[symesc]

Couldn't agree more.

I have TV and Internet services on Telus' network here in Canada (I think they use the same platform that AT&T uses, which is a Microsoft IPTV solution).

TV and Internet come through the same connection at my house as a shared pool of bandwidth. They are sold separately, and TV actually hinders Internet performance.

I have 25Mbps down, total (which is freeeaking awesome for the price, about $50/month). Each HDTV channel used consumes 5Mbps. So if we are watching two TVs, we'll see only 15Mbps remaining for other data services.

I have no issue with this, either in practice or in principle.

In practice, Telus backs up the bandwidth truck and unloads it at my house every month, and I can't consume it all.

In principle, the market will decide whether to support the model longer term.

I for one won't hesitate to turf the dedicated TV services if Internet services can equal it in terms of quality/availability/price. But until then, I'm happy.

[MarkPilgrim]

> I have 25Mbps down, total (which is freeeaking awesome for the price, about $50/month).

Everyone in America hates you right now. Just FYI. :)

[symesc]

Sorry. Believe me, I know how good I've got it, and I was reminded again this past week while on holidays at my father's cabin. It is in a valley, so below the line of sight required for mobile phone access. It was like a return to the early 90s, when one had to go to the University for Internet access and didn't have it at home. How did we live?

Thankfully, the iPad was loaded up with Kindle books beforehand, so the week wasn't a total disaster.

[ori_b]

Everyone in Canada hates him too - this sort of connection isn't the norm. For example, see Rogers and Sympatico pricing. They have a monopoly on the Toronto area, mostly.

[teamonkey]

Videotron has the cable monopoly in Quebec. It's fast and reliable but man is it expensive.

[ergo98]

I get a rock solid 16 mbps here on the Toronto area for 39.95 and it doesn't matter how many HD channels I'm watching. This is Cogeco using coax and they preassigned a bank for television a bank for voip and a bank for the internet. The crowding is generally a problem of telcos that are sticking with twisted pair (i.e. ADSL)

[vondur]

Guess I'm lucky. I have Verizon fios where I live (Long Beach CA). I get 25 Mb up and down. (I only pay for 25/15 but I get 25/25, not complaining). I pay $100 a month for that and HD TV. Not super cheap, but cheaper than Comcast which I previously had been using.

[illumin8]

I get 20 Mbps in the US- from Cablevision in CT. It costs 29.95 a month. For $20 more a month I could get it upgraded to 30 Mbps. Btw, my upstream is 2 Mbps.

[illumin8]

I don't think this is a good precedent. What happens when you want HDTV and each channel is 20 megabits? Well, your Telstra connection gets upgraded to 50 megabits but only 40 is available for TV - 2 HD channels at the same time, and the remaining 10 Meg is for Internet. Now, you have a situation where you can get 2 simultaneous HDTV feeds from Telstra but you can not get a single feed from an Internet TV provider, because they only give you 10 Meg for Internet. This is EXACTLY what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.

I'll say it again. Google says they want to push network neutrality but they just created a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

[moultano]

>Google says they want to push network neutrality but they just created a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

Keep in mind, they did get Verizon to agree to it. That's strictly more restrictions than they've agreed to in the past.

[illumin8]

They got Verizon to agree to what exactly? Being able to provide enhanced TV and other services over IP that aren't constrained to any net neutrality guidelines? LOL

[moultano]

They've always been able to do that. They agreed to:

Consumer Protections: A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from-- (1) sending and receiving lawful content of their choice; (2) running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and (3) connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service. Non-

Discrimination Requirement:In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users. Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted.

[rfugger]

Just turn off the dedicated TV, leaving 50 megabits for internet.

[illumin8]

What if your ISP reserves those 40 megabits for only THEIR IPTV traffic - all other carriers get to fight over the remaining 10. This is exactly the scenario that net neutrality is supposed to prevent - and exactly the scenario the Goorizon want to create.

Youtube and FIOS get the fast lane- everyone else gets leftover bandwidth.