You know who else should get used to something? Companies who blindly let their lawyers run wild. It's called the Streisand Effect and it can be a just reward when the internet decides they don't like you because of your overly legal behavior.
Nope, it isn't. It's a very legal response but 'defend' can simply mean have the other party clearly indicate they aren't you.
I.e. every commercial says 'Coke is a trademark of Coca-Coal Industries' when they use a Coke product placement. As long as you assign who own the trademark you're using you can use it (with some legal caveats I'm sure).
Yes, that's the wrong way. Allowing lawyers to run free and wild without any thought towards what it's going to look like when you're major fan base starts hating you.
IKEA could simply require them to have big 'We aren't IKEA" banners thus avoiding the 'confusion' they claim.
Verizon is playing favorites, Netflix is simply calling them out on it...how exactly is this a 'bad' attribute of Netflix? Hell Netflix has already paid Verizon for better access, and apparently Verizon still isn't providing it.
Then call it 'Simulated 3D'. It has to be called 3D because it isn't 3D. We don't call TVs 2D because they are 2D and it would be redundant. This is pretending to be 3D and so has to be called 3D to distinguish it from normal 2D sets.
No amount of hashing will change the fact that the set you're watching is a 2D image manipulated to make you're brain *think* it's seeing a 3D image. That's not 3D, that's Simulated 3D with all the downsides of trying to make 3D simulation on a 2D medium.
I call it a gimmick, it's not 3D since I can't move with perspective changes. A hologram would be 3D. Pretending you're looking at a 3D image isn't 3D.
Sadly I seem to be in the minority in that opinion.
Agreed. It would be nice to have such competition. It's basically how Europe is providing cellphone coverage. A utility network that everybody uses - you can switch providers with ease.
Unfortunately our entrenched monopolies have fought municipal ISPs tooth and nail because they know that when another option exists, people will leave them in droves.
For every other major household service the last mile is a 'utility'. Specifically because you don't want 14 sets of gas lines, water lines, electric lines running all over your city.
Providing service to homes is a natural monopoly and why it needs to be a government provided, or heavily regulated, utility.
The tricky part is electric, gas and water delivery doesn't really change much over decades, and internet does. Not sure we've figured out exactly how to do that yet, but what we are doing was good to build out the network. It just doesn't work well for maintaining it as it gives a monopoly.
Hell in New Jersey, Verizon was *supposed* to be providing far more service across the state a decade ago than they currently do. And yet, NJ just decided that since Verizon is providing 4G wireless access, that will count as completing the work. Wireless != Wired...period. Verizon shouldn't be given another franchise agreement to be the monopoly provider when they haven't met their original goals at all.
what means 'anything goes' is the effective Monopoly these ISPs have on their customers. Until we provide actual competition in the local ISP market, nothing is going to change.
I loved how the ISPs were quoted as saying common carrier status would 'force them to spend less on infrastructure and be less innovative'. Uh, no, that's what a 'monopoly' does...and what most ISP are. Yes there are also generally franchise agreements but those have far less teeth than actual competition for their customers...
The case you describe would be plausible but relatively intermittent. You could of course say that well maybe it was just too much traffic at the choke point continually.
Except that people have actuallyconfirmed ComCast was deliberately degrading Netflix. Hell, Level 3 squarely pointed the finger at Comcast.
Comcast has been just selectively letting it's peer connections languish to 'punish' certain peers. Level 3 specifically since it's part of Netflix's CDN...
Yes he has it backwards. He's claiming that different service tiers are akin to 'fast lanes'. They aren't. They are just how fast he's allowed to 'consume' any content he requests. Netflix's connection speed is irrelevant to his connection tier.
If I'm getting data significantly faster from my ISP's streaming service than from Netflix or Youtube, then something is configured to provide different service levels...and that's the problem.
The notion that there are not already "internet fast lanes" is puzzling (not directed at you), because there have been ever since the first rate plan gave the consumer a speed or volume choice.
You've got it backwards. They want to limit how fast you can consume NetFlix no matter what tier of service you have contracted with your ISP for. If I paid for 50Mb down and Netflix can support that much TO me then my ISP damned well better support 50Mb down for me* at all of their connection points to the internet. *however they handle scaling is up to them, but if they give me certain speeds to their own content, they should have to provide me the same speeds to everything.
The reason I'll say it isn't a growth industry isn't due to supply and demand of the fuels themselves.
It's that we're going to have radically change the economics of using those fuels. I.e. carbon sequestration. I've seen estimates of something like 30% of plant output has to be expended to sequester carbon. That's a massive hit to it's ability to be cost competitive. The cost to install mobile carbon collectors on every car? Literally uncharted territory. The cost of oil is only going up as it starts to run out; that alone will stop it from being a growth industry - people simply won't be able to afford it.
The issue is we're going to start forcing these industries to account for their prolific dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's going to be a massive hit to their profitability going forward.
I'll wager it is in the interest of the 'shareholders'. As in coal may not be the best 'growth' industry in the coming years.
That said, the only way to be 'whole' with what they are saying is 'reducing' their endowment by 18 billion dollars. I.e. donate the stock and give it away. If they simply sell it, then they still have the benefit of having been given it. One might call it laundered money from a social conscience point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
You know who else should get used to something? Companies who blindly let their lawyers run wild. It's called the Streisand Effect and it can be a just reward when the internet decides they don't like you because of your overly legal behavior.
Nope, it isn't. It's a very legal response but 'defend' can simply mean have the other party clearly indicate they aren't you.
I.e. every commercial says 'Coke is a trademark of Coca-Coal Industries' when they use a Coke product placement. As long as you assign who own the trademark you're using you can use it (with some legal caveats I'm sure).
Yes, that's the wrong way. Allowing lawyers to run free and wild without any thought towards what it's going to look like when you're major fan base starts hating you.
IKEA could simply require them to have big 'We aren't IKEA" banners thus avoiding the 'confusion' they claim.
Then why aren't Cogent's other peers having the same issue? The issue here is Verizon, just as it was with Comcast.
Verizon is playing favorites, Netflix is simply calling them out on it...how exactly is this a 'bad' attribute of Netflix? Hell Netflix has already paid Verizon for better access, and apparently Verizon still isn't providing it.
They already HAS paid Verizon for better service...and Verizon STILL isn't providing it...
Then call it 'Simulated 3D'. It has to be called 3D because it isn't 3D. We don't call TVs 2D because they are 2D and it would be redundant. This is pretending to be 3D and so has to be called 3D to distinguish it from normal 2D sets.
No amount of hashing will change the fact that the set you're watching is a 2D image manipulated to make you're brain *think* it's seeing a 3D image. That's not 3D, that's Simulated 3D with all the downsides of trying to make 3D simulation on a 2D medium.
It isn't in 3 dimensions. The image is manipulated to make you *think* it's in 3D, but it isn't 3D.
you don't have kids obviously ;-)
I call it a gimmick, it's not 3D since I can't move with perspective changes. A hologram would be 3D. Pretending you're looking at a 3D image isn't 3D.
Sadly I seem to be in the minority in that opinion.
Agreed. It would be nice to have such competition. It's basically how Europe is providing cellphone coverage. A utility network that everybody uses - you can switch providers with ease.
Unfortunately our entrenched monopolies have fought municipal ISPs tooth and nail because they know that when another option exists, people will leave them in droves.
For every other major household service the last mile is a 'utility'. Specifically because you don't want 14 sets of gas lines, water lines, electric lines running all over your city.
Providing service to homes is a natural monopoly and why it needs to be a government provided, or heavily regulated, utility.
The tricky part is electric, gas and water delivery doesn't really change much over decades, and internet does. Not sure we've figured out exactly how to do that yet, but what we are doing was good to build out the network. It just doesn't work well for maintaining it as it gives a monopoly.
Hell in New Jersey, Verizon was *supposed* to be providing far more service across the state a decade ago than they currently do. And yet, NJ just decided that since Verizon is providing 4G wireless access, that will count as completing the work. Wireless != Wired...period. Verizon shouldn't be given another franchise agreement to be the monopoly provider when they haven't met their original goals at all.
what means 'anything goes' is the effective Monopoly these ISPs have on their customers. Until we provide actual competition in the local ISP market, nothing is going to change.
I loved how the ISPs were quoted as saying common carrier status would 'force them to spend less on infrastructure and be less innovative'. Uh, no, that's what a 'monopoly' does...and what most ISP are. Yes there are also generally franchise agreements but those have far less teeth than actual competition for their customers...
The case you describe would be plausible but relatively intermittent. You could of course say that well maybe it was just too much traffic at the choke point continually.
Except that people have actually confirmed ComCast was deliberately degrading Netflix. Hell, Level 3 squarely pointed the finger at Comcast. Comcast has been just selectively letting it's peer connections languish to 'punish' certain peers. Level 3 specifically since it's part of Netflix's CDN...
Yes he has it backwards. He's claiming that different service tiers are akin to 'fast lanes'. They aren't. They are just how fast he's allowed to 'consume' any content he requests. Netflix's connection speed is irrelevant to his connection tier.
If I'm getting data significantly faster from my ISP's streaming service than from Netflix or Youtube, then something is configured to provide different service levels...and that's the problem.
Nah, you just move in with him, rent free I'm sure :)
They will be moving in with you next...
The problem is the farmers on the desert side would have to move across a continent. It's not like everybody gets up and moves 2 seats down the row...
The notion that there are not already "internet fast lanes" is puzzling (not directed at you), because there have been ever since the first rate plan gave the consumer a speed or volume choice.
You've got it backwards. They want to limit how fast you can consume NetFlix no matter what tier of service you have contracted with your ISP for. If I paid for 50Mb down and Netflix can support that much TO me then my ISP damned well better support 50Mb down for me* at all of their connection points to the internet. *however they handle scaling is up to them, but if they give me certain speeds to their own content, they should have to provide me the same speeds to everything.
The reason I'll say it isn't a growth industry isn't due to supply and demand of the fuels themselves.
It's that we're going to have radically change the economics of using those fuels. I.e. carbon sequestration. I've seen estimates of something like 30% of plant output has to be expended to sequester carbon. That's a massive hit to it's ability to be cost competitive. The cost to install mobile carbon collectors on every car? Literally uncharted territory. The cost of oil is only going up as it starts to run out; that alone will stop it from being a growth industry - people simply won't be able to afford it.
The issue is we're going to start forcing these industries to account for their prolific dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's going to be a massive hit to their profitability going forward.
whatever you say tree-boy
I'll wager it is in the interest of the 'shareholders'. As in coal may not be the best 'growth' industry in the coming years.
That said, the only way to be 'whole' with what they are saying is 'reducing' their endowment by 18 billion dollars. I.e. donate the stock and give it away. If they simply sell it, then they still have the benefit of having been given it. One might call it laundered money from a social conscience point of view.
None have the bandwidth impact of Netflix.
Or how about this? ISPs creating congestion