Justice Department antitrust probe could benefit consumers

[NaRu]

http://www.freep.com/article/20120615/BUSINESS07/120615043/Justice-Department-antitrust-probe-could-benefit-consumers

The Department of Justice has launched an antitrust investigation to determine whether Comcast and other cable television companies are illegally stifling competition from online video providers, such as Hulu and Netflix, The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News reported Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter.

Justice and Comcast declined to comment. USA TODAY could not confirm the investigation.

The largest U.S. cable companies, including Comcast and Time Warner, limit the amount of data their customers can view from video services and charge extra when customers exceed those caps. Justice is investigating whether those limits put competing video services at a competitive disadvantage, whether cable companies favor their own content, and whether consumers are harmed, said the sources, who weren't authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

While the investigation is still in its infancy, several industry experts weighed in on how it could change the scope of online video content.

This is a good thing ^_^

[FlyinPenguin]

Just because it benefits consumers doesn't make it right. Comcast and other cable companies have a right to charge whatever they want and set the terms of service for their product/service.

And what is this separate cap for online streaming? I'm not too familiar with Comcast's policies but don't they just have a monthly cap? Is this article misleading?

If I understand correctly, the real issue here is that they are exempting their streaming service on the 360 from counting towards users bandwidth allowance. That is just a smart business move.

[NaRu]

Just because it benefits consumers doesn't make it right. Comcast and other cable companies have a right to charge whatever they want and set the terms of service for their product/service.

And what is this separate cap for online streaming? I'm not too familiar with Comcast's policies but don't they just have a monthly cap? Is this article misleading?

If I understand correctly, the real issue here is that they are exempting their streaming service on the 360 from counting towards users bandwidth allowance. That is just a smart business move.

What Comcast is doing that is wrong is that they are trying to prevent people using netflix and hulu and get their TV package. They giving the rights to Microsoft because they paid off Comcast. Is it fair for Netflix and Hulu have to pay Comcast for their customer so they can use more then the monthly cap?

The cap shouldn't be here at all. As everyone here knows I'm completely against it. Bites of data is free. You go onto youtube and watch a video. Google pays its provider to have that server up and we pay comcast for a connection to youtube. Think of the internet as a network of roads. You pay taxes for those roads to be there but do the government say you can only drive 250 miles a month on these roads and if you go over that you have to pay a fee?

I understand stopping people from over using the connection and causing the network in that area to be slow or unstable but they should just go after those people or throttle those people that over use the connection. Don't charge more for a higher cap or if you go over. Soon everything is going to use the internet and its going more like water.

[megido-rev.M]

ISPs are not supposed to discriminate data, even if they happen to sell completely unrelated but competing services.

[billlanam]

The cap shouldn't be here at all. As everyone here knows I'm completely against it. Bites of data is free. You go onto youtube and watch a video. Google pays its provider to have that server up and we pay comcast for a connection to youtube. Think of the internet as a network of roads. You pay taxes for those roads to be there but do the government say you can only drive 250 miles a month on these roads and if you go over that you have to pay a fee?

I understand stopping people from over using the connection and causing the network in that area to be slow or unstable but they should just go after those people or throttle those people that over use the connection. Don't charge more for a higher cap or if you go over. Soon everything is going to use the internet and its going more like water.

Wrong way to use the road analogy, the correct way is the number of lanes the roads have, and the number of delivery trucks giving you your data.
So if dial-up is a one lane road, DSL is four lanes, Comcast is 20 lanes for example, so if a neighborhood has Comcast connections, and if the main trunk line of the neighborhood isn't any better than an individual's connection, then the road can get congested easily if enough people use a lot of trucks, whereas if the main trunk line is a 200 lane road, then Comcast wouldn't need limits for that neighborhood.

I certainly understand why they want limits, since then they wouldn't have to spend a lot of money upgrading their roads to 200 lane roads serving neighborhoods.

[Freedom Kira]

Wrong way to use the road analogy, the correct way is the number of lanes the roads have, and the number of delivery trucks giving you your data.
So if dial-up is a one lane road, DSL is four lanes, Comcast is 20 lanes for example, so if a neighborhood has Comcast connections, and if the main trunk line of the neighborhood isn't any better than an individual's connection, then the road can get congested easily if enough people use a lot of trucks, whereas if the main trunk line is a 200 lane road, then Comcast wouldn't need limits for that neighborhood.

I certainly understand why they want limits, since then they wouldn't have to spend a lot of money upgrading their roads to 200 lane roads serving neighborhoods.

Allow me to correct your correction. Naru's complaint is not about the speed limits that Comcast sets. He has no issue with them - in fact, he has not even mentioned speed limits. The problem is the data caps. Comcast should have no problem handling high levels of traffic if they limit bandwidth properly. The limit on how much you're allowed to move through each month is the issue here.

Think of it this way. Comcast should have set their speed limits based on the number of "lanes" they have available. However, lanes are lanes, and each customer gets its own set of lanes (this is a bit of a stretch of an analogy to an actual highway, since most highways don't actually have enough lanes for every single car or small group of cars on the road to have its own lane, but this would be more like how an Internet connection works). The speed limits should have been set in such a way that if everyone is using bandwidth at the average speed at any one time, there should be no congestion.

It should therefore be clear that it makes no sense to limit the customer's use of the lanes to a certain amount of traffic each month, which is akin to the government charging you for driving too much.

[NaRu]

Wrong way to use the road analogy, the correct way is the number of lanes the roads have, and the number of delivery trucks giving you your data.
So if dial-up is a one lane road, DSL is four lanes, Comcast is 20 lanes for example, so if a neighborhood has Comcast connections, and if the main trunk line of the neighborhood isn't any better than an individual's connection, then the road can get congested easily if enough people use a lot of trucks, whereas if the main trunk line is a 200 lane road, then Comcast wouldn't need limits for that neighborhood.

I certainly understand why they want limits, since then they wouldn't have to spend a lot of money upgrading their roads to 200 lane roads serving neighborhoods.

Allow me to correct your correction. Naru's complaint is not about the speed limits that Comcast sets. He has no issue with them - in fact, he has not even mentioned speed limits. The problem is the data caps. Comcast should have no problem handling high levels of traffic if they limit bandwidth properly. The limit on how much you're allowed to move through each month is the issue here.

Think of it this way. Comcast should have set their speed limits based on the number of "lanes" they have available. However, lanes are lanes, and each customer gets its own set of lanes (this is a bit of a stretch of an analogy to an actual highway, since most highways don't actually have enough lanes for every single car or small group of cars on the road to have its own lane, but this would be more like how an Internet connection works). The speed limits should have been set in such a way that if everyone is using bandwidth at the average speed at any one time, there should be no congestion.

It should therefore be clear that it makes no sense to limit the customer's use of the lanes to a certain amount of traffic each month, which is akin to the government charging you for driving too much.

You understood me

[billlanam]

Data caps are not speed limits in any way whatsoever, (so you could have a ridiculously fast service with a data cap of 10GB, you would still be able to download almost instantly, just not very much, like being able to order a couple of rocket propelled truck deliveries at most), they might enforce a data cap by limiting your speed if you go over, making it hard for you to download a lot of data, they could shut you down for the rest of the day if you download more than an imposed daily data cap, they could also shut down your account for the rest of the month.

As far as I know Comcast warned you first, and if that doesn't work, they suspend or cancel your account, and you would have to call them to get it up again.

Currently they are testing simply charging you for the extra data in some places, data cap has been suspended for now.

[Freedom Kira]

Data caps are not speed limits in any way whatsoever...

That was the point. I'm glad we agree. I have to wonder why you pointed this out though, since I had never implied they were the same.

... they might enforce a data cap by limiting your speed if you go over, making it hard for you to download a lot of data, they could shut you down for the rest of the day if you download more than an imposed daily data cap, they could also shut down your account for the rest of the month.

Except Comcast doesn't do throttling. There would be much fewer complaints if Comcast only ever applied throttling (within reason - i.e. if your bandwidth usage was significantly affecting other customers) instead of charging you for using more data than they want you to. AFAIK, though, they don't shut your account down - they charge for overage.

Currently they are testing simply charging you for the extra data in some places, data cap has been suspended for now.

Tell me how this is any different than what we were discussing. Being charged for using more bandwidth than the cap is exactly what the original complaint was about.

[billlanam]

I was only going by what their terms of usage says, which says shutting down the account if you go over, and nothing about charging for extra usage, the trials where they are charging for extra usage with a cap of 300GB, I got from a newspaper article, which is evidently new for Comcast, so I naturally assumed that prior to that trial they probably shut you down when you go over, don't know what they actually normally do, since I never investigated that.

Apologies for misunderstanding what Freedom Kira said earlier.

[Freedom Kira]

Hmm. Keep in mind that what you can currently look up on their ToS is not necessarily up-to-date. From what I've been hearing about Comcast's activities, they have been charging for overage for a while now. I don't actually use Comcast's services myself, being a Canadian.

Also remember that not everything you read in the newspaper is necessarily new. I've seen newspapers dig up old things to talk about when they run out of news to report (usually with some kind of update).

[Proin Drakenzol]

Just because it benefits consumers doesn't make it right. Comcast and other cable companies have a right to charge whatever they want and set the terms of service for their product/service.

And what is this separate cap for online streaming? I'm not too familiar with Comcast's policies but don't they just have a monthly cap? Is this article misleading?

If I understand correctly, the real issue here is that they are exempting their streaming service on the 360 from counting towards users bandwidth allowance. That is just a smart business move.

They have a right to charge what they want unless they are operating illegally. Which they are.

I was paying ~$40/mo in Japan for a 100/100 mbps fiber line. I will now be paying $70/mo in the US, where the internet was invented, for shitty 30/5 mbps cable. This is goddamn fucking bullshit.

[megido-rev.M]

I agree, that's pretty sad.

[Tatsujin]

I do agree US internet providers are shitty compared to other countries out there.

But if you're having any problems like unsteady speeds (lower than usual), port blocking and bandwidth limits, just go Business Class.

[megido-rev.M]

The problem is mostly on max speeds and bandwidth caps w.r.t. pricing.