Maybe that's what's needed to make things change. It's said that sometimes you need to hit the bottom before having a chance to get up and improve. I mean, sure it's painful but give the world a few years and the US will be lagging so far behind in anything resembling progress that it will be fairly easy to enact meaningful rules to stop such behavior and foster competition.
Meanwhile we should all buy Comcast shares because it seems it will be a nice year. If you can connect, of course.
That could be some peering agreement and it has precisely zero to do with NN. If Netflix wants to invest in infra-structure to be closer to a determined ISP network to reduce latency and increase performance awesome. But if the ISP wants to give priority to Netflix packets in their network over others then it is a problem. If the network is congested Netflix should suffer as well and peering agreements won't do a thing to solve a capacity problem.
"If I don't want Netflix, why would I care if my ISP slows it down?"
Because it may slow down Fuckyouflix that you love. Unless, of course you pay an extra value above what you already pay for exactly the same service. And Fuckyouflix pays double as well. And your mom pays as well because why not? And if you have other ISPs to choose good for you, most of America is locked in ugly Mono/Duopolies.
"I might understand if I needed Netflix, or any other website, to stay alive, but I don't."
You might understand but you won't because it will prevent Netflixes of the future from ever becoming a thing. And it will screw you if you don't want to use the select partners that pay double for your ISP. Or simply if you don't want to pay double.
"It's like saying a grocery store must carry every single type of product, because we don't want them favoring any specific distributor."
No, it's like saying the distributor that brings products to said grocery store will deliberately make some products from some companies take much more time to arrive than other partner companies. Unless you and/or the company pay extra.
Re: Re: Re: "5 TB of data in a month should not place an undue burden on a fiber network" -- ONE won't, sure.
You are the one making NN mean what you want it to. Nobody is asking ISPs to give unlimited connection to everybody. They are saying that the ISP cannot interfere on how you use your allocated capacity that you PAID for. Simple as that.
Because he already pays for the network capacity. You both pay for your ISP to allocate a determined speed within the network. If you want to use 100% of it 100% of the time you can. If you want to use 100% of it 5% of the time you can as well. The capacity is already reserved for you. Using it or not makes very tiny difference to the ISP. If your neighbor using it makes yours slow then the ISP sold more capacity than it can handle and no amount of data caps is going to solve it.
Trump admin has been a complete shit show. Nothing to dispute here indeed. I am interested in how the midterms will play out which should send some pretty clear messages to the political class. The question will be if it's a message for the best or worst.
In any case, the US sorely needs more political parties. This alone would help in many, many ways.
Amusing. So how are they going to tackle the problem in Whatsapp (Brazil is one of the countries with broadest adoption of the tool in the world)? Because it is where the bulk of the fake news is spreading. And it's encrypted and out of reach.
Considering we are walking fast towards a totalitarian state you can place this decision firmly into the authoritarian/censorship field.
If they acknowledged they had data on the plaintiff and then it suddenly got purged then yes they should be held liable and the lawsuit should end with a loss for them. But as noted before, I highly doubt anything will happen.
We still have quite some time of this bloke as the head of FCC and even if somehow the legislative or the lawsuits can reinstate previous rules he can always give his pimps at the telcos some more time by simply not enforcing the rules. Considering he couldn't care less about his legal obligations in the process of gutting said rules I can imagine him completely ignoring them even if the rules are reinstated.
Re: "fairly barebones budget" -- And yet, the latest Star Wars went with the out-dated direct pay!
It's amusing to see you foaming over what's clearly a success story that benefited both the creators and the people.
I'd like to emphasize something the other comments didn't:
"Oh, and don't forget that THE MOVIE is the draw: if was a real stinker, this definitely wouldn't happen."
Remember that those $100 million movies may result in pretty crappy works and you can't get your money back as it would be fair in these cases. Sure it wouldn't happen but at the very least those smaller movies don't try to fool you into spending money in crap via tons of misleading advertisement.
On the post: A Perfect Storm Of Comcast Unaccountability Is Brewing
Meanwhile we should all buy Comcast shares because it seems it will be a nice year. If you can connect, of course.
On the post: Montana Says It Won't Do Business With Net Neutrality Violating ISPs
Re: OKAY, as fanboys often advise: ISPs just stop doing business with "the state"! We'll see how long lasts.
I'll bet you'll be screaming for State rights if you disagree with some federal policy that's not conservative, no?
On the post: Montana Says It Won't Do Business With Net Neutrality Violating ISPs
Re: Re: Re:
"And if I want to pay my ISP extra to prioritize my access, why should that be illegal?"
And what if everybody pays to get priority? Add a Super Priority Plus tier?
On the post: Montana Says It Won't Do Business With Net Neutrality Violating ISPs
Re: Re: Re:
"If I don't want Netflix, why would I care if my ISP slows it down?"
Because it may slow down Fuckyouflix that you love. Unless, of course you pay an extra value above what you already pay for exactly the same service. And Fuckyouflix pays double as well. And your mom pays as well because why not? And if you have other ISPs to choose good for you, most of America is locked in ugly Mono/Duopolies.
"I might understand if I needed Netflix, or any other website, to stay alive, but I don't."
You might understand but you won't because it will prevent Netflixes of the future from ever becoming a thing. And it will screw you if you don't want to use the select partners that pay double for your ISP. Or simply if you don't want to pay double.
"It's like saying a grocery store must carry every single type of product, because we don't want them favoring any specific distributor."
No, it's like saying the distributor that brings products to said grocery store will deliberately make some products from some companies take much more time to arrive than other partner companies. Unless you and/or the company pay extra.
On the post: Montana Says It Won't Do Business With Net Neutrality Violating ISPs
Re: Re: Re: "5 TB of data in a month should not place an undue burden on a fiber network" -- ONE won't, sure.
On the post: Montana Says It Won't Do Business With Net Neutrality Violating ISPs
Re:
On the post: Montana Says It Won't Do Business With Net Neutrality Violating ISPs
On the post: Marriott Freezes Its Social Media Globally, And Makes Grovelling Apology To China, All For A Drop-Down Menu And Liking A Tweet
Learned from the best, haven't they?
On the post: Tech Policy A Year Into The Trump Administration: Where Are We Now?
In any case, the US sorely needs more political parties. This alone would help in many, many ways.
On the post: Tech Policy A Year Into The Trump Administration: Where Are We Now?
Re: WHAT ARE THESE "serious allegations of wrongdoing by Trump, his family, and his associates"???
On the post: Brazilian Government Mobilizes Federal Police To Handle 'Fake News' Problem
Considering we are walking fast towards a totalitarian state you can place this decision firmly into the authoritarian/censorship field.
On the post: NSA Admits It Has AGAIN Been Deleting Evidence Needed In Long-Running Surveillance Lawsuit
On the post: FCC Backs Off Plan to Weaken Broadband Definition, But Still Can't Admit Limited Competition Is A Problem
PotAHto Pai?
We still have quite some time of this bloke as the head of FCC and even if somehow the legislative or the lawsuits can reinstate previous rules he can always give his pimps at the telcos some more time by simply not enforcing the rules. Considering he couldn't care less about his legal obligations in the process of gutting said rules I can imagine him completely ignoring them even if the rules are reinstated.
On the post: Sequel To 'Man From Earth' Released On Pirate Sites By Its Creators
Re: "fairly barebones budget" -- And yet, the latest Star Wars went with the out-dated direct pay!
I'd like to emphasize something the other comments didn't:
"Oh, and don't forget that THE MOVIE is the draw: if was a real stinker, this definitely wouldn't happen."
Remember that those $100 million movies may result in pretty crappy works and you can't get your money back as it would be fair in these cases. Sure it wouldn't happen but at the very least those smaller movies don't try to fool you into spending money in crap via tons of misleading advertisement.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: January 14th - 20th
On the post: Southwest's Bullshit Lawsuit Over A Site That Made $45 Helping People Book Cheaper Flights
Re: Re:
On the post: Now Another Judge Smacks Around A Guardaley Shell Company Acting As A Copyright Troll
Re:
On the post: EFF Tells Court That Boing Boing Linking To Playboy Images Is Not Infringement
Re: Cheap advertising. Got Mighty Techdirt to resurrect the "Playboy" name.
On the post: EFF Tells Court That Boing Boing Linking To Playboy Images Is Not Infringement
On the post: UK Begins Absolutely Bonkers 'Education' Of Grade Schoolers About Intellectual Property And Piracy
Re: Re:
Next >>