Slashdot Mirror
Roku Has Hired a Team of Lobbyists As it Gears Up For a Net Neutrality Fight (recode.net)
Roku appears to be arming itself for the coming net neutrality war. From a report on Recode: The web video streaming and hardware company has plenty at stake as the Federal Communications Commission prepares to pull back rules that require internet providers to treat all web traffic equally. For Roku and others in the business, an end to the Obama-era protections could make it harder -- or, in some cases, more expensive -- to offer content or services to customers at top download speeds. That's why Roku has hired a pair of Republican lobbyists through an outside government-affairs firm, according to a federal ethics reports filed this week, specifically to focus on net neutrality. It's the first time the company has ever retained lobbyists in Washington, D.C. Many in the tech industry support the Obama-era FCC's net neutrality rules, which currently subject telecom companies to utility-style regulation. To Democrats, it's the only way to stop the likes of AT&T, Comcast, Charter or Verizon from blocking competing services or charging media companies for faster delivery of their content.
"To Democrats, it's the only way to stop the likes of AT&T, Comcast, Charter or Verizon from blocking competing services or charging media companies for faster delivery of their content." Not just to Democrats - pretty much anyone who understands networks just how evil these non-competing, money-stealing, progress-inhibiting ISP's can be.
You mean Trump, right?
I heard for eight years you can't blame the previous administration for problems.
You want "acceptable CODEC support"? Then encode with parameters that are compatible with hardware decoders.
Myself, I think Apple went mad with their damn "touch" remote on their 4th generation Apple TV, so my next unit will be a Roku - hopefully with hardware H.265 support because I'm pretty sure Netflix is going to use that one day.
#DeleteFacebook
Vertical integration results in monopolies (regional ones at least) and consumer abuse once the consumers no longer have reasonable alternatives to turn to.
The carrier and the content provider can not be permitted to have agreements to suppress competition.
Bits are bits, and while in the case of an Internet connection I think there's room for ISPs to enforce SPAM/botnet/DOS protection strategies, to provide generic tiered traffic (to say, minimize delay on real-time traffic over other types not so sensitive to jitter)... but NOT to say that media provider A gets priority over media provider B because A ponied up some extra cash to block a competitor.
Fight this, or you're going to have a much, much shittier Internet in a few years.
So switch to another ISP if yours is blocking or slowing your traffic. That's what a market-based solution would dictate.
The real problem is that we have allowed ISP monopolies. I live in the third largest city in the United States and my only choice for Internet access via cable modem is Comcast. There are other cable providers in certain areas of town and for large multi-dwelling buildings, but only one choice in my neighborhood of single-family residences.
If people had a choice of providers then they could just switch to the one that's most customer friendly. Instead, due to monopolies, we are at the mercy of the ISP and the politician resolve our complaints.
Far better would be for Twitter, Facebook, Apple, maybe even Microsoft, to invest in Google's fiber as well as SpaceX's Sat projects. In doing so, they can then expand the projects in HUGE ways and attack the companies that remove net neutrality.
It would be cheaper and more certain than having GOPs do the right things.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
with hardware H.265 support because I'm pretty sure Netflix is going to use that one day.
What use-case do you have in mind? 4K? How likely is it you'll want to watch Netflix on a 4K screen that doesn't have a Netflix app built-in?
If you're not thinking 4K, why care about H.265?
Actually, Google, facebook, Microsoft, and even Apple all want net neutrality. Basically, is it the ONLY way to make things competitive. Otherwise, suppliers will be forced to pay these companies to allow them to compete.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In this day and age, internet access is a public necessity, not a luxury. Because of this, I strongly believe ISPs should be regulated like utilities, like water, gas, and electricity.
Verizon is that you.
There is no demand on infrastructure. Stop the trolling.
Not even close Potsy. Troll somewhere else.
Many proponents of net neutrality are mainly concerned about the cost of their video streaming. This puts a big demand on infrastructure and not everybody watches streaming video. I may not want to subsidizes your Game of Thrones addiction.
That is much less a net-nutrality issue and much more a monopoly issue.
Until it becomes legal for any network provider or ISP to run their own wiring through a city, you get exactly the same choice as the rest of us do - none.
It's the fault of laws that enable a single ISP to be a monopoly that are why you have no choice but to subsidize our video streaming addiction.
Fix that and you'll find those of us that want to pay more for the bandwidth to stream video will flock to an ISP that allows it, and people such as yourself who don't care about streaming video can flock to an ISP that provides less bandwidth and charges you less for it.
You can, but only to a point. If Trump (or his supporters) is still blaming Obama in 2019, that's Trump's problem.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Here is were I find the problem...
If actually using the 100mbps they have sold me puts so much strain on the infrastructure that it can't be sustained without charging more then why sell it to me in the first place.
So if you have a 100mbps connection and a 1TB data cap charged on a monthly basis you would only be able to use your connection at top speed for less than one day out of the month.
If they do that then the wired carriers will be competing with the metered wireless carriers, where there is more competition.
I don't think wireless and wired carriers are really competing in the same market segment such that they could meaningfully affect each others' pricing. Metered wireless carriers charge in the neighborhood of $5/GB or more. At that rate, my home broadband bill would be northward of $1k/month.
I don't know why people think H.265 means 4K.
I care about H.265 because I could get the same quality from less bandwidth, or better quality from the same bandwidth.
#DeleteFacebook
First of all, unless he has a strange habit of changing his encoding parameter from one file to the next then it means he's playing files he got from different sources and not files he encoded himself.
Second, your theoretical "slightly less shitty device" that can play things a hardware decoder IC cannot play means software decoding, which means a more powerful CPU, a higher power draw and more heat dissipation. Not important for something the size and cost of a PC but extremely important for a tiny box like a Roku or Apple TV.
#DeleteFacebook
Can I Get a Lobbyist?
It's more effective to BE one. Also cheaper.
Instead of keyboarding your complaints to public fora like Slashdot, type them onto a postcard and mail it to your representative and senator.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Yea, right, I'm sure a letter from the credit card companies is really believable. And even they had to insert this text before they started complaining about the evil guberment:
"The CARD Act has provided consumers with significant benefits, among them the elimination (with
few exceptions) of increases on interest rates on existing balances, whether the regular purchase
interest rate or an introductory or promotional rate. These restrictions help consumers avoid surprises
due to increases in their interest rates. In addition, since implementation of the CARD Act, customers
are paying significantly less in late payment fees and overthelimit fees. Customers also appear to be
paying a higher portion of their outstanding balances, perhaps due to the minimum payment disclosure
of the CARD Act, which explains how long it will take customers to repay a credit card balance if they
only pay the minimum payment.
"While the CARD Act has provided clear and significant benefits to consumers, there have also been
significant tradeoffs...
Your quote has no bearing at all on my point, which was that credit card interest rates have skyrocketed in the same time frame that the prime rate has been at historic lows, after passing legislation that ostensibly was to benefit the little guy. Are you denying that, or are you just trying to distract?
Remind me again what did we have before we got capitalism?
Feudalism, which is Capitalism minus the need to compete by the inheritance class
Imperialism, which is Feudalism without the need to keep track of inheritances.
Mercantileism, which is the worst of all three combined with pre-nation state chaos
And before that?
A free market, with those who owed armies owning everything, including the water.
The net non-neutrality problem is not technical, so the solution to isn't FCC rulemaking.
The problem stems from two aspects of monopoly/cartel control of the market, so the solution is FTC, DOJ, and antitrust.
The two aspects are:
- Vertical integration of ISPs into conglomerates that make most of their money from selling "content" that can be transported over the internet. This gives them massive financial incentives to have their ISP divisions penalize services competing either with their entertainment divisions' online services on the same ISP, or their offline / on other ISPs marketing. Services competing with their own products are penalized unless they pay enough extra to more than make up for their impact on the profit from the conglomerate's own product. "No-neutrality" is one of the manifestations of this anti-competitive tie-in.
- A limited number of competitors results in monopolistic / cartel levels of pricing and service. (The FCC historically considers two providers to be "competition" - though a minimum of three, and usually four or more, competitors are necessary before market forces have good effects on either prices or service levels.) On the service-level side, the incentive is to engage in "rent-seeking" by providing as little service as necessary and charge as much extra as possible, from whichever player can be soaked, for more than a token minimum. (If they don't like it, who will they go to?)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Shh.. Don't tell the the truth about capitalism. The money gods will be angered.
Aha -- some reflexive mod found the -1, TruthHurts option. That certainly makes up for the utter lack of ability for anyone to cogently articulate what they think the real endgame will be -- can be -- to trying to regulate the latest act in the tragedy of the commons.
I just wonder if Netflix with bother with H.265 for non-4K. Perhaps, as you say, it will make good sense for those without super-fast internet connections.
It will allow Netflix to get more customers because as you say some people have slower connections and also because people switching to H.265 means less bandwidth required on their end too.
#DeleteFacebook
maybe Capitalism, plus some accountability, integrity, and actual workers' rights? or Capitalism, minus its corrosive effects on political systems? or Capitalism, plus actual competition (rather than vague, wishy-washy promises of it) ?
FTC is specifically forbidden by law to regulate ISPs.
FTC is specifically forbidden by current/b. law to regulate ISPs.
This is something that is subject to change. (It's a one-liner either way.) It's also something that people in the Trump administration are already on the record of having mentioned.
If enough congressmen can be convinced that the problem for them will go away if they do it that way, they could easily do it in a few weeks.
And if the pro-network-neutrality people can be convinced that moving this from the FCC to the FTC would solve their problems, or the bulk of them, without breaking the Internet in the process, they have enough lobbying power to override even the multi-billion-dollar entertainment conglomerates' lobbying against such a move.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way