51–60 of 176 posts
I’m reminded of a comment I read a few days ago from someone that has their own small isp that said bandwidth was basically an inconsequential cost for them. Throttling like this is penny pinching of the highest order. How do we get the benefits of competition if every company is doing it?
Wired on the other hand has no excuse.
Wireless is a medium that is severely limited because of the laws of physics. I 100% support QoS. And by QoS I don't mean limiting video even if there's available bandwidth, I mean limiting it if other people are trying to use their connections reasonably.
Now, please explain why, in the case of contention, the user using video should get less than their fair share of the available capacity?
if I were legislating this I'd mandate transparency before I mandated neutrality -- maybe consumers would be willing to pay up or switch to a provider that provided neutrality for streaming. one way for government to provide usable markets is to mandate good information without setting standards. NFLX is over neutrality for home internet (not sure about mobile), they're in every server cage maybe neutrality is the wr…
If you have a monopoly or duopoly, transparency doesn't really help. Your only service provider transparently screwing you doesn't give you an option to switch ...
Wireless also does truly have true limits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live 3 miles from downtown Austin, which has numerous internet options (Google Fiber, Spectrum, AT&T, and Grande), but the options in my apartment complex are: * Spectrum (up to 400mbps) * AT&T (5mbps dsl) I technically do have some choice, but given that one of these is close to 100x faster than the other, and the pricing is fairly similar... I think wireless isps and 5g are our best chance at disrupting this.
I used to live 8 miles from Madison, WI (technically, one exit south of their beltline interchange on I-90). My ONLY two choices were 2mb WISP for $65/month, or 4g hotspot, and all of them were VERY expensive for over 15GB a month. (I used about 20GB per month on the 2mb wisp because I had little kids who loved netflix cartoons, faster speed would also cause higher quality video) There was NO cable or dsl. ATT always…
Another option that might not have been available at the time would be taking the Netflix device to a different connection (work, the library, whatever) and then pre-downloading a bunch of the cartoons for offline viewing.
Congestion is a real thing for LTE networks, so you have to throttle. There's only so much bandwidth over a shared medium.
Congestion is a real thing. Mobile subscribers are now using significantly more data due to video streaming, and wireless carriers aren't expanding their capacity fast enough. 5G won't help for most of CONUS. Millimeter wave 5G, which will help, will only be deployed in urban areas. Mid-band and low-band 5G will only increase spectrum efficiency around 20%.
For now, carriers are throttling videos and introducing various deprioritization options. All the major carriers only offer plans with forced traffic deprioritization. For some plans, all traffic is deprioritized. For others, deprioritization happens after a threshold.
There isn't enough bandwidth in the US to support 240 million subscribers streaming Netflix 24/7.
I am going to say the obvious here but sometimes the obvious needs to be said. This is why we need net neutrality!
This is where net neutrality fails. I'm all for not letting vertically integrated carriers give their own services an unfair advantage, but if throttling a high-bandwidth user to improve the service of nearby users? I'm more ok with that.
This is throttling by content, not by user.
All video content gets throttled so that the html5 video player negotiates a lower video resolution. t-mobile literally touts this as a feature.
Net neutrality is the belief that isps should only be allowed to throttle by user, never by content, all data should be equal.
It's not just an issue of policy, but one of transparency too.
It's a fact of life that more people will want to consume data than a network can support. So where are we going to make the cut? Diminish everyone's usage proportionally? Provide a guaranteed minimum? A minimum per minute, per hour, or per day? Prioritize traffic based on type? Implement caps? Allow people to pay for more speed, higher caps, or both?
Some of these will be better or worse for different users. But since people often have little or no choice over which carrier or ISP they use and switching can be expensive, this is exactly where it makes sense for policy to be made democratically, as with utilities. And publicized.
When I pay for a carrier, I want to know what I should be able to count on, and what I can't count on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It surprises me that most people in the US wouldn't have at least one cable and one DSL option. After all, cable TV is available most places, and everyone has a phone line (or is at least wired for one). Or is the issue rural locations which were never wired for cable because they all just got satellite dishes?
I live in a large US city and have one cable provider as my only viable high speed option. The dsl provider which I would have preferred hasn't upgraded the last 50 meters of lines going to my house, and said they had no plans to. The top speed they could offer me was 3Mbps. EDIT: In comparison, the same dsl provider on streets that have had their lines upgraded offers 100Mbps plans for about $30 less per month than…
I guess the main risk is that doing this might wake up the provider who would then finish their rollout to get those customers back, and undercut you on price. So it would need to be quick and easy to grab your box and move it to some other neighbourhood in that scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people do not have another reasonable option to switch to.
It surprises me that most people in the US wouldn't have at least one cable and one DSL option. After all, cable TV is available most places, and everyone has a phone line (or is at least wired for one). Or is the issue rural locations which were never wired for cable because they all just got satellite dishes?
Congestion is a real thing for LTE networks, so you have to throttle. There's only so much bandwidth over a shared medium.
Not at all. TCP already does its own rate limiting without external throttling.