« New Episodes of 'Arrested Development' to be Released Simultaneously; 5th & 6th Seasons Possible | Main | Have You Received any Unplayable or Broken Netflix DVDs Lately? »



I might be wrong, but what I've read of Net Neutrality it stops ISPs from blocking content outright but not from implementing usage based prices (caps). Basically Comcast couldn't outright block anything deemed a legal service. The Net Neutrality rules that were adopted were severely neutered. The rules were much more robust and as they worked their way through the FCC they got chopped down. Previously if Comcast wanted to block Netflix streaming they were well within their legal right to do so. It should also be noted that these rules are being challenged in court and the repubs try to strip away any money used for enforcement of them every time a budget comes through. Heck, I think they tried to sneak something in with the freakin transportation bill.

Robert Emmerich

I said this last time but I still don't see this as a "net neutrality" issue. As long as they offer everything the customer wants and don't play favorites with their own data I still see this as a customer service more than a disservice. Whether the Comcast data is free or not you are still going to go over the cap watching nf, so it's an unmitigated freebie. An example of a disservice is a gas station advertising a BIG sign w/ $3.89 gas but when you get to the pump it's $4.89 for credit cards, a full $1 more per gallon, yet somehow that's legal and not false advertising.


I mentioned this in the other thread but I will repeat it again, I don't like caps but I only use 35GB per month. I don't think it's fair that I pay the same amount as someone that uses 250GB. I wish there were tiers so I can pay less the bandwidth hogs. AT&T has a cap of 150GB per month but charge $10 for every 50GB you go over, consider yourself lucky if you use Comcast.



geek - It's all ready a tiered system. My ISP charges $50 for 10mb down speed, $60 for 20 down, $80 for 30 down and 100 bucks for 50mb down. Is it fair that someone pays $100 a month for 50mb down but has the same cap as someone paying $50/month for 10mb? The guy paying $100 is paying much more and in return the ISPs can use that money to further build out their networks.

Fred Talmadge

Again more evidence that content providers should not be in the business of providing service.


FCC will watch and do nothing.


"FCC will watch and do nothing."

It's what they are good at.


I buy internet service. It's none of their business as to what I use it for and how much I use it.


This is a tough issue and part of why caps will soon enough go away. Netflix has deep pockets, customers get angry easily, and Comcast has a large enough target on their back as it is.


Suddenlink has capped usage in my area -- about 10 movies a month are allowed and that is only if you do nothing else. They are selling the capacity saved for HDTV. And the FCC knew this would happen - how could they not? One strike against Obama's men.

BTW, I just noticed the streaming trailers feature on the snail mail side of netflix -- maybe it was always there and I never noticed it before but I like it now that I've noticed it. :)


At least we can all say that we were here and saw the beginning of the end of the internet.

I'd just like to propose a toast, "It was a really, really fun 20 years, although the last 10, with the high speed has been more interesting than waiting the old 15min per megabyte on dial-up. So three cheers for the good 'ole interwebs! It was fun while it lasted, eh? But in the end, C'est la vie!"

Since Reed's rant first hit the news, I've been reading up on the Level3/Comcast fight over Netflix, as well as, similar issues in Tier1/Tier3 provider/customer relations.

If you're inclined to read a few pages on the subject of Internet Consolidation and the possible Evils of both Internet Backbone providers and their 'last mile' brethren, have a look at this article by Lee Galley in National Affairs:

Keeping the Internet Competitive

So to tie back to the original thread on this topic, I feel that this kind of very short term/short sighted money grab/power play by the 'last mile' folks, really exemplifies why there's such dower feelings in the country about the economy, etc.

It seems that no matter which direction you turn, some company or other is out shirking what one might consider a 'responsibility' (in this case deploying and maintaining a robust high quality communications system) in favor of pleasing whom ever is the current group of overpaid analysts on Wall Street.

Not every industry sector or company is entitled to double or triple digit returns on investment for ever. And an entitlement is what these folks feel they have.

So, should we allow the 'last mile' losers to put a curb on Internet access (both to specific individuals [by not deploying Broadband as widely as possible] and to their general customer base [by limiting available bandwidth to goose their 'pet' additional revenue generating projects])?

I say 'no', but I have to agree with @Jamie and @Shmitty, that no one with any regulatory authority will do anything. At least until it's too late.

How does everyone feel about being nothing but a Cash Cow to the Fortune 500?


"monitoring" is bureaucratic speak for not doing anything until someone sues.


After reading some of the posts regarding the limits some of you have I went and checked my own service to see where I stand. With 30 mb download speed I'm paying $56.99 a month with Charter for my internet. At this point there is no caps in place. With 4 xbox and dvd players in different parts of the house pulling in movies and shows in the evening hours I don't think I want to know how many gig we are burning through each month. Guess I need to consider myself lucky for right now.

lacoste sale

month. Guess I need to consider myself lucky for right now.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Third-Party Netflix Sites