[News] Comcast extorts Netflix, VZ and AT&T plan to follow suit.
- Thread starter PatrThom
- Start date
This is terrifying. Fox would have top-down control over all aspect of it's media empire, from how the movies get made to how the movies get to your phone.
GasBandit
Staff member
Yeah, it's almost as if they'd be Sony.
Sony doesn't control internet access. Also, the most profitable component of Sony is the wing that sells life insurance.
And does anyone buy Sony electronics anymore?
Do anti-trust laws exist still or did they have a sell-by date?
I think it's more that they've moved the goalposts significantly. The only thing that used to matter was how powerful their stranglehold on a market was. Now even the illusion of competition is enough to undermine it.
"Look, guys! We're totally staying within the letter of the Law. That means what we're doing must still be 100% legal!"
So what if they failed Ethics class, right?
--Patrick
So what if they failed Ethics class, right?
Well, it certainly does sound like they're in bed together, at least.
--Patrick
Corporate Personhood. All the advantages of individual rights with none of the responsibility, accountability, or legal ramifications.
You could be on the supreme court!
Chattanooga public electricity utility offering faster cable than Comcast at a lower price.
Looks like having competition isn't something Comcast wants.
Looks like having competition isn't something Comcast wants.
GasBandit
Staff member
Irritated customer proves Verizon *is* throttling netflix, no matter what they say.
http://hothardware.com/News/Enraged...mingly-Proving-ISP-Throttles-Netflix/#!bn7DXp
http://hothardware.com/News/Enraged...mingly-Proving-ISP-Throttles-Netflix/#!bn7DXp
Plenty of people have replicated the same experiment. That means it's probably time to publish.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
New article that gets some things right, and some things so very VERY wrong: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2014/09/21/net-neutrality-debate/15881687/
It's this quote that shows a fundamental disconnect with how things work:
Same thing on the "Netflix" end of things. Their provider themselves might be charging appropriately, but then the under-built infrastructure of the "last mile" people get upset that all their customers, all at once, are always (essentially) watching video all night, and they can't keep up.
This whole "problem" came about because people started actually using the capacity of broadband, instead of just "bursts" of it, which the cable/last mile internet companies were banking on. And Billions of dollars are being spent on lobbying to keep it that way so that they can keep selling capacity they don't have.
It's this quote that shows a fundamental disconnect with how things work:
NO THEY'RE FUCKING NOT!!!! They pay for access. As does the consumer. The companies that are sad here are because they over-promise, and under-deliver: "Oh sure, you get 10Mbps. Uh huh. Ya. That's yours. *wink*wink*". And then if you try and actually USE the capacity you are paying for, they get upset, with things like caps on data usage. This is basically what they say next: "Well you weren't actually supposed to USE that the whole time! We only wanted you to burst a webpage, and then stop! We don't ACTUALLY have the capacity we're selling you! You're running us into the poor house, boo hoo, etc"
Same thing on the "Netflix" end of things. Their provider themselves might be charging appropriately, but then the under-built infrastructure of the "last mile" people get upset that all their customers, all at once, are always (essentially) watching video all night, and they can't keep up.
This whole "problem" came about because people started actually using the capacity of broadband, instead of just "bursts" of it, which the cable/last mile internet companies were banking on. And Billions of dollars are being spent on lobbying to keep it that way so that they can keep selling capacity they don't have.
figmentPez
Staff member
Pretty much this. It's like if telephone companies tried to claim that people having 3 hour telephone conversations were getting a "free ride" on unlimited long distance plans. Uh, what? If you pay for unlimited long distance, and your friend pays for unlimited long distance, then there's no "free ride" involved. If telcos didn't anticipate how popular long phone calls would be, that's their problem, because they sold a service that they couldn't deliver.
The real problems are the lack of competition that keep the markets stagnant, the massive conflict of interest have with video providing services. It has nothing to do with popularity and infrastructure. It's them wanting to gouge out fresh competitors that are gaining traction. It's the same reason these guys are making TV+Internet bundles cheaper than Internet only rates to customers that try and cancel their cable.