"In principle, that's a great idea. In practice... where does "informing customers" end and "legal advice" begin? If something bad happens to the customer because Google essentially tells them it's OK to ignore this, does this present liability to Google?"
Again though, Comcast (and IIRC) AT&T cut the threat part of the notice out completely without problems so far. Surely then it's possible for Google to either do that, or at least link to a non-objectionable source describing what Rightscorp is up to. Or, perhaps, include a highly clinical explanation of precisely what Rightscorp is up to?
I mean we are talking about a legal battle between an absolute giant in the world tech scene and a tiny outfit that's spending more than it makes.
"This really is a problem without any good solutions, at least not at the victims' level or the ISPs'. Comcast has picked one bad solution and Google has picked a different one, but the only real solutions involve fixing copyright trolling itself."
Re: You Google Fiber FIBBER! "bit of a hero" even while "playing along with Rightscorp", eh?
So one, I'm entertained that in a post that largely criticizes Google I'm still being portrayed as some kind of Google apologist.
Two, yes, Google Fiber's real footprint is relatively tiny. I point that out constantly. They offer actual service in small parts of two markets (Provo and KC) and none of the other announcements have seen a single transferred bit.
That said, the deployments have still had a massive impact on the broadband market, by creating what's been a massive conversation about the lack of competition in most markets.
"We all know why Google Fiber is positioned positively in nearly every item on ISPs."
Cheap symmetrical gigabit service with no hidden fees and no obnoxious caveats. Gosh, I wonder why they get so much praise in a market ruled by overpriced duopoly service?
They're headquartered in NY State but have a huge footprint in Florida and a few other States. Time Warner Cable already does all of their programming negotiations and some networking management for them as they used to both operate under the Roadrunner brand and have been tied at the hip for years, so a deal kind of makes sense.
You beat me to it. The AT&T that was is a far cry from the AT&T that is. The most creativity coming out of the new AT&T is usually on the lobbying or public relations fronts.
Yeah, for some reason I see this semantic, overly literal point made every so often -- that it can't be "cord cutting" because there's still a cord for Internet.
Maybe we need a new name. "Smart shoppers," perhaps.
>It needs to be addressed cable "packages" are sold as they are because distributors control the pricing, not the cable industry.
I dedicate a paragraph to that point.
Yes, broadcasters control programming prices, but don't fall into the trap of thinking cable operators are helpless little daisies when it comes to raising rates. Take a look at the fees that smack you with below the line, the fees imposed for paying your bill in person, or the steep per month hardware rental rates.
There's plenty of blame to go around. None of them want the cash cow to die.
"It's kind of a stretch to refer to Waters as their "band leader"
It's funny, because I actually paused on that word as I was writing it. I almost had just "bassist" in there.
But Animals through the Final Cut, I don't think there's really much debate that he lead the band, whether or not they wanted to be lead in that general direction -- and whether or not he was a huge ass about it.
Well one, I think telecom is fundamentally different from retail (Apple, Nike) in too many ways to list here.
Two, Verizon doesn't have to compete on price because of their domination of the special access market, which allows it control over the prices companies like Sprint and T-Mobile is charging. That just can't be ignored in suggesting they don't have to compete on price.
Three, I note at the end that I don't entirely disagree with Verizon's premise, give they really do have the best network coverage, performance, and customer service metrics. But what happens when T-Mobile and Sprint networks catch up? Last quarter showed they are now losing customers and the quality argument may not be enough.
Still though, I return to point two, and the fact Verizon enjoys regulatory capture and all but owns state legislatures. That tends to pollute free market analysis of their incentive toward real price competition.
They've pretty relentlessly raised rates on me since signing up. And whereas I used to be able to call in and negotiate better deals, in recent months they've basically told me "no, sorry" when asked if I can get a better rate.
After fifteen years writing about and being one of the few truly skeptical telecom beat reporters, I've been called a lot of things before, but never "naive," that's a new one, thanks.
No, while I think it's important AT&T is now only using throttling to manage congestion, I'm well aware of the new slippery slope of bullshit it can now employ to try and pretend its network is endlessly congested. Using congestion to defend anti-competitive behavior has been a thirty-year evolving practice, and it's certainly not ending here.
Yes it's now a slippery slope too where ISPs can consistently claim "congestion" and fiddle with the data to prove this point, so we've opened up a real pandora's box that requires consistent regulatory policing....
Faster (10 Mbps versus 50 Mbps) seems relatively concrete to me. Smoother is ambiguous. Besides, the user already noted they had smooth Netflix playback using multiple devices in the home on 50 Mbps.
You understand that wanting ISPs to deploy ultra-fast networks, and not wanting ISPs to try and bullshit-upsell you to unnecessary speeds for your specific usage, are two entirely different conversations, yes?
"But if the customer already has 50 Mbps and streaming video isn't smooth, it's reasonably possible they're one of the few who actually need more.">
As Rayburn notes, he already had smooth performance, so he wasn't over-saturating the line. I get your point, but it doesn't apply here. I agree it's not the worst of Verizon's nonsensical claims ever seen on this green earth, the amusing part is they were trying to bullshit the very last person who'd fall for it.
Verizon has a live IP video service they're planning to launch sometime later this year, so that adds an additional incentive to get these issues sorted out....
"Zuckerberg, in an extremely offensive manner, is trying to argue that we have to choose between fairness (net neutrality) and helping poor people get access to the internet. He's completely wrong."
Re: OKAY, we get it: AT&T, Comcast, Verizon BAD -- Google good.
You're absurd. I've probably been the loudest when it comes to pointing out that Google Fiber's actual impact is notably smaller than the press likes to suggest:
On the post: Google Fiber Says It's Passing On Rightscorp Settlement-O-Matic Demands For 'Transparency'
Re:
I mean we are talking about a legal battle between an absolute giant in the world tech scene and a tiny outfit that's spending more than it makes.
Certainly agree with that!
On the post: Google Fiber Says It's Passing On Rightscorp Settlement-O-Matic Demands For 'Transparency'
Re: You Google Fiber FIBBER! "bit of a hero" even while "playing along with Rightscorp", eh?
Two, yes, Google Fiber's real footprint is relatively tiny. I point that out constantly. They offer actual service in small parts of two markets (Provo and KC) and none of the other announcements have seen a single transferred bit.
That said, the deployments have still had a massive impact on the broadband market, by creating what's been a massive conversation about the lack of competition in most markets.
Cheap symmetrical gigabit service with no hidden fees and no obnoxious caveats. Gosh, I wonder why they get so much praise in a market ruled by overpriced duopoly service?
On the post: Charter Acquires Time Warner Cable, Promises It Will Suck Less Than Blocked Comcast Merger
Re: Bright House?
On the post: North Carolina's Broadband Policy: Wasting Tax Dollars Pretending To Care About Wasting Tax Dollars
Re:
On the post: AT&T Stops Pouting Over Net Neutrality, Backs Off Network Investment 'Freeze' That Never Was
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Cable Execs Refuse To Offer Better TV Bundle Options Because Consumers Already Enjoy All The 'Value' They Can Handle
Re: Re:
Maybe we need a new name. "Smart shoppers," perhaps.
On the post: Cable Execs Refuse To Offer Better TV Bundle Options Because Consumers Already Enjoy All The 'Value' They Can Handle
Re:
I dedicate a paragraph to that point.
Yes, broadcasters control programming prices, but don't fall into the trap of thinking cable operators are helpless little daisies when it comes to raising rates. Take a look at the fees that smack you with below the line, the fees imposed for paying your bill in person, or the steep per month hardware rental rates.
There's plenty of blame to go around. None of them want the cash cow to die.
On the post: Verizon Buys AOL, Because Two Lumbering Dinosaurs Who Can't Figure Out The Modern Internet Must Be Better Together
Re: $4.4 billion, eh?
On the post: Pink Floyd's Roger Waters Declares Silicon Valley A 'Gallery Of Rogues And Thieves'
Re:
But Animals through the Final Cut, I don't think there's really much debate that he lead the band, whether or not they wanted to be lead in that general direction -- and whether or not he was a huge ass about it.
On the post: Verizon Wireless Tells 'Price Sensitive' Customers It Doesn't Want Them, Declares It Doesn't Need To Truly Compete
Re: Don't Agree
Two, Verizon doesn't have to compete on price because of their domination of the special access market, which allows it control over the prices companies like Sprint and T-Mobile is charging. That just can't be ignored in suggesting they don't have to compete on price.
Three, I note at the end that I don't entirely disagree with Verizon's premise, give they really do have the best network coverage, performance, and customer service metrics. But what happens when T-Mobile and Sprint networks catch up? Last quarter showed they are now losing customers and the quality argument may not be enough.
Still though, I return to point two, and the fact Verizon enjoys regulatory capture and all but owns state legislatures. That tends to pollute free market analysis of their incentive toward real price competition.
On the post: Verizon Picks The Worst Possible Person To Try To Bullshit Into Unnecessary Upgrade
Re: A bigger sin
On the post: After FTC, FCC Pressure, AT&T Backs Off Arbitrary Throttling Of 'Unlimited' LTE Users
Re: Re: Um, I Read This Differently
No, while I think it's important AT&T is now only using throttling to manage congestion, I'm well aware of the new slippery slope of bullshit it can now employ to try and pretend its network is endlessly congested. Using congestion to defend anti-competitive behavior has been a thirty-year evolving practice, and it's certainly not ending here.
On the post: After FTC, FCC Pressure, AT&T Backs Off Arbitrary Throttling Of 'Unlimited' LTE Users
Re:
On the post: Verizon Picks The Worst Possible Person To Try To Bullshit Into Unnecessary Upgrade
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Verizon Picks The Worst Possible Person To Try To Bullshit Into Unnecessary Upgrade
Re: gigabit?
On the post: Verizon Picks The Worst Possible Person To Try To Bullshit Into Unnecessary Upgrade
Re: Overblown
As Rayburn notes, he already had smooth performance, so he wasn't over-saturating the line. I get your point, but it doesn't apply here. I agree it's not the worst of Verizon's nonsensical claims ever seen on this green earth, the amusing part is they were trying to bullshit the very last person who'd fall for it.
On the post: The Mere Threat Of Real Neutrality Rules Appears To Have Helped Calm Verizon, Level 3, Cogent Interconnection Feud
Re:
On the post: Tone Deaf Zuckerberg Declares Opposition To Zero Rated Apps An 'Extremist' Position That Hurts The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: That 20 Mbps Broadband Line We Promised? It's Actually 300 Kbps. Enjoy!
Re: OKAY, we get it: AT&T, Comcast, Verizon BAD -- Google good.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Four-Years-Later-Just-How-Big-is-Google-Fibers-Impact-126 717
I'd like to know where this Google money I get paid is supposedly hiding, since my kitchen is from 1978 and could use an upgrade.
Maybe register and we can have an honest conversation about who pays YOU?
On the post: That 20 Mbps Broadband Line We Promised? It's Actually 300 Kbps. Enjoy!
Re: talk to a tech
Next >>