|
rscott posted:The problem isn't just that comcast will have a large portion of the cable network in the United states, the problem is that Comcast is also a content distributor through its NBC Networks and it's various online CDNs. You combine that with the amount of customers they have and then people outside of that network will be disadvantaged. Do you think they're going to stop showing MSNBC unless it's on Comcast or something?
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:At the end of the day Congress doesn't have the power to prevent the President from ordering movement of the troops (and the prisoners under their control). Well, if your goal is anything but "execute them immediately" or "release them immediately" then you're going to have to put them somewhere for the intervening negotiations/trials/etc. That is something Congress can and does gently caress around with.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:In realistic terms, what exactly is the worst case scenario of all this going down? If someone has a link or something that explains it, that'd be cool, too. An asteroid hits and kills everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So he was a cable lobbyist 20 years ago. 30 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:They didn't pocket it, they mostly spent it on building out cell phone infrastructure that was sold off to cell companies or used by their own wireless divisions, and much of the rest went into basic infrastructure upgrades that they simply sat on actually using for a long time even though they'd built it. Don't like 98% of people actually have the level of broadband specified in the act by now anyway?
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:If you looked (or read the posted links) you would know that this was not the case. I'm not finding anything outside of that article which says that 20-45Mbit service is what the companies were promising. edit: Actually, according to that article the definition of "broadband" in the actual law was what we stated - 1.5 mbps downstream and 128 kbps upstream. I don't really care about what people were promising 20 years ago, I care whether they actually followed the law or not, and it sounds like they did. computer parts fucked around with this message at 16:10 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Not that it accounts for that drastic a disparity but Japan doesn't have the problems the US does with people hating other people so much that they will literally move dozens of miles away from anything resembling civilization and demand those of us without the strange amalgam of agoraphobia and psychopathy that is colloquially known as "white flight" to subsidize modern living for their worthless asses. Even with that in mind a lot of the internet development is paid for by private companies who aren't inherently racist (as least not in the way you're thinking of). If anything companies love inner city areas, because it's cheap to build their internet service and they can service millions of people in a small area. The main issue with propagation of high speed internet compared with Japan is the fairly low population density of the US, and the relatively large (if rather quickly shrinking) amount of the rural population (80.1% urbanized population vs 91%).
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Actually after reading that 400 page e-book I noticed after the 1996 Act passed the telco's claim became "we will offer a 45 Mbit option", not "we will get 45 Mbit to everyone". And they do that, it's called a T3 line.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:IS broadband in America actually expensive compared to most of the world when you adjust prices for buying power in the first place though? And no, you don't get to compare broadband in some random hick town in the US with some major city in another country, which would naturally tend to get the most performance for the least price in that country either. It's surprisingly hard to find but from what I'm able to tell the largest ISP in Germany is a DSL provider, not anything related to fiber.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:People posted comments on a website, truly this means... what exactly? Truly it means the will of the people is being heard, just like #NotAllMen on Twitter.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
FishCustard posted:Am I the only one actually panicking about this? I've had the internet all of my life, it suddenly being wrecked like this is a frightening thing. Unless you have shares in Netflix you should probably just chill out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
anonumos posted:I'll try to put it in terms that libertarians can understand. There is no reason to think that this would be a thing at the consumer level.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:You don't realize companies pass cost to consumers, do you? This is why cable costs go up every time Comcast and Viacom have a spat at each other.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:The most visible result is that companies will not be able to throttle Internet speeds and charge extra for faster connections. To be clear - you mean they won't be able to charge you for the privilege of not throttling you, yes?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:If you have a slow connection now, the change being made doesn't mean you'll get faster internet anytime soon. Your connection already exists, they'd only get money to upgrade your connection if delivering new service at higher speed to a nearby area with no service would mean upgrades for your connection as well. Also it's important to note that they're not obliged to stop selling you a slower connection, just offer you the option of a faster one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:The pessimist in me is picturing this happening and the price of netflix increasing by 10000% as they start paying to carry broadcast TV but get forbidden from offering a la carte TV channel options. Traditional TV channels are dumb though because most people don't care about whatever is cheap enough to syndicate at 2am, they want a specific show or genre. The most you'll see in that direction are "live" events (traditional live stuff like sports but also whenever a new episode of a show comes out) which are then available later too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:And this is why ESPN signing exclusivity on a lot of that stuff is such an insane thing. Suddenly if all you want to watch is hockey they can force you to pay for a bajillion other channels you'll never even turn on. Why should I be paying for Hannah Montana if the only thing I really want is the Penguins games? Because it subsidizes their other channels. Again, the problem with the traditional channel format is that there's not enough content to reasonably appeal to enough people to remain solvent, with rare exceptions (sports).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Pervis posted:This will only get worse over time, right? TV viewership, especially among demographics that advertisers want to reach, has been dropping pretty steadily. There's also some expectation to maintain or even grow profits in the face of this, and thus the shift to much higher profit-margin formats like reality TV. It could be mitigated somewhat if they consolidate some channels. You don't have 3 different Discovery Channels worth of material, but if you combined them all you might have a pretty popular channel, and then you don't need to rely on reality stuff. This is especially true if/when advertisers don't treat DVRs as the devil so you can have stuff "air" whenever and people can just watch it later.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:But then instead of having 72 hours a day of advertising slots to sell, they only have 24, and we can't have that! The point is that advertising is getting cheaper and cheaper because no one watches [random channel x]. TV companies don't really care about volume of ads, just revenue.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
EasyEW posted:Good morning, ISPs. Here are your new rules. An important point I've noticed already: CDNs are (rightfully) not counted as "paid prioritization for network service".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 15:22
|
|