Slashdot Mirror

In the article she mentions that a Google spokesperson said that there was a NDA for the meeting... but nobody else seems to have heard anything about it. You'd think that if there really was a NDA, somebody other than an anonymous "google spokesperson" would know about it. (In the article, she refers to it as "the claim that the meeting was covered by a non-disclosure agreement." The wording is interesting here: if she had any good evidence that a NDA existed, she would have phrased this as "the fact that the meeting was covered by a non-disclosure agreement.")

A couple of people wrote articles commenting on her article before it got deleted: https://www.mediapost.com/publ... https://raventools.com/blog/fo...

Trump and his wonderful deregulations just announced today that Cable providers don't need to do this. I have to wonder if Comcast was aware of this before their announcement?

Seriously, you think, Comcast, which spends millions of dollars lobbying various governments, could possibly have been unaware of developments at FCC? Or, more generally, that Comcast, whose CEO played golf with the President, is not benefiting from the barriers to entry imposed by the regulations?

The much more likely explanation is that Comcast, facing competition from the likes of Verizon, is trying to do, what the customers want. And they'll only have to do more of that, if FCC makes it easier for more competition to appear.

Heck, if you want to speculate about a communication-provider making a mistake due to a political miscalculation, take a closer look at Alphabet (Google) freezing its own broadband effort. Google executives were Hillary Clinton to win Presidency (and were actively helping her) and thus had no reasons to expect an improvement of business-climate. Had they known, Ajit Pai will soon become head of FCC, maybe, Google Fiber would've kept expanding...

Part of the deal to purchase NBC Universal required that Comcast offer equal access to NBC content over other networks. But making it free bandwidth for your customers, but not for other customers, seems to violate the intent of that requirement while perhaps adhering to the letter of it.

*This* is why you cannot have one company as the service provider and the content provider.

Prior to the merger, the justice department released a Competitive Impact Statement which is concerned with Comcast not allowing access to NBC (and others) content. But it did not consider the possibility of Comcast offering special benefits to the content for their subscribers. Now that I think about it, nothing stops Comcast from offering content cheaper, faster, better quality, in 3D, etc.

Comcast's web site has the regulatory approval document which explains their limitations. It doesn't seem to specifically say they can't do this, but it looks like other people figured they couldn't do this. This blog entry from Mediapost says that the ruling:

Does not disadvantage rival online video distribution through its broadband Internet access services and/or set-top boxes. Does not enter into agreements to unreasonably restrict online distribution of its own video programming or programming of other providers.

So I think most people believed that this was illegal.

This is about as useful as a tank of gas with no car. Especially since courts have already determined that an IP address does not identify a person, rather a machine (pc, router, etc). As evidenced in articles such as these: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=109242 ; http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/08/1522247/Judge-Rules-IP-Addresses-Not-Personally-Identifiable?from=rss & http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090708/1323075488.shtml I am sure there is more out there, but if we can't identify a person by IP, then why should I have to keep records of IP traffic for up to 2 years?

Do you remember Comcast paying bus-loads of people to come occupy the seats at the FCC hearing so that other legitimate participants could be turned away from it?

I still do not understand why they were never charged with anything criminal in that instance. Flooding a public hearing put on by a Federal regulatory agency with bogus participants should be considered the same as flooding that same Federal regulatory agency with bogus phone calls (or bogus packets). The purpose is the same, to deny that service to others during that crucial time-limited window. Whoever had that brilliant idea at Comcast should face criminal charges for it (even if that person just gets a probationary criminal sentence, at least, it should make others PR managers think twice before doing something this manipulative again).

And before someone brings up free speech, please watch the videos taken during the hearing. Those people bused-in had no idea what the hearing was about. They were tagged with post-it notes by Comcast overseers and basically corralled like cattle to take as much space as possible. Their sole purpose was to occupy space, occupy seats (and make a little bit of money for themselves), so that others could be turned away from the room during that critical public hearing phase. It really shouldn't be too hard to subpoena those shills, and protect them from any NDA reprisals they may have signed.

Geez, I'm as non-Republican as they come but you sound like an idiot saying that.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm not the one sticking up for a News Corp property. Apparently you haven't read the WSJ opinion section recently. It's the same people ultimately calling the shots at Fox News and the WSJ and that's true both here and News Corps overseas media outlets. News Corp takes sides, and that's true here and abroad. Add to that News Corp gets a significant amount of funding from Saudi Arabia. Personally, I don't like having my perspective influenced by Riyahd, but apparently it's okay with a certain segment of cable viewers.

WSJ lost their credibility the moment the sale was finalized.

Journalism is changing, where people get their news is changing. The industry will adapt to the internet, just like it adapted to the printing press. What's going to be more difficult will be separating fact from spin. If you can't agree on the facts, you can't agree on a solution. There's a lot at stake here.

Wow, talk about misrepresenting the facts. I hate the way the MPAA is using copyright law as much as the next digital rights activist. But, for the record, the MPAA didn't take down the network. They just sent their usual infringement notice to the ISP, who then forwarded it on to Coshocton County. The county then made the decision to shut down the wifi service, they weren't ordered to by any judge or MPAA executive/lawyer/asshat.

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=117273

Google has been experimenting with ad targeting based on credit rating. ""Let's say we have an advertiser who wants to reach consumers with a high FICO score who applied for mortgages in the first quarter," Korsunsky says. "We can provide the advertiser with a list of Web sites on our Google content network that index against this segment. ... "Marketers expanding into a term like 'credit card' into a campaign -- they should have their ad copy prequalify a good credit shopper," Korsunsky says. "So adding copy like 'have good credit, apply for a card today' would let marketers filter out people without good credit."

Google - now, with more evil!

If that was my gmail account I'd be thoroughly fucked.

Most of the places I've registered, if I want to change the registered email address, I need to acknowledge it through my gmail account.

Now, my ISP doesn't offer an email option, so I can't just get one there. And if I'm going to move out of this area, I'd be screwed as well, as I'd have to get a new ISP and thus a new email-address. In the end the Gmail option is easier.

My gmail account is thus the primary account I have for all personal and semi-professional communications.

Since the bank went to court to get my account closed, they haven't broken any laws, so I'd be barking up a tree if I tried to sue for damages.
Google did exactly what they've promised to do - they refused to close the account without a court order.
And I can't exactly sue the court or the judge either.

Now, I do have the contacts saved elsewhere, but how do I easily prove that I am in fact the person behind my gmail account and get those companies to change the address they've saved, when I cannot send them a mail from that account to prove it? Paper work is a bitch.

And when one of my contacts suggests to one of their contacts that they could use me, then they're likely to use the gmail account which is now closed, which makes me look like an arrogant asshole: "He didn't even bother to write back to say no, he just ignored me."

If Google were kind, they would at least make mail to that account bounce with a good explanation like

"Unfortunately this account has been shut down due to a court order on behalf of Rocky Mountain Bank, as Rocky Mountain Bank failed to live up to even the most basic of customer data security and sent sensitive information to this account by mistake.

We hope you will not let this screw up on behalf of Rocky Mountain Bank affect you view of the user of this email account.

Kind regards
GMail staff"

This is mostly true, but let's keep in mind that twitter has been significant in the Iranian uprising. Like any social networking tool, or like the web itself, 99% of what's out there is going to be crap. But that doesn't mean it's completely worthless.

From my MBA economics teacher, in today's information economy, a firm now has approximately two years to have market power, then the sheer number of other players in the market will destroy the first-runner's ability to lead. There are too many competators that can hire their own programmers and make their own hardware, competing products are bound to arrive.

So, Apple has two choices: innovate or cut costs. What will the iPhone+ be able to do that the current one can't do... err, it already does music, camera, QUERTY, video... what more can it integrate with? Apple introduces email integration, which puts them in competition with RIM, but is that enough? They're kind of up against a wall unless they can think out of the box (again), but MS's Zune HD appears to be leading there with console controller integration, an untapped area.

So, the other option to remain a leader is to reduce the costs; and that's what's Apple is rumored to do next Monday, and what AT&T is doing on the O&M side to drive up demand. From the article, "According to Gartner, a research group, Apple sells 11% of the world's smartphones, compared to Nokia's 41% and Research in Motion's 20%." --> Apple has a ways to go and their market position is beginning to slip.

But as more competition comes into the arena, they will be able to beat Apply on the cost-side too. Apple needs to find something on the hardware side to expand its capabilities (bigger better faster) or to charge off into uncharted competative waters and make the iPhone compete with someone else's product (completely different: TV receiver? broadcast radio? )...

He is giving away the book for free, right?

Actually, yes:

I have embarked on this project not just to sell a book but also to try to explore new models for books. We're going to try to make Free free in every way possible. The audiobook is going to be a free mp3 download. I am not going to promise what we will do, but these are things we are talking about. The e-book can be free. Again, the marginal cost of distributing that is zero. Price follows cost. Why should I charge for the book when it costs me nothing? People who do own the e-books tend to be influential early adopters, exactly who you should be giving the book to.

http://blogs.mediapost.com/spin/?p=996

I think the above article should be slashdotted. A bit of research into TACODA.. and you'll find its a behavioral research marketing company.

I've already made an account there and am going to post about said article.

why is parent being modded down?

The guy really did resign. Maybe Yahoo didn't like his stance on DRM?

Well, at least as far as recordable media is concerned. Evidentaly the case against XM, regarding their recording mobile unit will proceed. I liked the possibility of having an MP# player filled with new stuff I heard on XM, but I guess it'll never happen. Hooray for the FCC and the RIAA. Check it out here: http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseac tion=Articles.san&s=54217&Nid=26769&p=409224.

Reported by the MediaPost blog http://blogs.mediapost.com/online_minute/?p=1409.

First, already this is the top story on MediaPost, a web site for ad buyers. This is very bad for a radio station.

Then their big mistake: On Nov. 14th Melanie Morgan said this about Nancy Pelosi: "We've got a bulls-eye painted on her big laughing eyes." (from the Daily Kos)

That might be a felony. 18 USC Sec. 871

• ...Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

They said that after the November election, when Ms. Pelosi was Speaker-elect of the House. (The Speaker of the House is second in line for the Presidency, after the Vice President.) Somebody is probably going to be asking some hard questions of the people at that radio station.

There's a legitimate First Amendment issue here, but it's in that grey area between political speech and death threats. Morgan, KSFO and Disney may have some unpleasant months ahead. This could create liabilities that would interfere with the planned sale of the station to Citadel Broadcasting. That sale was supposed to happen during 2006, but on November 22, the deal was postponed and repriced, and not to Disney's advantage. ("the potential amount of cash retained by Disney has been reduced by $300 million in the aggregate, $100 million of which is an outright reduction in the cash...")

In terms of financial losses by a media company, this could be bigger than the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction."

Number of people who play Wow >= 7 million
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/07/world-of-warcraf t-hits-7-million-subscribers/

Number of people who watched The Sapranos premier = 9.5 million
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseac tion=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=40982)

So I wouldn't say that the game is unpopular.

Of those that play using Linux, Cedega is a probably method-- the most popular so far as the anecdotal evidence I've come across. Let's say for the sake of argument assume half are using something else though.

If 1% of World of Warcraft subscribers use Linux to play then there are about 35,000 people playing under Cedega.
At $15 USD per month that's $7,000,000 per year in subscription fees.

GG Troll, L2P.

However, i don't think this is the same scenario, because video game sales (in revenue) have been decreasing, with only a few companies showing growth. EA is one such company . This site Suggests sales are UP overall as an industry. Now then, are these companies showing growth because they are harder to pirate? Doubtful, as it doesn't seem to matter to piracy inclined people how difficult a game is to pirate, they will do it. So we must look at the content of the games, the originality, stability, re-play aspects, etc.

A game can be spectacular, like Fable but if it has 0 re-play value, don't expect a whole lot. On the other hand, games like TES: Arena (The very fist game in The Elder Scroll Series), TES: Daggerfall, TES: Morrowind, and TES: Oblivion (though I've yet to play Oblivion, can't as of yet afford it), will NEVER go out of style, because they have enormous re-play value. Many of these games you can go through twice, and with the exception of a few main plot-line quests (if you even decide to do those), it will be a totally different game. Games like THAT, are what's missing. Everything is a clearcut path to victory. A clear beginning, and a clear end. This is good for some people, who aren't interested so much in a story, or good gameplay, as they are in just killing stuff to unwind from a long day. But to the gamers, a gamer must have substance. there must be something to it. FPS games are a dime a dozen, RTS games have almost become that, but MMO, and RPG games are doing so well because they can be played radically differently. Clearcut easy games have their place no doubt. But if the gaming industry really wants to reclaim it's 1999-2000 throne of $$$$$, it's going to have to do something about it's content.

And on a side note, if piracy is really killing the PC Gaming industry this badly, why hasn't MS gone under yet from piracy of Windows, Office, their PC Games, and the myriad of other software that they sell, all of which ends up being pirated. MS Seems to be doing OK, in spite of the piracy they are faced with. And how many of you posting here are using XP Corporate, or a copy with wpa killed? I'd wager it's a pretty fair amount. *Shrug* It's just common. It's a reality of business in software. I haven't paid for a copy of Windows in several years, and yet every copy that I do run is totally legit. MS doesn't seem to be hurting for it (even with massive fines from various sources). So one has to wonder, is the PC Gaming industry REALLY in trouble because of piracy? Or are they in trouble for something else, and they're choosing to blame piracy as a scapebgoat? It's better to be seen as a victim, than as lazy and unimaginative.

Anyone remember the ABC Discussions? Since ad-skipping is one of the main selling-points of TiVo equipment, I doubt they would go so far as to do that, but the lurking spectre of more authoritarian media enforcement never really goes away. Then again, maybe they want to sell the data to advertisers to generate some extra cash.

On Tuesday, blogger "Oilman" of Oilman.ca found that MSN appeared to have used a rudimentary search engine optimization tactic, "keyword stuffing"--which involves including the secret contest-winning keywords in the site's meta-keywords tag. Oilman posted the list of 1,165 keywords to his blog. Some of the terms appear correlated to the prizes; the terms "Starbucks," "Starbucks locations," and "Starbucks gift card" likely all refer to the Starbucks Gift Card prize. Other keywords, such as "iconoclast," "placenta," and "Ludwig Mies van der Rohe," a 19th-century German-born modernist architect, are more cryptic.

Strange, that you think the Democrats would support it.

Here you have a bill that would create an exception in the laws that would allow common people (i.e. internet users) to post whatever political opinion they want on the internet while receiving payments for creating said content.

The Republican party has long triumphed free speech with respect to political positions, where "free speech" is synonymous with money spent to advertise their platforms. The current campaign finance laws "restrict free speech" by restricting the amount of money (and where, and when) a political party can spend on their campaigns.

The Democratic party, which has long proclaimed themselves a "party of the little man" and "enemy of the corporations" have a very hard time raising money from said corporations. So, it is in their best interest to restrict the amounts of spending by their competators, to make it "fair".

Adding this exception would allow their chief competator (Republicans) to use their (larger) campaign funds in a media that is fast outstripping traditional forms of media (TV / newspapers) among voting audiences, increasingly so among younger voters (who statistically are more Democrat). So, is it really that strange that the Democrats would oppose it?

This just comes on the heels of ClearChannel Entertainment asking for more radio channels in each designated marketing area, http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseac tion=Articles.san&s=34892&Nid=15862&p=240709, because "free radio can't compete" with satellite/Internet broadcasts. It's another case of "Strike It Down Before It Takes Our Market!!!"

Success in retail depends on identifying potential customers, serving them well, building brand loyalty and encouraging future sales, while keeping your costs under control.

Amazon does this better than almost anyone. Study: Online Shoppers Consider More Than Price

The legal system will be of little help to you, if you haven't mastered the fundamentals.

And is preventing others from doing likewise also considered a good thing?

You could, of course, purchase a license from Amazon or find a better solution on your own.

I think the OP is correct that other sites' offering of free video likely played somewhat into the decision to go free on CNN.com, but I doubt that was the primary motivation. More compelling is the theory that CNN saw an improving Web ad market and decided that the balance sheet finally worked out in their favor again. (I say "again" because cnn.com video was free once before, way back in the day.) Indeed, a big part of this story is that CNN was able to line up major sponsors for the free-video launch.

As for pressure from Fox, CNN has been losing in the TV ratings for some time, but the people at CNN (I worked there for a while) take great pride in the fact that the website has held its own and remains one of the most-visited news sources on the Internet. Foxnews.com, while definitely drawing a large audience, isn't even close to CNN.com, so the "pressure" on that front would be more of a keeping-up-with-the-Joneses deal for CNN.com than anything else.

MSNBC.com, however, is hardly a slouch when it comes to site traffic, and their free-video service has become very popular. If any significant pressure is being placed on CNN.com in the online space, it's from MSNBC rather than Fox.

Actually, ESPN and MSN dissolved their partnership back in July 2004.

"...a clause inserted by Claria about 3,000 words into a 5,936-word licensing agreement. It reads: 'You agree that you will not use, or encourage others to use, any unauthorized means for the removal of the GAIN Adserver, or any GAIN-supported software from a computer.'"

"Edelman also found that Claria's licensing agreement tries to prohibit users from deploying network monitors to inspect and report transmissions made between their computer, their local network, and the GAIN servers."

Ad Age requires an address and more to access their articles, so, here is an alternate article that does a good job explaining what this is: Here

I've wondered if hard science or technology programming will ever catch on with the general public. What do you think?"

The general public (at least in the U.S.) doesn't like anything remotely educational. For proof, look to The Discovery Channel and The Learning Channel. There used to be very good shows on both, all the time. In the last couple of years, their programming has taken a drastic downturn. I ask you, what's so educational about a family of foul-mouthed neanderthals building gaudy motorcycles? Or a bunch of idiots redoing each other's houses? The only decent, interesting show left on either network that I can think of right now is Mythbusters-- but even they sort of pander to the idiots by staying light on the science behind their experiments and blowing shit up all the time (Ooooh! Explosions!).

It seems the public may be beginning to tire of reality shows, but it's still too early to be certain. Perhaps once the reality fad blows over, TLC and Discovery will resume programming for people smarter than the average turnip. One can only hope.

~Philly

There exists a service that provides searchable TV shows... based on closed caption information.

Just to clarify--I don't think it's me. Well, I don't know if I'm really watching less TV than I used to, but I'd like to point out that the 2nd article linked in this posting had a secondary article that explained things a little better. The group Nielsen is apparently casting blame upon is "DYA" or Dependant Young Adults (young folks under 18-34 still living at home). Nielsen seems to think that they are the problematic aspect of the 18-34 bracket. Not sure why that didn't make it into the NYT article..

To prove further they aren't talking about me (or a number of slashdot folks) I quote:

'Nielsen continues to exclude PVR households, as well as other "technically difficult" homes, from its sample.'

Since I'm not a dependant, they were not talking about me anyway, but since I use ReplayTV, I therefore exist outside of their sample and believe I am free of blame. [ahem]

So please don't go blaming me! Thanks :)

I think Google, MSN, and Yahoo are positioning themselves to be "all things to all people".

MSN hinted today that it will be offering an online music service as well. I wonder if Google or Yahoo will follow suit...

like it or not, most people have tvs. most of the people that have tvs also have cable. You're trying to say that around 66% of people are getting gouged by cable companies, and Congress should be worried about other "necessities". I'm sorry, but if you live in an area like tornado alley, it'd be nice to have the weather channel. If you live in a coastal region, it'd be nice to know if there was a hurricane on it's way. If you have kids, it's nice to have channels like the disney channel or Noggin. Is cable a necessity? no. Do most people have it? Yes.

Face it, most americans (remember, 65%) don't want to have to subsidize channels they don't ever watch. I'm part of the 66%, and I don't see how it's acceptable to pay for 300 channels when I only watch 10 of them. If you don't have cable, good for you, but I can hardly see how your input is needed in this conversation.

Not many details yet, hopefully it too will target only Windows users and leave the rest of us alone.

It will not be Linux that does Windows in, but the marketers who abuse M$ software and drive M$'s users away. Perhaps M$ will smarten up and stop allowing this?

In 3 hours of prime time viewing you watch/are exposed to 52 minutes of commericals

That amount of time is a good justification to actively skip commericals.

Heck, when I saw the headline I thought the doll was part of the marketing campaign surrounding Elizabeth Smart...