No it isn't, because there are reasons Governments are starting to look more towards open source over proprietary software, which stem from being competitive against proprietary counter parts.
Not to mention that this isn't the argument that IIPA is making - IIPA is saying that open source undermines copyright and/or patents, not that looking more towards open source alternatives might be unfairly skewing the market, because they know that this isn't what's happening.
FX has the rights to air Colbert Report here. A shame, as being the offspring of The Daily Show you'd expect (hope) they'd be on the same channel (Daily Show is shown on More4).
FX doesn't allow streaming of its shows either, whereas More4/Channel 4 does.
I don't get why it's so hard to be able to give users the ability to set alternative sources for apps. You wouldn't need to provide a completely different store front, just do what Linux distros do - simple sources.list file or similar and GPG keys for security :/
Oh wait, apparently viruses would kill iPhones the world over, not to mention the whole issue with exploding from using 2 apps at once.
This is where the classic car analogy in open source/Free software comes full circle.
It's always been argued that you have the right in your car to fix, replace and maybe even improve parts, partially born out of being properly able to own the car, and that this is what free software wanted to return us to (in software form, obviously), especially in the freedom of information about how cars and their parts work to be able to do this in the first place.
Now the cars themselves have software, and the fact that they're closed source makes us less able to fix our own cars or go to mechanics who can - instead we've become more dependant on the original car vendor for service (once again, bringing us to a situation that FOSS was intended to stop).
It was an analogy - you were likening one situation of net neutrality to your phone service example. The direct question was whether Mike disagreed with laws that regulated in the ATT example, implying that he should if he's against net neutrality (likening them as being the same or similar)
Uhh, that wasn't the question.
My point was that you were asking the wrong question in the first place, to point out the difference between anti-competitive integration and favouring yourself which is what you were talking about, over a service provider degrading a service on the basis that it makes up large amounts of traffic from an individual user or their whole network.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears
Civil disobedience is sometimes needed before a law will be changed, as a way to make a point in whatever form, whether it be protest, not recognising a law or even descending into violence. Especially against Governments who seem intent on only listening to one group over another that does not represent societies best interest.
This both a shame and odd hypocrisy as several of their games are actually available DRM free from Good Old Games (yes, official and Ubisoft approved, the site itself focusing deliberately on DRM free and provides other exclusive content like artwork and various other things when you buy).
I guess publishers stop caring about DRM encrusting games when they're not the new hotness that they want to attempt to milk. It's even better with recent calls by the industry that second hand games are a "problem" that needs to be stopped.
o, you're wrong. Regulations do not allow the local phone company to disconnect your land line service for using VoIP over it. I don't know where yo got that idea. And I notice that you still didn't answer the question: Should they be allowed to refuse telephone service (land line) to other pizza shops?
Once again, you're confusing anti-competitive integration with fundamental differences in how certain utilities work and the effectiveness of prioritising in those other utilities.
They can't (or is pointless to) degrade your service if you order from Pizza Hut over calling a friend, but they can if you use VOIP over instant messaging.
The analogy you're making would be if ATT bought Techdirt and favoured Techdirt traffic over other tech news/commentary sites.
They simply block specific applications like boxee mentioned in the article. A lot of people don't just hook their PC or whatever to the TV as is, they use media centre software, which presumably has its own recognisable method due to trying to get the stream as is without Hulu's own player or based on what gets reported back by the sort-of-browser when it access the site.
Which is even more dumbfounding, as in both instances you're using a PC - it really is a stupid fuss over just a different screen and tailor made software.
Too late - it's already demanded of them with HTML, demanded of them with CSS, demanded of them with HTTP, etc.
Open standards are fundamentally how the web works, and is the only possible way it can work in the way we generally expect it to today.
Also, standards are not mutually exclusive from competitive. There is nothing that says Theora has to be used indefinitely into the future, just that it's currently the best option as a standard so to keep the same flexibility and ability for wide, unhampered usage that the internet is supposed to allow. It is perfectly possible and expected that new formats may complement or replace Theora if it were standardised, and that these new formats may compete with each other for inclusion, but should do so with the same aim and same openness as every other web standard.
The issue is that h.264 is the opposite of that. If people want to contest and put another format up for consideration, fine, but right now Theora is the best bet, or if you wait a few years, Dirac.
Theora does not quite have the same quality as h.264, but it's short sighted to make the issue entirely about that. The main issue is about barriers of entry, innovation and adoption alongside the fact the web is entirely based on open standards, and should continue to be so.
Not to mention Theora was originally going to be the official standard for video, but Apple and I think Nokia objected, claiming submarine patents. This amounts to FUD - vested interests claiming that a known patent encumbered and comparatively high cost format is better than the potential of a free format being patent encumbered, even as Xiph.org (foundation behind Theora) has done numerous patent reviews, and the fact that this claim which relies on unfounded uncertainty has just as much basis in regards to any other software project today.
Here's some explanations by others that are better at getting across the issues here.
Not surprising, most at Mozilla have acknowledged that competition is good for a long time, and have regularly stressed the importance of open and patent free standards, like their recent pushes to make OGG Theora the standard for web video (whilst Apple and Google seem to push h.264).
OK, here's an example that's been used before: Suppose that AT&T bought Pizza Hut. Should they be allowed to refuse telephone service (land line) to other pizza shops? (Current neutrality regulations would prohibit that.)
That would come closer to anti-competitive, and is not analogous to net neutrality. This is not like the merger of 2 companies in separate markets that then use that control to give unfair advantage to itself. Oranges to apples.
The difference in this case is that the service specifically being used over the internet can be more accurately defined, including services like Bittorrent which have their own specific protocols, whereas gas and electric companies it is not possible to do so or very difficult and pointless. A gas company cannot tell what I'm using their service for, if I'm cooking or have simply turned up my heating. An electric company cannot tell If I've turned on the TV or the PC.
No no one has argued for any service providers to be able to discriminate against particular forms of usage, including Mike. They've simply argued the regulation would more than likely be corrupted in the process of being made, as may be happening with plans to put in an exemption for the entertainment industry.
On the post: IIPA's Section 301 Filing Shows It's Really Not At All Interested In Reducing Copyright Infringement
Re:
Not to mention that this isn't the argument that IIPA is making - IIPA is saying that open source undermines copyright and/or patents, not that looking more towards open source alternatives might be unfairly skewing the market, because they know that this isn't what's happening.
On the post: Colbert Takes On Ridiculous Restrictions Over Talking About The Olympics
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Short clips are not US only
FX doesn't allow streaming of its shows either, whereas More4/Channel 4 does.
On the post: Colbert Takes On Ridiculous Restrictions Over Talking About The Olympics
Re: Short clips are not US only
On the post: iPhone Purity Test Means No Selling Bathing Suits To Women
Oh wait, apparently viruses would kill iPhones the world over, not to mention the whole issue with exploding from using 2 apps at once.
On the post: Amazon Has To Pay Microsoft To Use Linux?
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Web_Services
On the post: As Cars Get More Complicated, Maybe Open Source Is The Way
It's always been argued that you have the right in your car to fix, replace and maybe even improve parts, partially born out of being properly able to own the car, and that this is what free software wanted to return us to (in software form, obviously), especially in the freedom of information about how cars and their parts work to be able to do this in the first place.
Now the cars themselves have software, and the fact that they're closed source makes us less able to fix our own cars or go to mechanics who can - instead we've become more dependant on the original car vendor for service (once again, bringing us to a situation that FOSS was intended to stop).
On the post: Amazon Has To Pay Microsoft To Use Linux?
Re: You need to dig deeper
Don't let that stop you jumping the gun.
On the post: Ridiculous Arguments: Net Neutrality Would Mean No iPhones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
My point was that you were asking the wrong question in the first place, to point out the difference between anti-competitive integration and favouring yourself which is what you were talking about, over a service provider degrading a service on the basis that it makes up large amounts of traffic from an individual user or their whole network.
On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears
On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (rip it yourself)
On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears
On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition
Re: Re: Re: (rip it yourself)
On the post: Ubisoft DRM Gets Worse And Worse: Kicks You Out Of Game If You Have A Flakey WiFi Connection
I guess publishers stop caring about DRM encrusting games when they're not the new hotness that they want to attempt to milk. It's even better with recent calls by the industry that second hand games are a "problem" that needs to be stopped.
On the post: Ridiculous Arguments: Net Neutrality Would Mean No iPhones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
Once again, you're confusing anti-competitive integration with fundamental differences in how certain utilities work and the effectiveness of prioritising in those other utilities.
They can't (or is pointless to) degrade your service if you order from Pizza Hut over calling a friend, but they can if you use VOIP over instant messaging.
The analogy you're making would be if ATT bought Techdirt and favoured Techdirt traffic over other tech news/commentary sites.
On the post: Australia Disagrees With Spain & France; Says Nintendo Mod Chips Are Illegal
On the post: YouTube Joins Hulu In Letting Content Holders Block Access For TV-Connected Devices
Re:
Which is even more dumbfounding, as in both instances you're using a PC - it really is a stupid fuss over just a different screen and tailor made software.
On the post: Firefox Guys Admit That Competition Is What Drives Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Efficiency Theora vs H.264
Open standards are fundamentally how the web works, and is the only possible way it can work in the way we generally expect it to today.
Also, standards are not mutually exclusive from competitive. There is nothing that says Theora has to be used indefinitely into the future, just that it's currently the best option as a standard so to keep the same flexibility and ability for wide, unhampered usage that the internet is supposed to allow. It is perfectly possible and expected that new formats may complement or replace Theora if it were standardised, and that these new formats may compete with each other for inclusion, but should do so with the same aim and same openness as every other web standard.
The issue is that h.264 is the opposite of that. If people want to contest and put another format up for consideration, fine, but right now Theora is the best bet, or if you wait a few years, Dirac.
On the post: Firefox Guys Admit That Competition Is What Drives Innovation
Re: Re: Efficiency Theora vs H.264
Not to mention Theora was originally going to be the official standard for video, but Apple and I think Nokia objected, claiming submarine patents. This amounts to FUD - vested interests claiming that a known patent encumbered and comparatively high cost format is better than the potential of a free format being patent encumbered, even as Xiph.org (foundation behind Theora) has done numerous patent reviews, and the fact that this claim which relies on unfounded uncertainty has just as much basis in regards to any other software project today.
Here's some explanations by others that are better at getting across the issues here.
http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-with-h264/
http://www.0xdeadb eef.com/weblog/2010/01/html5-video-and-h-264-what-history-tells-us-and-why-were-standing-with-the-we b/
On the post: Firefox Guys Admit That Competition Is What Drives Innovation
On the post: Ridiculous Arguments: Net Neutrality Would Mean No iPhones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
That would come closer to anti-competitive, and is not analogous to net neutrality. This is not like the merger of 2 companies in separate markets that then use that control to give unfair advantage to itself. Oranges to apples.
The difference in this case is that the service specifically being used over the internet can be more accurately defined, including services like Bittorrent which have their own specific protocols, whereas gas and electric companies it is not possible to do so or very difficult and pointless. A gas company cannot tell what I'm using their service for, if I'm cooking or have simply turned up my heating. An electric company cannot tell If I've turned on the TV or the PC.
No no one has argued for any service providers to be able to discriminate against particular forms of usage, including Mike. They've simply argued the regulation would more than likely be corrupted in the process of being made, as may be happening with plans to put in an exemption for the entertainment industry.
Next >>