Net Neutrality is Live
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@coliver said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
But can you choose different providers? Can you say have AT&T, Verizon or Google depending on who you decide to pay provide that last mile? I know of no market where that is the case.
There's Verizon, AT&T, Lumos, Cox, Comcast, Citizen's, Shentel, Suddenlink and probally some others.
With them sharing the costs of most of the infrastructure the cost of the last mile isn't as big a deal, and the competition has kept cost down. You can get a 40MB asymmetrical connection for $23.00/month. Comcast is a little more though, but they have better uptime it seems.
The idea was started by a bunch of counties/towns east of me, the localities paid for that OAN there, and provided them better pricing. So a private company decided to do it here and see how it works (plus, they go grants to do it.)
Wow.... I haven't heard of anywhere else in the US that has that option you are very lucky. Generally in the US you have two options for broadband access. The second option is almost always partially or wholly owned by the first.
The idea came from this gov't owned OAN http://www.thewiredroad.net/
@thecreativeone91 said:
@coliver said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
But can you choose different providers? Can you say have AT&T, Verizon or Google depending on who you decide to pay provide that last mile? I know of no market where that is the case.
There's Verizon, AT&T, Lumos, Cox, Comcast, Citizen's, Shentel, Suddenlink and probally some others.
With them sharing the costs of most of the infrastructure the cost of the last mile isn't as big a deal, and the competition has kept cost down. You can get a 40MB asymmetrical connection for $23.00/month. Comcast is a little more though, but they have better uptime it seems.
The idea was started by a bunch of counties/towns east of me, the localities paid for that OAN there, and provided them better pricing. So a private company decided to do it here and see how it works (plus, they go grants to do it.)
Wow.... I haven't heard of anywhere else in the US that has that option you are very lucky. Generally in the US you have two options for broadband access. The second option is almost always partially or wholly owned by the first.
The idea came from this gov't owned OAN http://www.thewiredroad.net/
But the city owns the last mile, right?
-
@coliver said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@coliver said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
But can you choose different providers? Can you say have AT&T, Verizon or Google depending on who you decide to pay provide that last mile? I know of no market where that is the case.
There's Verizon, AT&T, Lumos, Cox, Comcast, Citizen's, Shentel, Suddenlink and probally some others.
With them sharing the costs of most of the infrastructure the cost of the last mile isn't as big a deal, and the competition has kept cost down. You can get a 40MB asymmetrical connection for $23.00/month. Comcast is a little more though, but they have better uptime it seems.
The idea was started by a bunch of counties/towns east of me, the localities paid for that OAN there, and provided them better pricing. So a private company decided to do it here and see how it works (plus, they go grants to do it.)
Wow.... I haven't heard of anywhere else in the US that has that option you are very lucky. Generally in the US you have two options for broadband access. The second option is almost always partially or wholly owned by the first.
The idea came from this gov't owned OAN http://www.thewiredroad.net/
There was something like this in Rochester, the local universities and hospitals all invested in a fiber loop so they had 1Gb/s access to each other. Then they they negotiated with a few intermediate carriers to get access to the internet. Apparently it made the negotiation process better as they already had the infrastructure in place.
Do they own the loop or does Frontier own it?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@coliver said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
But can you choose different providers? Can you say have AT&T, Verizon or Google depending on who you decide to pay provide that last mile? I know of no market where that is the case.
There's Verizon, AT&T, Lumos, Cox, Comcast, Citizen's, Shentel, Suddenlink and probally some others.
With them sharing the costs of most of the infrastructure the cost of the last mile isn't as big a deal, and the competition has kept cost down. You can get a 40MB asymmetrical connection for $23.00/month. Comcast is a little more though, but they have better uptime it seems.
The idea was started by a bunch of counties/towns east of me, the localities paid for that OAN there, and provided them better pricing. So a private company decided to do it here and see how it works (plus, they go grants to do it.)
Wow.... I haven't heard of anywhere else in the US that has that option you are very lucky. Generally in the US you have two options for broadband access. The second option is almost always partially or wholly owned by the first.
The idea came from this gov't owned OAN http://www.thewiredroad.net/
There was something like this in Rochester, the local universities and hospitals all invested in a fiber loop so they had 1Gb/s access to each other. Then they they negotiated with a few intermediate carriers to get access to the internet. Apparently it made the negotiation process better as they already had the infrastructure in place.
Do they own the loop or does Frontier own it?
That I don't know. I had a friend who was a sysadmin for the research computing college at RIT he filled me in on some of the details.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@coliver said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
But can you choose different providers? Can you say have AT&T, Verizon or Google depending on who you decide to pay provide that last mile? I know of no market where that is the case.
There's Verizon, AT&T, Lumos, Cox, Comcast, Citizen's, Shentel, Suddenlink and probally some others.
With them sharing the costs of most of the infrastructure the cost of the last mile isn't as big a deal, and the competition has kept cost down. You can get a 40MB asymmetrical connection for $23.00/month. Comcast is a little more though, but they have better uptime it seems.
The idea was started by a bunch of counties/towns east of me, the localities paid for that OAN there, and provided them better pricing. So a private company decided to do it here and see how it works (plus, they go grants to do it.)
Wow.... I haven't heard of anywhere else in the US that has that option you are very lucky. Generally in the US you have two options for broadband access. The second option is almost always partially or wholly owned by the first.
The idea came from this gov't owned OAN http://www.thewiredroad.net/
@thecreativeone91 said:
@coliver said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
But can you choose different providers? Can you say have AT&T, Verizon or Google depending on who you decide to pay provide that last mile? I know of no market where that is the case.
There's Verizon, AT&T, Lumos, Cox, Comcast, Citizen's, Shentel, Suddenlink and probally some others.
With them sharing the costs of most of the infrastructure the cost of the last mile isn't as big a deal, and the competition has kept cost down. You can get a 40MB asymmetrical connection for $23.00/month. Comcast is a little more though, but they have better uptime it seems.
The idea was started by a bunch of counties/towns east of me, the localities paid for that OAN there, and provided them better pricing. So a private company decided to do it here and see how it works (plus, they go grants to do it.)
Wow.... I haven't heard of anywhere else in the US that has that option you are very lucky. Generally in the US you have two options for broadband access. The second option is almost always partially or wholly owned by the first.
The idea came from this gov't owned OAN http://www.thewiredroad.net/
But the city owns the last mile, right?
No idea who owns the last mile.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
No idea who owns the last mile.
Oh, okay. It sounds like this is a case where the city owns the last mile, breaking the necessity of monopoly. This is exactly what I am a proponent of. The city needs to own the last mile so that you can have competition for the NOC. But the last bit of the route, the final router and physical hookup have to be the municipal ISP, even if you never deal with them or are told that they exist.
-
@Dashrender said:
@doyle.jack said:
@Dashrender said:
The problem with comparing current Cable to Internet is that the bit for your cable service are NOT coming to you over the internet.
Agreed. Which is where the buffoon completely lost me.
@Dashrender said:
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?
Mark Cuban.
lol - apparently.
I think you are missing the bigger picture. Private cable and satellite connections are going to go away soon. It's already been happening they are losing business like crazy. AT&T keeps lowering their prices and offering $150 visa gift cards to get people to sign up and people still aren't signing up.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@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.
I am not exactly sure how Netflix pays for their shows, but It seems like they could just make their own channels with shows they already have. Although I believe that traditional channels are obsolete in this day and age.
-
@IRJ said:
I am not exactly sure how Netflix pays for their shows, but It seems like they could just make their own channels with shows they already have. Although I believe that traditional channels are obsolete in this day and age.
What would be the purpose of a channel?
-
@IRJ said:
I think you are missing the bigger picture. Private cable and satellite connections are going to go away soon. It's already been happening they are losing business like crazy. AT&T keeps lowering their prices and offering $150 visa gift cards to get people to sign up and people still aren't signing up.
Let's hope so. Other than live things like sports, news or the rare other live show, what purpose is there to the "channel" concept?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
I think you are missing the bigger picture. Private cable and satellite connections are going to go away soon. It's already been happening they are losing business like crazy. AT&T keeps lowering their prices and offering $150 visa gift cards to get people to sign up and people still aren't signing up.
Let's hope so. Other than live things like sports, news or the rare other live show, what purpose is there to the "channel" concept?
Reality shows for interactive bits etc. Voting. Twitter conversations and other PR stuff they can only get from the set/time channel concept rather than on demand.
I'd rather watch a channel when I actually watch something so I don't have to chose exactly what I want to watch. There's be no point of it on netflix as it would always be re-runs as people would see the newest on-demand content.
-
Good point @scottalanmiller hadn't really thought about it that way before.
So in the future the content creators will just skip the distributors altogether and publish direct to the web via subscription or single pay to view choices. Couple that with their ability to embed ads into the stream like modern day ads, this could be pretty cool.
The draw back is that not all content providers are going to want to have their own internet hosting solution to provide content to end users. I'm guessing that many/most of them will team up with something like Hulu/Netflix, etc to publish their content to the web.
-
@Dashrender said:
Good point @scottalanmiller hadn't really thought about it that way before.
So in the future the content creators will just skip the distributors altogether and publish direct to the web via subscription or single pay to view choices.
There's always going to be a distributor of some sort unless it's just a Youtube show or something. You get so much more with a distributor as you bring the content where people are rather than making people come to each individual thing.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I'd rather watch a channel when I actually watch something so I don't have to chose exactly what I want to watch. There's be no point of it on netflix as it would always be re-runs as people would see the newest on-demand content.
Say what? You want to watch whatever they are force feeding you than watch something you want to watch?
Sure I've time where I just wanted to kill some time and didn't care what I was watching, but I could just as easily pop on Netflix and choose a Dog Fights episode I haven't watched, or any number of other things that have been recommended to me.
Really what this sounds like to me is the possible end to re-runs.
-
@Dashrender Re-runs are watched by choice since youtube's very start. There is enough content on there already for 100 lifetimes and that's probably a very conservative estimate. Quality wise, ok, you got me there but it's not re-runs
-
How would a netflix channel end re-runs? They only have so many episodes that are new.
main stream shows generally only make 15 or so episodes a year.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
Good point @scottalanmiller hadn't really thought about it that way before.
So in the future the content creators will just skip the distributors altogether and publish direct to the web via subscription or single pay to view choices.
There's always going to be a distributor of some sort unless it's just a Youtube show or something. You get so much more with a distributor as you bring the content where people are rather than making people come to each individual thing.
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
Good point @scottalanmiller hadn't really thought about it that way before.
So in the future the content creators will just skip the distributors altogether and publish direct to the web via subscription or single pay to view choices.
There's always going to be a distributor of some sort unless it's just a Youtube show or something. You get so much more with a distributor as you bring the content where people are rather than making people come to each individual thing.
YouTube is a distributor just like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon VOD, etc.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Reality shows for interactive bits etc. Voting. Twitter conversations and other PR stuff they can only get from the set/time channel concept rather than on demand.
Is that needed in real time?
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I'd rather watch a channel when I actually watch something so I don't have to chose exactly what I want to watch. There's be no point of it on netflix as it would always be re-runs as people would see the newest on-demand content.
No channels needed for that. Simple algorithm to play out of order, unrelated Netflix programs in no particular order is all that is needed. It only doesn't exist because there isn't enough demand in the universe for anyone to have put the five minutes into making it
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
Good point @scottalanmiller hadn't really thought about it that way before.
So in the future the content creators will just skip the distributors altogether and publish direct to the web via subscription or single pay to view choices.
There's always going to be a distributor of some sort unless it's just a Youtube show or something. You get so much more with a distributor as you bring the content where people are rather than making people come to each individual thing.
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
Good point @scottalanmiller hadn't really thought about it that way before.
So in the future the content creators will just skip the distributors altogether and publish direct to the web via subscription or single pay to view choices.
There's always going to be a distributor of some sort unless it's just a Youtube show or something. You get so much more with a distributor as you bring the content where people are rather than making people come to each individual thing.
YouTube is a distributor just like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon VOD, etc.
Yeah, but they don't choose the content/quality so people have to sift through it much more so it's not quite the same.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Yeah, but they don't choose the content/quality so people have to sift through it much more so it's not quite the same.
Sort of. But still, no need for a channel for that. Just because they "do", and that is arguable as it is, doesn't mean that a non-channel format can't do that too.
