Net Neutrality is Live
-
@doyle.jack said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Um.... okay, interesting.
Yeah, he says it in this video: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/02/26/cuban-fcc-net-regs-will-spill-over-tv-as-you-know-it-is-over/
I'm still trying to comprehend the silliness of his comments.
Ah, you are misreading this. I read this and the only bit I got was "Mark Cuban is a moron and doesn't know the difference between a LAN and the Internet and should stop talking."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Ah, you are misreading this. I read this and the only bit I got was "Mark Cuban is a moron and doesn't know the difference between a LAN and the Internet and should stop talking."
I actually didn't read anything. I just watched the video and listened to the dummy talk.
-
@doyle.jack said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Ah, you are misreading this. I read this and the only bit I got was "Mark Cuban is a moron and doesn't know the difference between a LAN and the Internet and should stop talking."
I actually didn't read anything. I just watched the video and listened to the dummy talk.
I feel sorry for you.
-
I'm trying to follow Mark's logic - he's saying that the cable companies will have to change how they deliver cable channels based on this ruling? is that where QVC comes into the conversation?
What does a dedicated service for specific channels have to do with an open service like access to the internet? They aren't the same at all. In the case of Cable, you are paying a fee for access to specific channels, with an ISP you're paying for access to this thing called the internet, with access to the nearly infinitely different sites on it, many of which come and go at a drop of a hat.
-
So basically he is saying that people will only get shows that you want to watch and not pay for shows you don't want to watch. What is the problem?
-
Also does anybody younger than 50 actually watch QVC?
-
I agree with Mark about QVC going away. They cannot compete on the internet when you are a click away from amazon, ebay, or many other sites that have low, low prices.
That being said, I don't have a problem with QVC going away. I understand he probably does since its a big money maker for him. Boohoo a billionaire loses a source of income.
-
Let's hope that Net Neutrality makes Mark Cuban go away.
-
I'm trying to figure out how we go from having this managed service Cable TV to a forced condition where TV shows have to delivered no different than say, Youtube? What's going to force this change? simply because they are all digital bits? I call BS.
I buy a pipe to a dedicated service - that service is called cable, and that service does not currently allow me to choose the channels I want. Some how making the internet Title II makes the dedicated connection between my house and my cable provider subject to the Open Internet laws? Please explain that to me. I think this is where Scott got the LAN vs Internet comment before. Your connection to a cable provider for Cable TV is like a LAN, it's all contained, it has nothing to do with the internet. And then there is the internet where I have access to anything anyone publishes to it.
-
Now, if the Cable TV companies decide to move all of their content to Internet delivery, of course if that same company is also providing ISP access, they can't add priority to their content vs anything else, but they could still force bundling upon people.. oh you want ESPN, OK fine, but you can only buy ESPN with a bundle that includes QVC. Just because you never watch QVC doesn't make a difference.
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm trying to figure out how we go from having this managed service Cable TV to a forced condition where TV shows have to delivered no different than say, Youtube? What's going to force this change? simply because they are all digital bits? I call BS.
I buy a pipe to a dedicated service - that service is called cable, and that service does not currently allow me to choose the channels I want. Some how making the internet Title II makes the dedicated connection between my house and my cable provider subject to the Open Internet laws? Please explain that to me. I think this is where Scott got the LAN vs Internet comment before. Your connection to a cable provider for Cable TV is like a LAN, it's all contained, it has nothing to do with the internet. And then there is the internet where I have access to anything anyone publishes to it.
Cable will go away. There is no longer a need for it. That's what he is talking about. With Netflix and Hulu, people no longer want to pay $75 for 250 channels when they only watch 10. Dish TV is actually already working on a service like this.
-
-
@IRJ said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm trying to figure out how we go from having this managed service Cable TV to a forced condition where TV shows have to delivered no different than say, Youtube? What's going to force this change? simply because they are all digital bits? I call BS.
I buy a pipe to a dedicated service - that service is called cable, and that service does not currently allow me to choose the channels I want. Some how making the internet Title II makes the dedicated connection between my house and my cable provider subject to the Open Internet laws? Please explain that to me. I think this is where Scott got the LAN vs Internet comment before. Your connection to a cable provider for Cable TV is like a LAN, it's all contained, it has nothing to do with the internet. And then there is the internet where I have access to anything anyone publishes to it.
Cable will go away. There is no longer a need for it. That's what he is talking about. With Netflix and Hulu, people no longer want to pay $75 for 250 channels when they only watch 10. Dish TV is actually already working on a service like this.
Cable in it's current form might go away but I don't think everything is headed to on-demand only.. there will likely still be normal broadcast channels just using IPTV over the local ISPs network. Just a different delivery method. Many have actually started doing this.
-
Saw this earlier! Great win for the world!
-
If I understood the goober's logic right, it went something like this...
Net Neutrality is based on the idea that all bits are created equally and should be treated equally.
He then says that television transmissions across cable are bits just like the Internet is.
Companies can't pay for a "fast lane" or "paid prioritization" on the Internet under these new regulations. Therefore, the same should apply to cable television. QVC actually pays the cable provider to carry their channel. And, since it's using up bits that it wouldn't be using up had QVC not paid for it, then it would not be allowed.
He goes into it at 4:58 in the video. I feel stupider just watching him. Maybe I should bow out and quit trying to understand what he's even trying to say. I think Net Neutrality is a good thing, of course.
A tweet from Mark Cuban: https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/570957428226809857
I agree with @scottalanmiller, it would be great if the FCC could make him go away.
-
Good news, it would seem.
-
Good news on neutrality, I mean, not that Cuban is able to make public commentary.
-
-
The problem with comparing current Cable to Internet is that the bit for your cable service are NOT coming to you over the internet. They are coming to you over a private connection between you and the provider, be it the coax line, fiber, or Satellite. That connection is not an internet connection, so who in their right mind would think that this private connection would be regulated by these new laws?
-
Once the cable providers move away from the private connection and start using the internet to deliver their content to the end user the story changes - but only in so much as that the ISP can't make their own programming stream faster/better to you than a competitors, but there is nothing stopping them from continuing to sell you bundles of channels you don't want.
