[aquadayAquaks]

As far as I know, Time Warner hasn't imposed any restrictions on me.

[Cwvnyfsj]

We're not going to get net neutrality legislation. I guess we're ****ed.

[ephennaCypota]

As far as I know, Time Warner hasn't imposed any restrictions on me.

Me either, but I don't get the NFL network and I'm sure caps will come.

ACK!

[Super-Luser]

Essentially it just says all data has to be treated the same and that providers can't throttle or block certain sites (which they love to do in order "encourage" people to use their services instead of competing services or sites).

[Unlopssesuj]

because it's much more profitable for the companies to do this kind of thing, so they all do it...

But if one company wants to make a ton of profits, it will be the sole company that DOESN'T do it and all the people that care about it will flock to that company. If not enough people care, then raising prices was the right thing to do.

[dicemets]

yes, this is pretty much spot on ... and for example here in Croatia, a developing country I have 10 mbps uncapped for about 15$/20$ a month... in a town with 8k people in it... if an ISP can pull this off in a country which is relatively sparsely populated and not quite up to speed economically... I am sure that all the Canada/US/other barriers are pure gimmicks designed to screw the customer... basically abusing their near monopoly position in the markets where they play.

[BgpOoGI2]

no, with net neutrality the companies would be pushed to provide the same coverage for own content services, and other content services... thus creating a market... which in time is sure to provide a better deal to the consumers, comparing to arbitrarily segmented market with artificial barriers in place protecting the ISP and it's own services.

[gastabegree]

because it's much more profitable for the companies to do this kind of thing, so they all do it...

Ding. Also, it's effectively a natural monopoly because there's two data pipes into homes: cable and telephone. And telephone's bandwidth is basically at its limits.

[Munccoughe]

So, with net neutrality in place, consumers would get a choice between Netflix+overage charges and inferior service+overage charges, instead of between Netflix+overage charges and cap exempt inferior service? Yay, net neutrality.

This is exactly correct. The ramifications are precisely zero people will sign up for the inferior service, and Netflix would remain in business in Canada. It's already questionable for their viability in Canada due to the smaller market & the legal issues of licensing streaming for every studio in every new country, add in the bandwidth caps and it's quite likely it won't be a profitable operation for Netflix to operate in Canada at all.

By keeping the playing field level, the bandwidth caps would actually increase. Otherwise Shaw would make zero money from their new service.

[Kokomoxddcvcv]

So the idea is to get inferior service up to par with Netflix, so that instead of Netflix or inferior service which is competitive on cost, we have a choice between Netflix and other Netflix? How is there more of a market in the second case than in the first? What about consumers who don't want Netflix' extra quality, and are happy paying much less for an inferior service?

The thing isn't quality, it's quantity. 139 movies with the other.

The other thing to keep in mind that the cable companies, internet companies, and media companies are all the same in Canada. Shaw owns cable, Shaw owns satellite, Shaw owns TV channels, Shaw owns the internet pipes. They have a VERY STRONG interest in completely controlling the entire pipeline. They used to be able to do this by owning both cable/satellite and the media itself, but the internet threw a wrench into the works. They're actively bullying Netflix with stringent, unrealistic data caps and trying to replace it with their own service so they can price gouge once again.

The other context you are missing -- right now the government forces these cable companies to provide access to their infrastructure to third party ISPs, who pay a fee for its use. Some of these third party ISPs had very large bandwidth caps and some were even unlimited. People, of course, began switching to these ISPs in large numbers. Why would you pay more for strict data caps? This alarmed the cable cos -- they are no longer controlling the content pipe. Their solution was to lobby the government and begin placing patently absurd bandwidth charges to these new ISPs, so they can't offer their high cap/unlimited cap plans.

You know the rate they were going to charge? $2 per GB ($3 in Quebec). The actual cost per GB is something in the order of $0.01 to $0.02.

This is what the lack of network neutrality ends up doing.

[Cersdog]

More context: Shaw is controlled by the Shaw family. Their entire business exists because it is a monopoly. It price gouges as a rule.

The Shaw family is notorious for being *******s. The CEO, Jim Shaw, regularly openly berated and insulted investors and reporters on conference calls. He frequently came to them drunk. He decided to retire this year, at the ripe old age of 53, and was rewarded with $6M per year (indexed to inflation) for the rest of his life. And what was his big accomplishment? He inherited the company with a built-in monopoly from his father.

Shortly after announcing this pension, the ISPs started whining about how the internet was not going to be profitable anymore with all of the "bandwidth hogs" downloading absurd amounts of content, like 50GB per month!! Thus, the $2-3 per GB surcharge.

[Centurnion]

So the idea is to get inferior service up to par with Netflix, so that instead of Netflix or inferior service which is competitive on cost, we have a choice between Netflix and other Netflix? How is there more of a market in the second case than in the first? What about consumers who don't want Netflix' extra quality, and are happy paying much less for an inferior service?

one has a barrier, the other case does not have one - how hard is it to grasp that context? Do you think that arbitrary market barriers are good for consumers in general?

In the case without a barrier, whoever wants to use the inferior service still can, but while in the "barrier" case one service is subsidized by another business which just happens to be it's parent company... thus not creating a fair market between the competitors.

That it itself will bring the prices up, and you will have to pay more for the same comparing to the situation where you had "net neutrality" in place, this type of behaviour is in effect abusing the monopoly market position to make more money.

[sbrthrds]

Engadget has picked this up:
Shaw Cable's Netflix competitor bypasses bandwidth caps on its way to the TV

While US residents seethe over increases in Netflix's pricing, our neighbors in Canada are upset by the competing Movie Club package Shaw Cable is offering. The $12 per month service offers unlimited access to "hundreds of the best Hollywood moves" and plans to have high definition feeds later this summer for an additional $5 (cable companies in the US have a similar scheme under the name Vutopia.) Causing the issue are promises that "the only limit is the number of hours in your day" unlike bandwidth capped streaming from unnamed services like Netflix. While Movie Club viewing over the internet on a PC, tablet or other device is capped just like any other service, access via the cable box is not metered. That distinction doesn't sit well with subscribers and consumer groups arguing for net neutrality, particularly as the CRTC is in the midst of hearings over usage-based internet billing. While that case hasn't been decided, our own ruling is already in and is firmly against Shaw, or anyone else, advertising based on advantages that exist only due to policies it created in the first place. Note that there's still confusion here. Engadget says the internet-based viewing is "metered", Shaw's President has explicitly stated otherwise several times.

[Xodvbooj]

This certainly didn't take long.

In Canada, which does not currently have net neutrality and virtually every ISP has stringent and unrealistic data caps with obscene overage charges, the largest cable ISP dropped their bandwidth cap the day Netflix announced its Canada service.

Now another Canadian cable co, which has bandwidth caps and obscene overage charges, has announced a Netflix competitor. The catch? Their service won't count towards your paltry bandwidth cap, while Netflix's will. Of course, the service sucks. It's over twice the price with 139 titles, but Netflix isn't very practical with the low caps anyway, so it's not like you have much choice.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...1#comments-bar

Expect to see all kinds of **** like this unless the US passes net neutrality legislation...

Anyone have the picture about how fedexing 2 gig hard drives to each other overnight is now faster AND cheaper than canada's internet?