That's what I worry about. I think Google eventually sees a management shift and somebody decides to sell this effort on the cheap. Until then though, the pressure it's placing on ISPs is great, and hopefully Google would sell it to somebody with similar goals.
Still, they're at least educating cities on how to get out of their own way, even if the end result isn't exactly curing the digital divide.
Yes, they've been doing this kind of nonsense for YEARS now. That includes push pollsters, who'll call and fill voters heads with all manner of nonsense. I saw one push pollster hired by Cox and AT&T in the Southwest informing locals that if they approved a local municipal broadband operation, the government would attempt to ration their TV viewing AND block their access to religious programming.
I remember AT&T and Comcast used very similar tactics in St. Charles and those other Illinois communities that were considering it.
True, I feel like Mark Klein however was truly the beginning of a broader public awareness that we're not talking about tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
Though even with Klein I remember a ton of people in the technology press not understanding what the big deal was.
"Missed in the article, the Apple exclusiveness will end just before the end of the next season of Game of Thrones"
HBO Now launches just ahead of "Game of Thrones" newest season. From there it's a three month exclusive. How is that "the Apple exclusiveness will end just before the end of the next season of Game of Thrones"?
Yeah for some reason I've found the inability to recognize the bad precedent there particularly annoying. Breaking neutrality is bad enough without people blindly cheering it along.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a net neutrality issue
"The core component of net neutrality is that everyone's packets should be treated the same. That's where it starts and ends."
You're going to find that's too narrow of a definition as the conversation evolves and carriers get increasingly clever. By that logic, interconnection won't really be part of the conversation either, since all packets are being treated the same -- Verizon and friends are just demanding payment out at the edge of the network.
Just because they use different network-related mechanisms to reach the same goals doesn't somehow mean it's not part of the same conversation.
Why? It's a clever end around of net neutrality logic by ISPs. Just like interconnection is an extension of the net neutrality debate to the edge of the network, this is an attempt at the same end goals simply using a refusal to authenticate. It's all part of the conversation regarding giant ISPs abusing their market position to limit choice!
Yes, if you've got an incumbent gatekeeper using its power to block consumer choice, I absolutely do consider it part of the net neutrality conversation. The only difference (again) is they're using authentication instead of throttling or blocking to limit consumer choice.
"It is semantics until the phrases "blocked" or "net neutrality" get thrown around, then it becomes important. This has nothing to do with how someone can use their broadband connection, it relates directly to a premium pay cable TV service offering and the associated benefits."
You're offering absolutely no reason why these semantics are important here and this isn't part of the broader net neutrality debate. Again, it doesn't matter if Comcast is using a refusal to authenticate or throttling -- the end result is the same: They're using their position of power to prevent people from accessing content they pay for on hardware they own.
How people are upset that I'm suggesting this is even part of the net neutrality conversation seems bizarre to me. People are going to have to open their eyes wider, as the net neutrality discussion has broadened as ISPs get more clever about these abuses.
Thanks. Yes, clearly I needed to explain some of this better, though the older article I wrote and linked to does some of this.
I repeat myself because this is something that's important to understand as the net neutrality debate moves forward. ISPs know they can't throttle or block content, so they're going to start getting more creative. More creative, elaborate bullshit excuses are going to be built trying to defend anti-competitive behavior using pretty flimsy, faux-technical justifications.
People all insisting this isn't a net neutrality violation simply because they're using a different mechanism to the same end is really only beneficial to Comcast.
If semantics are really the issue we can just call this "anti-competitive behavior" and not a pure net neutrality violation, but it's part of the neutrality conversation.
"I'm sorry Karl, I don't buy your argument, and it seems I'm not alone here. All I want is my IP packets to travel unmolested over the tubes I paid for access to."
So you're ok then if Comcast doesn't let your new Roku or Playstation access certain content? They're still blocking access to content you pay for, they're just using a refusal to authenticate and an elaborate pile of bullshit instead of harming the packets.
The end result is the same. It's part of the same conversation.
You buy a Roku 3. You already pay for cable and HBO. You hook it up but just need Comcast servers to basically say "yes, he's a paying cable customer," something that's not a problem for every other ISP. But Comcast refuses to provide this for YEARS, never really telling you why. But the reason is they want you watching HBO content on THEIR X1 set top boxes and platforms.
You really don't see how this is at least related to the entire net neutrality debate?
Call Comcast and cancel your HBO if you don't like it.
Punishing HBO for what Comcast is doing doesn't really accomplish anything here.
It doesn't matter whether Comcast is using de-prioritized packets, blocking, or intentionally refusing to authenticate users, the end result is the same: they're using their gatekeeper power to keep people OFF of other platforms, and ON their platforms. It's all one giant conversation. And if the net neutrality rules include interconnection, usage caps, zero rated apps and other shenanigans, I believe this kind of trickery is part of the dialogue.
Or we can just ditch the term neutrality here and use "anti-competitive behavior" if the semantics bother people so much.
TV Everywhere is stupid, not illegal. To me, failing to authenticate so users can't use hardware they own and bandwidth they pay for to reach content they pay for is anti-competitive. Whether it's specifically illegal is irrelevant to me in this case, as Comcast has undue influence over law, or regulators haven't yet figured out what Comcast's doing.
"What is your definition of net neutrality?"
To me, net neutrality is about making sure incumbent gatekeepers from abusing their positions of market power to prevent consumers from gaining access to the content and services of their choice. Here, again, Comcast is using their failure to get a simple authentication system up and running so that users are more likely to stick with traditional Comcast set top boxes and traditional HBO.
Comcast wants you to view Xfinity and HBO content on THEIR X1 cable boxes and on demand platforms, where you deal with THEIR ad choices, and user behavior monetization technologies, etc. That's all this has ever been about.
On the post: Telco Analyst Compares Google Fiber To Ebola... Completely Misses The Point
Re:
Still, they're at least educating cities on how to get out of their own way, even if the end result isn't exactly curing the digital divide.
On the post: Why Are Some People So Intent On Making Netflix More Like Traditional TV?
Re:
On the post: Why Are Some People So Intent On Making Netflix More Like Traditional TV?
Re:
On the post: Why Are Some People So Intent On Making Netflix More Like Traditional TV?
Re:
On the post: FCC Outlines Plan To Crush Awful State Protectionist Broadband Laws
Re: Re: Re: $$talk$
I remember AT&T and Comcast used very similar tactics in St. Charles and those other Illinois communities that were considering it.
On the post: AT&T's Cozy NSA Ties Brought Up In Attempt To Scuttle DirecTV Merger
Re: History: AT&T and Federal Government
Though even with Klein I remember a ton of people in the technology press not understanding what the big deal was.
On the post: HBO Now's Apple Exclusive Ensures The 'Most Pirated Show On TV' Stays That Way
Re:
On the post: FCC Approval Of Zero Rating Shows Companies Can Still Violate Neutrality Under New Rules, They Just Have To Be More Clever About It
Re:
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a net neutrality issue
Just because they use different network-related mechanisms to reach the same goals doesn't somehow mean it's not part of the same conversation.
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I can tell you why
How people are upset that I'm suggesting this is even part of the net neutrality conversation seems bizarre to me. People are going to have to open their eyes wider, as the net neutrality discussion has broadened as ISPs get more clever about these abuses.
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re:
I repeat myself because this is something that's important to understand as the net neutrality debate moves forward. ISPs know they can't throttle or block content, so they're going to start getting more creative. More creative, elaborate bullshit excuses are going to be built trying to defend anti-competitive behavior using pretty flimsy, faux-technical justifications.
People all insisting this isn't a net neutrality violation simply because they're using a different mechanism to the same end is really only beneficial to Comcast.
If semantics are really the issue we can just call this "anti-competitive behavior" and not a pure net neutrality violation, but it's part of the neutrality conversation.
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
The end result is the same. It's part of the same conversation.
You buy a Roku 3. You already pay for cable and HBO. You hook it up but just need Comcast servers to basically say "yes, he's a paying cable customer," something that's not a problem for every other ISP. But Comcast refuses to provide this for YEARS, never really telling you why. But the reason is they want you watching HBO content on THEIR X1 set top boxes and platforms.
You really don't see how this is at least related to the entire net neutrality debate? Punishing HBO for what Comcast is doing doesn't really accomplish anything here.
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re:
It doesn't matter whether Comcast is using de-prioritized packets, blocking, or intentionally refusing to authenticate users, the end result is the same: they're using their gatekeeper power to keep people OFF of other platforms, and ON their platforms. It's all one giant conversation. And if the net neutrality rules include interconnection, usage caps, zero rated apps and other shenanigans, I believe this kind of trickery is part of the dialogue.
Or we can just ditch the term neutrality here and use "anti-competitive behavior" if the semantics bother people so much.
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I can tell you why
Next >>