Net Neutrality is Live
-
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.
-
@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. 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?
Many of the more vocal people on Fox News and the conservative party. Not understanding tech is pretty inexcusable if you are reporting on it....
-
In reading some comments on another page I realized another issue of internet based scheduled programming, DVRs. Currently there is no way to DVR content for you to consume on your own schedule. Sure, the content providers could leave copies of all of their programming online for X amount of time and embed fewer commercials for the non-primetime viewing of a show, much like what happens today with shows on demand from a cable and Hulu, but that services doesn't come close to the current abilities that consumers have and love of home DVRs that allow you to fast forward through commercials at your own pace.
I've considered cutting the cord for the past 6 months or so. I've looked into what it would take to get the programming I really want the way I want and keep coming back to the fact that the cost is negligibly better than what I'm doing today yet requires me to jump through a ton of hoops to get it.
-
@Dashrender said:
In reading some comments on another page I realized another issue of internet based scheduled programming, DVRs. Currently there is no way to DVR content for you to consume on your own schedule. Sure, the content providers could leave copies of all of their programming online for X amount of time and embed fewer commercials for the non-primetime viewing of a show, much like what happens today with shows on demand from a cable and Hulu, but that services doesn't come close to the current abilities that consumers have and love of home DVRs that allow you to fast forward through commercials at your own pace.
I've considered cutting the cord for the past 6 months or so. I've looked into what it would take to get the programming I really want the way I want and keep coming back to the fact that the cost is negligibly better than what I'm doing today yet requires me to jump through a ton of hoops to get it.
I haven't had TV in 3 years. Really isn't that bad, especially when the basic package around us is 30-50$ a month and you still don't get all the channels or shows that I can online. I wait a bit longer for most shows to come out, generally I wait until I am a season behind so I can binge watch them. I've also found that many of the Netflix Original series are on par if not better then the one on network TV. I also watch a lot of Youtube content to fill in the entertainment lulls.
-
The problem with binge watching a show is the being out of sync with others around you who are keeping current on said show. Otherwise I agree - I love binge watching.
Speaking of binge watching, Netflix just released season 3 of House of Cards - I see some major binge watching this weekend.
I enjoy several of the broadcast station shows. There are usually 2-3 in a row that I enjoy so we set the DVR to record them all and start watching the first one while it's recording the second. This allows us to FF through commercials and are about caught up with live TV by the time the last one is over.
Moving to Hulu or some other service to get these shows usually means being at least a full day behind, and I lose the ability to FF through commercials. -
@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.
-
@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.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2888962/net-neutrality/net-neutrality-triumphs-as-isps-weep.html
While I'm pleased at the idea of common carrier - I'm equally displeased that the government has to be involved.
One of the major issues as I see it is that new ISPs can't get into cities to offer Capitalism based competition because the local municipalities have (in my mind) signed (again to me) illegal exclusive agreements to the current players.It's my understanding now, under Title II these exclusive contracts aren't legal and new competition should be able to move it, which will allow prices in the long run to drop.
I read here and SW about people paying $500-700/month for 50+ mb of bandwidth for their businesses, in my market I'm currently stuck paying $880/month for 10 mb.
I hope that what I'm reading is true and thing because of the Title II change things like Google Fiber might come to my city.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2888962/net-neutrality/net-neutrality-triumphs-as-isps-weep.html
While I'm pleased at the idea of common carrier - I'm equally displeased that the government has to be involved.
One of the major issues as I see it is that new ISPs can't get into cities to offer Capitalism based competition because the local municipalities have (in my mind) signed (again to me) illegal exclusive agreements to the current players.It's my understanding now, under Title II these exclusive contracts aren't legal and new competition should be able to move it, which will allow prices in the long run to drop.
I read here and SW about people paying $500-700/month for 50+ mb of bandwidth for their businesses, in my market I'm currently stuck paying $880/month for 10 mb.
I hope that what I'm reading is true and thing because of the Title II change things like Google Fiber might come to my city.
The taxpayers have tried it the other way though. We tried to enable competition by awarding billions of dollars to ISPs to expand and upgrade their services to undeserved areas throughout the US. This didn't work. We tried to invest in municipal broadband and small local ISPs, they were lobbied, legislated, and sued into oblivion by local and state governments. The playing field wasn't level and I agree many of those things should have been illegal. But without government intervention and common carrier telcom laws we would probably get something like this...
![india1-medium[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/QoOgsJB.jpg)
] -
@coliver said:
]LOL this reminds me of a picture I saw of Manhattan in the early 1900's after power was added to island.
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
]LOL this reminds me of a picture I saw of Manhattan in the early 1900's after power was added to island.
Indian Telecom has a pretty fascinating history. It was liberalised in the mid 90's and the user count exploded. This was the result of it. Since then the Indian government has introduced a few regulations regarding last-mile access but this type of cabling is still very common. They also auctioned off their 3G and 4G bands to private organizations so a lot of last mile stuff is done via wireless now.
I probably got some of that wrong but it is an interesting bit of history.
-
Yeah, That's the failing in my mind. The last mile should actually be provided by the municipality, like roads and water and power. The municipality charges the vendors enough rent to keep the system up, and do upgrades when needed (yeah I know, the whole upgrade thing becomes a political nightmare).
By having the last mile be municipality owned with laws saying they can't play favorites to vendors, the end user totally wins. The last mile is where there is little to no control for the vendor or the consumer. -
@Dashrender said:
Yeah, That's the failing in my mind. The last mile should actually be provided by the municipality, like roads and water and power. The municipality charges the vendors enough rent to keep the system up, and do upgrades when needed (yeah I know, the whole upgrade thing becomes a political nightmare).
By having the last mile be municipality owned with laws saying they can't play favorites to vendors, the end user totally wins. The last mile is where there is little to no control for the vendor or the consumer.I can understand that, but that goes against the capitalist argument I hear so often... I keep hearing that anytime the government gets involved whatever they touch withers up and dies, while I added that inflection the sentiment remains the same. When I point out that municipal broadband has kept the cost to consumers and taxpayers low they have increased bandwidth and overall speeds, as compared to the private companies which have done the exact opposite. Generally the response is, "Well we haven't given them enough time to fail yet." Aggravating to say the least.
-
@Dashrender said:
Yeah, That's the failing in my mind. The last mile should actually be provided by the municipality, like roads and water and power. The municipality charges the vendors enough rent to keep the system up, and do upgrades when needed (yeah I know, the whole upgrade thing becomes a political nightmare).
By having the last mile be municipality owned with laws saying they can't play favorites to vendors, the end user totally wins. The last mile is where there is little to no control for the vendor or the consumer.This ^^^^. I'm very much of this belief.
