The alternative to leveraging localized Content Delivery Networks is to actually build out infrastructure that can deliver the speeds you advertise and your customers pay for.
Comcast has mystically (read: Monopoly) found a third option whereby Netflix builds the CDN that improves service that Comcast is supposed to be providing its customers, AND CHARGES Netflix for the privilege of delivering content that competes with Comcast's offerings.
I read through it again, really trying to put aside my Google bias.
I guess my reservations relate to the fact that "Google Nest" is the name of a real product. True this page isn't tricking people into buying a different product, but they are trying to talk people out of the real one.
Mike noted above that every reporter who wrote about it figured it out, but what happened to his "moron in a hurry" test? Just because professional technology fact checkers weren't fooled doesn't convince me that normal people are immune too, especially now that it's not 'hot news.' Haven't you ever gotten an email forward about some long debunked claim from someone who thought it was real? All the top search results now are about the real Nest, not the parody. What if someone wasn't reading tech blogs two weeks ago? If this website sours their view of Nest, are they likely to go searching for details about it?
It seems to me that these folks baited Google into action against them, and Google shouldn't have taken it. But I can see the argument for removing false information that looks authoritative.
I don't think there's anything there that says "parody" to me. If I didn't know the source wasn't Google nothing on that page would make me question the statement's validity. The look and feel are all googlish, and there's even a button at the top that takes me to my actual Google account.
But most of all, the usual "over the top" hyperbole that lets us know something isn't real and indicates parody, isn't there. Those all seem like maybe plausible things. Part of that is the fact that Google does announce crazy sounding things. Self-driving cars, personal heads-up displays, high-altitude balloon based internet service...
And that's just the stuff that still sounds crazy. Maybe that's the point of the parody, but it would still take a pretty savvy reader to know that the page wasn't endorsed by Google.
It's more expensive to get naked internet than it is to get Internet and TV together. They want you confused about the relationship between connection infrastructure and content subscription so that they can leverage Natural Monopoly without regulation to keep content competitors out.
I don't really get why we're discussing any of the rest of these proposals. Internet Connectivity is a Telecommunication Utility and needs Common Carrier Regulation under Title II of the TelCom Act.
Competition and neutrality will sort themselves out once we acknowledge the ISPs as Infrastructure and not Content Providers. Right?
There's absolutely money to be made by being a regulated local monopoly. Just not the obscene profits they're rolling in right now.
Existing mega ISPs should be made to either play ball as a Common Carrier or divest local infrastructure to a company or municipal service that does not have an interest in commingling the Natural Monopoly of Connection with the competitive market of Content.
Reminds me of the trucks that say "Safety is our number one goal!"
Well, no. Your number one goal is to haul stuff from place to place. A close second might be doing so safely, but staying home is safer than not.
Likewise, the police and the laws they enforce do not exist primarily to get cops home safe. Yes, officer safety is a close second, but if you're not going to protect and serve the public, you might as well stay home.
The government argues that any smartphone with the potential to be encrypted/wiped should automatically be relieved of warrant requirements. Encryption and wiping technology are inherently evil in the government's eyes.
Is this the same government that wants to mandate remote-wipe on our phones?
On the post: Massachusetts Ignores 5th Amendment; Says Defendant Can Be Forced To Decrypt His Computer
Re: Re:
On the post: More Details Emerge Showing The US Government Has No Idea How To Solve A Problem Like Snowden
Re: Re: Wait.. what???
On the post: FCC Begins Investigating Comcast And Verizon Making Netflix Pay To Avoid Congestion
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: freeloading bandwidth hogs
On the post: FCC Comment Page Buckles To Its Knees After John Oliver Asks Everyone To Comment
Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
Comcast has mystically (read: Monopoly) found a third option whereby Netflix builds the CDN that improves service that Comcast is supposed to be providing its customers, AND CHARGES Netflix for the privilege of delivering content that competes with Comcast's offerings.
On the post: NSA Intercepting 'Millions Of Images' Per Day In Order To Fill Facial Recognition Database
On the post: Google Fiber: You Know How Comcast Is Making Netflix Pay Extra? We Don't Do That Kind Of Crap
Re: Re: some BS from AT&T on Google Fiber
On the post: Google Fiber: You Know How Comcast Is Making Netflix Pay Extra? We Don't Do That Kind Of Crap
Re: Yeah but...
Unfortunately, so far it's no competition at all, the incumbents are just blown away.
On the post: Google Trademark Bullies Obviously Non-Commercial Parody Site
Re: Re: Re: misrepresentation
I guess my reservations relate to the fact that "Google Nest" is the name of a real product. True this page isn't tricking people into buying a different product, but they are trying to talk people out of the real one.
Mike noted above that every reporter who wrote about it figured it out, but what happened to his "moron in a hurry" test? Just because professional technology fact checkers weren't fooled doesn't convince me that normal people are immune too, especially now that it's not 'hot news.' Haven't you ever gotten an email forward about some long debunked claim from someone who thought it was real? All the top search results now are about the real Nest, not the parody. What if someone wasn't reading tech blogs two weeks ago? If this website sours their view of Nest, are they likely to go searching for details about it?
It seems to me that these folks baited Google into action against them, and Google shouldn't have taken it. But I can see the argument for removing false information that looks authoritative.
On the post: LG Will Take The 'Smart' Out Of Your Smart TV If You Don't Agree To Share Your Viewing And Search Data With Third Parties
Re: There needs to be a law...
You don't want me to do what I want with it, don't sell it.
On the post: Google Trademark Bullies Obviously Non-Commercial Parody Site
Re: misrepresentation
But most of all, the usual "over the top" hyperbole that lets us know something isn't real and indicates parody, isn't there. Those all seem like maybe plausible things. Part of that is the fact that Google does announce crazy sounding things. Self-driving cars, personal heads-up displays, high-altitude balloon based internet service...
And that's just the stuff that still sounds crazy. Maybe that's the point of the parody, but it would still take a pretty savvy reader to know that the page wasn't endorsed by Google.
On the post: Getting Bigger For Bigness' Sake: AT&T Announces Deal To Buy DirecTV, A Deal That Even Confuses Wall St.
Have you actually tried to "Cut the cord?"
On the post: Lobbyists (And, Oh Yes, Everyone Else), Start Your Engines: FCC Opens The Floor For Comments On Net Neutrality
Re:
How hard is it to chime in and raise your voice?
https://www.dearfcc.org/
On the post: Lobbyists (And, Oh Yes, Everyone Else), Start Your Engines: FCC Opens The Floor For Comments On Net Neutrality
Hammer Title II
Competition and neutrality will sort themselves out once we acknowledge the ISPs as Infrastructure and not Content Providers. Right?
On the post: Contrary To What Big Broadband Players Will Say, The FCC Has Acted Many Times To Protect Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Contrary To What Big Broadband Players Will Say, The FCC Has Acted Many Times To Protect Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Existing mega ISPs should be made to either play ball as a Common Carrier or divest local infrastructure to a company or municipal service that does not have an interest in commingling the Natural Monopoly of Connection with the competitive market of Content.
On the post: NYPD Officers Expect Public To Be Stupider Than They Are; Justify Shutting Down Recording With 'iPhones Are Guns' Claim
Priorities
Well, no. Your number one goal is to haul stuff from place to place. A close second might be doing so safely, but staying home is safer than not.
Likewise, the police and the laws they enforce do not exist primarily to get cops home safe. Yes, officer safety is a close second, but if you're not going to protect and serve the public, you might as well stay home.
On the post: Toronto Asked To Ban Dangerous Dr. Seuss Book For Promoting Violence
Re: It could be worse
On the post: What Does It Say About The US Press That The Toughest Interview Keith Alexander Has Is From A Comedian?
Re:
On the post: DOJ Whines That A Warrant To Search A Mobile Phone Makes It More Difficult To Catch Criminals
Re: NSA
On the post: DOJ Whines That A Warrant To Search A Mobile Phone Makes It More Difficult To Catch Criminals
Hang on a second...
Next >>