SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Jon Brodkin over at Ars Technica is reporting on a filing submitted to the FCC by Netflix last week asking thc FCC to "declare that home Internet data caps are unreasonable and that they limit customers' ability to watch online video."
From the article:
Netflix submitted a filing last week for the FCC's annual investigation of broadband deployment, a review that is mandated by Congress in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. Specifically, Congress requires the FCC to determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion and "take immediate action" to accelerate deployment if it's not happening to the commission's satisfaction.
The commission's assessment generally focuses on availability and speed, but Netflix wants the commission to add data caps to the mix. "Data caps (especially low data caps) and usage-based pricing ('UBP') discourage a consumer's consumption of broadband, and may impede the ability of some households to watch Internet television in a manner and amount that they would like," Netflix wrote. "For this reason, the Commission should hold that data caps on fixed-line networks and low data caps on mobile networks may unreasonably limit Internet television viewing and are inconsistent with Section 706."
[...] Netflix argued that a 300GB-per-month allotment "is required just to meet the Internet television needs of an average American," without accounting for other things consumers want to do on the Internet, like Web browsing and downloading games and applications. "The Commission should recognize that data caps and UBP on fixed line networks are an unnecessary constraint on advanced telecommunications capability," Netflix said.
Comcast, the nation's largest home Internet provider, recently raised its caps from 300GB to 1TB, making it easier for customers to watch online video instead of Comcast's own cable TV service. But consumers' data needs are increasing quickly enough that "today's 'above-average' Internet consumer is tomorrow's average Internet consumer," Netflix said.
Data caps also aren't necessary for network management, Netflix argued. The online video provider pointed to a government survey from 2014 in which ISPs told regulators that congestion wasn't a problem on their networks. ISPs have alternatively described data caps "as a way to align consumers' use of the network with what they pay," Netflix said.
So what say you, Soylentils? Do data caps discriminate against online video providers?
Do data caps negatively impact other types of Internet usage?
Is online video the bulk of the data you consume through your Internet connection?
Do you have a data cap? If so, what is it and how often do you exceed it? If you do exceed it, what steps does your ISP take in response?
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Monday September 12 2016, @09:48PM
What I don't get is why ISPs, CableCos etc don't do what electric, water, and even (historically) phone companies have done for decades: just charge for usage.
(OK, they're greedy bastards etc, I know....)
Eliminate all of the mess of favored and unfavored traffic types, streaming vs downloads, Netflix vs not Netflix, etc, and just charge for bits.
Guy who uses 1 MB in a day pays $1 x price per MB of data.
Guy who uses 1000 MB in a day pays $1 x price per MB of data x 1000.
If everyone just paid for bandwidth, without trying to determine what they were using it for, I suspect most people would be perfectly happy.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 12 2016, @10:01PM
Because bandwidth costs are a tiny component of total costs.
If your electric bill is $90 for overhead and $5 for electricity why even bother metering in the first place? Metering itself has a cost and is surprisingly hard to get right. Save money all around and just skip it. That's been working great for decades now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 12 2016, @10:18PM
All the weed growers want to know where you live :P
Seriously, what power company doesn't meter? I'm metered for everything! Except sewage, but I think that's rolled into the water bill, not sure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 12 2016, @10:38PM
> Seriously, what power company doesn't meter?
Seriously, what post did you read?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by gmrath on Monday September 12 2016, @10:55PM
The story goes that Thomas Edison made sure he invented (or at least perfected) the electric power meter before his company electrified anything beyond what was needed for testing and proof of concept so customers could be billed as he wanted not one electron to escape the billing process, he being the consummate entrepreneur and monopolist, er, capitalist. And indeed your sewage cost is rolled into the water bill since a municipality figures what comes out is roughly equal to what goes in plus a little for fixed costs for physical plant: maintenance of water lines and sewerage, et cetera.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 12 2016, @11:11PM
Sort of, friend. Here's the real deal:
--Dave Barry
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:49AM
Sewage is usually the same as the amount of water you use. The assumption is that all the water coming out of the tap goes down the drain. That is one reason why cities with foundation drains connected to the sewage system, instead of a sump pump or storm system, will often pay residents to disconnect them. It is also why many states require water utilities to allow customers to separately meter irrigation systems and other water that cannot be sewage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @07:38PM
All the weed growers want to know where you live :P
Seriously, what power company doesn't meter? I'm metered for everything! Except sewage, but I think that's rolled into the water bill, not sure.
I think it was just a mis-read. Re-read the original post: "If your electric bill is $90 for overhead and $5 for electricity why even bother metering in the first place?"
Notice the use of the subjunctive. The way to read that sentence is, "If there were a hypothetical electricity distribution system which were to charge $90 for overhead and $5 for electricity, much like how the cost structure of the internet is (I assume), then they would likewise not bother to meter."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 12 2016, @10:04PM
Yeah no there's too much hidden usage that I'm not directly responsible for and I don't want to pay overages just because some autoupdater decided to upgrade everything in the background yet again.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Monday September 12 2016, @10:20PM
Microsoft is made every W10 machine a P2P hub for updates just over a month ago... Lawyers are probably very busy crafting their class-action lawsuits.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 12 2016, @10:33PM
Right because Windows is the only thing that ever autoupdates, Linux distros never check for updates, major browsers never download new versions of themselves, ...
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday September 12 2016, @10:37PM
Kindly remind me the Window market share and Wupdate size?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:05AM
WTF kind of ate-up version of Linux are you running that automatically downloads and applies updates instead of simply notifying you they exist?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:41AM
Both Debian-based and Fedora-based distros have automatic updating built in. They can even be set to automatically reboot in case there is a kernel update or some other piece of software that is being updated. I believe Ubuntu even has "unattended upgrades" turned on by default, due to their target audience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:06AM
In my experience, that is a mostly-accurate statement. Everything checks for updates, however...
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday September 13 2016, @06:30AM
For Windows, Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer used to offer complete control: it would identify the needed patches, which came in the form of executables; one could download them and apply (run) them when one pleased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavlik_Technologies#Microsoft_Collaboration [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:41AM
If the price/MB were within magnitude of the marginal cost to the ISP for bringing you that extra megabyte of data, it wouldn't matter. The autoupdater would have to max out your connection 24/7 to make significant dent in your bill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @09:03AM
Because that's not where profits are. Marketing 101 is to sell people shit at price they are capable of paying instead of what it costs to produce plus a small markup.
This differentiation is often accomplished by adding layers of unnecessary complexity and pretending the service is of higher level than it really is. So, if you e.g. want to run a server, it's a different plan and costs what server-runners are willing to pay etc. Never mind any relation to traffic. However, at the same time the ISP doesn't really care about insignificant TOS violations as this is part of the 101 thingy above - if you care about whether whatever you are doing is explicitly allowed you probably can afford to pay for it as well while if you are willing to fly under the radar you probably can't.