# Netflix admits it is Throttling Wireless Customers



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-throttles-its-videos-on-at-t-verizon-phones-1458857424


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

Hmm, who owns the Washington Post?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

So Netflix admits it to the WSJ and multiple sources including the Washington Post report it - so it's incorrect just because it's in the Post?

I could have posted the WSJ link, but anyone clicking on the story who was not a paying customer would have hit a Paywall.

EDIT:No problem, its now the non-Amazon WSJ source.


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

It's a biased article. For instance, it doesn't link to Netflix's blog post, which is a primary source for the topic. It also doesn't present a neutral and nuanced view of the topic at all -- for instance I personally see a difference between the ISP throttling traffic between a user and third parties(who may not have agreed to the throttling) vs. Netflix doing it for their own content, primarily due to ISP policies (data capping).


----------



## Barnstormer (Sep 23, 2015)

Truly a non issue. I am more concerned with being throttled by an ISP, who wants to direct me to certain 'fast' high-paying websites owned by the big boys and girls rather than other websites owned by little guys. The playing field must remain level. 

If Netflix wants to throttle itself that is a lot difference from my ISP deciding to throttle Netlfix. This should be obvious.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

It's just as bad either way. Neither should be throttling. If a user goes over their cap that is their problem. I don't want Netflix or an ISP treating me like a child.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> It's just as bad either way. Neither should be throttling. If a user goes over their cap that is their problem. I don't want Netflix or an ISP treating me like a child.


Until Verizon and AT&T put an end to overage charges, it's a pretty big deal ... as-is the fact that 8 people watching Netflix at 600Kbps puts the same load on a cell tower as just 1 person watching at 5MBps.

Netflix says they intend to let their customers choose, which is ideal, but the problems are most certainly real.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Phfft. 

Streaming has always been adjusted to the device and the bandwidth. How is this any different. 

Nobody guarantees a bit rate. They aim for consistent and good PQ. 

Seriously? Netflix treating you like a child because they are delivering what they feel is the best product at a lower bandwidth? What?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

gonzotek said:


> It's a biased article. For instance, it doesn't link to Netflix's blog post, which is a primary source for the topic. It also doesn't present a neutral and nuanced view of the topic at all -- for instance I personally see a difference between the ISP throttling traffic between a user and third parties(who may not have agreed to the throttling) vs. Netflix doing it for their own content, primarily due to ISP policies (data capping).


Seems you are in the minority.

Major Tech Players blasting Netflix today especially after they lead the charge for Net Neutrality.

People had been blaming Verizon and AT&T for throttling their Netflix feeds - and turns out Netflix was actually the guilty party.

http://www.multichannel.com/news/fcc/updated-netflix-gets-hammered-over-throttling/403606


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

I've always said- F Netflix, lousy service for a lousy price- no real selection.

Its all "gee wiz, look ma, I'm streaming videos off the internet"

It's really pure crapola.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

The few times I've used them through LTE on AT&T the picture quality on my iPhone 6s+ seemed good enough and the data streamed smoothly with no interruptions. I have unlimited data so don't need them to throttle to save on my usage but if it helps provide a smoother viewing experience then I can't complain.

On a tangent regarding their service, I like them well enough to keep the subscription mostly for the TV shows they have available. I've always known their selection of movies through streaming wasn't great, some would say crap. However apparently their offerings have been shrinking since the beginning of 2014:

http://www.refinery29.com/2016/03/106904/fewer-movies-tv-shows-netflix

If they keep heading in the direction of building up their original content at the expense of letting their TV collection dwindle then at that point I'd probably drop them. I need a good balance between their original programming and carrying past TV shows to be willing to pay monthly for their service.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Unlimited with att has a catch. Once over some arbitrary limit, they throttle you down to edge speeds.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

TonyD79 said:


> Unlimited with att has a catch. Once over some arbitrary limit, they throttle you down to edge speeds.


These days I believe that arbitrary number is pretty high and not always enforced.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mlsnyc said:


> These days I believe that arbitrary number is pretty high and not always enforced.


It was 5 many times for me in a 12 month period. I switched to a cheaper capped plan with more data and one month rollover.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

mlsnyc said:


> these days i believe that arbitrary number is pretty high and not always enforced.


22gb


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

mlsnyc said:


> These days I believe that arbitrary number is pretty high and not always enforced.


My supplier is very clear. With 30/3 I get 600GB. http://www.secv.com/internet/


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

cherry ghost said:


> 22gb


Not unless it changed in the last six months.

I was throttled at 5 several times and came close a couple other. Complete with email.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

JoeKustra said:


> My supplier is very clear. With 30/3 I get 600GB. http://www.secv.com/internet/


That is home. I am talking LTE.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> Not unless it changed in the last six months.
> 
> I was throttled at 5 several times and came close a couple other. Complete with email.


http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/16/9336783/att-unlimited-data-throttling-cap-raises-to-22gb


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

cherry ghost said:


> http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/16/9336783/att-unlimited-data-throttling-cap-raises-to-22gb


Ah. Almost exactly six months.

No matter. My new capped data plan saved me $10 a month or so.

There should be no throttle limit.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> People had been blaming Verizon and AT&T for throttling their Netflix feeds - and turns out Netflix was actually the guilty party.
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/news/fcc/updated-netflix-gets-hammered-over-throttling/403606


That's an issue, as they were not being transparent about it, but they have every right to throttle their own service, and mobile probably should be throttled on Netflix's end. The ISPs, however, have no right to throttle, since they are a utility, not a service.

Also, watching Netflix on a phone is kinda stupid, but people do it anyway. As long as they keep UHD resolution streaming to my 65" Samsung, then I'm happy!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> That's an issue, as they were not being transparent about it, but they have every right to throttle their own service, and mobile probably should be throttled on Netflix's end. The ISPs, however, have no right to throttle, since they are a utility, not a service. Also, watching Netflix on a phone is kinda stupid, but people do it anyway. As long as they keep UHD resolution streaming to my 65" Samsung, then I'm happy!


It is stupid if you are sitting in front of your big tv but it is not stupid if you are traveling. Unless you bring a streaming device and hook it up to a hotel tv or can bring a tv outdoors, you watch on your phone or tablet.

We are talking about throttling LTE not wifi.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

Bigg said:


> Also, watching Netflix on a phone is kinda stupid, but people do it anyway. As long as they keep UHD resolution streaming to my 65" Samsung, then I'm happy!


Guess next time I drop off my kid at one of his activities and I have an hour or so to kill I'll just watch the paint dry or grass grow, since watching something on my phone is stupid.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Phfft.
> 
> Streaming has always been adjusted to the device and the bandwidth. How is this any different.
> 
> ...


I have unlimited data on Verizon. I could not care less if my Netflix Data was two or three times. It would not affect my bill. And even if I was on a limited data tier, I don't want anyone else making the decision for me. I prefer to decide how much data I want to use. If I were a child I could understand, but I'm an adult. That and Verizon Wireless can handle the higher bitrates in the areas I'm in. Well all but one small area in the 25 mile area I frequent.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> I have unlimited data on Verizon. I could not care less if my Netflix Data was two or three times. It would not affect my bill. And even if I was on a limited data tier, I don't want anyone else making the decision for me. I prefer to decide how much data I want to use. If I were a child I could understand, but I'm an adult. That and Verizon Wireless can handle the higher bitrates in the areas I'm in. Well all but one small area in the 25 mile area I frequent.


You understand that all apps do this? Heck, Netflix even has the data showing on most devices as they auto throttle and adjust to available bandwidth.

Every streaming service does this. Caps are one consideration. So is the size of the display. So is the immediate bandwidth available. And more.

Heck, even cable companies and satellite do this. It is called using technology to deliver the best experience most efficiently.

That is not what the issue is. The issue is that Netflix has been blaming others. They are not wrong but they are in a position where they are living in a glass house.

So, once more, repeat you are not a child. But it seems to me that adults would understand more than just their individual experience.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> You understand that all apps do this? Heck, Netflix even has the data showing on most devices as they auto throttle and adjust to available bandwidth.
> 
> Every streaming service does this. Caps are one consideration. So is the size of the display. So is the immediate bandwidth available. And more.
> 
> ...


I don't see throttling on FiOS. I will hit my max speeds of 150Mb/s, 24/7/365. I use several terabytes every month.

On wireless the biggest stuff I upload or download is UHD videos taken with my Galaxay S6. I will typically see upload/download speeds of 20Mb/s to 30Mb/s. Verizon doesn't seem to be throttling my data there either. Since I don't usually see any higher speeds when doing speed tests.

If Verizon wireless was throttling, I would expect to see single digit Mb/s speeds.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> I don't see throttling on FiOS. I will hit my max speeds of 150Mb/s, 24/7/365. I use several terabytes every month. On wireless the biggest stuff I upload or download is UHD videos taken with my Galaxay S6. I will typically see upload/download speeds of 20Mb/s to 30Mb/s. Verizon doesn't seem to be throttling my data there either. Since I don't usually see any higher speeds when doing speed tests. If Verizon wireless was throttling, I would expect to see single digit Mb/s speeds.


Sigh. Watch as the program plays. It ramps up. Occasionally, it will drop. I'm talking about the actual Netflix stream. There is more in play than just your end point.

You are using speed tests which are not real world when it comes to the entire chain for a stream. You have to look at what is actually being streamed.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Sigh. Watch as the program plays. It ramps up. Occasionally, it will drop. I'm talking about the actual Netflix stream. There is more in play than just your end point.
> 
> You are using speed tests which are not real world when it comes to the entire chain for a stream. You have to look at what is actually being streamed.


Yes I'm talking about the stream. My Netflix streams most definitely do not go up and down in resolution. Now of course the streaming rate is not constant. It might hit 80Mb/s one second and 10 Mb/s the next. Because it does buffer. But the actual encode ramps up and stays there. It's extremely rare for a Netflix stream to drop down to a lower encode for me. It is typically rock solid. It ramps up to the highest stream within a few seconds at most.

Over the past few weeks I've watched over thirty hours of UHD content. Every title either started at 2160P or ramped up to it within a few seconds. ANd every title stayed there during the duration. It didn't matter whether it's 8PM, 11PM, 5PM or 10AM. A weekday or a weekend. Netflix streaming is just as rock solid. WHich was also typically the case with 1080P content.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> Yes I'm talking about the stream. My Netflix streams most definitely do not go up and down in resolution. Now of course the streaming rate is not constant. It might hit 80Mb/s one second and 10 Mb/s the next. Because it does buffer. But the actual encode ramps up and stays there. It's extremely rare for a Netflix stream to drop down to a lower encode for me. It is typically rock solid. It ramps up to the highest stream within a few seconds at most.


We are talking streaming rate. But occasionally even resolution.

I'd bet it changes more than you think. I've seen 1080 drop to 720 with Netflix on fios yet the PQ is not obvious. It goes back to 1080 very quickly.

Again. They all do it. You may see it less because you have good rates but they all adjust WITHOUT YOUR SPECIFIC APPORVAL, which is what you were complaining about. Youtube, MLB, Amazon, sling, etc. They all adjust bandwidth and even resolution.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> We are talking streaming rate. But occasionally even resolution.
> 
> I'd bet it changes more than you think. I've seen 1080 drop to 720 with Netflix on fios yet the PQ is not obvious. It goes back to 1080 very quickly.
> 
> Again. They all do it. You may see it less because you have good rates but they all adjust WITHOUT YOUR SPECIFIC APPORVAL, which is what you were complaining about. Youtube, MLB, Amazon, sling, etc. They all adjust bandwidth and even resolution.


The display shows me what resolution encode is playing.(Since I typically have the overlay in the corner) And it's visually also very obvious when you drop to a lower resolution(2160P to 1080P or 1080P to 720P). That is extremely rare with Netflix streaming for me.

Now there was a short time period where Verizon had issues with Netflix. And on some evenings you couldn't even get an HD resolution. But that issue was fixed a long time ago.

And no this is not what I'm complaining about. Throttling is limiting you to a specific speed for no reason. If you have th bandwidth and no congestion, you will have the highest speed available. Which is what I typically have on FIoS from Netflix.

WHen a person is throttled, even under the best conditions, you will not exceed a certain speed. That is the issue. Not the streaming services dropping to a lower speed encode because of congestion. That has always been the case with streaming for a long time.

Without being able to drop to a lower encode during congestion, you would see buffering. Which the vast majority of people do not want to see. They want to see their show continue playing.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

So their current rate setting is not granular enough. That is your sole problem? Wow. All this ranting about being an adult and it comes down to that. 

Did you notice a PQ problem on a wireless device? And I'm not talking about buffering as that would not be what Netflix is doing but the network doing it. The only thing that would be affected by lowering bit rates would be PQ. 

Again. The only real issue is that netlfix has been pointing at others and doing the bit rate setting (I won't say throttling because you can't throttle what isn't there) themselves.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> It is stupid if you are sitting in front of your big tv but it is not stupid if you are traveling. Unless you bring a streaming device and hook it up to a hotel tv or can bring a tv outdoors, you watch on your phone or tablet.
> 
> We are talking about throttling LTE not wifi.


The use case makes no sense. I have no clue why I'd put the Netflix app on my phone. The only streaming video that makes sense is something like WatchESPN or streaming news channels, where it's live. If I want to watch Netflix, I'll watch on my 65" Samsung SUHD TV, not a 4 or 5" cell phone screen.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> The use case makes no sense. I have no clue why I'd put the Netflix app on my phone. The only streaming video that makes sense is something like WatchESPN or streaming news channels, where it's live. If I want to watch Netflix, I'll watch on my 65" Samsung SUHD TV, not a 4 or 5" cell phone screen.


You never want to watch sketching when you are not in front of your 65 inch tv? Wow. You'd rather deprive yourself of watching something because you aren't at home?

By the way. Use cases are not just for you. Millions watch video on their phones or tablets.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> You never want to watch sketching when you are not in front of your 65 inch tv? Wow. You'd rather deprive yourself of watching something because you aren't at home?
> 
> By the way. Use cases are not just for you. Millions watch video on their phones or tablets.


Why would I want to watch the content I want to watch at anything less than 2160p resolution using the HEVC codec with 7.1 channel surround (depending on what is available at what resolution and audio quality of course)?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Why would I want to watch the content I want to watch at anything less than 2160p resolution using the HEVC codec with 7.1 channel surround (depending on what is available at what resolution and audio quality of course)?


Because you aren't always in your house. Or maybe you are. Some people are by choice and others are by not choice.

I wouldn't want to watch Star Wars on a phone but blackish? Sure.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bottom line, the customer should be able to decide if they want to downgrade their resolution/bitrate on mobile. Not Netflix.

Netflix has lead the battle for Net Neutrality - and now we find they are the biggest offender.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Interesting Op-Ed by the Washington Post. It was an Op-Ed, wasn't it? Sure read like it.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Bottom line, the customer should be able to decide if they want to downgrade their resolution/bitrate on mobile. Not Netflix. Netflix has lead the battle for Net Neutrality - and now we find they are the biggest offender.


Netlfix is delivering a product. They have control of the product. If they don't give you a choice (almost no one does) they should be transparent about it. That is the real problem. They do not disclose it when they are preaching open internet.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Netlfix is delivering a product. They have control of the product. If they don't give you a choice (almost no one does) they should be transparent about it. That is the real problem. They do not disclose it when they are preaching open internet.


It's a minor problem, at worst. It's their product to deliver how they want. They are not a common carrier that is affecting how other products are delivered. I really don't see anything that has anything to do with the "open internet" here. Transparency is good, and it's good that they are now at least saying what they do and offering a choice. Yeah, probably should have done it before. It's not a big deal, IMO.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Bottom line, the customer should be able to decide if they want to downgrade their resolution/bitrate on mobile. Not Netflix.
> 
> Netflix has lead the battle for Net Neutrality - and now we find they are the biggest offender.


What Netflix is doing is not covered by Net Neutrality. Saying or insinuating it is misrepresents what Net Neutrality is and is completely misleading.

That said just because what Netflix is doing, isn't addressed by Net Neutrality doesn't mean Netflix's actions aren't nefarious. As we will never know the actual reasons, all we can do is speculate. Could be Netflix had good intentions, or not.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

hefe said:


> Interesting Op-Ed by the Washington Post. It was an Op-Ed, wasn't it? Sure read like it.


As I noted, I could have linked to the Wall Street Journal Article where the story began.

However, as most do not pay for access to WSJ, most would be stuck outside the Paywall.

Next time I will simply link to the WSJ article and leave most like yourself guessing what the article said.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> What Netflix is doing is not covered by Net Neutrality. Saying or insinuating it is misrepresents what Net Neutrality is and is completely misleading.
> 
> That said just because what Netflix is doing, isn't addressed by Net Neutrality doesn't mean Netflix's actions aren't nefarious. As we will never know the actual reasons, all we can do is speculate. Could be Netflix had good intentions, or not.


Again, Net Neutrality lets the end user make decisions for their use - not someone else.

Netflix decided to take the end user out of the equation and make the decision for them, regardless of what the end user wants.

Potato, Potatoe


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> As I noted, I could have linked to the Wall Street Journal Article where the story began.
> 
> However, as most do not pay for access to WSJ, most would be stuck outside the Paywall.
> 
> Next time I will simply link to the WSJ article and leave most like yourself guessing what the article said.


OK, regardless, my comment stands.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Again, Net Neutrality lets the end user make decisions for their use - not someone else.
> 
> Netflix decided to take the end user out of the equation and make the decision for them, regardless of what the end user wants.
> 
> Potato, Potatoe


Net neutrality is about ISPs and network carriers. Not content providers.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Again, Net Neutrality lets the end user make decisions for their use - not someone else.
> 
> Netflix decided to take the end user out of the equation and make the decision for them, regardless of what the end user wants.
> 
> Potato, Potatoe


Stop posting FUD. Net Neutrality does not address what Netflix was accused of doing. If you would like to solicit the Government/FCC to create a regulation that controls the bit rate a streaming service has to deliver their service at feel free to do so, but that regulation would have nothing to do with Net Neutrality.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Some people get the concept, some never will


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I understand the concept of posting FUD to cause misconceptions just fine. 

Net Neutrality as defined by FCC rules have nothing to do with this.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Net neutrality as defined by anyone has nothing to do with this. Who's traffic is Netflix giving preference to over whom? Makes no sense.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Because you aren't always in your house. Or maybe you are. Some people are by choice and others are by not choice.


The use case for streaming Netflix on a phone is really weak, at best. I wouldn't even think to install the app. If I'm out and about I'll read or listen to something.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

Bigg said:


> The use case for streaming Netflix on a phone is really weak, at best. I wouldn't even think to install the app. If I'm out and about I'll read or listen to something.


What is weak is your notion that your subjective preferences form any objective basis of correctness or fact. Just because others like different things from you doesn't mean those preferences "don't make sense", are "weak", or "stupid". And don't make the assumption that those of us who watch Netflix on our phones don't at other times read or listen to something, or socialize with those around us. There are those of us that like to do a variety of things as opposed to being close-minded, rigid, and judgmental.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> I understand the concept of posting FUD to cause misconceptions just fine.
> 
> Net Neutrality as defined by FCC rules have nothing to do with this.


Net Neutrality states the Internet is not throttled by the provider and the customer decides what and when to use.

Netflix broke the Spirit of this what this ruling attempts to do, making a decision instead of the customer.

This is a blatant do as I say, not as I do.

If you cannot see the irony, sucks to be you I guess.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> The use case for streaming Netflix on a phone is really weak, at best. I wouldn't even think to install the app. If I'm out and about I'll read or listen to something.


And yet millions do it. The use case is not weak just because you don't do it.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

No. What Netflix is doing is not about net neutrality. But they get bad PR because they have been yelling about full bandwidth and openness in regards to net neutrality and then they do this. 

It may not be fair but the standards are higher for a whistle blower. 

The product they are delivering is quality programming with quality performance. If it fits that, it doesn't matter what the specs are underneath. Once again we here are trapped by being tech driven. What matters is not if they give the user a switch to eat up more data but is the product good enough to sell. It appears it is. 

From a netlfix PR standpoint, they could have trumpeted this rather than obscuring it. Their stance has been that the transports have been unfair to the consumer (net neutrality and all). They could have made it loud that caps are wrong and they were trying to help. 

But they lost the moral high ground. On this and, unfortunately, net neutrality.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Net Neutrality states the Internet is not throttled by the provider and the customer decides what and when to use.
> 
> Netflix broke the Spirit of this what this ruling attempts to do, making a decision instead of the customer.
> 
> ...


Netflix did not attempt to throttle the Internet. Netflix did nothing to eliminate completion, attempt to reduce consumers options on what Internet streaming services they can use, or do anything that stops or reduces other companies from providing new or innovative products.

Connecting Net Neutrality and what bit rate/resolution a streaming service decides to send their stream out at is FUD. The 2 have NOTHING to do with each other.

Stating or insinuating that Net Neutrality in any way addresses/controls/regulates what Netflix did is false.

Or put another way stating or insinuating that what Netflix did is in any way a violation of Net Neutrality is false.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> Netflix did not attempt to throttle the Internet. Netflix did nothing to eliminate completion, attempt to reduce consumers options on what Internet streaming services they can use, or do anything that stops or reduces other companies from providing new or innovative products.
> 
> Connecting Net Neutrality and what bit rate/resolution a streaming service decides to send their stream out at is FUD. The 2 have NOTHING to do with each other.
> 
> ...


Again, as stated above, they broke the Spirit of the Law, which undermines their position on the Law.

Sorry you do not get it, but clearly not everyone is capable of seeing it.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Again, as stated above, they broke the Spirit of the Law, which undermines their position on the Law.
> 
> Sorry you do not get it, but clearly not everyone is capable of seeing it.


What Netflix did, did not break the "sprit" of the law. The Net Neutrality regulations do not and had no intent to regulate the bit rate/resolution that Netflix or any other streaming service uses. The things I stated that Netflix didn't do where the intended, spirit, and actual reason for the law:

"Netflix did not attempt to throttle the Internet. Netflix did nothing to eliminate completion, attempt to reduce consumers options on what Internet streaming services they can use, or do anything that stops or reduces other companies from providing new or innovative products. "​
Your continued attempt to misrepresent what Net Neutrality is complete FUD.

And just to be clear I am not siding with, defending or even commenting on what Netflix did. I am solely pointing out the FUD your posts insinuate about Net Neutrality, buy trying to connect what Netflix did to Net Neutrality.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I wouldn't say they broke the spirit of net neutrality but you have to admit that they have been shady and as a crusader for net neutrality they should have been a lot more transparent. It undermines their position at best.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Shady is a bit strong even. I mean, sure, I'd like to have perfect knowledge of exactly how everything works, but not everyone cares. I've never looked at a Netflix picture on my phone and thought, geez, they must be throttling! This picture should be way better!

All they're doing is providing a service that needs to give the best possible performance to its customers. There is going to be a line between what bitrate they send vs the picture quality you see. From their perspective, I can totally see the reasoning. The average consumer doesn't want to micromanage their connections. If people were running out of data because Netflix is a hog, then they'd be in trouble for not managing it better.

Funny thing is, if you believe that this is an issue, then logically you need to be upset that your home ISP connection is not getting an uncompressed full rate stream. Because, you're not, you know. Oh, the violation of Net Neutrality!

I really don't see how arguing for Net Neutrality is in conflict with managing your service to most efficiently take advantage of the data pipes that are available right now.

The whole point of Net Neutrality is carriers treating packets differently because of what kind they are or what service or source. It says absolutely NOTHING about how an individual service decides to serve its product to its customers. That choice makes no decision about what happens to other data packets. The comparison makes no sense.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I agree with most of that. What I'm saying is that Netflix pretty much puts itself up as a consumer advocate in the net neutrality discussion. They blew this one from a PR standpoint.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> I agree with most of that. What I'm saying is that Netflix pretty much puts itself up as a consumer advocate in the net neutrality discussion. They blew this one from a PR standpoint.


OK, well, I just don't see that they blew anything. One thing isn't related to the other. Even with full blown 100% Neutrality, they would still do well to manage and optimize their delivered service in a way that balances viewed quality with data consumption. It really has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

hefe said:


> OK, well, I just don't see that they blew anything. One thing isn't related to the other. Even with full blown 100% Neutrality, they would still do well to manage and optimize their delivered service in a way that balances viewed quality with data consumption. It really has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.


Think of it to the general public not to the tech savvy like you or the majority of the community here.

All they hear is lessening bandwidth. And they know netlfix has been laying blame for bandwidth issues on data providers.

That is why it is a PR mistake. Not a technical one. A PR one.

I don't understand why you don't see that.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> I don't understand why you don't see that.


Because you can't account for every way that a person will misunderstand an issue. I can't put blame on Netflix for someone else manufacturing a false connection and using their position as an expert to misinform people that don't know better. You can't defend against everything. I guess what I'm saying is that if there is any negative implication, it's not through some fault or bad act or mistake on Netflix's part.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

hefe said:


> Because you can't account for every way that a person will misunderstand an issue. I can't put blame on Netflix for someone else manufacturing a false connection and using their position as an expert to misinform people that don't know better. You can't defend against everything. I guess what I'm saying is that if there is any negative implication, it's not through some fault or bad act or mistake on Netflix's part.


You go to social media?

And that is exactly what PR people do. They failed.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> You go to social media?
> 
> And that is exactly what PR people do. They failed.


Well, so far the only place I've seen anybody talking about this is right here...


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

hefe said:


> Well, so far the only place I've seen anybody talking about this is right here...


Facebook.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Facebook.


Like I said, the only place I've seen it talked about is right here.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

hefe said:


> Well, so far the only place I've seen anybody talking about this is right here...


It seems to be getting some play in the press: http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-yo...090e536&bhid=21384817434472324605983066965727

Plus there are other links earlier on in the thread. Even if people didn't notice before the media is going to gin up a little outrage. But I doubt many people are going to cancel or not sub to Netflix over this, which in the end is all that is going to matter.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

atmuscarella said:


> But I doubt many people are going to cancel or not sub to Netflix over this, which in the end is all that is going to matter.


Exactly. Unless you've had some bad service related to it, who cares? I'm not paying Netflix for bandwidth. I don't think this will last longer than a few articles from industry watchers/tech writers, and as far as the general public, most of them that have even seen it have already forgotten about it.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

hefe said:


> Like I said, the only place I've seen it talked about is right here.


On CNBC also. Seems Netflix has been doing this for five years. It only affects AT&T and Verizon since they suck the most. FUD seems the theme of the day.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mlsnyc said:


> What is weak is your notion that your subjective preferences form any objective basis of correctness or fact. Just because others like different things from you doesn't mean those preferences "don't make sense", are "weak", or "stupid". And don't make the assumption that those of us who watch Netflix on our phones don't at other times read or listen to something, or socialize with those around us. There are those of us that like to do a variety of things as opposed to being close-minded, rigid, and judgmental.


Darnit. I guess I should go back to AVSForum. They'll point out the flaws in my 4k setup, not try to advocate for watching on a 4" screen. 



TonyD79 said:


> I agree with most of that. What I'm saying is that Netflix pretty much puts itself up as a consumer advocate in the net neutrality discussion. They blew this one from a PR standpoint.


Yeah, I agree. They just should have been up front and transparent with it. If they had done that, then they could even have spun it the other way "look, we are being responsible users of bandwidth, managing the bandwidth to the devices, so that's yet another reason ISPs shouldn't be throttling us!".


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

Bigg said:


> Darnit. I guess I should go back to AVSForum. They'll point out the flaws in my 4k setup, not try to advocate for watching on a 4" screen.


Ah the self-satisfied sh##-eating grin. Smug punctuation to yet another unnecessarily hypercritical comment.

I have no interest whatsoever in your 4k setup. Enjoy it to your heart's content and knock yourself out showing it off to like-minded people. That's your value system and neither I nor anyone else have any business crapping all over it.

And I'm not advocating the merits of watching something on a phone. The phone actually makes up an infinitesimal portion of my Netflix viewing. It's an option, no more no less.

But for some reason you had to use insulting language to describe people who have different preferences from you. That's what's utter nonsense.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> What Netflix did, did not break the "sprit" of the law. The Net Neutrality regulations do not and had no intent to regulate the bit rate/resolution that Netflix or any other streaming service uses. The things I stated that Netflix didn't do where the intended, spirit, and actual reason for the law:
> 
> "Netflix did not attempt to throttle the Internet. Netflix did nothing to eliminate completion, attempt to reduce consumers options on what Internet streaming services they can use, or do anything that stops or reduces other companies from providing new or innovative products. "​
> Your continued attempt to misrepresent what Net Neutrality is complete FUD.
> ...


Considering that the ACA filed a LONG and well written legal brief with the FCC today pointing out that Net Neutrality is One Sided as written and that Netflix proved that breaking the Spirit of the Law, seems others agree with my assessment and not with you.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> It seems to be getting some play in the press: http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-yo...090e536&bhid=21384817434472324605983066965727
> 
> Plus there are other links earlier on in the thread. Even if people didn't notice before the media is going to gin up a little outrage. But I doubt many people are going to cancel or not sub to Netflix over this, which in the end is all that is going to matter.


This came about because of TMobile's Stream On feature where they are allowing free streaming of Netflix and other Video Providers.

Netflix only allows low rez to pass.

When the flack started, TMobile stated that AT&T and Verizon were doing the same - down rezing Video Content - and of course AT&T Verizon denied they were doing it - while Netflix sat by silently with their mouth shut for weeks.

TMobile then allowed people to opt out of the free Streaming and get "Full Rez", but people were still getting Low Rez on TMobile accusing them their system was still down rezing them.....and Netflix sat by silently.

Finally the WSJ got to the bottom of it - and Verizon / AT&T were not guilty of doing what TMobile CEO had contended.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

That's hilarious. The American Cable Association doesn't like it. That means I should be convinced....not.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Considering that the ACA filed a LONG and well written legal brief with the FCC today pointing out that Net Neutrality is One Sided as written and that Netflix proved that breaking the Spirit of the Law, seems others agree with my assessment and not with you.


So the American Cable Association (ACA) wants the FCC to look into this  . Surprise Surprise.

Read the article I already linked to before: http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-yo...090e536&bhid=21384817434472324605983066965727

The only people trying to link Netflix's actions to Net Neutrality are people interested in finding away to damage Netflix or who want to something to Net Neutrality or both.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

atmuscarella said:


> The only people trying to link Netflix's actions to Net Neutrality are people interested in finding away to damage Netflix or who want to something to Net Neutrality or both.


Yeah, it's pretty much carriers that want the ability to treat Netflix (or any other that they choose) data differently than their own.

Well, I guess it's good that Netflix announced greater control over your selected bitrate which is coming in a couple months. Then, even the perceived issue resulting from this "stunning admission!!!!" won't be an issue anymore.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> So the American Cable Association (ACA) wants the FCC to look into this  . Surprise Surprise.
> 
> Read the article I already linked to before: http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-yo...090e536&bhid=21384817434472324605983066965727
> 
> The only people trying to link Netflix's actions to Net Neutrality are people interested in finding away to damage Netflix or who want to something to Net Neutrality or both.


In this rare case, ACA is correct.

The ACA is NOT asking for repeal of Net Neutrality. They are pointing out how one sided the law is.

Net Neutrality was adopted to put the control in the hands of the Consumer - and no one else.

One cannot lobby for Consumer Choice and limit it at the same time.

As thus, the ACA is correct. It needs to be expanded on all sides.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> In this rare case, ACA is correct.
> 
> The ACA is NOT asking for repeal of Net Neutrality. They are pointing out how one sided the law is.
> 
> ...


Sorry I am in near 100% disagreement with you.

This BS of trying to expand Net Neutrality to over regulate every business on the Internet has nothing to do with anything other than trying to KILL Net Neutrality. When groups want to get rid of Government regulations but can not do it directly, trying to make the regulation unworkable or unacceptable to more people is a standard practice, that still has an end goal if 100% killing off the regulations.

Also statements like:

"Net Neutrality was adopted to put the control in the hands of the Consumer - and no one else."​
because of their non-specificity misrepresent what Net Neutrality is. Simply "control" of what? Statements like that have no really purpose other than to mislead.

Net Neutrality regulations are designed to keep the Internet open allowing for the potential of innovative and competitive services. Doing so is intended to provide consumers with more service options, it is not intended to regulate those services or to give consumers control of those services.

The control is choice is between services not control of how to run individual services.

As I stated above trying to expand Net Neutrality regulations into a regulations that controls the internal workings of services like Netflix is an attempt to create regulations unacceptable to enough groups so that they can be killed off completely.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Net Neutrality states the Internet is not throttled by the provider and the customer decides what and when to use.


The *internet service* provider, not the *content* provider. Netflix is free to encode at whatever bitrate they want no matter what device you have, and you are free to not subscribe to their service because they are one of many content providers. That is NOT the case for the ISPs that Net Neutrality addresses.

Big difference that you've missed.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> The *internet service* provider, not the *content* provider. Netflix is free to encode at whatever bitrate they want no matter what device you have, and you are free to not subscribe to their service because they are one of many content providers. That is NOT the case for the ISPs that Net Neutrality addresses.
> 
> Big difference that you've missed.
> 
> https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet


The problem is they were only doing this with certain providers. If they did it for everyone then it would be fine. But they were selectively doing it with only two providers.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

aaronwt said:


> The problem is they were only doing this with certain providers. If they did it for everyone then it would be fine. But they were selectively doing it with only two providers.


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


----------



## loganasu (Jan 17, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> The problem is they were only doing this with certain providers. If they did it for everyone then it would be fine. But they were selectively doing it with only two providers.


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.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

loganasu said:


> 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.
> ...


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.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> 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


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."​


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> The problem is they were only doing this with certain providers. If they did it for everyone then it would be fine. But they were selectively doing it with only two providers.


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.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> 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) .
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Darnit. I guess I should go back to AVSForum. They'll point out the flaws in my 4k setup, not try to advocate for watching on a 4" screen.


I've identified a major flaw in your 4k setup; its extremely limited geographical availability.  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.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> I've identified a major flaw in your 4k setup; its extremely limited geographical availability.


So? If I want to watch TV, I will walk into my living room.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Bigg said:


> So? If I want to watch TV, I will walk into my living room.


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.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Bigg said:


> 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.


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)


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

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.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> 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)


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.



TonyD79 said:


> 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.


Most things worth watching wouldn't be worth watching on a tiny little screen.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Bigg said:


> 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.


You realize there's no point arguing something that is 100% a matter of opinion...


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

hefe said:


> You realize there's no point arguing something that is 100% a matter of opinion...


Yes. And there's no point in arguing something that is a matter of fact. Time to close down the forums, I guess.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

ej42137 said:


> Yes. And there's no point in arguing something that is a matter of fact. Time to close down the forums, I guess.


Can't argue with that.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

ej42137 said:


> Yes. And there's no point in arguing something that is a matter of fact. Time to close down the forums, I guess.


Arguing that nothing is worth watching on a small screen is not a matter of fact.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Are we really going to debate what is debatable? I think some people must really be bored. 

I guess we could debate why people care what other people's personal preferences are when they have zero effect on them. I mean it's not like the worlds going to end if I don't convince everyone that their favorite color should be red.


----------



## Andrew_S (Nov 12, 2001)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I believe if you bothered to read post 51 I stated very clearly "the spirit of the law", not the law itself.


Netflix did not even violate the spirit of the law. Can't remember the last time that I read a thread where one person is wrong in each and every post on the subject. Everything you wrote on the subject of net neutrality is wrong. Just flat out wrong.

http://www.wired.com/2016/03/netflix-no-net-neutrality-hypocrite-slowing-video/


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

hefe said:


> You realize there's no point arguing something that is 100% a matter of opinion...





ej42137 said:


> Yes. And there's no point in arguing something that is a matter of fact. Time to close down the forums, I guess.





hefe said:


> Arguing that nothing is worth watching on a small screen is not a matter of fact.


It is a fact that someone has that opinion. At least one of the two quoted posts applies.

Although I'm certain one was meant jocularly.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

One use case for higher bandwidth for video would be someone streaming Netflix from their phone to a TV. Anyway, this was just all super funny given the grief T-Mobile has gotten for limiting bandwidth via a voluntary program where they give away data.

It would be nice if people actually affected (and not abusing the service) were the ones complaining; but the fact that millions of Verizon and AT&T customers have been watching 360P Netflix for years with no public outcry UNTIL it became public kind of says it all.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

ej42137 said:


> It is a fact that someone has that opinion. At least one of the two quoted posts applies.
> 
> Although I'm certain one was meant jocularly.


I don't know what you're talking about. Someone made the case that there isn't a use case for Netflix on mobile and that most things aren't worth watching on a small screen. While a person may believe that for themselves, it does not make it a universal fact, and there's certainly no point trying to argue that there's no use case in watching on a small screen to people that like to do just that.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Andrew_S said:


> Netflix did not even violate the spirit of the law. Can't remember the last time that I read a thread where one person is wrong in each and every post on the subject. Everything you wrote on the subject of net neutrality is wrong. Just flat out wrong.
> 
> http://www.wired.com/2016/03/netflix-no-net-neutrality-hypocrite-slowing-video/


Yes it's wrong. That's why the FCC is looking to amend the wording as no one expected the Supplier would intentionally cripple their product, expecting it to be done by an ISP.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

It's their product. Net Neutrality is about what you do to someone else's product.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

hefe said:


> It's their product. Net Neutrality is about what you do to someone else's product.


Net Neutrality also means one should not have to chose one Net over another to get what is offered from the source at the same price.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> 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.


True, some are. Although the largest number of riders, by far, is the NYCTA, which is largely underground by ridership (although with a lot of track above ground as well).



> 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.


That argument is total nonsense. Audiobooks aren't available with 4k video like some shows on Netflix.


----------



## Andrew_S (Nov 12, 2001)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Net Neutrality also means one should not have to chose one Net over another to get what is offered from the source at the same price.


*
Q: What is net neutrality?*

A: Net neutrality, or open Internet, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring some sources or blocking others. It prohibits ISPs from charging content providers for speedier delivery of their content on "fast lanes" and deliberately slowing the content from content providers that may compete with ISPs.

*Q: How will new net neutrality rules affect me?*

A: The regulations aim to ensure that all the Internet content you want to access  be it streaming video, audio or other material  will be treated equally by ISPs. Another goal: to give start-ups and entrepreneurs access to broadband networks without undue influence from the ISPs.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/24/net-neutrality-what-is-it-guide/23237737/

Why is this a difficult concept for you to grasp? It's OK to admit that you're wrong.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> True, some are. Although the largest number of riders, by far, is the NYCTA, which is largely underground by ridership (although with a lot of track above ground as well). That argument is total nonsense. Audiobooks aren't available with 4k video like some shows on Netflix.


Not nonsense. You can get quality on a small screen. You were saying you wouldn't watch on a small screen. Why would you listen to a book with an inferior sound system?


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Net Neutrality also means one should not have to chose one Net over another to get what is offered from the source at the same price.


It doesn't, actually. But I understand that how you want to define it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Not nonsense. You can get quality on a small screen. You were saying you wouldn't watch on a small screen. Why would you listen to a book with an inferior sound system?


That's a nonsense argument.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> That's a nonsense argument.


What about music? Ever listen to a transistor radio? A Walkman? An iPod?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> What about music? Ever listen to a transistor radio? A Walkman? An iPod?


Again, nonsense.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Again, nonsense.


Why?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Andrew_S said:


> *
> 
> A: Net neutrality, or open Internet, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring some sources or blocking others. It prohibits ISPs from charging content providers for speedier delivery of their content on "fast lanes" and deliberately slowing the content from content providers that may compete with.
> 
> Why is this a difficult concept for you to grasp? It's OK to admit that you're wrong.*


*

Again, using your post, by changing just a few words, one can see why Netflix violated the Spirit and intent of law - and why FCC is looking at revision.

Net neutrality, or open Internet, is the principle that providers should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring some ISPs or blocking others. It prohibits Sources from favoring ISPs for speedier delivery of their content on "fast lanes" and deliberately slowing the content from other ISPs.

Not hard to understand that a consumer should NOT have to sub to a specific ISP to get the same product that is delivered for the same price to the Competition.

Not sure why you cannot grasp that.

Again, NO ONE thought a source would cripple their own product on purpose and favor certain ISPS that were capable of delivering the high quality product, But Netflix did.*


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Again, using your post, by changing just a few words, one can see why Netflix violated the Spirit and intent of law - and why FCC is looking at revision.
> 
> Net neutrality, or open Internet, is the principle that providers should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring some ISPs or blocking others. It prohibits Sources from favoring ISPs for speedier delivery of their content on "fast lanes" and deliberately slowing the content from other ISPs.
> 
> ...


Yes. What's next? Netflix starts limiting their UHD streams on Comcast to the 8mbps encodes because of their low 300GB cap. While they allow people on FiOS to still access the 16mbps encodes because of their higher 10TB cap? I certainly hope not but if they arbitrarily do it for wireless than what is to stop them from doing it on the wired connections? Netflix should not be making these decsions. The user should be making them.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> Yes. What's next? Netflix starts limiting their UHD streams on Comcast to the 8mbps encodes because of their low 300GB cap. While they allow people on FiOS to still access the 16mbps encodes because of their higher 10TB cap? I certainly hope not but if they arbitrarily do it for wireless than what is to stop them from doing it on the wired connections? Netflix should not be making these decsions. The user should be making them.


The user should know about them and maybe be able to override them but, as I pointed out before, streaming sources adjust bit rates constantly. They often do it on the fly based upon conditions. The connection type is one of those conditions. I really don't see this as any different than a webpage detecting you are using an iPhone and adjusting the data display accordingly. Or a cable or satellite provider adjusting bit rates on the fly to share QAM or transponder space efficiently.

However, since netlfix has been pounding its chest about net neutrality, they should have been open about what they were doing and why.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Again, using your post, by changing just a few words, one can see why Netflix violated the Spirit and intent of law - and why FCC is looking at revision.
> 
> Net neutrality, or open Internet, is the principle that providers should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring some ISPs or blocking others. It prohibits Sources from favoring ISPs for speedier delivery of their content on "fast lanes" and deliberately slowing the content from other ISPs.


First, can you actually quote a source that says that they are looking at revision? I don't mean the press release from the Cable Association that asks them to, but an actual indication that they are taking that seriously?

Second, that's still not what net neutrality is. A content provider is free to provide their service how they want. They are not the carrier.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/netflix-price-increase/


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

JoeKustra said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/netflix-price-increase/


Next at what? Are you in the right thread?


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

hefe said:


> Next at what? Are you in the right thread?


First they slow you down. Now they raise the rates. Sorry if made a poor comparison.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

JoeKustra said:


> First they slow you down. Now they raise the rates. Sorry if made a poor comparison.


I just don't understand the point. The topic on your post was Amazon next?, but we're talking about Netflix, and that news of the rate hike is from 2 years ago. I was just honestly lost about what you were trying to say...


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Sorry, I'll go away.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

You're fine Joe, that was a good link.

It goes to show Netflux is not the savoir angel everyone thinks they are.

If anything they are leechers in my eyes.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Nobody thinks they're a savior angel. Just a service that you can either enjoy, or not subscribe to. Not sure what is generating the level of hostility. Maybe it's people that work for ISPs...


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I can not speak for others but to be very clear, I am not defending Netflix. 

I am defending Net Neutrality/Open Internet as it exists today. The American Cable Association's (or anyone Else's) attempts to radically redefine Net Neutrality/Open Internet rules to regulate what Netfix did is nothing more than an covert attempt to destroy support for Net Neutrality/Open Internet with the end game being having the Net Neutrality/Open Internet rules eliminated or changed to their liking.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

I hate to add my opinion to something brought to life by SRI, but I also feel an ISP should not be allowed to play favorites. No more than any common carrier. I have no choice to selection except to get a dish.

But a content provider, like Netflix, has the right to do whatever it wants to when it provides content. If the market has a problem, then it will lose business. I don't have Netflix since it doesn't fit my viewing habits, but I don't have a problem with Netflix either. To me it's just part of our economy and it's interesting to observe. I enjoy watching the whole FANG group and that's entertainment for me.

CNBC did a whole segment relating to my post above today. They also used the net neutrality argument. They compared other content sources, like Hulu and Plex. My takeaway: it's good to have choices.

It was interesting to see a global map of Netflix penetration. Only (red) China was dark. (I'm old).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Why?


It's a nonsensical argument because you don't have the visual component to music, so it's not comparable. And some of the 'buds I have sound pretty darn good. No cell phone screen will ever make NFLX look good.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Mine does.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

hefe said:


> First, can you actually quote a source that says that they are looking at revision? I don't mean the press release from the Cable Association that asks them to, but an actual indication that they are taking that seriously?
> 
> Second, that's still not what net neutrality is. A content provider is free to provide their service how they want. They are not the carrier.


You mean the FCC Attorneys you have on retainer don't update you weekly with what is going on at the Portals?


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You mean the FCC Attorneys you have on retainer don't update you weekly with what is going on at the Portals?


I'm wondering more about what connection to the industry you have, actually. For the record, I have none.

But in any case, I'll take that as a "no."


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

aaronwt said:


> Yes. What's next? Netflix starts limiting their UHD streams on Comcast to the 8mbps encodes because of their low 300GB cap. While they allow people on FiOS to still access the 16mbps encodes because of their higher 10TB cap? I certainly hope not but if they arbitrarily do it for wireless than what is to stop them from doing it on the wired connections? Netflix should not be making these decsions. The user should be making them.


Be careful. You're making too much sense for some people to handle.


----------



## Andrew_S (Nov 12, 2001)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Be careful. You're making too much sense for some people to handle.


No, he's as off base as you are. Content providers SHOULD be making these decisions. It's their business. It doesn't matter if its the bitrate of a video, the bitrate of a song, or the resolution of an image. The content provider is allowed to present that medium in any format that they choose. ISP's should NOT be making these decisions as it's NOT their business.

Content providers do serve audio, video, fonts, and images in varying resolutions depending on the bandwidth of the user. If you want to dictate how the content provider serves video, it must apply to all media. Do you see the size of that rabbit hole?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> It's a nonsensical argument because you don't have the visual component to music, so it's not comparable. And some of the 'buds I have sound pretty darn good. No cell phone screen will ever make NFLX look good.


Really? Audio quality doesn't matter but video does. Hmmm.

Busted.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

JoeKustra said:


> I also feel an ISP should not be allowed to play favorites. No more than any common carrier. I have no choice to selection except to get a dish.
> But a content provider, like Netflix, has the right to do whatever it wants to when it provides content. If the market has a problem, then it will lose business.


Bingo, this is the correct argument that certain people in this thread fail to grasp. The Open Internet rules only apply to ISPs for exactly this reason, because they have little choice in the provider they get.

Everyone thinks it's a good idea for Netflix to leave the decision up to the consumer with account options, but only a few here believe that it's a violation of neutrality if they don't do so. And wishing things were true does not make them so.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

hefe said:


> Nobody thinks they're a savior angel. Just a service that you can either enjoy, or not subscribe to. Not sure what is generating the level of hostility. Maybe it's people that work for ISPs...


Yes, there's more to the internet than net neutrality. There are also long-held peering agreements in place that hold that as long as the traffic in both directions from & to a peer is near equal that neither side should charge the other.

Alas, Netflix with their massive download requirements bust that model, and for a while there they tried to blame the ISPs for not paying to accommodate their traffic and/or agreeing to host their servers for free under the banner of net neutrality.

But people actually were affected by that as Netflix quality would fall of drastically during prime time. Good luck finding people complaining about 360p Netflix video quality on their phones...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Andrew_S said:


> No, he's as off base as you are. Content providers SHOULD be making these decisions. It's their business. It doesn't matter if its the bitrate of a video, the bitrate of a song, or the resolution of an image. The content provider is allowed to present that medium in any format that they choose. ISP's should NOT be making these decisions as it's NOT their business.
> 
> Content providers do serve audio, video, fonts, and images in varying resolutions depending on the bandwidth of the user. If you want to dictate how the content provider serves video, it must apply to all media. Do you see the size of that rabbit hole?


But this is not what they did. I can get the same bandwidth from Verizon and other wireless carries. And the same bandwidth from FiOS or Comcast. They all have speeds at 30Mb/s over wireless and up to 500 Mb/s over wired. Netflix should not be arbitrarily limiting people on one carrier while not limiting on another.

Now it's different when playing the different streaming encodes. That is based on the bandwidth available at any given time and you could have congestion one second and not the next. But that changes dynamically to match the conditions. It's not a static limitation which is what they did to some wireless carriers which makes zero sense.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> Netflix should not be arbitrarily limiting people on one carrier while not limiting on another.


They're serving the majority of their customers using those wireless services who many would be subject to brutal overage charges if they shoved data in to those phones as fast as they can handle.

Should it be an option? Maybe? You'd have to weigh the benefits to those customers who could/would take advantage of the higher bit rates possible against the customers who'd suffer slower service because of the drain on the network those users would cause.

So, let's examine the benefits?

Can anyone point to even one thread from a customer complaining about Netflix quality through their Verizon wireless or AT&T phone before it became pubic knowledge that Netflix was capping at 360p?

With all the nitpickers and videophiles in the world with their 30/30 vision, surely someone noticed that their QHD phablet was displaying an inferior picture from Netflix .vs. other providers or even just WiFi.

I did find data usage calculators for Verizon Wireless and AT&T and for HD video Verizon estimates usage at 350MB/hour and AT&T uses 1GB/hour.

Both values are well below Netflix's own estimates of 3GB/hour for HD, and 7GB/hour for Ultra HD.

That should have been a tip off that something was up ...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jonw747 said:


> They're serving the majority of their customers using those wireless services who many would be subject to brutal overage charges if they shoved data in to those phones as fast as they can handle.
> 
> Should it be an option? Maybe? You'd have to weigh the benefits to those customers who could/would take advantage of the higher bit rates possible against the customers who'd suffer slower service because of the drain on the network those users would cause.
> 
> ...


No idea. I know for me it's rare for me to even watch Netflix on a small tablet, let a alone on an even smaller cell phone screen.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Really? Audio quality doesn't matter but video does. Hmmm.
> 
> Busted.


No, that's not what I said. It's just a total nonsense argument.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> No, that's not what I said. It's just a total nonsense argument.


Riiiiight. Because quality matters in video but not audio. Got it.

Busted.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> No idea. I know for me it's rare for me to even watch Netflix on a small tablet, let a alone on an even smaller cell phone screen.


I do it when traveling, and will usually find some way to stream to a hotel TV, but I'm happy if I can achieve a 1-2Mbps connection without dropout from either the Hotel WiFi or my Phone.

But what I did on my last trip was to use the TiVo App's download option ... (it's just a shame they don't support SD storage).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Riiiiight. Because quality matters in video but not audio. Got it.
> 
> Busted.


Audio does matter. That's not what I was saying at all. But again, that's a nonsense argument.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Audio does matter. That's not what I was saying at all. But again, that's a nonsense argument.


Why is it nonsense? Same premise. Better quality versus portability.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Why is it nonsense? Same premise. Better quality versus portability.


It's a nonsense argument because it's a different use case.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> It's a nonsense argument because it's a different use case.


It is exactly the same just a different sense set.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> It is exactly the same just a different sense set.


No, actually, it's not. It's a different use case. With Netflix, you're sitting there watching it. With audio, you're doing something else at the same time. Totally different use case.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> No, actually, it's not. It's a different use case. With Netflix, you're sitting there watching it. With audio, you're doing something else at the same time. Totally different use case.


Nope. Quality is quality.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Nope. Quality is quality.


No, actually, it's not in a different use case.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> No, actually, it's not in a different use case.


Okay. You lose


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Okay. You lose


Nope. I won.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I don't see the difference. With both audio and video there are times when I want high quality. And there are times when I don't mind the quality being a little lower. But still not crap quality. I mean I have no desire to listen to a very low quality audio stream no matter what I'm doing. And the same goes for video.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> I don't see the difference. With both audio and video there are times when I want high quality. And there are times when I don't mind the quality being a little lower. But still not crap quality. I mean I have no desire to listen to a very low quality audio stream no matter what I'm doing. And the same goes for video.


I want quality all the time, but when audio is used as a secondary experience, or the source is good but not great quality in the first place, how it's being consumed doesn't matter as much. For something with a high quality source, and where it's a primary experience, then the quality is a lot more important.

I wouldn't listen to very low quality audio at any time, but if I'm out and about, I might stream at 64kbps or 96kbps depending on the service, and that's more than good enough. At home, I'm usually using Spotify, which I have set for 320kbps.

Where I'm sitting down and watching video, my equipment can handle 2160p and 7.1 DTS-HD, so I want the highest quality source that I can reasonably get ahold of.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I read today that music from Vinyl just had it's best year since 1988. Now I couldn't imagine going back to listening to records. I trashed all of mine back in 1985.


----------

