Netflix admits it is Throttling Wireless Customers

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by SomeRandomIdiot, Mar 25, 2016.

  1. Mar 29, 2016 #81 of 156
    SomeRandomIdiot

    SomeRandomIdiot New Member

    1,200
    1
    Jan 7, 2016

    Advertisements

    Unfortunately you get it, some never will. I fully expect that the FCC will consider expanding the rules as it does go to the heart (and verbage) of Network Neutrality - putting the decision in the hands of the consumer, which is why I used that language.

    And actually they were not down rezzing to 480 (DVD Quality)....but 360 @600kbps
     
  2. Mar 29, 2016 #82 of 156
    loganasu

    loganasu I'm a lurker

    301
    10
    Jan 17, 2005
    Doesn't matter.

    Net Neutrality is for the connection between the customer and the content provider.
    It doesn't matter what that content is. That is between the provider and the customer.

    It's how the bits get from one to the other (ISP's) that Net Neutrality is covering.

    Therefore, it doesn't matter what Netflix is sending AT&T and Verzion.
     
  3. Mar 29, 2016 #83 of 156
    hefe

    hefe Rebus Philbin

    38,241
    2,752
    Dec 5, 2000
    CO via Chi-town
    Bingo. It's because the ISP is the carrier, the utility. They're the ones that aren't supposed to care what the bits are, or to unfairly bias their own content on that common carrier. It's about being the pipe. What content providers put into that pipe is between them and their customers. There's no requirement on the content providers to use any particular bandwidth. The customer is free to decide to use that service or not.
     
  4. Mar 29, 2016 #84 of 156
    atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    6,952
    615
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    We get it just fine what Netflix did may or may not violate some regulation (mostly because they failed to disclose what they were doing) but it is not Net Neutrality/Open Internet rules.

    Thanks for finally admitting that and thanks for also admitting what you are actually looking for if the FCC to change Net Neutrality rules and regulate a whole spectrum of bushiness that are not currently regulated by Net Neutrality/Open Internet rules (per FCC current rules only pertain to fixed and mobile broadband providers) .

    Now all you need to do is be honest about why you would like the FCC to try and over regulate companies providing services over the Internet and why you want those rules integrated into Net Neutrality instead of being a set of stand alone rules.

    Oh and buy the way this is what the FCC says their Open Internet (Net Neutrality) rules are for:

    "Adopted on February 26, 2015, the FCC's Open Internet rules are designed to protect free expression and innovation on the Internet and promote investment in the nation's broadband networks."​
     
  5. Mar 31, 2016 #85 of 156
    slowbiscuit

    slowbiscuit FUBAR

    4,682
    628
    Sep 19, 2006
    In the ATL

    Advertisements

    Which, again, has nothing to do with the FCC's open internet order. That order (i.e., Net Neutrality) ONLY applies to ISPs.

    Y'all can claim whatever you want as a violation of some other rule or reg, but the open internet rules do not apply to what you claim.
     
  6. Mar 31, 2016 #86 of 156
    SomeRandomIdiot

    SomeRandomIdiot New Member

    1,200
    1
    Jan 7, 2016
    I believe if you bothered to read post 51 I stated very clearly "the spirit of the law", not the law itself.

    You continue to be one of several posting FUD about what I have stated.

    And this is why the law will be challenged and modified.

    One should NOT have to become a customer of a certain ISP to get the highest bitrate a source offers, just as Net Neutrality tries to enforce. The FCC NEVER IMAGINED the source would be the offender when the law was enacted.

    And Netflix known this full well as they tried to cover it up when it became an issue.
     
  7. Mar 31, 2016 #87 of 156
    atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    6,952
    615
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    I am not the one who posted BS by trying to tie what Netflix did to Open Internet/Net Neutrality rules when you clearly understand that those rules do not pertain to it by the fact you are advocating changing Open Internet/Net Neutrality rules so they do.

    You opinion on what "the spirit of the law" is, is just that an opinion. While your statements are vague enough so we don't really know what your opinion is or what you are actually advocating, I disagree with any opinion that says the intent of Open Internet/Net Neutrality rules was to regulate Internet based services such as Netflix in anyway.

    The facts are simple, what Netflix did is not what Open Internet/Net Neutrality rules regulate or are about.
     
  8. Apr 5, 2016 #88 of 156
    Jonathan_S

    Jonathan_S Well-Known Member

    19,724
    1,848
    Oct 23, 2001
    Northern...
    I've identified a major flaw in your 4k setup; its extremely limited geographical availability. :D That is, you can only watch it when you are physically at home in the room with it.
    And that sucks for people trying to catch up on their favorite show on a long train ride into the city, or sitting in a hotel room on a business trip.


    Fortunately streamed Netflix to a phone or tablet is available for people who still want to binge even when they can't be at home.
     
  9. Apr 5, 2016 #89 of 156
    Bigg

    Bigg Cord Cutter

    7,473
    835
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    So? If I want to watch TV, I will walk into my living room.
     
  10. Apr 6, 2016 #90 of 156
    Jonathan_S

    Jonathan_S Well-Known Member

    19,724
    1,848
    Oct 23, 2001
    Northern...
    And as several people have pointed out that's a little hard to do when you're not currently at your home.

    Nobody is saying that Netflix should drop UHD support for homes. We're just confused as to why you seem so against them offering an additional service that's tailored for the lower bandwidth lower horsepower, smaller screens of LTE (or 3G) connected tablets and smartphones. That lets people have a reasonable good viewing experience when they're away from home.
     
  11. Apr 6, 2016 #91 of 156
    Bigg

    Bigg Cord Cutter

    7,473
    835
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    I think it's good that they throttle bandwidth on mobile networks. I just don't see the use case for mobile Netflix in the first place. I'll take my Samsung JS850D any day over a 5" screen.
     
  12. Apr 6, 2016 #92 of 156
    Jonathan_S

    Jonathan_S Well-Known Member

    19,724
    1,848
    Oct 23, 2001
    Northern...
    I'm glad you've got enough time while you're home to keep up on all the netflix you'd like to watch. In your situtation I guess there's no benefit to mobile netflix.

    For others they don't have that luxury. (Jobs with long commutes on public transit; frequent and length business trips; etc, etc)
     
  13. Apr 6, 2016 #93 of 156
    hefe

    hefe Rebus Philbin

    38,241
    2,752
    Dec 5, 2000
    CO via Chi-town
    I watched a show on Hulu on my phone at lunch. I just wasn't going to get around to it otherwise. I don't know what bit rate it was, but it looked just fine. :)
     
  14. Apr 6, 2016 #94 of 156
    TonyD79

    TonyD79 Well-Known Member

    12,720
    1,975
    Jan 4, 2002
    Columbia, MD
    No one is saying you shouldn't. What we are saying is that not all watching NEEDS to be on a big screen and sometimes you just can't get to everything. Or you just want to watch something to pass the time when not at home. Or you want to watch something when not at home because you can't get it on a big screen (such as a hotel with limited channels).

    I take it from your posts that you are home a lot more than the average American or you watch a lot less TV than the average American. On a typical week, I am probably home for about 5 or 6 hours a day when I am not sleeping. Some weeks a lot less.
     
  15. Apr 7, 2016 #95 of 156
    Bigg

    Bigg Cord Cutter

    7,473
    835
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    There are lots of other things to enjoy in those times, like books and audiobooks. Also, many transit systems are at least partly underground, so no Netflix there.

    Most things worth watching wouldn't be worth watching on a tiny little screen.
     
  16. Apr 7, 2016 #96 of 156
    TonyD79

    TonyD79 Well-Known Member

    12,720
    1,975
    Jan 4, 2002
    Columbia, MD
    That's not true about transit systems. A lot are being upgraded. Part of the shutdown at the Washington metro is putting in wireless repeaters. And a lot of systems have a lot of above ground.

    Also not true about anything worth watching isn't worth watching on a tiny screen. Lots of good stuff doesn't need a big screen.

    And an audio book? Why not listen to that in full sound glory? Or read a book in the comfort of your best chair with good light. The same silly arguments you are making can be made for those as well.
     
  17. Apr 7, 2016 #97 of 156
    hefe

    hefe Rebus Philbin

    38,241
    2,752
    Dec 5, 2000
    CO via Chi-town
    You realize there's no point arguing something that is 100% a matter of opinion...
     
  18. Apr 7, 2016 #98 of 156
    ej42137

    ej42137 Well-Known Member

    3,809
    604
    Feb 15, 2014
    Los Angeles
    Yes. And there's no point in arguing something that is a matter of fact. Time to close down the forums, I guess.
     
  19. Apr 7, 2016 #99 of 156
    TonyD79

    TonyD79 Well-Known Member

    12,720
    1,975
    Jan 4, 2002
    Columbia, MD

    Can't argue with that.
     
  20. Apr 8, 2016 #100 of 156
    hefe

    hefe Rebus Philbin

    38,241
    2,752
    Dec 5, 2000
    CO via Chi-town
    Arguing that nothing is worth watching on a small screen is not a matter of fact.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements