Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions This is the beginning of the end of Net Neutrality if this is allowed to take place. Imagine if NBC and Comcast merge. What are the chances that you'll get decent throughput to other major networks' servers? Or worse, you'll have to pay a higher fee just to access those servers in spite of already paying through the nose for "high speed" internet service from Clowncast. Comcast is one of the worst companies on the planet. This is what happens when you allow telecommunications services to be regionally monopolized.
Well, at least now we have a confrontration, and your politicians can see what the free market at work means if you have only 3 companies left.
Coming soon to a cellphone near you... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905174.html
Well, the reason why they are doing this is the proliferation of bandwidth intensive websites and applications. It hogs bandwidth, and when my neighbor is downloading 150gig torrents, I can't check my email. They charge for a maximum bandwidth availability, sure...but they don't actually charge for how much bandwidth you use. Charging for actual bandwidth usage is probably the best way to allocate those resources.
if they charge for actual bandwidth usage, that would be the end of net neutrality, correct? So Comcast is charging based on if you use more, you pay more? (I'm sure someone is going to tell me, "no! it's more complex than that!", so go ahead, tell me.)
No, they aren't. It would be better if they just charged more if you use more, but they are choosing to charge for specific types of usage instead.
They do charge more if you use more though, at least based on throughput. A small pipe costs less per month than a larger one. If they want to charge customers based on total usage instead/also, they're welcome to try. But they'd lose 80% of their customers (where they don't have a monopoly) within the first year. But this selective filtering shit is right out. On that, I think everyone other than the ********faces at Comcast agrees...
I've never really understood the net neutrality stuff. Part of the issue was everyone (on the internet) that talked about it made it a political cause instead of actually discussing what the problem was. to print the whole thing out: When you travel down the road, you pay taxes in part to help maintain the road via when you fill your car with gasoline. How does the "information superhighway" ever get maintained? To provide a simple analogy, pretty much Level 3 is like FedEx delivering a package to a customer, they travel on the broadband networks' roads, but they never buy gasoline that helps cover the roads' costs unless Level 3 themselves are subscribing to Comcast. What's the difference between that and the NFL Network (or Versus or the Disney networks to provide other recent public negotiations) not being on a cable or satellite system because the cable or satellite system refuses to pay the carriage fee that the content provider is asking for? That more deals with the issue of there's no a la carte system in the U.S. for consumers buying the channels they want to buy, which content providers abhor and do not want, but it sounds similar here. That last paragraph makes me laugh out loud. Level 3, if you honestly believe that you're dumbasses, I take it you've never heard of the companies of Microsoft, Google, and Apple?
Not if they charged for bandwidth usage, no matter what sites you were connecting to. If they charged for bandwidth usage, but only if you were connecting to "non-preferred" sites, then that would be the end. Comcast is basically telling Level 3 if they want Comcast's customers to connect to sites hosted by Level 3, they'll have to pay a premium to Comcast. My own personal opinion is that I don't mind if ISPs charge for net bandwidth usage. If I use 2 gigabytes of bandwidth total, go ahead and charge me for that and let's be done with that. My issue is when ISPs (like Comcast) get into the business of charging more for connecting to some sites and less for others. For example, I have a big problem if Comcast decides that I can watch all the videos that I want at NBC.com or any other Comcast-affiliated website for free, but if I watch any videos at CNN.com, they'll let the meter run and charge me for that bandwidth. THAT'S the basic fear of net neutrality advocates like myself.
That's not what Level 3 said. They said "[Comcast] will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content". So a person is allowed to go to Level 3 websites. If they want to get a movie though is when it becomes the issue. Okay. Thanks for the explanation. What's the difference between that and Apple's 99-cents-a-song model (a price they came up with unilaterally to the chagrin of some people in the music industry who Apple told take it or leave it)?
I'm currently at 17 GB for November. (Yes, I'm a Comcast internet customer. Why? Because Qwest only offers 1.5 Mb/s in my neighborhood, that's why.)
I believe that's what I said. The difference is that Apple is providing content in a market in which there are countless providers, and they are agnostic as to how you choose to receive their content. To use the road analogy, they're the store that you visit by travelling the roads and highways. Comcast's position is a bit different. In most parts of the country, they currently only have one real competitor -- the local phone company's internet offering, and what they -- and the local phone companies -- are wanting the power to do is to charge you more money for visiting some sites as opposed to others. To use the road analogy, it's as if you had to pay a higher toll for going to the local green grocer as opposed to the Wal-Mart SuperCenter right next door.
Bingo. It's an anti-free market as it gets. And a company as evil as Comcast will be more than happy to exploit it. I've had nothing but hostile encounters with them and absolutely refuse to be their customer.
I try not to be a customer of Comcast, but sometimes it is inevitable. And that is the problem...net neutrality would be a non-starter if the market for internet services was competitive. It isn't. And it sucks.
like watching TV on the Internet. Comcast is using it's ISP monopoly business to kill TV over the Internet. TV over the Internet should be just an natural progression of how the Internet will evolve, but Comcast wants to keep everyone addicted to their $90/month cable bill for junk. If they have their way Internet innovations in the US will stagnate and die.
It's exactly the opposite. Comcast knows that the future of TV is over the Internet and they want you to watch your TV at THEIR websites. It's a big part of the reason why they're acquiring NBC Universal. They want more content providers and online content providers.
Well, at least their TV programming over the net will be in true HD as mopposed to that compressed shit they try to pass off as HD. By far the worst HD programming available on the market.
So, they want to add a toll for travelers on their road (already being paid by the place at the far end of the road) Once they add fees for high band use will they decrease my bill seeing as I only use 25G/month?
I hadn't ever thought about it before, but now that you mention it I think you are right. ComcastHD is complete and utter crap.