thanks for posting..

It has not been horrible, but it should not be happening at all. One thing I will say about Netflix is that it is cheap. I cannot believe all the content for less then 8 dollars a month. These guys are a smart company. I do have Verizon Fios and have Verizon for my cell phone. I hope that they quickly learn that they are wrong about it and change back to the way it was originally.

Didn't offer Fios in my area, thankfully switched carriers. I'm with Consumer Cellular now for cell. sharing house with AT&T wifi internet connection. I rarely stream my netflix, (prefer disc) though I do have unlimited. And Yes, their pricing is fabulous and amazing. But last weekend I binged on House of Cards, and there were several hiccups (if you will) I assumed that was likely due to over load of House of Card bingers all at the same time. Don't know though.

Side Note: Last night NBR reported that Google is getting in the ISP game in certain areas, with the aim of providing very fast but low cost connection because their business depends on it; and with the looming mergers on the horizon Google wants to ensure their business doesn't suffer from merger outcomes.

makes sense, score one for google.

I am finding it hard to find avenues on this.
Other than writing my Senator and Congress person on this issue, not else sure what I can do.

Unless your state is a good regulator.

The issue is between Netflix and the cable companies,and has been known for some time.
Seems just lately the cable companies are doing something about it.
Netflix wants to offer low cost streaming, plus a free ride on the broadband carriers infrastructure.
It is not likely to jack up prices.
Broadband wants to be paid for the bandwidth hogging, ( as they see it) and since Netflix won't pay, the customers will. They are suggesting a tiered price list based on GB usage.
If that happens, you, the customer, will pay them more for streaming.
Now that broad band is becoming more of a monopoly, with the Comcast purchase of Time Warner at hand,
jacking up rates in this overall unregulated environment is predictable.

It really sucks.

online gamers as well as smaller, local ISP's. If the merger goes through you can bet the monopolists will tighten the screws.

I have TW cable and internet.

On Monday nights, the connection for streaming suddenly
requires constant buffering.

The rest of the time it's OK.

Our netflix worked just fine, but anytime we tried to play a youtube video it would do buffering and eventually drop connection. I confirmed that they were routing it through their own vpn and slowing it down, so I switched to ATT and now everything works just fine.

I don't have Netflix but I use my Roku all day long to watch youtube programs.

I use the free version of Plex Media Server.

https://plex.tv/

You download it to your computer which has to be on-line to watch the channels available which then connects to your Roku.

https://www.roku.com/channels/#!details/13535/plex

The bad thing is that your computer must be on to watch Plex channels, but mine usually is anyway and I would rather watch my TV than my computer screen. I mostly use the YouTube channel. Whenever I see something from YouTube in DU or at that site I just click on the "watch later" button on the YouTube video, it looks like a clock.

When you add YouTube to your Plex channels you will then have to sign into that channel with your YouTube name and password so that you can access your "watch list".

There is also CBS/NBC/Daily Show/Colbert channels which have the current shows for free on-demand the same as if you go to those channels on-line to watch the latest episode. I like to watch "The Big Bang Theory" and I can keep up on that show without commercials. I don't know how long CBS/ NBC will let that go on. The NBC channel isn't allowing access today. I don't know if that is a "Comcast" thing or just a "today it's not working" thing.

There are other things you can do like access your itunes and a lot of the channels are already on Roku.

Sometimes there are issues like today some of the channels are not working right although YouTube has been fine, that is not to say that all YouTube videos will play, most do, but sometimes one doesn't play. It doesn't bother me because I usually have 50 things on my playlist. You have to delete the videos on your watch list that you have watched from YouTube, you can't do it from Plex.

Security is a big thing with people and I don't know all the possible issues with Plex.

netflix's download speed is slowing and I had to wait for nearly 10 minutes to allow 48-minute shows to finally get halfway so I can start watch the shows. Comcast in my town is currently the #1 most talk about. We're complaining about Comcast's attitudes toward us.

That is why we are debating about getting public owned T-1 cable lines, all paid for by taxpayers.

Season two of "House of Cards" became available for Netflix streaming. Very poor quality. I have AT&T. Now I understand.

all my bandwidth?

"Neutrality" is one issue. Comcast shouldn't be able to single out Netflix for a penalty just because they compete with some content that Comcast wants to market. That's a monopo0ly issue.

But the Internet providers should be charging for bandwidth generically. I don't care if you are watching bootleg porn or Netflix. If you are sucking down gigabytes of data in my neighborhood and it reduces my service, you ought to be paying a surcharge.

Just curious. What are you noticing?

response time for common websites is usually instantaneous but in the evenings it can be several seconds.

I can't prove that it is congestion in my local neighborhood. It could be congestion upstream of that. But it is most likely Netflix, Hulu and stuff like that that is hammering me.

If people want to do that, they ought to pay their share of the infrastructure. If Comcast has to expand facilities because of these heavy bandwidth users, they should be the ones that pay for it.

But Comcast is not asking for measured service, which seems like the obvious solution. They are pushing for the ability to target SPECIFIC competitors and penalize them. That's just wrong. We ought to be insisting that measured service is the only acceptable answer to arguments they make in favor of non-neutrality. it is none of their damn business what content flows across their network as long as the subscribers are paying a fair share for that bandwidth.

equipment to handle the available data. That 5 or 10 meg, or whatever speed cap you have? Your neighbors have that too. What that means is the slow down is because common pipe(s) is/are too small.

Cable TV is a tree and branch system. The closer your data gets to the head end, the more traffic there is from everywhere else in that pipe. If the equipment is running close to 100%, (read not enough head room) there will be slow downs for everyone in that pipe. The problem is your Internet provider, not you neighbors. That is why they advertise UP TO whatever the theoretical maximum speed is, they are selling.

It would be a different proposition if Netflix customers were paying for a specific amount of bandwidth. But that is not not what the Comcast agreement provides. And Comcast is using that to attack their content competitors.

IMHO, the only winning argument against non-neutrality is to mandate that internet providers charge for their bandwidth. That eliminates all their arguments for why they have to pick and choose which websites will get service.

Any other arguments trikes me as childish -- "I want unlimited access and I don't want to pay for it, no matter how much I use." When you make that argument, you are effectively saying that I , as a person who uses minimal bandwidth, should subsidize your cable bill. No, thank you.

You pay infrastructure fees with gas and electric. You may subsidize sewer or trash removal. You subsidize plenty. Regardless of usage.

You pay for public schools. If you don't use them do you think you shouldn't pay for them? You subsidize social security and medicare/medicaid. Do you use them? Food stamps? Your taxes pay civil servants. You use the fire department frequently?

Your argument is based on a false premise. You subsidize plenty regardless of usage. In fact you don't need to buy internet at all. If you don't like it, don't use it.

Last edited Sat Feb 22, 2014, 11:30 AM - Edit history (1)

If I wanted to put out 120 bags and your rates went up because the trash company had to bring on more trucks and drivers because of these mega users, you would be pissed. And that is about the ratio for me compared to netflix users. My 2 bags of trash to their 120 bags of trash.

If somebody were to call the police or fire department every week I think they would be hearing about it. They would probably be committed to a mental institution.

I am not subsidizing the post in any major way. If I send a package to rural Kansas, I get it delivered below cost. If I mail to downtown Cincinnati, I pay postage above the USPS' actual cost. It evens out. When my neighbors use 100 times as much bandwidth as I do, it does not even out.

I'll grant you that if a person had 100 kids, they would be getting a real subsidy in the schooling.

But this isn't about me. It is about Comcast. Their argument for non-neutrality is that some users are chewing up loads of bandwidth so Comcast needs the ability to either clamp down on that or else extract fees from Netflix. They are entitled to fair payment for their capacity. I would rather see them get this through a fair and transparent measured service rather than allowing Comcast to arbitrarily choose the winners and losers.

Their goal is to continuously make more money. They will try to do this by cutting service. They make billions a year and deliver already lousy service as compared to the rest of the first world for more money. They can afford to provide service much cheaper if they wanted. They won't because they are greedy. So they create this false controversy to try to make poor people passively accept increasingly worse service because they feel they have to.

Just sitting back and saying "I want unlimited bandwidth from every site" is not an option. That is going away whether you approve or not. The question is what will replace it. People who share your view (which I consider selfish) are making certain that Comcast will win the non-neutrality thing. And once that is settled we will never get neutrality back.

Last edited Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Comcast makes billions a year off over priced and low quality service and you want to have worse service so they can make more money. Unreal!

There's plenty to go around. And your argument is a false equivalence. Just because you chose not to do something doesn't give you the right to tell others they can't. It's like choosing to not marry and insisting that no one else should either because you're not getting the tax benefits.

They want more. No surprise there, it's what businesses do, but normally there comes a point past which customers will revolt. That means buying a different product, or using a different vendor, or simply not buying that good or service at all.

In this case though that isn't really practical. Internet service is something people NEED, much like common utilities such as water and electricity. Doing without is not a reasonable option. Changing providers is not an option for most either, because there is no real competition. Most of us can get DSL through the local telco, or cable, and that's it. Neither one has any motivation to upgrade their infrastructure because as you mentioned that costs money and they don't have to. Their customers are at their mercy.

without getting a lot of money for that. They will either get it from consumers through metered service or they will get it from Netflix with big participation charges that will be passed on to the consumer.

It seems obvious that measures service is a lot better than allowing Comcast to pick the winners and losers.

Unless they want to go out of business.

people are so worried that Netflix will have to cut their profits instead of the ISP's. They make plenty of money, they want to keep it all.
Someone is going to pay for more infrastructure to handle Netflix and no corporation is going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts.

Damn your neighbors for asking to get what they pay for, a connection speed.

When that was offered there was no concept of streaming in the sense of steady state Netflix streaming for hours at a time uninterrupted.

It is foolish to defend a right to unlimited use of a shared resources because Comcast is using that to turn the tables on you. This has become their argument for their right to penalize Netflix -- and in turn make Netflix customers miserable. If they had to provide unbiased bandwidth on a measured basis, they would have no argument for non-neutrality.

Take your pick. It will be one of the two. Either we pay for bandwidth or else Comcast gets to hammer the bandwidth they don't like. You can't have it both ways.

That speed cap is to prevent anyone from hogging the system. Any slow downs are because your Internet provider cannot handle the traffic they advertize.

I'm not surprised that there wasn't a response to your post.

30 some years ago I used to work for a cable TV company. I built and cabled their cable TV head end.
Before that in the engineering dept of an AM/FM/TV station.

ISPs want it both ways, and will get it, if your attitude is an indication of the conventional wisdom.

If you are paying for bandwidth that can support high res video and only use it for Email, then you should look into something less expensive.
If you are paying for bandwidth that can support 1080p then it should do just that!
Sure as hell we should get more vocal about NetNeutrality.
Where I am it is a teared service.
I have no problem with the few extra bucks for high speed. Rebuilding a customers PC downwoads many bits and there ain't much you can do about it.

I don't want Microsoft to be bundled with CNN.
I don't want DU to be bundled with Fox.

Sure as hell we should get more vocal about NetNeutrality.

Back when CentryLink was Qwest I signed up for "lifetime" service.
No TV but more phone stuff I would ever have wanted.
When they went to higher speed "DSL" I reuped on something like a forever at this price bases.
First kid on the block.
It was a hoot. For the first little bit it didn't work more than it did.
Hell, they had an ID here. I have two networks. One public and one Interact that is as privet as I could make it.
Shut off the gateway and it don't get out of the house.
The only problem with CentryLink is customer service. Call them and learn a new language and it goes down hill from there.

I have not, as yet, seen any effect of the misguided NetNeutralitaly ruling.
That doesn't mean it won't happen!

We are not being "vocal" enough about this.
We need to raise a little Hell.

because Verizon has its own streaming service. Not only does Verizon have no incentive to improve the performance of Netflix streaming, it has an incentive to degrade that performance. And that's what seems to be happening.

They're not going to let you "cut the cord". Sure you'll come out ahead for awhile but eventually the business model of both content provider and internet provider will fall into sync. I feel bad for the gamers out there. Netflix is forcing the data traffic priority / cap issue front and center. It will cost more to get less.

Works great.

On the bright side, it sure makes the competition scramble to get back in line. Prices came down, speeds went up and service got better.
Or at least that is what I gather from their commercials.

you

went to the big broadband-cloud show in chicago last fall--and you see the wonderful booths with the wonderful claims and promises.

and then they ask--where you from--and i say wisconsin--and they say--"oh we don't have any footprint there"

Shit--we have roads, tvs and all kinds of that dern modern stuff up there...........

and despite what the cell phone companies claim....we still have large areas with no bars--i mean signal strength--not bars where you
drinks--we gots lots of them

communications.
Heaven forbid!

the flow of whatever.
I pointed out all other Roku channels were working erfectly well- but Netflix was complete garbage pixilated and constantly buffering And I told them flat out- this would be a deal breaker for me, and I would discontinue service if this continued.
He tried to make it sound like an all channel problem, and I again said- no you can easily tell it is only Netflix.
They "reset" my router channel and said this would improve all of my service. We shall see.
In the short term, we have to let them know it will cost them.

Revolving Door: Top Obama Admin Antitrust Officials Tied To Comcast

http://www.republicreport.org/2014/comcast-antitrust-revolvingdoor/


Many are predicting a lobbying blitz by both companies (Comcast and Time Warner Cable) to pressure governments officials to accept the deal. When Comcast purchased NBC Universal, lobbyists were hired to ensure the merger went through. Critics charge that the payments went beyond the traditional influence industry: after signing off on the Comcast-NBC deal, FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker was hired by Comcast for an undisclosed amount.

Could the revolving door shape the antitrust enforcement for the proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner? Republic Report looked into the officials responsible for overseeing antitrust enforcement, and found that at least two have close ties to Comcast.

The recently installed head of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, William Baer, was a lawyer representing GE and NBC in their push for the merger with Comcast. At the time, Baer was an attorney with the firm Arnold & Porter. To his credit, Baer said last month that he is skeptical of further consolidation of the cable market. Disclosures reviewed by Republic Report show that Baer will continue receiving payments from Arnold & Porter for the next eleven years as part of his retirement package.

Maureen Ohlhausen, one of four commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission, which oversees antitrust enforcement, provided legal counsel for Comcast as an attorney just before joining the FTC. She also represented NBC Universal in the year before before becoming a commissioner in April of 2012. NBC Universal completed its merger with Comcast in January of 2011.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Schumer reassures New York about Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal, doesn’t mention his brother was the dealmaker

http://blog.littlesis.org/2014/02/17/schumer-reassures-new-york-about-comcast-time-warner-cable-deal-doesnt-mention-his-brother-was-the-dealmaker/

Following news of the Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal, key members of Congress promised to take a close look at the merger. Some, like Senator Al Franken, sharply criticized the deal and what it would mean for consumers. Senator Amy Klobuchar, the chair of the antitrust subcommittee, announced plans for a hearing to “scrutinize the details of this merger and its potential consequences for both consumers and competition.”

All it took to reassure Senator Chuck Schumer that the deal was a good thing was a quick phone call over to Comcast executives, who were happy to offer vague assurances about continued jobs commitments in New York State.

Schumer is a member of the Senate Judiciary’s antitrust subcommittee, like Franken and Klobuchar, but made no mention of antitrust or consumer issues in a lengthy press release announcing that he had spoken to Comcast executives.

His assurances about the deal are interesting in light of the fact that one of the key attorneys involved is his younger brother, Robert Schumer. The younger Schumer led Paul, Weiss. Rifkind’s work for Time Warner Cable in connection with the potential sale. The American Lawyer named Schumer Dealmaker of the Week for his work. The article did not mention that Schumer’s older brother is a US Senator, but noted that he and his team had anticipated and prepared for regulatory obstacles:

-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-
Verizon support rep admits anti-Netflix throttling
http://boingboing.net/2014/02/07/verizon-support-rep-admits-ant.html

"Dave Raphael of Dave's Blog has an interesting post about a conversation he recently had with Verizon support and discovered some uncomfortable - yet wholly unsurprising - truths about how Verizon is selectively limiting bandwidth to AWS services and adversely affecting the quality of Netflix. The open admission of this by Verizon support was unexpected - but the fact it is happening should be of no surprise to anyone but the ignorant and naive."

Yes, this should definitely be its own post.

Same ol' same ol'. They would also like to extract some of Google's profits for themselves, too.

Netflix is a parasitic business—an infrastructure free-rider that charges for a service they do not provide. The entities who do provide the service don't like it.

And so on.

Folks outraged about this ought to try the thought experiment of asking whether an ISP's obligation vis-a-vis streaming video is infinite.

If it is not infinite then here we are... one can quible about the equities but there is no big issue at stake.

Verizon has their own movie steaming service that competes with netflix, if you think this is about bandwith you're fooling yourself.

I appreciate the snark. God knows it's easier than actually coming up with a valid point. Keep defending these shitty union busting monopolies like Verizon.


Because you don't have Netflix, no one should have it, right?

....

Nextflix pays several carriers for lots and lots of access. Those carriers in turn have peering relationships with other carriers, who connect to people's homes. They're getting money on both ends of the connection, a giant check from Netflix every month, and lots and lots of smaller checks from individual consumers every month.

Netflix most certainly DOES provide a service, and they provide that service over circuits that they pay for. The subscribers are also paying for bandwitdth on their end. So the telcos and ISP's are covered. What are you talking about?

They provide content. And they do pay for bandwidth. A lot of it. The only part of the service they don't directly provide is getting the content down to your home. That's what you pay your ISP for.

Problem is, some ISPs have their own streaming video service that competes (or hopes to compete) with Netflix. So it is obviously to their advantage if Netflix becomes unreliable and choppy.

An ISP should provide a link to the internet, period. Whether someone is on Skype, or Netflix, or Youtube, or downloading porn, or using Verizon's own streaming video service shouldn't matter. Obviously, the obligation isn't "infinite" (where did you get that idea). You get a certain, finite amount of bandwidth. If you pay more, you get more bandwidth.

Sure, if you pay for a 1Mbps internet connection, you shouldn't complain if Netflix is choppy. But if you pay for something say 10 or 20, which should be plenty for streaming 1080p, then your ISP shouldn't be able to limit the amount of bandwidth that you can get from Netflix specifically. In fact, that's the essential premise behind net neutrality. The ISP provides a link to the internet. You get a certain amount of bandwidth, and it can come from anywhere.

Okay, let me try to understand this.

I have a telephone line in my office. I use it to talk to clients. I bill my clients for the time I spent talking to them.

Is my business a "free rider" on the telephone network too?

Because, last time I checked - my clients and I are PAYING for telephone service already.

I don't understand where you are coming from on this.

Netflix should do what Hulu does, and show commercials. As much as I HATE commercials, it's better than a slow down, or paying more. And the commercials should be Comcast and Verizon so we all know who the fuck screwed us over.

HofC is really good this season.

It needs to be regulated and -- if necessary -- subsidized, even if it is in the hands of private corporations.

We have allowed ourselves to become increasingly dependent on it for the functioning of our society. Therefor it has become a necessary public utility.

It should treated that way, not just as a commodity.

It worked for the phone companies, it will work for those same companies providing Internet services.

the community in general.

"Privately owned public utility"...bleh.

2014 is the year people cut cable. 2016 or a little later will be when people cut out all the other 'providers'.

You can download any damn thing you want. For free.

What comes next? Maybe communities creating their own entertainment? It's a brave new world. Again.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

Just recently my internet is either so slow I can't use it or it just cuts out altogether. My husband, the computer guru, has assured me it's not on our end, but Comcast's.

I hate to go back to A.T.&T. (my only other choice) because I had the same problems with them but mostly when it rained. Don'tcha just love the free market? (My choices: 2, bad and worse)

I'm so glad that we have fiber optic through our local electric board here in Chattanooga so we don't have to deal with that cable company crap.

But then I realized, if the cable companies force netflix to pay them, then my netflix bill is going to go up, even though I don't use the cable company for internet.

I freaking hate cable.

What a bunch of thieves so now I have to cash out to Verizon and Netflix and I still dont get a decent service, I had to get a VPN account as per http://thevpn.guru/netflix-streaming-problems-verizon/ just to bypass the Verizon buffering controls

I hope net neutrality is restored soon!

getting thrown off. We will try it again today. My wife is determined to get through the show this weekend I rather take my time.


I should mention we have Verizon.

I never have used their service and never will.

I hope Netflix & Verizon loose customers.

...a book.

If they let that merger go through... if they don't STOP the erosion/abandonment of net equality-- we are royally screwed. Not because of entertainment--but news goes through those "tubes" as well.

Taking preschool away from poor children and unemployment insurance away from workers in a tough job market? I understand how that doesn't get much traction. But slowing down people's Netflix? Powderkeg.