I hope I never have to buy a Smart TV. I just want an ordinary TV thank you.
Reasons why:
Competition and open market. I can buy whatever choice of "smart tv" box that I want. Amazon Fire Stick. Chromecast. Google TV. Roku. PS/3, Xbox, MythTV, Etc. I can even have more than one. Even with overlapping functions. Or even no smart tv at all for those who don't want one.
Competition for the smart TV boxes is important for the future. Just think of what happens if there is a new "Microsoft" of smart tv boxes, and maybe then only one major streaming platform (think "Comcast" of streaming platforms).
The price of the TV is cheaper without building in the smart tv.
If the smart tv box is spying on me, it is not part of the TV and I can get rid of it. It probably cost about $100 which is way less than the cost of the TV.
The Smart TV box becomes obsolete long before the expensive TV does. In fact, the TV might last multiple generations of smart TV box. (This is why I also think buying a computer built into a monitor is a dumb idea.) I can replace the inexpensive smart tv box without throwing out the expensive TV part.
If I don't like the EULA of a smart tv, I don't have to forego the nice TV just because it has a smart TV component with a ridiculous EULA.
Keeping the prices unbundled prevents various pricing games that are played when things are bundled.
The bigger an organization is, the more difficult it is to change anything. A lot is riding on just the status quo of the organization. If things took a dip, people might lose their jobs. The stock price might go down a bit which would cause the sky to fall.
So any change that involves risk becomes less and less acceptable the bigger an organization becomes. Especially a change that seems radical or the opposite of what the business is or seems to be built on. Such a radical change seems to question the very principles of nature. The railroads should have recognized they were in the transportation business and embraced trucking and air freight.
A startup can take big risks. They can even completely change their business plan and succeed where they would have failed. A startup can also question the existing way things are.
If they can make it legal going forward, why can't they make it legal retroactively? Call it amnesty or whatever they like.
If they really want to be innovative they would come up with an authority to make things illegal retroactively. Now that would be progress, towards, um, something.
Do not create a single website to stream movies. Not any more than there is only one theater chain. Create an industry standard protocol for browsing, searching and streaming movies. That way, there can be competition amongst streaming platforms -- but only one "app" or "smart tv" standard in your living room to browse them all. Just as in the previous millennium a single TV could tune in all channels.
The single website idea is like saying let's have a single television network, and it must be NBC, to provide all television content.
As for lowering the price, that could be done by making less expensive and more risky movies. Stop making $200 Million remakes of sequels of old movies that were based on even older TV shows. Invest in original movies and programming. Yes, some of it will fail. Even if the business is about making money, that only continues to happen if you are also making art.
Unthinkable. Inconceivable. If you were to start making cuts in the MPAA, (and also RIAA) then there might actually be money that could go to artists. This is simply unacceptable and cannot be allowed to happen.
Re: It is perfectly possible to design strong crypto that allows govt access
> The ability of the provider/govt to decrypt the message does not undermine the crypto in any way.
While technically clever and simple in implementation, that is the most idiotic statement I've heard in a while.
The purpose of crypto is to communicate privately.
Being mandated to include a way for and unknown number of unknown third parties to read the secret message totally and utterly undermines crypto.
Having a central government Key repository (car keys, house keys, vault keys, etc) that keeps copies of each and every key on your keyring does not undermine security in any way. Idiotic. Keys are for security. Giving the government all keys provides a central weak point. An unknown number of weak points because all those keys can be copies unlimited times.
Are you trying, poorly, to suggest that the intelligence agencies should share their back door (aka 'golden key') with the RIAA and MPAA?
Or would it be too much work for the **AA-holes to monitor and decrypt all traffic looking for copyrighted bits? Would it be better for the intelligence agencies to simply send notices to the **AA-holes that they found a copyright infringement? Or would even that be too much work? Maybe the intelligence agencies should just send an infringement notice directly to the ISPs and cut out the middle man?
Oh, wait. I know what the **AA-holes would like best. The intelligence agencies simply show up in the middle of the nigtht and secretly arrest and 'disappear' anyone they suspect of copyright infringement, with no due process. Why bother the ISPs?
> We can't afford to let pirates and other > copyright violators hide behind encryption.
I just suggested the answer for you. And it's just as evil as 'golden keys'.
Just like Cryptographic Golden Keys ARE Back Doors
If someone can pay to get better routing of their packets, then someone else's packets are being throttled unfairly.
If not, then there is sufficient network capacity and no Sponsored Data would be necessary.
So which is it? Is AT&T not building sufficient network capacity to deliver what its own customers pay for (eg, Netflix to my home)? Or is AT&T going to unfairly throttle other internet services to favor those (like Netflix) who might pay AT&T to buy what AT&T's customers already are paying for: getting netflix to my living room.
AT&T, here is a free clue: Build out your netnwork capacity to deliver what your customers are paying for. Charge your customers enough to deliver what they want, and to make a profit. Isn't that simple? That almost seems like how all businesses should operate.
Maybe the judge is trying to destroy Uber and Lyft?
Just suppose. The judge doesn't like these ride sharing services, and despite his obligation to impartially judge the case on the facts before him, he sees this as an opportunity to destroy ride sharing services.
Just think how would this work for Uber if their drivers were now employees. Would Uber now need a payroll? HR? An accounting system, paying employer share of payroll taxes? Benefits? There would need to be documentation of people hired and terminated.
It would be a burden. Maybe that's what the judge wants.
This is the 21st century. Internet access is approximately as important as a telephone connection. Maybe not quite as important as electrical, gas, water or sewer, or trash collection.
Internet access now is one of the basic 'utilities' that nearly every home has in order to be functional.
> Heavily regulating the Internet for the first time > is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Heavily regulating the Internet for the first time would be unnecessary if you were doing your job.
Your Job: to route packets closer to their destination.
Not Your Job: inspecting them, 'prioritizing' them, mis-routing them, playing games with DNS, being the copyright cops for a private industry that has it's head so far . . . well, let's just say it's not your job to do anything but route packets.
As for your lawsuit. Boo Hoo. You brought all of this on yourself.
On the post: French Government Declares Independence From Free Speech: Broad Internet Take-Down Powers Now In Place
Re: The terroristic baguette
On the post: Samsung's Smart TVs Are Collecting And Storing Your Private Conversations
Please keep the SMART out of the TV
Reasons why:
Competition and open market. I can buy whatever choice of "smart tv" box that I want. Amazon Fire Stick. Chromecast. Google TV. Roku. PS/3, Xbox, MythTV, Etc. I can even have more than one. Even with overlapping functions. Or even no smart tv at all for those who don't want one.
Competition for the smart TV boxes is important for the future. Just think of what happens if there is a new "Microsoft" of smart tv boxes, and maybe then only one major streaming platform (think "Comcast" of streaming platforms).
The price of the TV is cheaper without building in the smart tv.
If the smart tv box is spying on me, it is not part of the TV and I can get rid of it. It probably cost about $100 which is way less than the cost of the TV.
The Smart TV box becomes obsolete long before the expensive TV does. In fact, the TV might last multiple generations of smart TV box. (This is why I also think buying a computer built into a monitor is a dumb idea.) I can replace the inexpensive smart tv box without throwing out the expensive TV part.
If I don't like the EULA of a smart tv, I don't have to forego the nice TV just because it has a smart TV component with a ridiculous EULA.
Keeping the prices unbundled prevents various pricing games that are played when things are bundled.
On the post: Studios Fed Up With Funding The MPAA: Changes May Be Coming
Re: Re: Re: Potential
So any change that involves risk becomes less and less acceptable the bigger an organization becomes. Especially a change that seems radical or the opposite of what the business is or seems to be built on. Such a radical change seems to question the very principles of nature. The railroads should have recognized they were in the transportation business and embraced trucking and air freight.
A startup can take big risks. They can even completely change their business plan and succeed where they would have failed. A startup can also question the existing way things are.
On the post: UK's Secretive Court Says Intelligence Sharing Between NSA And GCHQ Was Unlawful In The Past -- But Now It Isn't
Re: We broke the law...
If they really want to be innovative they would come up with an authority to make things illegal retroactively. Now that would be progress, towards, um, something.
On the post: Studios Fed Up With Funding The MPAA: Changes May Be Coming
Re:
The single website idea is like saying let's have a single television network, and it must be NBC, to provide all television content.
As for lowering the price, that could be done by making less expensive and more risky movies. Stop making $200 Million remakes of sequels of old movies that were based on even older TV shows. Invest in original movies and programming. Yes, some of it will fail. Even if the business is about making money, that only continues to happen if you are also making art.
On the post: Studios Fed Up With Funding The MPAA: Changes May Be Coming
Re:
So don't expect it to happen.
On the post: Intelligence Community's Top Lawyer Endorses Desire For Unicorns, Leprechauns & Golden Keys That Don't Undermine Encryption
Re: It is perfectly possible to design strong crypto that allows govt access
While technically clever and simple in implementation, that is the most idiotic statement I've heard in a while.
The purpose of crypto is to communicate privately.
Being mandated to include a way for and unknown number of unknown third parties to read the secret message totally and utterly undermines crypto.
Having a central government Key repository (car keys, house keys, vault keys, etc) that keeps copies of each and every key on your keyring does not undermine security in any way. Idiotic. Keys are for security. Giving the government all keys provides a central weak point. An unknown number of weak points because all those keys can be copies unlimited times.
On the post: Intelligence Community's Top Lawyer Endorses Desire For Unicorns, Leprechauns & Golden Keys That Don't Undermine Encryption
Re:
Are you trying, poorly, to suggest that the intelligence agencies should share their back door (aka 'golden key') with the RIAA and MPAA?
Or would it be too much work for the **AA-holes to monitor and decrypt all traffic looking for copyrighted bits? Would it be better for the intelligence agencies to simply send notices to the **AA-holes that they found a copyright infringement? Or would even that be too much work? Maybe the intelligence agencies should just send an infringement notice directly to the ISPs and cut out the middle man?
Oh, wait. I know what the **AA-holes would like best. The intelligence agencies simply show up in the middle of the nigtht and secretly arrest and 'disappear' anyone they suspect of copyright infringement, with no due process. Why bother the ISPs?
> We can't afford to let pirates and other
> copyright violators hide behind encryption.
I just suggested the answer for you. And it's just as evil as 'golden keys'.
On the post: Intelligence Community's Top Lawyer Endorses Desire For Unicorns, Leprechauns & Golden Keys That Don't Undermine Encryption
Re: I'm not a cook
On the post: Despite Limited Interest In AT&T's Sponsored Data, Company Still 'Bullish' On Its Awful Precedent
Re:
The RIAA would also be happy, because at least none of the money went to the artists.
On the post: The World's Email Encryption Software Relies On One Guy, Who Is Going Broke
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Despite Limited Interest In AT&T's Sponsored Data, Company Still 'Bullish' On Its Awful Precedent
Sponsored Data IS Throttling
If someone can pay to get better routing of their packets, then someone else's packets are being throttled unfairly.
If not, then there is sufficient network capacity and no Sponsored Data would be necessary.
So which is it? Is AT&T not building sufficient network capacity to deliver what its own customers pay for (eg, Netflix to my home)? Or is AT&T going to unfairly throttle other internet services to favor those (like Netflix) who might pay AT&T to buy what AT&T's customers already are paying for: getting netflix to my living room.
AT&T, here is a free clue: Build out your netnwork capacity to deliver what your customers are paying for. Charge your customers enough to deliver what they want, and to make a profit. Isn't that simple? That almost seems like how all businesses should operate.
On the post: Intelligence Community's Top Lawyer Endorses Desire For Unicorns, Leprechauns & Golden Keys That Don't Undermine Encryption
Re:
Yes it is.
Golden Keys ARE back doors.
Just like a system with a back door special password. That key, or password, works for anyone who happens to have it (a copy of it).
In every way you can describe a back door in a system, the golden key is equivalent.
On the post: Intelligence Community's Top Lawyer Endorses Desire For Unicorns, Leprechauns & Golden Keys That Don't Undermine Encryption
Re: 'I’m not a cryptographer, but I am an optimist'
From the same government that had to take a vote in the Senate on whether climate change is a hoax.
On the post: Judges May Deflate Massive Opportunity By Declaring Uber, Lyft Drivers 'Employees' Rather Than Independent Contractors
Maybe the judge is trying to destroy Uber and Lyft?
Just think how would this work for Uber if their drivers were now employees. Would Uber now need a payroll? HR? An accounting system, paying employer share of payroll taxes? Benefits? There would need to be documentation of people hired and terminated.
It would be a burden. Maybe that's what the judge wants.
On the post: Stop Saying That The FCC Is 'Treating Internet As A Utility' -- It's Not
Why ISN'T the Internet a Utility?
This is the 21st century. Internet access is approximately as important as a telephone connection. Maybe not quite as important as electrical, gas, water or sewer, or trash collection.
Internet access now is one of the basic 'utilities' that nearly every home has in order to be functional.
On the post: Verizon's Last Tiny Shred Of Credibility On Net Neutrality Just Died
Dear Verizon
> is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Heavily regulating the Internet for the first time
would be unnecessary if you were doing your job.
Your Job: to route packets closer to their destination.
Not Your Job: inspecting them, 'prioritizing' them, mis-routing them, playing games with DNS, being the copyright cops for a private industry that has it's head so far . . . well, let's just say it's not your job to do anything but route packets.
As for your lawsuit. Boo Hoo. You brought all of this on yourself.
Sincerely,
On the post: FBI's 'We're From The Cable Company' Ruse Not Convincing To Magistrate Judge
The FBI should have said . . .
On the post: Cable's Answer To A Changing TV Landscape? Stuff More Ads Into Every Hour
Stuffing more ads into TV programs will work
Or in the same way that laying off a batch of people to boost the stock price will help save a failing company.
And for all three I say, if it doesn't seem to be working, then do more of it, faster!
On the post: Anti-Piracy Group So Desperate To Go After Popcorn Time That It Threatens A Blog Software Maker
Re:
SOPA. PIPA. PROTECT-IP. DMCA.
It's everyone else's job to stop piracy. No matter how far removed everyone else is from the actual piracy -- it is still their job to fix it.
They just can't seem to go after the direct infringer.
Next >>