Cutting the cord... maybe?

[wcfan10]

OK, my 2 yr contract with Verizon Fios is upcoming in a week or so.
I currently have internet 50/50 & package with ESPN, Beinsport, Fox Sports, and other local sports(Mets, Yankees, NJ devils, etc) usual suspects, CNN, TBS, AMC, etc about 200+ channels but no premium movies. I'm paying about 120/month.

I'm considering just getting internet without TV.
I only plan to stream one or two tvs at most at same time, so I friend told me that 25/25 should be enough. Is it?

So, Verizon told me that they no longer offer 25/25, but for 50/50 they offered $65.00 +tax
I then called Xfinity and they had 50/50 for $89.00 + cable modem $10/m + installation $60.
Xfinity also offered 25/25 for $30.00 + modem + installation.

I'd probably us Sling TV to get sports (Beinsport (soccer) my #1 channel). Then add ESPN on a need to see basis.

Obviously, with TV package the internet prices come down.

My question to the board is: Would 25/25 be enough for two streaming TVs ? Or am I better off with 50/50 ? Are the 50/50 internet prices reasonable?

thanks for your input

wcfan

 

[THERAC]

When this net neutrality law is repealed it’s going to kill cutting the cord.

 

[Knight Shift]

When this net neutrality law is repealed it’s going to kill cutting the cord.

Explain, please.

 

[Rutgers'02]

OK, my 2 yr contract with Verizon Fios is upcoming in a week or so.
I currently have internet 50/50 & package with ESPN, Beinsport, Fox Sports, and other local sports(Mets, Yankees, NJ devils, etc) usual suspects, CNN, TBS, AMC, etc about 200+ channels but no premium movies. I'm paying about 120/month.

I'm considering just getting internet without TV.
I only plan to stream one or two tvs at most at same time, so I friend told me that 25/25 should be enough. Is it?

So, Verizon told me that they no longer offer 25/25, but for 50/50 they offered $65.00 +tax
I then called Xfinity and they had 50/50 for $89.00 + cable modem $10/m + installation $60.
Xfinity also offered 25/25 for $30.00 + modem + installation.

I'd probably us Sling TV to get sports (Beinsport (soccer) my #1 channel). Then add ESPN on a need to see basis.

Obviously, with TV package the internet prices come down.

My question to the board is: Would 25/25 be enough for two streaming TVs ? Or am I better off with 50/50 ? Are the 50/50 internet prices reasonable?

thanks for your input

wcfan

To answer your question, 25-25 would be plenty for streaming two TV. Also consider other WiFi devices too.

Yo can also buy a modem and use it rather than rent theirs. You’ll pay off a decent modem in 1-1.5 years and they typically last quite long. You just have to make sure that your modem is compatible before buying it.

 

[bethlehemfan]

Not an expert but I don't think what they advertise is necessarily what you actually get. My download speed is 10 and I stream with very good results on one tv with 4or 5 phones streaming content like social media as well. My guess is 25 is plenty if you actually get that download speed

 

[Knight Shift]

OK, my 2 yr contract with Verizon Fios is upcoming in a week or so.
I currently have internet 50/50 & package with ESPN, Beinsport, Fox Sports, and other local sports(Mets, Yankees, NJ devils, etc) usual suspects, CNN, TBS, AMC, etc about 200+ channels but no premium movies. I'm paying about 120/month.

I'm considering just getting internet without TV.
I only plan to stream one or two tvs at most at same time, so I friend told me that 25/25 should be enough. Is it?

So, Verizon told me that they no longer offer 25/25, but for 50/50 they offered $65.00 +tax
I then called Xfinity and they had 50/50 for $89.00 + cable modem $10/m + installation $60.
Xfinity also offered 25/25 for $30.00 + modem + installation.

I'd probably us Sling TV to get sports (Beinsport (soccer) my #1 channel). Then add ESPN on a need to see basis.

Obviously, with TV package the internet prices come down.

My question to the board is: Would 25/25 be enough for two streaming TVs ? Or am I better off with 50/50 ? Are the 50/50 internet prices reasonable?

thanks for your input

wcfan

I would try the Xfinity because you save $25/month over verizon. The cable modem rental thing is BS, but there is no way around it with cable companies. We run FireTV over DSL at much lower speeds than 25 (may be 4) on one TV, and it runs OK. It stutters and freezes once in a while .
You should be OK, but have not heard good things about Xfinity. We use Comcast in our office for our internet, but it is business class, and it has been pretty solid.

For your TV, look into PS Vue. $44/month gets you a lot of sports channels.

If you went with Verizon, you are at $109/month, and with Xfinity, you are at $84/month. That saves $36/month over what you are currently paying.

We have been running PS Vue for about a month. We don't miss the 200 plus channels we had with Verizon. We have Verizon's local channels without the cable box, and there are a bunch of channels (mostly run old shows and movies) includes:
4-2 Cozi Old shows
5-2 Movies!
7-3 ABC Laf Old sitcoms
9-3 Buzzr (Game shows)
9-4 Heroes (star trek, star trek, star trek)
MeTV (old shows)
43-1 Bounce (appears to be a free version similar to BET)
THIS TV! Old shows and movies
Decades

 

[RU4Real]

Explain, please.

The concern is that without legal constraints, internet providers will throttle the available bandwidth of content providers with whom they in some way compete.

So the internet providers which are also cable companies will put the squeeze on things like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. To "speed them up" for any individual customer would cost extra.

Ultimately, I think this winds up with Google buying Verizon and (perhaps) Amazon buying AT&T.

 

[Knight Shift]

The concern is that without legal constraints, internet providers will throttle the available bandwidth of content providers with whom they in some way compete.

So the internet providers which are also cable companies will put the squeeze on things like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. To "speed them up" for any individual customer would cost extra.

Ultimately, I think this winds up with Google buying Verizon and (perhaps) Amazon buying AT&T.

When is net neutrality supposed to be repealed?
Doubt this will play out. Too many people have moved away from traditional cable companies (this includes verizon).
The utter greed and stupidity of having to have a cable box with a separate remote is long past its prime. Yeah, you can get a universal type remote, but then for every TV in your house you need a universal remote.

Our newer TVs switch seamlessly from LiveTV (either over the air or our boxless local Verizon Channels) to the PSVue through Fire TV. We just renovated a house, and it was great to not have to plan for cable boxes and run coax.

Wonder what the numbers are for number of folks watching PSVue, SlingTV, YouTubeTV, etc. If the numbers are large, there will be a pretty large outcry if net neutrality is repealed?

 

[JMORC2003]

Don’t cut, you’ll regret it. Instead give your provider a call and say you want to cut, they’ll give you a heck of a sweet deal to stick around, either throwing you some free hbo, dvr, upgrades, or they’ll put you on a promotion to lock you in at a lower rate. Whichever is your pleasure.

 

[RUhasarrived]

You can get almost anything you want for free online,including movies currently in the theaters.

 

[Knight Shift]

Don’t cut, you’ll regret it. Instead give your provider a call and say you want to cut, they’ll give you a heck of a sweet deal to stick around, either throwing you some free hbo, dvr, upgrades, or they’ll put you on a promotion to lock you in at a lower rate. Whichever is your pleasure.

Don't regret it a single bit.
We don't watch any current shows.
Most watch sports, local channels and news. Plenty available on PS Vue.

 

[WhoRU?]

Explain, please.

The explanation has to do with your 25/25 (or 50/50). Right now, if you are paying for 25/25, you can expect to upload/download whatever you want at that speed. That is net neutrality. If it goes away (and it appears that it will), then your ISP can cut a deal with a content provider (e.g Sony Vue) to assure their content gets through as fast as possible. It could also mean that they will slow down other content providers who don't pay for the speedy access. So, if you want Sling and your ISP has a deal with Sony, you will not get reliable service. In the short term, content providers will have to pay the ISPs and the cost for these services will go up. In the longer term, cable companies will probably start their own streaming content services and give it priority on their networks... and then they will have us by the short and curlies again.

 

[wisr01]

Don't regret it a single bit.
We don't watch any current shows.
Most watch sports, local channels and news. Plenty available on PS Vue.

I sure don't regret saving $120/month.

 

[RU4Real]

When is net neutrality supposed to be repealed?

Imminently.

This isn't lawmaking. This is rulemaking. The FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, opposed net neutrality in 2015.

Basically, in 2015 the FCC classified internet services as a telecommunications service as opposed to an information service. In doing so, they made service providers subject to the same rules as apply to the phone system - part of which specify that no "favorable treatment" be granted to a particular type of network traffic at the expense of other traffic.

Fast forward to today, Pai wants to reclassify the internet as an information service and, as he says, "let the market sort out" things such as traffic prioritization.

Oh, it absolutely can happen. Facebook is loaded with petitions, but in the end they don't matter because this isn't the sort of thing anyone is voting on.

 

[WhoRU?]

Imminently.

This isn't lawmaking. This is rulemaking. The FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, opposed net neutrality in 2015.

Basically, in 2015 the FCC classified internet services as a telecommunications service as opposed to an information service. In doing so, they made service providers subject to the same rules as apply to the phone system - part of which specify that no "favorable treatment" be granted to a particular type of network traffic at the expense of other traffic.

Fast forward to today, Pai wants to reclassify the internet as an information service and, as he says, "let the market sort out" things such as traffic prioritization.

Oh, it absolutely can happen. Facebook is loaded with petitions, but in the end they don't matter because this isn't the sort of thing anyone is voting on.

It may not be quite as fast as you think. There is a process for agency rulemaking. The proposed rule has to be posted in the Federal Register, and then there is a public comment period. After the comment period, the rule is either amended or made official. Even with a public outcry, the agency doesn't need to take the comments into consideration. So it will likely happen, but it may take a few months.

 

[czxqa]

The explanation has to do with your 25/25 (or 50/50). Right now, if you are paying for 25/25, you can expect to upload/download whatever you want at that speed. That is net neutrality. If it goes away (and it appears that it will), then your ISP can cut a deal with a content provider (e.g Sony Vue) to assure their content gets through as fast as possible. It could also mean that they will slow down other content providers who don't pay for the speedy access. So, if you want Sling and your ISP has a deal with Sony, you will not get reliable service. In the short term, content providers will have to pay the ISPs and the cost for these services will go up. In the longer term, cable companies will probably start their own streaming content services and give it priority on their networks... and then they will have us by the short and curlies again.

And why hadn't any of those things happened in the many years before 2015 when our last administration decided to regulate ISP's like public utilities? None of that went on. And to be perfectly honest, a company like Amazon, Google or Netflix typically has their own server banks on site at the large ISP providers. This way Comcast doesn't have to use any bandwidth at all to support Amazon Prime or Netflix programming. Many of the scare tactics the pro-regulation folks are using really just aren't true. Everything is "they could" or "What if they."

 

[WhoRU?]

And why hadn't any of those things happened in the many years before 2015 when our last administration decided to regulate ISP's like public utilities? None of that went on. And to be perfectly honest, a company like Amazon, Google or Netflix typically has their own server banks on site at the large ISP providers. This way Comcast doesn't have to use any bandwidth at all to support Amazon Prime or Netflix programming. Many of the scare tactics the pro-regulation folks are using really just aren't true. Everything is "they could" or "What if they."

It didn't happen because people weren't cutting the cord before then. Now that there are viable alternatives to cable companies for live content, there is increased pressure for traditional content providers to protect their business model.

 

[Knight Shift]

Imminently.

This isn't lawmaking. This is rulemaking. The FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, opposed net neutrality in 2015.

Basically, in 2015 the FCC classified internet services as a telecommunications service as opposed to an information service. In doing so, they made service providers subject to the same rules as apply to the phone system - part of which specify that no "favorable treatment" be granted to a particular type of network traffic at the expense of other traffic.

Fast forward to today, Pai wants to reclassify the internet as an information service and, as he says, "let the market sort out" things such as traffic prioritization.

Oh, it absolutely can happen. Facebook is loaded with petitions, but in the end they don't matter because this isn't the sort of thing anyone is voting on.

It may not be quite as fast as you think. There is a process for agency rulemaking. The proposed rule has to be posted in the Federal Register, and then there is a public comment period. After the comment period, the rule is either amended or made official. Even with a public outcry, the agency doesn't need to take the comments into consideration. So it will likely happen, but it may take a few months.

I'm pretty familiar with agency rulemaking, as I work in patents through the US Patent and Trademark Office, under the Department of Commerce. The USPTO made a bunch of changes in 2012 under the America Invents Act, and took a lot of actions under their "rulemaking" authority. Some of the more controversial rules are now being litigated and argued at the Supreme Court. But it has taken 5-6 years of litigation to possibly get a resolution.

So, the rules can change, and consumers can suffer. And maybe eventually, it will be determined rulemaking authority was exceeded.

 

[ashokan]

My question to the board is: Would 25/25 be enough for two streaming TVs ? Or am I better off with 50/50 ? Are the 50/50 internet prices reasonable?

thanks for your input

wcfan

Yes 25/25 is fine because the remote servers dishing your movie don't give you full speed anyway. A fast DL speed is like a Vette in Manhattan. Just becasue you can hit 175 doesn't mean you will.


Will You Notice a Faster Connection?

Bear in mind that getting a faster Internet connection won’t actually speed up everything you do online. In many cases, speed is limited by the site you’re connecting to. If you visit a website, it won’t necessarily max out your Internet connection to deliver you the web page. If you download a file from somewhere, the download speeds may be slow because the site is slow–not you’re connection. But, overall, you’ll probably experience faster downloads with a faster connection.

On the other hand, streaming videos from a service like Netflix or YouTube won’t necessarily get a benefit from faster speeds. Yes, at low speeds you’ll be forced to use lower quality settings and perhaps wait for buffering. But, once you get to a certain speed, you’ll be able to stream high-resolution video. Going beyond that speed won’t get you “smoother” video.

https://www.howtogeek.com/217627/htg-explains-should-you-pay-more-for-a-faster-internet-connection/

 

[ashokan]

When this net neutrality law is repealed it’s going to kill cutting the cord.

"Cord Cutting Existed Before Net Neutrality; Cord Cutting Will Exist After Net Neutrality"

http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/cord...ality-cord-cutting-will-exist-net-neutrality/

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

When is net neutrality supposed to be repealed?
Doubt this will play out. Too many people have moved away from traditional cable companies (this includes verizon).

The problem is the cablecos have a lot of money.. prolly due to their outrageous subscriber fees. They buy politicians whenever they need them.

The end result is bills being passed with names sounding like they support Net Neutrality while they do the exact opposite.

 

[mildone_rivals]

Explain, please.

Go read the thread about Net Neutrality on the CE board. I think I did a half decent job of explaining what he was referring to, indirectly.

 

[robcac26]

I think the fact that ending net neutrality is so vastly unpopular but is probably going to happen anyway demonstrates just how little say we have in our government. So much for "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

 

[ashokan]

I think the fact that ending net neutrality is so vastly unpopular but is probably going to happen anyway demonstrates just how little say we have in our government. So much for "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

I find VAST majority of people don't actually understand NN outside of slogans and magical thinking. Its a solution looking for a problem.

Imagine "grid neutrality" where commercial and residential electric costs "the same". Lol "fairness".

Then again most people have never seen a commercial electric bill either.

 

[mildone_rivals]

It didn't happen because people weren't cutting the cord before then. Now that there are viable alternatives to cable companies for live content, there is increased pressure for traditional content providers to protect their business model.

Bingo.

 

[mildone_rivals]

And why hadn't any of those things happened in the many years before 2015 when our last administration decided to regulate ISP's like public utilities? None of that went on. And to be perfectly honest, a company like Amazon, Google or Netflix typically has their own server banks on site at the large ISP providers. This way Comcast doesn't have to use any bandwidth at all to support Amazon Prime or Netflix programming. Many of the scare tactics the pro-regulation folks are using really just aren't true. Everything is "they could" or "What if they."

Calling Net Neutrality a regulation is true, but also highly misleading. Net Neutrality is an extremely simple and lightweight regulation that prevents much more invasive, completely unnecessary, anti-consumer, anti-content-provider, anti-business regulation by ISPs.

Consider that today, under the current Net Neutrality rules, we pay our monthly fee for internet access, and we get everything and anything anybody anywhere puts up on the internet. It just doesn't get more unregulated than the internet today (under current Net Neutrality rules).

Net Neutrality rules do absolutely nothing at all other than to protect and maintain the internet in it's current unregulated, unconstrained, small-business and entrepreneur-friendly, perfection. It might actually represent the single most intelligent, most concise, most pro-business and free-market regulation ever put forth by the United States government.

There is no "they could" or "what if" here. If ISPs didn't want to artificially regulate and constrain the internet, then why are they insisting upon removal of the Net Neutrality rules whose sole purpose is to preserve the unregulated and unconstrained internet?

And the reason ISPs want it now, as opposed to ten years ago, is because all the cord cutting taking place in what used to be their captive market for TV is eating into their profits. So naturally they want to create a new captive market, this time on the internet.

Don't buy the lies, being pushed by ISPs, about how the ISPs are getting hammered by Netflix or other high-volume internet content providers. One way or another, ISPs get paid for every single byte of traffic they facilitate. If Netflix uses a million times the bandwidth of a small online business, then Netflix pays a million times what that small online business pays.

And if ISPs are getting hammered, they are completely free to raise their rates for bandwidth. Net Neutrality rules do nothing at all to prevent this.

No matter how people try to politicize it, or make it about regulation, or about the poor ISPs having to pay to maintain their own equipment, it really comes down to this simple question.

Do you (a) like having the internet be the unregulated, uncontrolled, unconstrained place it is today? Or (b) do you want ISPs to regulate, control and constrain what you see, carve it up and charge you separately for each little bit, exactly as they did with cable TV?

If you prefer (a), then you want Net Neutrality rules to be left in place as they are today. If you prefer (b), then you want Net Neutrality rules rolled back.

It's really that simple.

 

[FanuSanu52]

Do you (a) like having the internet be the unregulated, uncontrolled, unconstrained place it is today? Or (b) do you want ISPs to regulate, control and constrain what you see, carve it up and charge you separately for each little bit, exactly as they did with cable TV."

You're just worried they'll take your sheep ...stuff.

 

[mildone_rivals]

Do you (a) like having the internet be the unregulated, uncontrolled, unconstrained place it is today? Or (b) do you want ISPs to regulate, control and constrain what you see, carve it up and charge you separately for each little bit, exactly as they did with cable TV."

You're just worried they'll take your sheep ...stuff.

They would, the bastards.

 

[robcac26]

I find VAST majority of people don't actually understand NN outside of slogans and magical thinking. Its a solution looking for a problem.

Imagine "grid neutrality" where commercial and residential electric costs "the same". Lol "fairness".

Then again most people have never seen a commercial electric bill either.

I don't see how that is a level comparison to net neutrality. We already have different internet service accounts for residential customers and commercial customers, that's not what this is about.

 

[mildone_rivals]

I don't see how that is a level comparison to net neutrality. We already have different internet service accounts for residential customers and commercial customers, that's not what this is about.

There has been a ton of creativity by people trying to invent some reason, any reason, why Net Neutrality is a bad thing. But it’s proving to be a tough sell because everyone loves the internet as it is today, protected by Net Neutrality rules.

 

[NickRU714]

As an old man who doesn't use Netflix or any of that streaming stuff (I'm only 33...yes I know it's sad. My wife and I make fun of ourselves over it all the time).

Shouldn't people who gain more benefit from a system have to pay more?
Pay their fair share?

Why cant internetbe like cell phones. If you want to use more data, pay more.
Everyone agrees on that system.

Ok, tell me why this wouldn't work.

 

[RU4Real]

And to be perfectly honest, a company like Amazon, Google or Netflix typically has their own server banks on site at the large ISP providers. This way Comcast doesn't have to use any bandwidth at all to support Amazon Prime or Netflix programming.

Ummm...

That's not how it works.

 

[NickRU714]

Also, what's a good streaming resource?

For example, what's available on roku, sony vue, fire stick and such.

 

[Knight Shift]

As an old man who doesn't use Netflix or any of that streaming stuff (I'm only 33...yes I know it's sad. My wife and I make fun of ourselves over it all the time).

Shouldn't people who gain more benefit from a system have to pay more?
Pay their fair share?

Why cant internetbe like cell phones. If you want to use more data, pay more.
Everyone agrees on that system.

Ok, tell me why this wouldn't work.

Under the theory of those who gain more benefit from the system should have to pay more, the current tax cut plan is in total violation of that principle.

But I generally agree, perhaps data over the internet should be the same as data with cell phone providers. Use more, pay more.

 

[drewbagel423]

"Cord Cutting Existed Before Net Neutrality; Cord Cutting Will Exist After Net Neutrality"

http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/cord...ality-cord-cutting-will-exist-net-neutrality/

That article says nothing but, let's wait and see.

 

[RU4Real]

"Cord Cutting Existed Before Net Neutrality; Cord Cutting Will Exist After Net Neutrality"

http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/cord...ality-cord-cutting-will-exist-net-neutrality/

Yes... a poorly constructed piece from "Cordcutter News" is really going to give us all that clear, objective perspective we're looking for.

 

[Knight Shift]

Yes... a poorly constructed piece from "Cordcutter News" is really going to give us all that clear, objective perspective we're looking for.

You need to read it while wearing a tin foil hat, and it sinks in better. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

 

[RobertG]

Here is a good run down of the arguments for and against net neutrality

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...net-neutrality-debate/?utm_term=.87fce3dba0e3

The author of the email linked is against NN just so you know. But, I think he does a good job giving both sides of the argument.

 

[Trekology]

And to be perfectly honest, a company like Amazon, Google or Netflix typically has their own server banks on site at the large ISP providers. This way Comcast doesn't have to use any bandwidth at all to support Amazon Prime or Netflix programming.

Many large content providers already have or use a content distribution network (CDN) with direct peering with ISPs. They're at the regional interconnect sites (called "telco hotels" in the industry) scattered around the country. Building or expanding the interconnect is simply feeding the cross-connect from one company's equipment cage to another. Despite these having direct peering, they are still using network bandwidth from the regional site to your home, it just skips riding an intermediary Tier 1 ISP.

 

[Retired711]

It may not be quite as fast as you think. There is a process for agency rulemaking. The proposed rule has to be posted in the Federal Register, and then there is a public comment period. After the comment period, the rule is either amended or made official. Even with a public outcry, the agency doesn't need to take the comments into consideration. So it will likely happen, but it may take a few months.

Under principles of federal administrative law, the FCC has to respond to material comments when it makes the final rule. Otherwise the courts will invalidate it. In addition, the FCC's action will fall if the courts believe it is illegal or if it was arbitrary or capricious, i.e. to quote one judge "we can't understand the rationale, or when we do it makes no sense, or it doesn't take into account of prominent considerations it should." This is known as hard-look judicial review, and it has been approved (and used) by the Supreme Court. So opponents of net neutrality aren't out of the woods yet.