Clearly the raw data and the actual don't line up because AT&T has a stipulation on their 1Gbps internet service that if you're watching more than 2 HD streams at once then your internet speeds will start to slow so it's already happening since they are all in the same pipe.
They may not be giving people the speed they are paying for and it seems to have been the case:
but an HD stream is under 10Mbps. If you had under 50Mbps connection then a data stream would slow down from 50Mbps to 30Mbps but it isn't a problem if internet speeds slow down, that's expected. It won't affect video streams unless the remaining bandwidth is lower than the bitrate of an HD stream. They mention download speeds over gigabit here:
An HD movie downloads in 36 seconds. If a 90 minute movie can download in 36 seconds at full gigabit bandwidth then a real-time stream would only use 1/150th of your bandwidth. People on wifi are currently limited by wifi speeds too. If it split 3 ways with two people on full wifi ac that would still leave about 300Mbps, enough for 30 HD streams.
Yes, theoretically it should all work just fine as long as everyone pays for crazy higher internet than they have right now. It's like deregulating electricity - everyone thought it would be great and wonderful and everything would be lower. Except it isn't.
Why is higher bandwidth internet 'crazy'? It's just a cable, it's not like electricity supply. If you use a gigabit of data, it's nothing like using a gigawatt of power. Nothing has to produce your bandwidth allocation any more than you plugging in an ethernet cable from one computer to another or a USB cable into a hard drive. The price you pay is to pay off the hardware, cabling and TV content, which costs billions. Once the cabling is in, it's just maintenance and content and no expansion will be necessary. The price you see on the bill over the years might go up because of inflation but the inflation-adjusted price should eventually be much lower unless people decide that gigabit isn't enough for some reason and dig all the roads up again, which is highly unlikely.
Yeah, that's great that everyone can just average 10Mbps (let's use a realistic number since most people don't have much more 20-30 Mbps going into their house) but when you hit "download" your computer doesn't say "oh, they are also watching TV so I need to make sure I don't use too much of the bandwidth." People are going to have to start installing plugins to throttle their own computers to make sure their TV maintains first preference.
If people have under 10Mbps internet then watching TV over it should already be causing some problems. If two people were using it and data was given 5Mbps and the TV 5Mbps then the data might affect the stream. If it was 3 people and the TV dropped to 3Mbps then it would really affect it instead of splitting it 8 to the TV and 1 each per user but the hardware (router, computer) on the user end can control this. But this is the whole point, the TV doesn't automatically deserve the priority. If someone is watching Netflix on their laptop, that's TV just as much as the TV content from the cable company and the priority shouldn't be decided by the cable company (guess whose content they'd rather prioritise), it should be decided by you.
Cable companies can always offer boxes that have two outputs and one is an output where QoS is decided by the box to prioritise cable TV. The user would have the choice to use the port or not.
You have to think about what the response would be from the company if people's TV did start to be affected. They'd have no choice but to improve their network or they'd risk losing customers. If they increase prices, they'll lose customers to competitors offering fiber. If there are no competitors then it's clear they have a monopoly. Worst case if there are no competitors offering superior service and quality drops then hardware on the user-end would correct it.
I'm also confused why everyone keeps throwing around the word "monopoly." There is no monopoly right now nor will their every be irrespective of what the FCC does with net neutrality.
Companies can't just go around digging up thousands of miles of road to put their own cables in. Some of the legislation covered infrastructure expansion allowing municipalities to get involved.
Comments
They may not be giving people the speed they are paying for and it seems to have been the case:
http://www.cnet.com/news/at-t-delivers-on-1-gbps-promise-in-austin/
but an HD stream is under 10Mbps. If you had under 50Mbps connection then a data stream would slow down from 50Mbps to 30Mbps but it isn't a problem if internet speeds slow down, that's expected. It won't affect video streams unless the remaining bandwidth is lower than the bitrate of an HD stream. They mention download speeds over gigabit here:
https://www.att.com/shop/en/Upper_Funnel_Promo_Modals/U-verse_Promo_Modals/gigapower-speed-modal.html
An HD movie downloads in 36 seconds. If a 90 minute movie can download in 36 seconds at full gigabit bandwidth then a real-time stream would only use 1/150th of your bandwidth. People on wifi are currently limited by wifi speeds too. If it split 3 ways with two people on full wifi ac that would still leave about 300Mbps, enough for 30 HD streams.
http://theenergycollective.com/todayinenergy/2205636/growth-residential-electricity-prices-highest-6-years-expected-slow-2015
Why is higher bandwidth internet 'crazy'? It's just a cable, it's not like electricity supply. If you use a gigabit of data, it's nothing like using a gigawatt of power. Nothing has to produce your bandwidth allocation any more than you plugging in an ethernet cable from one computer to another or a USB cable into a hard drive. The price you pay is to pay off the hardware, cabling and TV content, which costs billions. Once the cabling is in, it's just maintenance and content and no expansion will be necessary. The price you see on the bill over the years might go up because of inflation but the inflation-adjusted price should eventually be much lower unless people decide that gigabit isn't enough for some reason and dig all the roads up again, which is highly unlikely.
If people have under 10Mbps internet then watching TV over it should already be causing some problems. If two people were using it and data was given 5Mbps and the TV 5Mbps then the data might affect the stream. If it was 3 people and the TV dropped to 3Mbps then it would really affect it instead of splitting it 8 to the TV and 1 each per user but the hardware (router, computer) on the user end can control this. But this is the whole point, the TV doesn't automatically deserve the priority. If someone is watching Netflix on their laptop, that's TV just as much as the TV content from the cable company and the priority shouldn't be decided by the cable company (guess whose content they'd rather prioritise), it should be decided by you.
Cable companies can always offer boxes that have two outputs and one is an output where QoS is decided by the box to prioritise cable TV. The user would have the choice to use the port or not.
You have to think about what the response would be from the company if people's TV did start to be affected. They'd have no choice but to improve their network or they'd risk losing customers. If they increase prices, they'll lose customers to competitors offering fiber. If there are no competitors then it's clear they have a monopoly. Worst case if there are no competitors offering superior service and quality drops then hardware on the user-end would correct it.
Companies can't just go around digging up thousands of miles of road to put their own cables in. Some of the legislation covered infrastructure expansion allowing municipalities to get involved.