“In the wake of renewed reports that Apple is trying to finalize deals with the entertainment companies ahead of launching a TV subscription service, the subject of streaming TV has gotten lots of play,” Gene Steinberg writes for The Tech Night Owl. “Unfortunately, key issues confronting cord-cutters are being ignored.”
“I still remain perplexed why the elephant in the room continues to be ignored. That’s your ISP’s bandwidth cap,” Steinberg writes. “If you’re not using your ISP’s own TV service, or satellite, whatever is streamed to your TV counts against the bandwidth limits. So after you choose a package of one or more providers that meets your needs, how many hours a day can you watch your set unimpeded before you consume too much bandwidth?”
“While I understand the need for limited bandwidth so as not to saturate a cell phone network, does it make sense for wire-based broadband? Maybe for chronic abusers, but someone just spending a few hours a day pulling content via an Apple TV shouldn’t be faced with high overage charges, or having their broadband throttled or blocked. The FCC’s new rules on net neutrality don’t address this issue,” Steinberg writes. “And why is it being ignored by the media?”
Much more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Plus, imagine if Apple plans on offering 4K video as some others already do (in limited fashion)?
I have heard of Comcast instituting bandwidth caps, but in my fifteen years of using broadband, I have never had any bandwidth caps on my home (wired) internet connection (first ADSL, then Time Warner cable, then Verizon FiOS).
Is Comcast’s bandwidth cap concept a novelty, a marginal exception, or a more and more common norm among broadband providers?
They won’t institute bandwidth caps, they’ll institute bandwidth tiers. Like what Telus has done: http://www.telus.com/en/bc/internet
$58 – 15MBps & 150GB cap (100+ hours Web Video)
$63 – 25Mbps & 250GB cap (200+ hours Web Video)
$73 – 50Mbps & 400GB cap (300+ hours Web Video)
$88 – 100Mbps & 500GB cap (600+ hours Web Video)
Your internet bill now has replaced your cable bill. But hey, at least you can choose your TV service.
Remember when DSL/Cable costed $20 / month and we thought that was expensive?
Lucky Barstard, we can only get 6MBps at my house (in country, old lines, etc…) and it is 65 bucks, tho unlimited, it does mean we probably could not use as much due to the 6MBps limit (actually more like 5.5 real world)
I have internet service that tests at 60 Mbps but I can’t watch a movie during prime time. I wouldn’t expect that Comcast will do much to improve that if I subscribe to another service for my TV channels.
Unless you are watching that movie through your cable TV operator’s own OnDemand (or live TV) offering, they are likely sabotaging your use of competitor’s on-demand offerings (iTunes, Amazon Prime, Netflix).
I have Verizon FiOS 75Mbps plan. This is optic fiber, not your pipe-sharing Cable TV operator’s internet. At any given time, Speedtest.net shows at least 65Mbps both ways; yet when I play Netflix (which needs no more than 15Mbps for HD stream), it freezes and starts buffering every few minutes.
So, all those against net neutrality, please advise exactly what is my recourse here? How can I get Verizon to stop throttling Netflix in hopes that I’ll eventually give up and go to their own (unintuitive and overpriced) paid on-demand offerings?
Obviously, you go to your other neighborhood fiber provider and have them hook you up. The unfettered free market will serve us all.
I have Comcast that at off peak times tests out at up to 80 Mbs down. But at 8pm on a weekday night, it averages 3 – 5 Mbs down, sometimes as low as 1 Mbs. And even youtube stutters at those speeds, never mind streaming even an SD movie through my Apple TV. Comcast techs find nothing wrong with the wiring or my system, and have no answer other than “it should be faster than that.” Calls and emails to corporate Comcast go unanswered. The only option where I live (NorCal) is ATT DSL, which advertises a max of 6 Mbs down.
The unfettered free market is not working so well.
Agreed and only an idiot would presume it would in all cases.
I really thought the sarcasm off tag wouldn’t be needed. All wired services are by their nature de facto monopolies. There is no such thing as a free market with monopoly players.
Sorry you mistook me for one of those.
Most people won’t get your point, but yeah, a truly free market would provide much more service at much less cost. Where I live, local franchise agreements both establish monopolies in service and add fees (taxes) that effectively add 50% +/- to what Charter charges. Must demand more regulation!!!
Actually, yes, ironically you DO need more regulation in order to bust the local monopolies and create a free market for cable. A new competitor can’t just go in and build out new data lines. Nor would that be an efficient use of limited resources.
As Jefferson said, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” This applies as well to the free market as to personal freedom. Without government regulation, the most violent bullies will rule Main Street as well as the mean streets.
Sorry, but no.
You (along with a great many others) don’t seem to understand or are aware that those “un-fettered”, “free-market”, cable “monopolies” you talk about are government sanctioned. Most of them exist due to decades old agreements with local governments that excluded any competitors and also allowed them access to utility rights-of-way.
In reality there is nothing un-fettered, nor free market about them.
And BTW, Jefferson’s quote is about oversight of the power of the state… not regulation of personal freedom.
Nicely done.
Predrag, why is it that every provider you use throttles Netflix to you?
I have been on Comcast for over three years and NEVER have issues streaming Netflix, iTunes or Amazon, even when bingeing.
And before that I lived on one of the small systems my employer operates with 10 Mbps down my streaming seldom stuttered…and with 6 other people/kids in the house with phones and computers!
My girlfriend has Cable One and seldom has problem streaming (with their low price package).
Are we that much more efficient in the South than New York?
Do you have the same problems when back home in Europe?
Well, in all fairness, I had only been using Netflix after coming to Verizon FiOS. Back when I was with TWC (or ADSL), Netflix wasn’t streaming yet.
In NYC, I do have the appearance of choice (TWC, RCN, Verizon FiOS, Optimum in some parts), but based on what I hear from neighbours who are on others, their Netflix streaming isn’t much better. Nobody here has Comcast, though, so I can’t tell if this is a “Comcast vs. the world” type of thing. To me, it looks more like Cable TV operators sabotaging Netflix because they offer competing TV services (on-demand video).
Back home in Europe, they don’t yet offer streaming video services where I’m from, so I can’t quite compare. Home broadband is currently at 25MBps down, and tests consistently up there.
The whole “Verizon vs. Level 3” dispute likely has a lot to do with the Netflix / Amazon / iTunes streaming issue…
I just don’t get it. I have family from Dallas to Daytona Beach and still never hear about streaming issues.
I do read about it from people in larger cities like you, which may be attributed to the sheer volume of customers per node.
But as far as the ISPs themselves, seems like it would be the same for all of their systems if they rely on throttling. My aunt has had Verizon FIOS for years (one of the first markets) so I will be interested to see if THEY have issues with it next time I speak to them.
So sad. Here in the London suburbs (Virgin broadband) we get 100mbps download (..we-ell, actually slightly faster whenever I’ve tested it with speedtest.net ..) and, of course, no stuttering or buffering.
So I’m astonished that things are slower and clunkier in the US.
For the first year I had ComCast, my download speed was 100 Mbps even though the package was supposed to be 50.
They finally figured out when I changed modems and slowed me down to 50 Mbps. I never noticed a difference.
This year they upped that package speed to 60 Mbps.
I really hope this helps your state of sadness….
I’m not against net neutrality. What I’m against is the extra baggage that the FCC insists on tying to it, and then not allowing us to see what the regulations are BEFORE they vote on them. Net neutrality is a great concept, but people who have an even larger agenda have hijacked it.
So does “Net-Nuetrality” insure against a bandwidth war?
Is he talking about bandwidth or data usage?
My ISP has a “bandwidth limit” which is related to technical issues, that is, the pipe is as big as they can make it right now. Whatever I am doing at a particular time will use some portion of the bandwidth they can get to me.
Is he saying that if I’m purchasing TV access from Comcast, I get the 25 Mbps data rate am buying ON TOP of that, that I can watch a 4K movie and use my computer to download a huge file at 25 Mbps?
I live in the hinterlands, so I don’t have a wire coming to my house. Everything comes wirelessly from my ISP’s tower about a mile from my house.
60 Mbps? You lucky dog!
I’m at 300Mb/s down and 20up with no cap. I think the reason that the issue of the bandwidth cap isn’t mentioned is that by “cap” it doesn’t mean they cut you off, they just charge you more. I’m on page 102 of this 400 page FCC monstrosity and no mention of bandwidth is there. Lots of soft language that you can use to wreak havoc anytime you like though.
Thelonious, you are actually reading the 400 page FCC document. I am very impressed by your dedication.
Unfortunately, I fear that when you finish reading 400 pages of legislative bullshit you will realize the public is getting screwed again.
Where did you get your copy?
Click to access FCC-15-24A1.pdf
I believe this is it, although it seems ALL government talk reads the same….
TowerTone, thank you.
Now the next time I can’t sleep, I got something to read and put me to sleep.
I just switched from Suddenlink (cable) ISP to Frontier (DSL) ISP because of this issue. Sudden link started capping bandwidth and wanted to charge me an extra fee on top of the already high fee i was paying. I saw it as a ploy to get me to upgrade services, or buy their cruddy TV channels. BLAH! Frontier is a bit slower, but NO data cap. At least I had a choice of providers.
several issues really Bandwidth, Bandwidth cap and total data downloaded per month.
But here is the bigger issue: Live Sports, especially the NFL but even college football is getting to be the same as the NFL.
However, SOMETHING is going to crack the “bundled” business model of CATV. I predict: pick 40 of 250. Channel owners really don’t want this. Customers do. As for me, I’m thinking the pricing I’m currently getting from Comcast is OK but I REALLY don’t like slewing through literally dozens upon dozens of channels I NEVER watch and WILL never watch. Even Apple TV’s interface is getting bad about this.
Can you say “Apple Satellite Network?”
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/03/16/apple-among-big-tech-companies-reportedly-in-talks-to-buy-boeing-communications-satellite
That was exactly the same thought I had… Satellites are great at broadcasting (multicasting), infinitely scalable (we’re all watching the same thing on one of the 100-200 available streams) and there are only so many sources of quality live streaming…
However, On-Demand content is obviously a different story…
It is the essential requirement, ubiquitous unlimited reliable wireless connectivity, to make cord cutting and cloud based computing work. It may be almost happening in some urban or densely populated areas, but it is far from ubiquitous. And, did I mention affordable?
“Think Different”
Just because the bundle includes “40, or so” broadcast channels, won’t prevent a la cart purchases of other content and programming. Concerts, NFL Sunday Ticket, College Football, etc. The iTunes store audience is potentially larger than any other audience currently subscribed. Apple TV via iTunes, via satellite, via Apple Pay, etc.
Watch for it! Pun intended!!!!
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
e.g. “Buy our bundle so you can get a la cart purchases.”
The concepts scott describes are not mutually exclusive. Buy the basic package (e.g., 40 channels) and then add al a cart channels on top. It may not be perfect but sounds better than the current system of the only choices being package 1, package 2 or package 3.
What if the new Apple wifi hires are for satellite modem, not LTE?
Or something completely different????
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/17/more-evidence-that-apple-inc-is-building-its-own-m.aspx
AT&T U-Verse user here. No bandwidth caps.
One way or another, you pay out your ass.
Wouldn’t it be great if Apple or someone could disrupt these blasted monopolistic ISPs–Comcast, Verizon, and the like–and provide a viable alternative. Apple is reportedly looking at communication satellites, and elsewhere supposedly building their own LTE modem technology. Imagine the iPhone replacing your cable modem. How cool would that be?
The blogger’s dilemma: STILL missing the fundamental difference between “bandwidth” and “data usage”.
Gene is a perfectly nice guy and I’ve listened to some of his podcasts, but unfortunately he isn’t very bright.
While the Author has a point a bigger problem exists. The real Problem I feel and I am not sure if the FCC ruling controls it , is that most broadband is provided by the cable companies so one will not be able to truly cut the cord. What is to stop cable companies from raising the price of internet only service so high that it makes it impossible to compete ?
“Plus, imagine if Apple plans on offering 4K video as some others already do (in limited fashion)?”
The last I checked, the H.265 codec is highly efficient, so much so that the additional overhead is relatively minor from what you might expect. e.g., it’s not even double or quadruple the file size that you might expect with 4x the pixels to cover.
The ISP pays a fee for the total amount of data flow of their clients. Thus big users cost them. Just because the pipe is there, does not mean that heavy use for streaming is not ultimately costly to the provider.
“The FCC’s new rules on net neutrality don’t address this issue…”
Mr. Steinberg is an idiot. Federal regulation of the internet has a three-fold goals:
• Surveillance
• Censorship
• Taxation
The federal government doesn’t give a rat’s @ss if Comcast throttles your Netflix stream.
PS – Mr Steinberg: How is it you have access to the 300+pages of the recent FCC internet regulations and the American citizen does not?
Bad Terminology!
The issue here is NOT ‘bandwidth’. It’s DOWNLOAD LIMITS.
If your rotten old ISP is limiting how much you can download, within your bandwidth limit (which is bits-per-second), then you’re hosed when you watch streaming media specifically because it is the highest consumer of your download bits.
In a real, competitive marketplace of ISPs, you’d get to tell Comcast to go stuff it’s download caps up its ping hole. Then you’d move over to the better ISP who doesn’t subject you to bit capping. But of course, in the USA, #MyStupidGovernment completely botched the implementation of the cable/ISP industry and effectively allowed nationwide monopoly behavior that invites ABUSE of customers.
It’s sad to learn that NOTHING was done to stop this specific monopolist behavior in the FCC’s recent Net Neutrality ruling. Maybe in the future…
Further clarification: As botvinnik points out above, actual ‘bandwidth’ limiting can take the form of ‘throttling’. The result is halting of the stream you’re watching, video drop out or audio drop out or BUFFFFFFFEEEERRRRIIIINNGGG ad nauseam.
Gene Steinberg is confusing bandwidth limits with download limits:
…How many hours a day can you watch your set unimpeded before you consume too much bandwidth?
No Gene, you mean ‘before you consume to much of your download limit’. Bandwidth limiting goes on all-day-long and is NOT affected by how long you’re on the net each day.
No wonder newbies want to hit their heads on the wall when the terminology isn’t used correctly by the ‘experts’. I will point out, however, that networking is a nasty complicated subject on the best of days.
The big elephant is that there are NO caps when you use the good old fashioned cable TV service. You can easily watch on multiple TVs full HD content, with no caps or throttling at all, but if you try to watch the same content over the internet connection from your cable provider, you’re SOOL.
As fas as I am concerned, it’s all data, in some cases even the exact same data. But cable companies think some data is better than other data — even if the data belongs to the SAME movie or TV show, just delivered via different account types.