'Cord Cheating' Common among US Subscription Streamers

[Huey]

What did the ISPs do, specifically?

Throttling their internet service maybe? Which brings up a point, we start talking about how unfair it is to share something like our Netflix accounts, but weren't they kind of doing the something similar when they were throttling the heavy users of their dvd/bluray rentals? There was never anything in the fine print when they were doing that, that said you were limited on your rentals.

 

[Flint]

What did the ISPs do, specifically?

Throttling their internet service maybe? Which brings up a point, we start talking about how unfair it is to share something like our Netflix accounts, but weren't they kind of doing the something similar when they were throttling the heavy users of their dvd/bluray rentals? There was never anything in the fine print when they were doing that, that said you were limited on your rentals.

There has never been any evidence of internet throttling by traditional ISPs ever.

There was a moment where that claim was made, but an SEC investigation proved it never happened and the cause of the slower performance was a network overload and ALL traffic slowed, not a specific type of traffic.

This is what I am talking about, there is this impression that horrible things have been happening already requiring regulation, but nothing has ever been seen to show the ISPs are punishing one content provider over another.

 

[Haywood]

What did the ISPs do, specifically?

Throttling their internet service maybe? Which brings up a point, we start talking about how unfair it is to share something like our Netflix accounts, but weren't they kind of doing the something similar when they were throttling the heavy users of their dvd/bluray rentals? There was never anything in the fine print when they were doing that, that said you were limited on your rentals.

There has never been any evidence of internet throttling by traditional ISPs ever.

There was a moment where that claim was made, but an SEC investigation proved it never happened and the cause of the slower performance was a network overload and ALL traffic slowed, not a specific type of traffic.

This is what I am talking about, there is this impression that horrible things have been happening already requiring regulation, but nothing has ever been seen to show the ISPs are punishing one content provider over another.

Explain to me how I got vastly better Netflix performance running it over a VPN than I got running it directly. I was not the only one. Quite a few people did speed tests. Verizon was intentionally throttling Netflix to damage the user experience and thus extort money from Netflix.

Then there is the crap Comcast is trying to pull with greatly lowered bandwidth caps combined with huge overage fees to discourage people from streaming.

Internet is a near-monopoly utility and should be regulated like one.

 

[Flint]

Okay, I'll explain it. VPN is faster for Netflix not because of Verizon throttling the traffic on their network, but because of the pipe of the content getting into the Verizon network in your segment of the network. With thousands of users all pulling unique content from Netflix at the same time on your network segment, the bandwidth available to all of those streams is stressed. There are significantly fewer people using the same VPN as you to get Netflix content, so the bandwidth between netflix and your VPN host is much freer and thus the performance is better. This has been studied and the only real solution to that difference is for Netflix to pay a ton for more connection bandwidth into that portion of the Verizon network.

The Comcast thing is the result of their network not being capable of growing at a rate their users are growing their usage.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2155286/ ... years.html

I agree that Comcast should be looking at a more logical solution. One popular approach, and one which the new regulations is very likely to adopt, is the same data pricing we see today with LTE plans. In other words, they may change their ISP plans so that you buy "x" amount of bandwidth and "y" amount of data. So, you could pick a 50Gbps connection and 500GB of data per month. If you need more than 500GB of data, you must pay for overages or get a higher priced plan which comes with more data per month. The concept of unlimited data may end at some point in the future, and the regulators are already thinking about that future.

So, the solution could easily turn into the source of the next problem. The Devil you know...

 

[Haywood]

That is not unreasonable and I could live with that if the rates are fair. If the rates mysteriously reflect what I would have paid them for a triple play package, I hope the government bitch slaps them into next year.

 

[Flint]

That is not unreasonable and I could live with that if the rates are fair. If the rates mysteriously reflect what I would have paid them for a triple play package, I hope the government bitch slaps them into next year.

The prices will have to go up as the government is trying to find a way to fund the expansion of high-speed internet access to poor people and rural areas where there will never be any return on investment for building a high-speed access service for the ISPs to justify it. So, the feds will tax the services we get today to partially fund the program AND they will force the ISPs to expand into those areas and offer special services to poor people which will come out of the bottom line and add to the cost of doing business. This topic is already being debated today. Ultimately the money will come from all of us through higher internet service prices. But the service providers learned long ago they cannot just up your costs, so they create new plans which some enticing new feature or capability and price them in a way which earns them more money to cover those other costs, then they start canceling the old services so that when your contract is up you don't have an option to renew - instead you have to choose from one of the new services.

Also, it is extremely expensive to build out faster and faster networks with more and more services, so someone has to pay for that.

Finally, the ISPs (carriers and service providers) are now going to have to hire a very large number of CPAs and Lawyers to ensure they are in compliance with the new regulations which will increase the cost of doing business (because those positions pay pretty well if you want talented people in them) and that cost will have to passed along to us.

The one solid thing regulation gets us is the ability to participate in the process of how ISPs change their service offerings. I just fear we will, as a whole, start reacting without thinking of the consequences when some edge case dumb problem occurs and constantly be writing new and complex regulations which over the years turn the code book all ISPs must follow into a 5,000 page jumble of contradicting policies which will be impossible to comply to fully.

 

[MatthewB]

I still feel no guilt. Take Vudu for example. On their disc to digital program it states to get the digital rights to a movie one must insert a DVD or bluray into a computer drive to prove ownership. Nowhere in the contract (yes I've read the whole thing) does it say you must prove that you purchased your disc, prove that you have ownership of said disc or that Vudu can require you must prove at any time you have this disc. It only states that' you must insert disc into computer drive to obtain the digital rights to that movie if recognized by the disc to digital system.

So I can load movies I have access to at the public library, family and friends and yes buy second hand discs and insert into my laptop convert to bluray quality and return without ever owning the actual copy. Nowhere in the disc to digital contract does it state you must prove ownership of movie only that the studio released disc must be recognized by the computer and Vudu for the rights to buy the digital copy. Now is this a crime? They created the rules and I found a way around those rules. Now they also state I can share my account with five family members who when they add a movie that I've never even touched once added I now also own the digital rights to that title.

As mentioned Hulu Plus states that you can have three simultaneous streams per account. If my sister gives me her account what difference does it make if I'm in the next room or 100 miles away the contract states that account owner can have three streams going. I also feel no guilt in the fact that my mother (she's the only one who has my Netflix account) as the same principle applies.

As per my post on paying for channels I never watch. If congress ever passes ala cart channels then I'll have no qualms with paying for the actual channels I actually do watch but I think it's robbery that I pay for channels I never watch. In fact Dish is the only one I'm aware of who is starting to think this way with their 20.00 a month sling service and allowing a certain amount of channels and not having to pay for a bunch of stuff you don't want. I only hope Directv follows suit and with cable cutters starting to make a difference now (Dish and Directv both reported a loss of 15% of subscribers in the past year due to people now streaming content and the writing is on the wall). Cable and Sat better take notice if they want to keep up or be left in the cold it's this mass exodus of subscribers that just shows people are getting pissed at having to pay for channels they don't watch.

 

[Flint]

Guilt is a useless emotion, I am very glad you feel know guilt.

Note that most cable and satellite companies are regulated by local city, county, or state governments. What you get from your cable company is sanctioned by the government.

 

[Botch]

It'd be interesting to read a history/summary/comparison of our current utilities (electricity, water, sewer), their governance, and the spread of internet access. :geek:

 

[MatthewB]

I'm just glad Flint brings up these topics that get excited discussions going. Sometimes it gets lackluster around her and then WHAMMO. Flint starts a thread that gets us going again.

 

[Flint]

I'm just glad Flint brings up these topics that get excited discussions going. Sometimes it gets lackluster around her and then WHAMMO. Flint starts a thread that gets us going again.

IGNORE THE SMALL MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!!

 

[Flint]

Take a look at the chart below for the speed of growth of various technologies/services:

Telephone: Highly regulated (until 1984)
Radio: Regulated
Television: Regulated until online on-demand services started a few years ago
Internet: Unregulated since Al Gore made it a free to the public in the 1980s
Facebook: Startup in an unregulated internet
Angry Birds: Startup in an unregulated internet

 

[Towen7]

Just playing devil's advocate here but that chart doesn't factor cost of deployment. Each of the products listed is more expensive and difficult to deploy than the next.

 

[Flint]

Ha! Of course. My point was one of how startups do just fine under the current system and the argument that the potential threat of fast lanes hurting startups is unfounded.

 

[Haywood]

I think the threat is cable companies accustomed to obscene profit margins on television packages are going to do everything in their power to maintain those margins even as people transition to buying their content elsewhere. In the absence of any real competition, they can pretty much do what they want unless they are regulated. One could legitimately point out that the regulatory environment as a whole has a lot to do with why there is no competition, but if you follow the lobbying efforts of the telecom and cable industries for the last several decades, you can only conclude that it is by design.