to pay about half wholesale/transport vs the 20:1 they are used to.

Remit_sl said:

ISPs used to run a 100:1 oversell ratio. Now I can barely manage 4:1 due to streaming traffic. I would imagine you will actually see speeds go down over the next 5-10 years until infrastructure is completely replaced.

EDIT: For the record, I am a supporter of net neutrality. But people need to be realistic. If you want to have 100mbps for $50/month, you cant have 5 12mbps streams going 20 hours a day. And yes, people really do this. I think net neutrality will provide more realistic advertised speeds, but people are going to bitch about *only* getting 20mbps.

Click to expand...

Funny how in Canada, where ISP's were opened to competition, companies offered no caps at cheaper prices. Competition does that. Not the shit we have now with monopolies and duopolies in most areas.
HissyFitWatch: Canadian Telecom Companies Annoyed Consumers Getting The Upper Hand | Stop the Cap!

Or in other countries, where people get faster service at cheaper prices
British Supermarket Chain Tesco to Provide Unlimited Fiber Broadband for $12.50 a Month | Stop the Cap!

80% of Qatar Has Fiber Optic Broadband; Fastest Nationwide Rollout of Fiber in the World | Stop the Cap!

Comcast and other ISP's are putting bandwidth caps in place simply to stifle competition and protect their video service profits. There is a reason why Comcasts own streaming services don't count against your monthly allowance.

Remit_sl said:

EDIT: For the record, I am a supporter of net neutrality. But people need to be realistic. If you want to have 100mbps for $50/month, you cant have 5 12mbps streams going 20 hours a day. And yes, people really do this. I think net neutrality will provide more realistic advertised speeds, but people are going to bitch about *only* getting 20mbps.

Click to expand...

Here I do agree with you. But I don't think anyone is paying 50 bucks a month for 100 Mbps, or expecting no less than a 3 TB cap. I pay 90 just for internet and I "get" 50, but you know the reality of that, I don't actually get 50. But all in all I am satisfied with what I have, for now. If Verizon were to suddenly start throttling Netflix or anything really I would be one of the first to my pitchfork.

But also I am with Arative. We need something big to happen in this country to force competition. What we have now is not competition. It isn't even choice.

chaos_sl said:

But also I am with Arative. We need something big to happen in this country to force competition. What we have now is not competition. It isn't even choice.

Click to expand...

I am with you here as well, although every other item Arative posted I already touched on. Competition is always good. The problem is that customers don't "vote with their wallets" like they think they do. The cost of infrastructure for cable, FTTH, or even DSL are far too high of a barrier to entry. The only realistic solution is WISPs (which is what I am), and then you have all the interference issues with unlicensed last mile gear.

Where I operate, there are 5! (yes 5) ISPs serving a town of 800 houses. All of my competitors advertise speeds nearly 3 times what I do for the same price. It took 3 years, but now I have more customers than I could ever want. However, this ONLY works in a small town. If I was sending out fliers for 1.5Mbps they would end up in the trash with other junk mail.

Remit_sl said:

However, they are just trying to handle the increased load until they can get infrastructure replaced (time and money)

Click to expand...

Don't know what fucking universe you live in.

I live in a suburb of DC with thousands upon thousands of homes that had no choice but Comcast basically ever since broadband was a thing. I moved out here and put up with their shit (remember back when they "weren't" traffic shaping and torrents "weren't" being throttled?) for about 2 years before Verizon finally rolled out. And I talked to a guy working the orders, he said the response from the community was overwhelming. People were starved for change. Comcast rolled out a bunch of changes right after that to try and lure back customers but I don't think it had much effect.