Discussion Forums > Technology

Justice Department antitrust probe could benefit consumers

(1/3) > >>

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

--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: FlyinPenguin on June 19, 2012, 06:52:06 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: NaRu on June 19, 2012, 11:56:58 PM ---
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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page