Engadget: AT&T thinks increased bandwidth costs are Netflix subscribers' problem
31 replies, posted
[QUOTE]In a post on AT&T's Public Policy Blog, Senior EVP Jim Cicconi denounced Hastings desire for a "cost-free delivery" agreement with ISPs, saying that
it unfairly shifts the burden of infrastructure cost to AT&T and its subscribers rather than to Netflix's own customer base.[/QUOTE]
After taking a quick look at the source, this caught my eye and holy molly what are they even thinking :v:
[QUOTE]As we all know, there is no free lunch, and there’s also no cost-free delivery of streaming movies. Someone has to pay that cost. Mr. Hastings’ arrogant proposition is that
everyone else should pay but Netflix. That may be a nice deal if he can get it. But it’s not how the Internet, or telecommunication for that matter, has ever worked.[/QUOTE]
Did AT&T really had to publish this turd? While i'm not from the states this does seem just utterly stupid.
I live in The Netherlands and we have never ever had something like this.
Engadget source: [url]http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/21/atandt-netflix-bandwidth-problems/[/url]
Direct source: [url]http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/consumers-2/who-should-pay-for-netflix/[/url]
Not surprised this came from ATT, they don't worry about stupidity affecting their product since they already have customers by their balls, including us.
They want to charge everything
Its like they think I don't pay for my internet or something
ISPs have one job: to pump data through the Internet tubes. If they can't handle the demand then that's their fault, not the content providers.
[QUOTE=Wiggles;44313892]ISPs have one job: to pump data through the Internet tubes. If they can't handle the demand then that's their fault, not the content providers.[/QUOTE]
ISPs are just middlemen, they're full capable of meeting, and exceeding, the demands of their customers. They just don't because they know they can force people to pay for shit that should be free.
We really need to break apart the ISP oligopoly here in the U.S. Lets do what we did to AT&T and make sure they don't come back together over time like they did before. In order to further stimulate competition all ISP's should become common carriers as well just like many are around the world already. I mean damn this has to happen or else we face a future full of bullshit and skyrocketing prices; whereas the rest of the world (With the exception of Australia) sits back with some lemonade at hand enjoying their gigabit internet for less than $30 a month.
[QUOTE=Saxon;44313717]Its like they think I don't pay for my internet or something[/QUOTE]
If you're not paying all of your money you make every month to AT&T, then you're not paying for your service. I've been shat on by them for 10 years now, and i have nowhere to turn aside from satellite, which is worse than taking a tree sized dildo up the ass.
[quote]In a post on AT&T's Public Policy Blog, Senior EVP Jim Cicconi denounced Hastings desire for a "cost-free delivery" agreement with ISPs, saying that
it unfairly shifts the burden of infrastructure cost to AT&T and its subscribers rather than to Netflix's own customer base.[/quote]
You know, it's unfair that my power company has to be burdened by the power I consume because it's Samsung's fault I use the power for my TV, and therefor Samsung or myself should have to pay my power company on their behalf, too.
AT&T, Go fuck yourselves. You guys get $7 BILLION DOLLARS in TAX BREAKS EVERY YEAR so that you can increase capacity, repair anything you need, and flesh out your infrastructure. Stop sitting on it and use it, rather than extort money out of your customers, you fucking [b]CUNTS[/b]
Google is the USA's absolute last hope for decent and reasonable internet
I always feel bad for people in north america, always getting shafted by the big hard cock of capitalism in the land of the free.
AT&T needs to burn, seriously.
ahhhhhh capitalism at its finest, why do you all hate freedom you commies, that 1mb connection is made from the purest freedom.
No shit there isn't a free lunch, but at the very least don't charge tolls for simple shit like Netflix, Youtube, or Hulu. And you say "it will burden our completely valued customers," more like your ideas are burdening your customers.
Oh wait, your "valued" customers won't mind, as long as you keep saying this kind of bullshit. Why not use the tax break you got for something besides smoking, wiping your ass, and pissing on it, like oh I don't know, IMPROVING YOUR SHIT?
I really hate that att is the only choice in my apartment, why can't Google Fiber or something like Fios?
Also, what is with these bullshit statements from att(I refuse to type in all caps and with the &) and Comcast? Is today "Make a Bullshit Statement" day?
[QUOTE=Amez;44313926]whereas the rest of the world (With the exception of Australia) sits back with some lemonade at hand enjoying their gigabit internet for less than $30 a month.[/QUOTE]
Ahahah ahaa ha a ha.. aww. My country is such a joke. :(
So if I'm reading the OP right, AT&T wants to charge people extra per month for streaming from service providers such as Netflix, because it's saturating their over-saturated and poorly managed network?
AT&T, you are dumb and nobody likes you. Get it into your heads.
I'm glad i'm locked into an unlimited everything plan they no longer offer.
[QUOTE=Delta616;44320334]I'm glad i'm locked into an unlimited everything plan they no longer offer.[/QUOTE]
Be careful, there's probably a clause in there that states the conditions can change at any time for any reason.
I have to deal with an AT&T connection when I'm at home, and they throttle EVERYTHING. We're paying for 12Mbps, but that doesn't mean a god damn thing when I CAN'T FUCKING USE IT.
And, of course, the parents just want it for TV, so I'll probably never be able to convince them to switch to any other provider.
The standard "Toll" is absurd but has been the norm for a while now. However I do slightly agree with AT&T in that Netflix or any other provider should pay the infrastructure costs for a direct connection, as it only provides a benefit to the customers of that service.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;44321522]But then you could say that for literally everything that you use the internet to access?[/QUOTE]
I figured that would have just been a given. Yes I wish all my most used websites had a direct connection, but I feel Gary isn't going to shell out the money to lay down a fibre connection to Charter.
[QUOTE=I Am A Rock;44321494] I do slightly agree with AT&T in that Netflix or any other provider should pay the infrastructure costs for a direct connection, as it only provides a benefit to the customers of that service.[/QUOTE]
What, as opposed to AT&T proxying & mirroring content on their servers because they don't have the infrastructure to handle the evolving landscape of the Internet?
Serious question!
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;44313915]ISPs are just middlemen, they're full capable of meeting, and exceeding, the demands of their customers. They just don't because they know they can force people to pay for shit that should be free.[/QUOTE]
A lot of the problem is that many service providers (in different IT industries not just ISPs) are stuck in the "old" way of doing things when things were justifiable. A prime example of this is people who sell VOIP numbers, some charge $x per concurrent call despite the fact that with digital stuff there is no physical limit like there used to be (physical lines and all that).
ISPs are the same, bandwidth limits are mostly a made up number purely to make money.
I am glad the EU are fighting so hard to keep this shit out of Europe (and I don't think any ISPs here are interested anyway), its so dumb. An internet connection should be just that, a connection.
[QUOTE=WaLLy3K;44325042]What, as opposed to AT&T proxying & mirroring content on their servers because they don't have the infrastructure to handle the evolving landscape of the Internet?
Serious question![/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Jsm;44325111]A lot of the problem is that many service providers (in different IT industries not just ISPs) are stuck in the "old" way of doing things when things were justifiable. A prime example of this is people who sell VOIP numbers, some charge $x per concurrent call despite the fact that with digital stuff there is no physical limit like there used to be (physical lines and all that).
ISPs are the same, bandwidth limits are mostly a made up number purely to make money.
I am glad the EU are fighting so hard to keep this shit out of Europe (and I don't think any ISPs here are interested anyway), its so dumb. An internet connection should be just that, a connection.[/QUOTE]
Clearly AT&T has the infrastructure to connect to Netflix or else no one would be able to access Netflix. That is just kind of core concept. As far as the internet just being a connection, well it isn't really that simply. Be a hacker and run "tracert google.com". There are a lot of steps to get you where you want to go. Also there are bandwidth issues which is why netflix and many companies make these agreements and also why new networking tools and higher bandwidth materials is a extremely active field of research.
[IMG]http://imgur.com/hlQLPab.png[/IMG]
A big bottle neck is the connection between a neutral exchange and a company such as AT&T. Traditionally you will get bounce around several of these to get to the content you are trying to access. However these lines are not just for Netflix or whatever you are tying to access. They are connecting pretty much everyone everywhere. So these can lead to potential bandwidth limitation and in the case of Netflix intermittent buffering during streaming. To avoid this Netflix is doing what many other companies already are doing is setting up a dashed line between themselves and an ISP such that there is a direct connection. This lets Netflix provide a very consistent quality of service. This however has two problems. The first problem is that this theoretical dashed line doesn't exist, and neither company doesn't want to pay to make it undashed. (Imagine trying to get the local supermarket to pay to put a direct private road between your house and their store so you don't have to go through the rush hour traffic.)The second is if this direct connection were to be made AT&T the traditional agreement would be that AT&T charge Netflix a toll.
The thing is Netflix already has a method of reaching its AT&T based customers, they just want to provide a better service to their customers. And really for AT&T and any other network provider, it only benefits Netflix and Netflix customers; it doesn't not improve AT&T in any profound way. Netflix would really like for AT&T to pay to improve Netflix's product. Really though if a company wants to improve itself it should probably pay for that itself. The tolling is a bit bullshit as any maintenance is generally negligible, could reasonably be slip between the two companies, or potentially handled by Netflix through contract. Both companies are wrong and there does need to be a shift toward a more fair middle ground.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;44313915]ISPs are just middlemen, they're full capable of meeting, and exceeding, the demands of their customers. They just don't because they know they can force people to pay for shit that should be free.[/QUOTE]
The biggest problem ISPs face is that they're typically also telecoms and they're used to essentially nickel and diming their customers and charging for just about every thing.
Suddenly they're faced with the prospect of not being able to selective charge any party and they fear their bottom line and business practice will erode.
When the latest apple iOS update rolled around, a lot of services that routed through various at&t (and XO communications) lines fell apart.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;44320559]Is it unlimited or "unlimited"[/QUOTE]
it's "unlimited" cause i'm on the same plan. once you go over a certain amount they slow you down
[QUOTE=I Am A Rock;44325506]Clearly AT&T has the infrastructure to connect to Netflix or else no one would be able to access Netflix.[/QUOTE]
Yes of course. Though from what I can gather, they already have a network that's already near full capacity and thus don't have the bandwidth required to keep up - so they blame streaming services like Netflix instead of upgrading their backhauls to be able to keep up with the demand of the "modern Internet citizen".
Correct me if I'm wrong though, this is just how I perceive their company as an Australian.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;44320559]Is it unlimited or "unlimited"[/QUOTE]
Unlimited.
[editline]22nd March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;44320564]Be careful, there's probably a clause in there that states the conditions can change at any time for any reason.[/QUOTE]
Nope, locked in at that price until 2025.
[QUOTE=Delta616;44326636]Unlimited.
[editline]22nd March 2014[/editline]
Nope, locked in at that price until 2025.[/QUOTE]
AT&T will stab you in the back, anyway. They put a Geeksquad charge on my simple $30 DSL bill (I had DSL for gaming at one point since my cable ISP is so terrible), and denied it was them. Geeksquad also denied it. But it was AT&T, I've never had a Geeksquad charge for anything ever, and why would I, until the day my DSL bill was due. After a card and number change and STILL being charged for it automatically, my bank's fraud department, which had heard of this very situation before, sorted it out.
I dumped AT&T right there and they charged me $300, even though I wasn't on a contract or anything.
So what was 3 months of DSL that was supposed to cost $90 or so, total, ended up costing close to $500.
Fuck AT&T. And they're even worse in Nashville
Because of Mediacom and AT&T I fucking [b]WISH[/b] I had Comcast again. Cox cable is just 2,000 feet out of my area. That's all. It's so close. It's right there. I want it. Please
I guess AT&T is trying for worst company 2014.
Good luck to you too AT&T, we believe in you. :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.