chipwhich Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 To me, it's like long distance for a telephone company. You pay long distance and you can call whoever you want. The person who your calling doesn't have to pony up, even if lots of other people are calling this same person. I'm sure it's not the same, not even close. It's just the way I think it should be. Terrible analogy. Your analogy if correctly typed would be a long distance number that you call receives 30% of all telephone traffic on the phone lines. It would cripple the phone system in that area if it were possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I follow what you are saying and although I've done some research about it, it certainly seems like you know your stuff better than I do. I'm sure that there are good reasons, but I don't see why Netflix should have to pay anything. Yes, they are hogging 30% of the bandwidth. Or really, they account for 30% of the traffic. I highly doubt that 30% of the total bandwidth belongs to Netflix. That would mean that 100% of the bandwidth is used 100% of the time (indicating piss poor infrastructure). Just semantics anyhow... If another site garnered the same popularity as Netflix then would they be asked to pay for the bandwidth that they are hogging? To me, it's like long distance for a telephone company. You pay long distance and you can call whoever you want. The person who your calling doesn't have to pony up, even if lots of other people are calling this same person. I'm sure it's not the same, not even close. It's just the way I think it should be. They don't have to pay anything. But if they don't, the carriers will not peer with them. Without peering, no data will flow across the carriers backbone. You think your NetFlix sucks on FiOS now? Imagine if NetFlix wasn't reachable on FiOS? There is a reason NetFlix is bellying up to the bar and signing settlement-peering agreements. They don't have a leg to stand on with their current model. Cogent is being de-peered by the major carriers. Bottom line, I think it sucks that the end-customer is always the one that gets screwed by this ****. But IMHO this was a NetFlix caused dispute. They wanted to use massive bandwidth without paying for it.. To use your long distance analogy, it would be like you calling California once a day, and 10% of the phones in California trying to call you, collect, and expecting your phone company to absorb the cost of the collect calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QBkilla56 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Here's a good video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 Good video. In summary. ISP's are letting their connections become saturated thus slowing down our connection to Netflix. ISP's don't want to invest in further infrastructure improvements that would help the customer. Netflix pays Cogent for ample connectivity, customers pay their ISP's for ample connectivity. Netflix offered to have ISP's cache their most popular movies so the ISP's wouldn't need to saturate their outside connections with Netflix but they refused. I find it hard to blame anyone but the ISP's. (Netflix is stepping up the the table so that they don't lose customers. They are being bullied by the ISP's) Bottom line, I think it sucks that the end-customer is always the one that gets screwed by this ****. But IMHO this was a NetFlix caused dispute. They wanted to use massive bandwidth without paying for it.. To use your long distance analogy, it would be like you calling California once a day, and 10% of the phones in California trying to call you, collect, and expecting your phone company to absorb the cost of the collect calls. But Netflix does pay for it. They pay Cogent to stream their stuff. Just like I pay Verizon for access to the Internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 What is Verizon exactly contracting to provide its FIOS customers? Isn't it access to the internet at a speed approximately close to the advertised rate? Why is it acceptable to treat customers trying to reach Netflix any different from customers trying to reach Granny's chocolate cake recipe blog? In an analogy to TV, if I pay 50 bucks a month for access to set number of cable channels, should it matter that the channel I'm trying to tune into is a popular one? If half of FIOS customers tunes into ESPN at the same time, to what extent does Verizon have a responsibility to ensure access to all of it's FIOS TV customers? Can they say to ESPN, your content is hogging bandwidth, so pay up? I don't think Netflix is paying up because they are conceding that Verizon and Comcast is right and they are wrong. They made the business decision that people will simply blame Netflix rather than blame their ISP and change providers. Seems to me that Netflix is responsible for ensuring that every ping to their server for content gets responded to in a timely manner. Why should they be responsible for Verizon's capacity to transmit those requests and responses back and forth in Verizon's network? If Verizon doesn't like it, put a bandwidth cap or burst cap on customers. They know the customers won't stand for that, so they decided to squeeze Netflix instead. Netflix's obvious response should be to give discounts to content neutral ISPs like Cox who's not asking for more money, but not sure whether that will fly as a business model. They could probably work in a promo with Cox though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 My slow streaming for Netflix and HBO go is through my Apple TV. Same thing at my parents house. The Apple TV has been brilliant during my ownership, but it's been no different than other devices the past month or so. It's called Net Neutrality is dead. Since a judge ruled your internet Carrier had the right to selectively slow down traffic from Netflixs, Apple TV, Hulu, Google etc? See if Netflix is working better now. Netflix just paid money to Verizon to allow their traffic go through unmolested. Next up Comcast has their hand out.... It literally could literally be a game changer for the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 It's called Net Neutrality is dead.Since a judge ruled your internet Carrier had the right to selectively slow down traffic from Netflixs, Apple TV, Hulu, Google etc?See if Netflix is working better now. Netflix just paid money to Verizon to allow their traffic go through unmolested. Next up Comcast has their hand out....It literally could literally be a game changer for the internet.Nice of you to join so late and bring up what has been established already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTViper Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Nice of you to join so late and bring up what has been established already. And also be incorrect as to who has actually agreed with who. Comcast and Netflix made a deal. Verizon and netflix still haven't, but it's rumored to be soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Accuracy isn't one of his finer qualities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Accuracy isn't one of his finer qualities. the spelling wasn't bad, order of words is overrated anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 http://bgr.com/2014/02/26/internet-service-cost-heavy-users-verizon/ Verizon CEO says heavy broadband users should pay more for their service Are you constantly streaming high-definition video, downloading tons of Xbox One games and sending massive files to friends and family? You should pay more for Internet access than your neighbor, who only uses a 10-year-old PC in his living room to read email and occasionally browse the Internet for cat GIFs. This is the position of Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam, who said this week that heavy broadband users should have to pay more for home Internet access than those who don’t take full advantage of the service for which they already pay top dollar. “It’s only natural that the heavy users help contribute to the investment to keep the Web healthy,” McAdam said on Monday, according to IDG News Service. “That is the most important concept of net neutrality.” McAdam went on to say that the Federal Communications Commission does need to create a set of rules that govern the Internet, but those rules must also take into account the roles of the wider industry including not just ISPs, but also companies like Apple, Netflix and Google, as well as heavy Internet users. ”Any rules will have to include all of these players,” he said. ...more at the link. What a piece of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 naturally he didn't suggest a discount for min users......I'm shocked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 http://bgr.com/2014/02/26/internet-service-cost-heavy-users-verizon/ Verizon CEO says heavy broadband users should pay more for their service Are you constantly streaming high-definition video, downloading tons of Xbox One games and sending massive files to friends and family? You should pay more for Internet access than your neighbor, who only uses a 10-year-old PC in his living room to read email and occasionally browse the Internet for cat GIFs. This is the position of Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam, who said this week that heavy broadband users should have to pay more for home Internet access than those who don’t take full advantage of the service for which they already pay top dollar. “It’s only natural that the heavy users help contribute to the investment to keep the Web healthy,” McAdam said on Monday, according to IDG News Service. “That is the most important concept of net neutrality.” McAdam went on to say that the Federal Communications Commission does need to create a set of rules that govern the Internet, but those rules must also take into account the roles of the wider industry including not just ISPs, but also companies like Apple, Netflix and Google, as well as heavy Internet users. ”Any rules will have to include all of these players,” he said. ...more at the link. What a piece of work. I agree with him. The user who uses massive bandwidth should be paying more than the email reader. But that means the email reader was sold a bill of goods and should have signed up for HSI instead of FiOS. Cell phone carriers charge more for higher tiers of bandwidth. No reason an ISP can't as well. But that would require salespeople to tell the 75 year old who goes online every other day to read email and check stocks that he only needs a minimal HSI connection, and not a FiOS 75/50 package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted March 1, 2014 Author Share Posted March 1, 2014 For what it matters, I still have streaming problems with Netflix/Fios. I would love for this situation to be resolved, like yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted March 2, 2014 Author Share Posted March 2, 2014 Streaming my iphone via Chromecast seems to do the trick as far as I can tell. This may have to serve as a workaround until Verizon and Netflix work things out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted March 14, 2014 Author Share Posted March 14, 2014 Chromecast is no longer a viable option, at least not tonight. It took me probably 1.5 hours to get through an episode of House of Cards. Unlike my TV, which just brings the video quality down real low the Chromecast will actually stop playback to buffer. Sometimes it buffers, sometimes it just disconnects completely. Awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeroViper Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I have AT&T uverse for internet. No problems at all streaming Netflix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTViper Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Fios and HBOGO streaming has been MUCH improved over the last two days, hopefully it continues. Haven't used netflix but I'll have to check it tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 Fios is such a ****ty Internet service. I have been trying to watch one episode of House of Cards for an hour and a half. I've made it 29 minutes in. Can't finish watching it because I keep losing connection. Wife fell asleep. It's 2:00 in the ****ing morning. This is ****ing bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted March 20, 2014 Author Share Posted March 20, 2014 This may be my last post in this thread. Chromecast is working (mostly) flawlessly for me. I get up to 1080p in almost no time and over the last few days I've had no instances of disconnect or signal degradation. I just finished watching an episode of House of Cards and it looked crystal clear... during peak hours. Here's what has seemingly solved my problem. Replacing the HDMI cable between my receiver and my HDTV. I have no idea how this fixed it, but it seems to be fixed (for my Chromecast). Little more info on my set up. I have a receiver that has one HDMI output that goes to my HDTV. My cable box goes into the receiver via HDMI and the Chromecast is also connected to the receiver. The HDTV utilizes an ARC (audio return channel) connection to the receiver. My only assumption is that the old HDMI cable was causing a thouroughput issue between the source and the HDTV. I have no idea why this would cause an issue just with Netflix but my problem is seemingly fixed. However, the Netflix app on the TV still outputs resolution that is awful. The Chromecast works like a charm. I'm happy. So confused, but happy. If anyone can offer a proper explanation I'd love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share Posted March 25, 2014 Well, I was wrong. Chromecast no longer working reliably for me. I was watching Netflix and I couldn't make it through an episode of House of Cards. Made it about 15 minutes in and it buffered until it timed out and said to try again later. I reconnected to Chromecast and tried again, made it about 5 minutes and the same thing. Made it another 5 minutes but then I couldn't get the video to play at all. My phone worked fine for some reason and I finished watching it on my phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RawBBQSauce Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Just realized yesterday that I could use my parents' Comcast subscription for HBO GO (I have Verizon w/o HBO subscription). Speaking in terms of buffering speed, etc., it blows Netflix out of the water. I'm gonna waste so much time with this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted May 30, 2014 Author Share Posted May 30, 2014 Got an update, figure I'd fill you guys in. I think I've tracked down the root of most of my problems. See I have a surround system and instead of running cable (through the walls, under the baseboard, under the carpet) I used a wireless setup to connect my rear speakers to the receiver. Most wireless rear speaker setups operate on a 2.4 ghz channel. Wifi operates on a 2.4 ghz channel. I think that the rear speaker system was interfering with the Chromecast I am using as well as my TV. I even held the transmitter box right near the Chromecast and watched as the signal degraded and then playback stopped. No idea why it didn't work well when wired to the TV, perhaps that comes back to the root problem of terrible Verizon/Netflix quality. Either way, it is satisfactory now. I don't think that Netflix is streaming in HD but it isn't the lowest quality SD and I haven't had any disconnects since hardwiring the rear speakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Got an update, figure I'd fill you guys in. I think I've tracked down the root of most of my problems. See I have a surround system and instead of running cable (through the walls, under the baseboard, under the carpet) I used a wireless setup to connect my rear speakers to the receiver. Most wireless rear speaker setups operate on a 2.4 ghz channel. Wifi operates on a 2.4 ghz channel. I think that the rear speaker system was interfering with the Chromecast I am using as well as my TV. I even held the transmitter box right near the Chromecast and watched as the signal degraded and then playback stopped. No idea why it didn't work well when wired to the TV, perhaps that comes back to the root problem of terrible Verizon/Netflix quality. Either way, it is satisfactory now. I don't think that Netflix is streaming in HD but it isn't the lowest quality SD and I haven't had any disconnects since hardwiring the rear speakers. Yeah man, wireless interference sucks. When my uncle was alive and would play me in Madden Online, it would lag so bad sometimes, he figured out that it was his neighbors cordless phones. He had some old ass model that was on the same frequency as wireless DSL at the time and it always happened when the neighbor was at home (guy was loaded and traveled all the time and gone for weeks/months). When he wasn't home, perfect connection. It was odd because we both had perfect connections to the internet, and my PC and his Mac had zero issues. For the longest time we both were like how in the hell can we live in the same area and lag so bad and get disconnects. When he figured it out, he said **** it and went out and bought the guy new cordless phones that wouldn't interfere lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.