1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Netflix and Comcast deal

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by eboydog, Feb 24, 2014.

  1. eboydog

    eboydog Just TiVo'ing.....

    904
    0
    Mar 23, 2006
  2. bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    There may be other reasons to worry about Comcast (such as its impending acquisition of TWC), but this isn't a good touchstone for that: Netflix represents about a third of all Internet traffic in the country. They were essentially competing against Comcast making Comcast pay the cost of carrying their service without appropriate compensation, due to how broken the industry is due to its failure to have its pricing based on metered service.
     
  3. moedaman

    moedaman New Member

    236
    0
    Aug 21, 2012
    That bandwith is already being paid for by Comcast's customers, Google, Netflix, etc don't need to pay for it. And there is no need for metered service because the cablecos make as much money on internet service as they do on tv service. The internet is now a more valuable infrastructure than landline phone service and needs to be remain open and kept that way by the FCC.
     
  4. tomhorsley

    tomhorsley Active Member

    1,167
    4
    Jul 22, 2010
    Yea, comcast charges for an advertised N megabit/sec connection, then complains when people try to use N megabits.
     
  5. Grakthis

    Grakthis New Member

    828
    0
    Oct 4, 2006
    Are you for real?

    This is roughly like charging me for cell phone service, and then charging my mom to call me because she calls me a lot.

    What this is, is a way for Comcast to silently charge more for internet without directly charging it to consumers. They can raise prices while dodging the consequences of raising prices (i.e. consumer loss).

    It's awful for the industry and, much like credit cards doing similar things with their fee system, needs to be stopped by regulatory agencies.
     
  6. Beryl

    Beryl Well-Known Member

    5,049
    40
    Feb 22, 2009
    Texas

    Totally agree. I'd like to see competition beefed up with the expansion of Google fiber and other internet enabling technology.
     
  7. rogmatic

    rogmatic New Member

    177
    0
    Sep 17, 2009
    Albert Fried: TiVo Comes Out On Top In Netflix/Comcast Deal
    By Victor Nguyen 7 minutes ago Benzinga

    Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA) recently reached a deal with Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX) to provide faster internet speed for Netflix user streaming. As part of the deal, Comcast will receive direct content streaming from Netflix. The deal gives the ability for Comcast to distribute this content in a variety of different vehicles.

    Rich Tullo of Albert Fried & Company projects this deal to be a catalyst for a third company: TiVo (NASDAQ: TIVO).

    Tullo believes the utilizing TIVO Set-top Boxes (STB) would be an easier bridge for CMCSA, "While streaming NFLX on CMCSA owned-and-operated Boxes has TV and Movie Rights content conflicts which we think needs to be resolved, we think enabling NFLX on TIVO boxes is really a turnkey solution."

    TiVo currently provides the only STB platform to provide NFLX content and it would be ideal for CMCSA to utilize its agreement with TIVO to make the transition.

    Albert Fried reiterates its rating of Overweight with a price target of $23, up 90% from its current trading price.

    TIVO closed previously at $12.72 and is currently trading up nearly 3% at $13.10.
     
  8. hefe

    hefe Rebus Philbin

    32,385
    185
    Dec 5, 2000
    CO via Chi-town
    Are you suggesting that the money I pay to Comcast to bring me data from the internet does not include Netflix? Comcast shouldn't care if my data comes from Netflix, or fluffykittensinbaskets.com. If I pay them for X amount of data at X speed, they should provide that.
     
  9. lessd

    lessd Active Member

    7,695
    5
    Jan 23, 2005
    CT
    As far as I know Comcast does what your asking, for now, even the 250Gb caps are not on, at least in the Hartford CT area.
     
  10. hefe

    hefe Rebus Philbin

    32,385
    185
    Dec 5, 2000
    CO via Chi-town
    I suspect that they don't in all areas for competing streaming services. I often have trouble streaming even the low quality Hulu Plus feed on my 25 mbps service. And there has been much documented about the lack of Netflix performance in many places.

    In any case, the thing I was taking issue with is the notion that somehow my service that I pay for is a costly burden to the company that I pay for the service from and that it's not fair that Netflix gets to take advantage of the connection that I pay Comcast for to bring me data from the internet.
     
  11. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Active Member

    5,715
    12
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    ISPs may give you what they say you pay for but many certainly do not provide what consumers expect or think they are paying for. I have Frontier DSL at 6Mbps in the morning (6am ish), it is almost always 6Mps in the evening it is always down to 1-1.5 Mbps and streaming is almost impossible. My friend with TWC 15 Mbps service has about the same results except in the evening hers only drops to 2-3 Mbps.

    Of course both of our services say "up to" X Mbps so technically our ISPs are providing what they said they would. We both know there is no issue with our lines or home equipment and that it is an upstream capacity problem as our services work fine and at or near the rated Mbps speed when most people are sleeping/not using the Internet.

    This deal between Comcast & Netflix may actually be good for Netflix users on Comcast's system but what does it do to those who want to use Hulu+, Amazon, Vudu, etc.?
     
  12. sangs

    sangs Member

    528
    0
    Jan 1, 2003
    New Jersey
  13. tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Active Member

    3,644
    3
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    Look, the bottom line is that I pay Comcast (or whatever other ISP) a certain amount of money to provide me a certain internet speed to whatever internet content I choose. If there are technical reasons why content I want is being slowed down, it should be up to the ISP to fix it. The fact that Netflix has to pay anything at all to Comcast to fix this issue is a big problem for me, whether it's technically a "net neutrality" issue or not. Comcast makes a ton of money, and they should have to spend some of those mega-profits of theirs on the needed network infrastructure upgrades.
     
  14. lessd

    lessd Active Member

    7,695
    5
    Jan 23, 2005
    CT
    Except if Netflix uses MUCH more bandwidth than most other internet sites, causing Comcast or other network providers to spend money (to give Netflix customers a better experience) without any return to upgrade their network, this is a problem or will become a big problem as others sites start to use the internet to provide HDTV service. This is a problem with any all-you-can eat type service, and to just blame Comcast or any other network providers for not spending more money without any return of capital is wishful thinking, what if you were a stockholder in Comcast, your outlook may be different. I don't know what Comcast internal ROI is so I guess if it was 50% per year I would be more in agreement with you.
     
  15. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Active Member

    5,715
    12
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    I am going to have to somewhat disagree with you. I look at Internet access just like any other utility. The company providing the service should have to build their supply pipes around peek demand just like any other utility. Would you accept your water company saying we decided to put in a 1 inch line cause it was cheaper a 1 inch line is fine for any one house but of course if 20 houses start taking showers and flushing toilets at the same time the line will not be able to keep up with demand. Same idea for a natural gas line or how about if the electric company decided to only build enough capacity for 1/2 peak demand and just turned the power off for some people when the demand got to high?

    The only reason ISPs don't provide enough band width is because we allow them to get away with it by not regulating it. If an ISP wants to sell a 6, 15, 30, or whatever Mbps service it should be obligated to provide that speed virtually 100% of the time. Regardless what the price is, if it is metered or not there will always be a peek demand period and the ISP should be required to deal with it, just like any other utility has too.
     
  16. trip1eX

    trip1eX Active Member

    2,767
    3
    Apr 2, 2005
  17. rainwater

    rainwater Active Member

    7,057
    1
    Sep 21, 2004
    Now Netflix is placing their content inside of the Comcast network. Before, without support from Comcast, users saw how bad streaming was coming from external CDNs that Netflix was also paying. While it may be a bad precedent, Netflix was already paying 3rd parties to deliver content to Comcast customers. Now they are just paying at the source. The idea that this will raise the cost of Netflix is also a misnomer. Netflix would probably love to pay the ISPs directly instead of the CDN companies. It would give them direct access to customers with guaranteed high quality streaming.
     
  18. mattack

    mattack Active Member

    20,734
    4
    Apr 9, 2001
    sunnyvale
    If you both have cell phones, you DO both pay.

    (Note, I'm not completely defending the deal... I can see arguments on both sides.)
     
  19. tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Active Member

    3,644
    3
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    Exactly. ISPs should be treated exactly like the power utility, water utility, or traditional telephone company. They all have to build their infrastructure for peak demand and charge everyone the same. The fact that ISPs aren't classified and regulated as common carriers is completely unacceptable, unless there is TRUE competition in the market like what is happening in Austin. If an ISP is a virtual monopoly in a particular market, then they should have to be regulated as a monopoly in that market.
     
  20. lessd

    lessd Active Member

    7,695
    5
    Jan 23, 2005
    CT
    You are correct BUT at least in my town I pay for the amount of water I use, so if water uses go up the water co gets more money to make sure we all have full water supply, the internet providers charge the same price for the same speed to everybody, so if I use 10 times what you use your cost is help paying for my use, if everybody use went up be a factor of 10 then the provider would have to charge more to keep everybody happy and upgrade the system. In the long run you can't get something for nothing, somebody has to pay, so it would be the users or the stockholders or people feeding the internet like Netflix. Most mobile internet is metered and you purchase what you think you need, (1Gb 5Gb etc per month) go over that and you pay more. Why would Comcast be any different except it is less costly to provide more data by wire then OTA, as mobile phone Co. have to do.
    If the internet providers became a regulated utility than the price to users would be fixed with a guarantee ROI to each provider, as the cost went up the price you pay would go up, and competition would not exist, now at least I have ATT U-Verse available to hold Comcast feet to the fire every two years.
    Someday the internet may become a regulated utility, but I not sure that would be an advantage to most of the users. Now I pay $139 for Internet blast, a phone line with no long distance charges (USA) and extended cable with HBO and one cable box, I remember in the old days paying well over $100 for just my phone and long distance charges.
    Note: the $139 is before taxes and other bull charges on my cable bill.
     

Share This Page