
Cable TV's plan to kill “over the top” internet streaming - steven
https://medium.com/backchannel/big-cable-s-sledgehammer-is-coming-down-2c6854e8bea9#.g30nbcv3y
======
ajmurmann
To me the obvious solution is to make it illegal for ISPs to get to get into a
conflict of interest. So they should only be allowed to sell Internet access
and not do anything else, especially not sell content. Given that they are
running some of our countries most important pieces of infrastructure I think
that's perfectly reasonable.

~~~
dangrossman
Let's say you pass that law. Comcast splits off Xfinity as a separate company
to sell just internet service, with low data caps. Comcast and Xfinity enter a
deal to exempt Comcast's streaming service from the caps in exchange for some
millions per year. Comcast gets some billions per year in subscriptions,
because Xfinity customers can binge on all the Comcast "Stream TV" they want.
New high-bandwidth services, like a young Netflix competitor, can't afford to
pay off the ISPs, so they never get to compete with the incumbents. The
situation is no better than if Comcast wasn't split up.

~~~
ulber
You've identified another target for regulation: ISPs should not be allowed to
exempt traffic from data caps. This is part of a larger concept called net
neutrality [1].

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality)

------
staunch
New FCC rule: Bandwidth may only be marketed as the true sustainable rate over
a month. So a 300 GB/mo plan can only be described as a 1 Megabit/s
connection.

DSL will start looking good.

~~~
Rangi42
That's not a practical metric, though. I'm on a campus with a 100Mbit/s
connection, I frequently download large files (media _and_ Linux ISOs), and
still don't go above 200-300 GB/month. The 100Mbit/s figure is useful for
informing me how fast a particular YouTube video will buffer, for example, but
by your proposed metric, sustained 100Mbit/s would have to be advertised as
30TB/month. "20 Mbit/s with a 300 GB/month cap" is more informative.

~~~
jrockway
I'd like to see the bandwidth measured from my computer to the wider Internet,
not from the ISP's speedtest server hosted before the traffic sees the
Internet.

At least on my ISP in New York, I can run a speedtest to the auto-selected
server and see 330Mbps, but switch to a speedtest server farther away
(requiring actual Internet transit), and see the rate drop to 10Mbps. So it's
all very impressive that I am paying for a 300Mbps connection to the ISP's
colo. But it would be better if I was paying for a 300Mbps connection to the
Internet.

(Having a speedtest server hosted by your ISP is a great debugging tool, so
I'm not asking them to stop doing that. It's great for figuring out if the
bottleneck is my local link layer (WiFi, broken switch?), my Internet
connection (broken router? squirrel chewing through a cable?), or simply the
ISP's peering choices.)

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Looking at these two comments, perhaps we may be reaching an agreement. There
are only a relatively few numbers that really matter, although there's tons of
complexity. Bandwidth should be a number giving sustained symmetrical
throughput over a month + burst capability + download cap, all using the same
units. All of those numbers should be 5+ hops away, and should be over a
backbone to a server owned by somebody else besides the ISP. In addition,
there would be some QoS to show that things like the burst number actually
exists for the user 5%+ or more of the time (or some different metric). Heck,
there could probably be a bunch more detail you'd add under there, but 3
numbers + access_to_wider net probably covers it.

So in the college example, they're getting (perhaps) .1/100/300

I think if we could just agree on a way to advertise it, we'd be ahead of the
game. Net access is becoming like buying PCs: full of jargon and product
differentiators meant more to confuse the buyer than assist them.

------
deftnerd
My wife and I are planning to move next year. It might sound nuts, but we've
scratched off a lot of potential places because of a lack of unlimited
internet connectivity.

Municipal fiber is very important to us and it's resulting in us focusing on
places we didn't consider before.

~~~
steven
It is not nuts at all. Over 20 years ago I bought a house in the Berkshires.
The town I am in has no broadband, and probably won't get it for years. If I
were buying a house now I would NEVER consider this place, which I otherwise
love. What's more, it might be impossible to sell.

~~~
bingaling
Is your town participating in this project?

[http://wiredwest.net/map-of-wired-west-towns/](http://wiredwest.net/map-of-
wired-west-towns/)

------
omgtehlion
In Russia a decade ago all the consumer internet was billed on usage. Like 40
kopecks per megabyte. Sometimes uplink was free and downlink was metered,
sometimes more crazy schemes.

Guess what killed it? Competition. If you allow cables to be slung on top of
rooftops / utility poles then soon you'll have a lot of cheap operators.

~~~
Wingman4l7
I was in Australia a few years ago and was flabbergasted that many ISPs were
still operating on a complicated set of caps and on-peak / off-peak rules. I
blamed the de-facto monopoly created when the copper got privatized and all
sold to a single company, Telstra.

~~~
Khaine
Telstra is the privatisation of the old government postmaster general (well
after the split from mail post). The government department owned the copper,
and telstra retained it as part of the privatisation.

As part of this agreement Telstra had to provide equal access to its network,
and had to charge the same price for all users, so that the cost of calls was
the same for people in regional areas (even though maintenance cost more).

Most of the issues relating to Austrlia's internet relate to the cost of
overseas transit of information. There are only a few cables between Australia
and the rest of the world, and that is the large driver of cost or at least it
was in the early 00s

~~~
chris_wot
Oh, the irony! Malcolm Turnbull _paid_ Telstra for the copper networks so that
the government could own them again. He did this so that nobody else could get
fibre to the home.

I feel a bit sorry for him. He was forced into this by Tony "Shirt-front"
Abbott, who knew nothing about technology (or how to run a country, for that
matter). Now he's stuck with it - a millstone around our new Prime Minister's
neck.

I guess the intense destabilization and white-anting now going on in the LNP
will distract from this.

~~~
wycx
Is there any evidence at all that he was forced into this? Are there anecdotes
of Malcolm arguing for an all-fibre NBN in the party room, only to be smacked
down and forced into MTM?

~~~
chris_wot
There aren't. I concede that I could be projecting what I want reality to be,
in this case.

------
cbhl
Usage-based-billing turned out to be not a complete disaster in Canada. ISPs
were no longer incentivized to use deep-packet-inspection to interrupt or
throttle connections. Regulations required incumbents to grant access to last-
mile networks to smaller ISPs to encourage competition. Users had more choice
-- plans differentiated on both speed and on bandwidth caps, so if you needed
a small amount of data in a month but you needed it quickly, you could still
save money by picking the right plan. ISPs were encouraged to build out their
networks more, since increased speed led to increased usage led to more
recurring income: if you wanted the fastest speeds now and could pay
$200/month for it, you got it; if you didn't, you could get Internet faster
than the average American "high speed" connection for something like
$30/month.

~~~
rasz_pl
>$30/month

thats what unlimited 250/20 cable costs in civilized world, goes to show how
"Usage-based-billing turned out to be not a complete disaster"

~~~
cbhl
You have to keep in mind that Canada has _terrible_ population density
compared to Europe/Asia. It's about the size of the US, but with 1/10th of the
population.

~~~
rasz_pl
oh, so you have good competition, low prices, high speeds and no data caps in
big dense cities, right?

------
SwellJoe
Every time I find myself thinking maybe the Internet Service Providers
(whether cable or mobile or DSL) are not evil monopolistic assholes doing
everything in their power to provide worse service for more profit, I simply
have to remember that the Internet was invented in the US, but we have among
the worst consumer internet service among developed nations. The US is ranked
14th or worse (depending on how you measure and who you believe, but we're not
in the top ten by any measure) in consumer broadband, in terms of speed and
cost. The US is also much worse than leading nations on mobile service cost
and quality. There is no scenario where the world leader in tech innovation
should trail more than a dozen other nations on the most important piece of
the tech puzzle, and yet we do.

This is the legacy of our telephone and cable monopolies. When monopolists
"compete", they do it by using every crooked trick in the book. The telcos and
cable companies have a significant number of politicians and regulators in
their pockets. All to keep services cheap to provide and expensive to buy.

And, we're losing ground. Things aren't getting better for consumers, despite
the new spectrum opening up; our government made huge amounts of low frequency
spectrum available to telcos (at a price, of course), on the assumption that
they'd use it to improve service and lower costs. No mobile provider offers
actually unlimited data anymore, at any price. I used to have _two_ unlimited
mobile data plans at $45 and $55. Now, I have two plans that cost more and are
capped at ridiculously small amounts of data. Land line providers have also
now imposed caps, and have, with increasing regularity, tried to sneak through
legislation allowing them to regulate the Internet to their own advantage.

Imagine a situation where a cable company can rate limit NetFlix to the point
of unwatchability...or maybe just enough so you can't get a nice clear HD
picture. Conveniently, cable company will be happy to sell you HBO, which
includes HBO Go, and they'll generously provide unlimited access to _that_
data. This isn't a paranoid theory, this is actually what the legislation
they've been pushing every year or so is all about.

And, it's been going on for longer than most people have been aware of the
Internet. My first company built web caching devices for independent ISPs,
back before the telcos and cable companies used their monopoly to utterly
destroy the independent ISP market in the US. They used illegal and anti-
competitive practices on a massive scale, but when you destroy your
competitors fast enough and thoroughly enough, they won't have the money to
wage a legal battle to stop it.

Not that I'm bitter or anything.

------
laurentoget
This is exactly why Google is developping Google Fiber, Facebook has some
crazy scheme involving building their own planes to provide bandwidth, and
they are both spending fortunes in lobbying.

------
peteretep
Worth pointing out that this is largely only an issue in countries without
proper competition. To get away with a low cap in a competitive market you
have to compete on price.

Unpopular opinion: I'd be happy to be capped at 10GB "fair usage" for a
substantially reduced fee. Otherwise I'm just subsidising much heavier users.

~~~
awqrre
I'd be ok with that if they would be required to charge a true fair cost...
but then 10GB would probably be basically free and cable companies would not
like that. They are only doing caps to increase profits, not because the
network is overloaded.

~~~
peteretep
Nobody should be required to charge a true fair cost. Competition should exist
that makes that the workable choice.

~~~
awqrre
That would be an even better solution (to stop forcing monopolies) but I'm not
sure which of the two would be more likely to happen.

------
ipsin
My concern is that the incentives are not aligned with ever-increasing
bandwidth. If my ISP can provide 100mbps and then milk that deployed
infrastructure with data usage caps, they'll do it, unless competition
appears.

The EPA mandates fuel economy standards for cars. Imagine if your ISP were
held to a similar, ratcheting standard.

"Imagine if your regulators were not held powerless by those they supposedly
regulate?"

Ok. It's hard for me to hold on to hope here.

------
Uhhrrr
The article strongly implies that widespread 300GB usage would not strain
providers' capacity. As a consumer, I would certainly like it to be true. Is
it?

~~~
fweespeech
Yes, for ground-based networks the capacity limitations are largely a question
of expanding capacity at interchanges rather than any kind of actual network
capacity.

If you are asking 'bout wireless....no, that isn't true.

For instance, TWC is quite profitable in my market with no cap and I've got a
100mbps in real-world usage most of the time.

------
fweespeech
> Why did this happen on the mobile wireless side? Because no one stood up and
> complained early enough in the game. And there’s no real competition to
> prompt better behavior.

Its also a technology question...until the past couple of years, the caps on
the mobile wireless side were needed because they simply didn't have the
capacity.

------
johncolanduoni
> But it’s not that simple. The “cable” lane traffic (let’s call it Lane 1)
> includes not just traditional pay TV but also a host of data services —
> which today could be Stream and tomorrow could be telemedicine, business
> conference services, or anything else. And Lane 1 uses the internet
> protocol! This means that data packets are routed around independently, both
> upstream and downstream, and all that efficient internet magic is happening.
> From the user’s perspective, when he or she interacts with these things it
> will “feel” just like online, internet services are responding.

I think this definitely violates the spirit of net neutrality even in its
current form. However, I don't see how they can move from streaming services
which are sourced much further down the line than any internet traffic to
dynamic traffic that needs total contact with the internet proper. From what I
can tell, Comcast is arguing this service doesn't violate FCC regulations
because it essentially works the same as on-demand cable. The media available
for streaming is located close to the customer so it can be downloaded once
from the internet proper and then streamed on demand without incurring any of
the more valuable bandwidth further up the chain. I don't even think they need
to prioritize the streaming traffic over regular traffic, since it is only
eating into the much more plentiful local bandwidth.

If this distinction evaporates (as it would for telemedicine, business
conference services, etc.), then they'd clearly violate the letter of FCC's
net neutrality regulations. The fact that they used IP seems irrelevant; using
anything but IP would require huge investment in custom hardware, so I don't
see that as evidence of a future general internet services Master Plan (past
the current streaming media Master Plan coming to fruition). To be honest, I'm
somewhat on the fence about closing this loophole (though more towards the
side of closing it) because it really is just like on-demand cable. It's clear
that the data caps are being used in a predatory way, but I'm not sure that is
the way to attack it.

I'm intrigued by the author's proposed solution, but it seems like something
of a moonshot.

------
Hnrobert42
This is a HUGE problem. Addressing even a small part of it would net a
fortune. Yes, others are already working on it. Yes, I know it will be
difficult. That's what makes it exciting, right?

So, anyone want to kick around some ideas?

------
dreamcompiler
Barring anti-monopolist regulation or real competition, the only way to defeat
these yoyos is to get serious about grassroots mesh networks that
disintermediate them entirely.

~~~
saboot
Is there any serious indication a mesh-network can handle common network
traffic and video?

~~~
simoncion
No, not really.

The right way to solve the problem is how Chattanooga, TN and other such
places have solved it: either install fiber optics and maintain and bill them
as a utility, or open the _existing_ fiber lines and maintain/bill them as a
utility. [0]

This solution is _so_ good that incumbent telcos have successfully lobbied to
make it illegal in _oh_ so many places.

A second, decent solution is how -IIRC- either the CR or Romaina did it...
string up a communally-owned _wired_ network from building to building,
expanding the _wired_ network until you get enough "customers" that you can
pool the cash (and have the influence) to get a good link to the Internet.

[0] This was more-or-less what the telcos were supposed to do back in the
1990s with the tax breaks and other incentives they were given. As you can
see, they failed to live up to their promises.

------
tsujamin
I forgot that there are countries that, unlike Australia, actually don't have
quota caps on internet plans. Honestly it's not the end of the world so long
as you have ISPs offering reasonable quota-exempt content (Netflix + iiNet
<3).

That said I do see that huge, gaping conflict of interest between cable
providers and content distribution.

~~~
dangrossman
Netflix streaming wouldn't exist for you to <3 if ISPs had prohibitive data
caps when they were new. Do you want to freeze the internet as it is today,
blocking out new entrants and innovations, so long as you get your Netflix?

------
blazespin
Usage based paying is fine and in fact very very appropriate. It does not make
sense to charge one person who uses 1000GB the same as someone who only uses
20 or 30 GB to check emails.

The real problem is that there needs to be more competition.

~~~
jon-wood
For you and I its fine, but I don't think most people have any concept of what
uses their bandwidth cap. I regularly speak to people who are baffled that
they're using all their mobile data allowance early in the month only to find
out they do things like using YouTube videos as a music player when out.

Either data caps need to be _way_ higher, or they need to go away. I find it
bizarre that mobile operators can still get away with 0.5-1GB plans as the
standard.

~~~
j_s
The battery usage tracking features built into Android have come a long way to
make it easy to track down which apps are chewing through that limited
resource - perhaps it is time to include the same functionality for bandwidth
(technically data transfer)?

------
pwarner
Caps or pay per bit should be OK but only if the price per bit falls over
time. Provider cost per bit surely is dropping. But lacking competition they
may try to pocket the difference.

------
venomsnake
I once again ask - why not price internet like electricity. 5$ per TB. Pay
what you consumed.

~~~
dangrossman
Because "internet" isn't a physical resource like electricity. Nothing is
being consumed when you send 0s and 1s down the wire that's already been laid
and paid for. When you load this webpage, it hasn't cost your ISP any
additional money, so why do you want to pay them additional money?

ISPs' costs are a combination of fixed costs (hardware, labor, facilities,
etc) and peak bandwidth capacity. They bill us in pricing that's a combination
of a fixed base cost, and upgrade tiers that correspond to different peak
bandwidth capacity. That's closer to "pay what you consume" in reality.

------
guelo
Brian Roberts
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_L._Roberts](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_L._Roberts)

Look at him, smirking because he's got millions of people by the balls and
there's nothing anybody can do about it.

He'd be one of the first people in the guillotine if there were ever a
revolution. Which there won't be because he also owns a large news and media
empire that keeps people pacified or angry about the wrong things.

