I have BoA. I do not have a "full" checking account; just the basic eBanking account. Works like a checking account; the only difference is I can't go in and use a teller for deposits.
I've never paid a fee. Never. Even when I accidently overdrew once; I was easily able to get the overdraft fee refunded.
Maybe you people aren't reading *all* the fine print when you sign up for an account; therefore when you get hit with a fee you aren't expecting it.
Flat out calling a bank a douche because *you're too damn lazy to read every bit of fine print* isn't the bank's fault, it's yours. It's like an EULA, you gotta read it.
Too many people were signing up *just* for cable internet and then pirating the cable signal. It's all in the same RF bandwidth; all they had to do was split it to a TV. Digital solved it; to a degree; but they still had people pirating to get locals. Since they pay high retransmission fees for local channels; it's still considered piracy.
One of the providers here kept it reasonable by keeping the internet QAM on separate lines at the node; and connecting a house to one or both; that way you couldn't pirate the TV signal by signing up for internet.
But, essentially; you're subsidizing a cable TV subscription to recover fees they'll lose should you decide to pirate the signal. The recent legislation allowing them to encrypt *every channel* probably won't help bring this down; as they'll take whatever money they can get.
I also find your comment on "wired for residential" confusing. This is not like POTS days. A business account is really nothing more than a standard account with a few additional incentives; usually faster repair service, guaranteed service, etc.
Cable companies have to negotiate retransmit fees on *everything*. I just wrote a comment about the rates cable companies have to pay locals in reference to that streaming service that has all the networks angry.
Rates are negotiated on a "per-subscriber" basis. That means your cable company is paying a fee, per-person, to carry the channel. No, I'm not thinking of premium networks; which is I'm sure the thought in your head right now. I'm talking *every channel they are legally not required to carry*. The list of channels they are *legally* required to carry is actually quite small; PGE (Public, Government, Educational) channels and local channels that have enacted the "must-carry" clause.
Everything else, though; has to be negotiated. Your cable system has to pay your local network affiliates/channels to be carried on their system. All of your "basic" cable channels; they also have a transmission agreement. Premium channels even have a retransmission agreement.
Basic cable channels are funded by a mix of advertisements and these transmission agreements; thinking that advertisers solely fund a channel anymore is ridiculous. For one thing; advertisers don't want to pay big rates for national coverage because there's no guarantee their ads will be seen. As part of a retransmission agreement; a cable operator is allowed to insert their own advertisements over top of whatever is being broadcast. This includes local channels too. You might be thinking there's some FCC requirement that makes cable operators provide locals; and you'd be right. Except it's essentially now boiled down to two basic requirements: cable providers have to offer a *very basic* package of just local channels; and they must carry a channel that's invoked the "must-carry" rule. This was created because small independent broadcasters were often ignored by cable providers; refusing to carry them so they could offer more non-local programming. The 1992 act made rules that allowed small stations to invoke must-carry status, to force the cable channel to give them bandwidth. It also set up rules for banning "out-of-market" channels. In reality; it's a bit more complex than that; but it gave local broadcasters the option of requiring a retransmission consent; or invoking must-carry. Of course; if your cable provider agrees to pay retransmission for a local broadcaster; they too, get ads inserted over top. The most famous was last year during an NFL playoff game when Comcast interrupted the end of a play to advertise their recent promotion.
Advertisers are the ones getting the shaft, so it's no surprise they won't pay big bucks.
The fact is; nothing is solely funded by advertisers when it comes to cable. You're paying for all the channels in your package as well as paying to see local channels. Cable companies have their own advertising they place on top of a broadcasters adverts. Prime examples are when a provider drops a local affilate because a retransmission agreement can't be reached; or you lose a bunch of "basic" channels because of a agreement not being made. If advertisers were the only ones solely funding programming; why would they care what they get from a cable company? Why do you think it sometimes takes a while for a new cable channel to creep up on your provider? If it was up to the cable companies; they'd add *any* channel they thought would add value to their service. However, they have to come to an agreement on how much they're going to pay for the right to carry that channel; because the advertisers don't fund the channel 100%. Some channels; like C-Span; are solely funded from retransmission agreements.
If you've ever had your provider get in to a deadlock contract with an OTA station; you'll realize retransmission fees are a scam.
According to the law; a TV station has two options; they can negotiate a retransmission fee for a cable system; or invoke "must-carry", in which the cable provider is *required* to carry them. The station does not have to pay for a "must-carry" station; they are however required by law to carry them. That's bad for the cable company because they have to dedicate QAM space to a channel they may not want. However, if a cable provider negotiates a retransmission fee; they are allowed at that point to insert "local" ads over OTA stations.
In reality; the stations are only screaming about *potential* loss of profits here. The real losers are the local advertisers; who are paying the bills to keep the station's OTA signal running. Thier ads will only get seen by people with OTA; and those times when a local company isn't inserting ads over airtime.
This is why it's common in some areas for a cable/satellite provider to lose the right to carry a local channel. The station wants more money to reach it's demographic; and when a deal cannot be struck, the channel becomes unavailable. If it's a network affiliate; you lose that network entirely. FCC laws prohibit an "outside" station to be piped in to another market. Ironically; this law was made to protect local advertisers, ensuring they had a better chance to be seen in a market where their ads are already possibly being covered over with whatever promotion your provider is running this month.
The ruling that Aereo is legal was upheld by an appellate court already. They found the place-shifting technology (which is what this is); did not constitute public performance. Likewise; since there was an individual receiver and antenna for each user; there was no breaking of any law.
A2B TV does a similar thing; only with satellite TV. And they've even changed since I first found them. Used to be they'd get you set up with a cable TV account at whatever provider was local to the datacenter, along with a slingbox and "hosting space"; thier new model seems to use satellite TV and you have to send them a receiver. I own a Slingbox (two of them actually); and it's perfectly legal to have them hooked up to my TV's; of course I do pay for a TV service. But what about the Slingbox I sent to my friend in Texas with an OTA receiver so I could watch my favorite football team? Legally, it's my receiver and my hardware; so it *still* falls under placeshifting; and it's still not public retransmission.
Networks are going to complain and bitch because they're "getting thier business model stolen"; they seem to forget thier original business model was providing a service for free that was funded by advertisers; that's shifted in to a service that's still provided free, but paid for by cable and satellite companies. I can't blame advertisers for wanting to pay next to nothing; would *you* want to pay top-dollar for advertising knowing the majority of your demographic on cable or satellite might not see it? Of course not.
Again, it's just the networks sitting there looking at the potential profits they're losing because a lousy business model they created failed; one that was doomed for failure in the first place. What were they doing all those years when analog C-Band was still dominate; and they did not scramble the network fee? All those people were watching network TV without local inserted ads. What were they doing before the 1992 act and cable providers could literally pipe in any OTA channel their antenna farm could pick up; you know, back when the FCC mandated providers had to carry locals. Complicate the matter by the fact the FCC has allowed cable broadcasters to begin encrypting OTA feeds; which were once required to be left unencrypted.
The real issue is if they get this declared illicit; what's to stop them going further? They could begin saying multi-room DVR is illegal; worse yet, they coul
I had a $20 router; you wanna know how reliable it was? I wish I could tell you; because it wasn't. While the wired switch portion wasn't an issue; the wifi-radio loved to overheat and crap out after any real data streaming. Netflix; Slingbox; Youtube; even a Windows Update would cause this $20 router to shut down. I wasn't even using any of the actual router functions (DHCP, Firewall, NAT, etc.); I was merely using it because my ISP supplied router is only capable of 20mhz Wireless-G; which doesn't even come close to my actual line-speed. So I had this old Dell laptop sitting around and a pile of parts. I'd been wanting to make a UPnP based media server with file-sharing capabilities; I figured I'd see if I could make it at least a wifi ap/bridge as well.
Turns out, to make it a wifi-AP; it wasn't that difficult. The main program you need is hostapd; which will allow you to put the wireless card in master mode. Since I didn't need anything but just a basic wifi access point; it was as simple as creating a network bridge between eth0 and wlan0; and writing a configuration file to make hostapd run the card in infrastructure mode with wireless-n and 40mhz channels. Adding the rest of the required software to get a full router setup didn't seem like much of a chore either; plenty of howtos and tutorials for a bunch of Linux distros will tell you how to do this.
The only real downside is a netbook probably doesn't have very good wifi antennas; not to mention the wifi card itself probably doesn't output as much as a full router. Not only will I not swear to that; but depending on the card, you can bump up the transmit power. I've been using my laptop to provide wifi and serve music over my network and it's worked great! I get close to 100mbps transfers without the constant shutting down of my cheap router.
Screw whatever karma points I'm not going to get...I have nothing too insightful to say on this matter; but i'm going to talk anyway.
I, too, feel it's a trumped up way of making customers pay for a higher tier. I too wonder why they specifically are targeting web-servers than anything else. One part of me wants to say it's a "public" vs "private" aspect. Look at a device like a Slingbox for example. When you get down to it; it's a server. It's a little device that sends data over the internet. At the same time; it's "hidden" and not publically accessible. You need two individual logins to be able to connect to it; one for the slingbox website; another for the slingbox itself. It's not like *anyone* can drive by my IP and go "I think i'll stream some video". I don't know of a single ISP that's had issue with this. I'm sure there's a few people with google fiber running one. Verizon has never taken an attempt to block mine. or tell me I needed to stop running it. Hell, having this insane amount of bandwidth is what made me invest in one in the first place. Same goes for my remote SSH access. Yeah; that's a server alright; but again, it's not a "public" thing...and mine isn't even on a standard port. So, maybe there's a distinction between a "public" server; like an httpd; and "private" servers like SSH, games, torrents; etc. I run a VPN on my network...and that's not even raised any eyebrows by my ISP...and within that VPN I've got access to any server running on my LAN. Again, this is what leads me to believe they make a distinction between public servers pumping out data to everyone; and private servers that "just happen to use your residential" account.
But, let me focus on Verizon for just another minute; since it's the only ISP I've used for the last 11 years (12 if you count the year my DSL was technically GTEi). My original DSL TOS was on like...a 4"x4" leaflet...and said *nothing* about servers. I read that tiny piece of paper three or four times.....GTE (this was before they completely merged the networks sometime in '02) didn't care if you ran a server on your DSL. Therefore; I did. In fact, I ran a server a large majority of the time I was on a DSL connection. Verizon never blocked port 80....and I don't think they even scanned. Oddly enough; the only port they blocked was 25. It was for trying to reduce the amount of spam people's PCs were sending out; and they gave a TON of notice about it. I didn't have a business account...they probably didn't have to tell me; but they did. They even called me to make sure I knew about the upcoming block on incoming port 25. I ran web-servers; ftp; ssh; shoutcast, even an ircd; never had Verizon "get after me" or block any ports.
Ok, granted FiOS isn't offering a 1gpbs plan yet; and I don't know what ever happened to XG-PON...but even now, they don't forcibly prevent you from running a server by blocking ports. A buddy of mine up in MA has a residential FiOS account and has been running an httpd for who knows how long. I've tried running services that are public on standard ports and never had an issue.
There's...a lot I don' t know about how they handle; or even if they check. If google's blocking port 80 incomming (which is what I gathered from some of the comments); then how is it Verizon...whose been called extremely evil...not?
Maybe part of it is the "old" way of thinking it seems tech companies don't want to shake. Maybe they're lumping *anyone* who runs a server as a business; completely shunning the fact a home user might want to run a server as a hobby.
Are you sure you're not talking about the wireless deal? That was between Verizon Wireless and Comcast; along with other cable companies. My understanding of that situation was that in exchange for the wireless spectrum; basically prevents Verizon Wireless from only offering Fios in the oh-so-coveted "Homerun" packages. This went down because some cable companies decided they wanted the homerun packages so badly; they were going to start their own wireless carriers. The problem is; they know nothing about the wireless business. So, they reached an agreement with Verizon to hand the bandwidth to them; and in exchange they would be able to cross-sell each other's services. The "to not encroach" bit was likely misunderstood by the fact Verizon Wireless was forbidden to play favorites with Fios. If a customer came in and wanted a homerun bundle with Comcast; they'd have to do it.
I'd also like to point out that I specifically mention Verizon Wireless; because it's legally a separate entity. Yes; Verizon communications owns 65% of it; Vodafone owns the other 45%. So, in reality; this deal has nothing to do with FiOS expansion. It's Verizon Wireless' deal, not Verizon Communications. Just because VZW has to resell Comcast service in no way means VZC has to stop putting FiOS in each other's territory. The deal was purely to prevent VZW from going "We'll only bundle with FiOS". People were worried it'd mean less incentive/competition because they probably didn't fully understand the deal; and the context it was made in. If anything; it means VZC will have to compete harder to convince people to switch from Comcast without having that VZW bundle wedge.
Verizon stopping it's fiber expansion was simply a matter of money. It was costing them a ton; and adoption was a tad slower than they'd expected. My understanding is they were no longer expanding in to *new* markets; but would finish building out markets that already had service. I still see crews laying fiber in my county; and I've seen them running fiber to some really remote places; simply because the nearby town happens to have FiOS.
Yes, I. Use VUDU...solely because every BD I get has a redemption code for Vudu and UltraViolet. I'm not worried; they essentially got data on my that's accessable...last 4 of the CC number? That's been out there since. Everyone else merely just gets hacked. I don't use the same identity details on important things...you couldn't access my back with jus VUDU info...you need several pieces of info for that. At lease they're doing something; most places just say you're on your own and we're sorry...VUDU gave everyone affected a year of AllClearID identy protection.
First of all; the John Does should have first amendment protection. If the lawsuit works out in the trolls' favor; then kiss first amendment goodbye...because all future rulings will look back on this and say "yes, you can sue someone for sharing an opinion you don't like."
I believe they have an oven that has an integrated refrigerant system to keep food cold.
I mean, if you're throwing a tablet in the mix, why not a refrigerator. Next thing you know the stove will be streaming videos across the house.
I live in NoVA too...and Buffet is shutting down our local paper (News & Messenger). This ends actually having an idea of what's going on in the county/locally.
Don't forget; the Sega Dreamcast ran WindowsCE; and performed very well IMO. So, maybe the problem isn't the general purpose OS itself; but the fact it hasn't had any optimizations made to it. If you're that devoted to making an excellent Linux based platform; surely you'd be thinking about how to make the OS as unobtrusive as possible to performance. Linux powers most of the touchscreen bartop Megatouch branded video games. If you've ever seen a Fast and the Furious arcade game; it's some version of Windows (2000 or XP, I can't remember). I say if anyone had the ability to make a successful "home game console"; Valve would be the ones to do it, and do it well.
...till you get a phone that for whatever reason refuses to post tweets. Go ahead apps; try to post a tweet to my account....I can't even tweet from my phone.
Funny,
Hulu made me login with my Verizon ID to prove I had a TV subscription.
Don't assume InternetTV is the future, Hulu is already starting to comply with the requirement of needing a "cable" subscription. I believe this was mentioned on this site a couple months ago.
Pretty soon, if you don't already pay for TV, you won't be able to pay for streaming.
"but I only liked will & grace, one time, one day. Wish I hadn't, cause Facebook now thinks I'm gay"
I really have to wonder how they're determining who's gay and who's not. We already tell it out relationship stats, and sometimes, who. If you're not telling Facebook any of that....then I'm worried about how much data they're collecting and how many assumptions they're making. I already know that since I interact Facebook in a totally different way than I normally would. So...what are they assuming about me?
Slashdot Mirror
I have BoA. I do not have a "full" checking account; just the basic eBanking account. Works like a checking account; the only difference is I can't go in and use a teller for deposits. I've never paid a fee. Never. Even when I accidently overdrew once; I was easily able to get the overdraft fee refunded. Maybe you people aren't reading *all* the fine print when you sign up for an account; therefore when you get hit with a fee you aren't expecting it. Flat out calling a bank a douche because *you're too damn lazy to read every bit of fine print* isn't the bank's fault, it's yours. It's like an EULA, you gotta read it.
They *COULD* have upgraded to all new POS systems; but they decided to give some people jobs in retrofitting stuff.
Are you trying to say that cable doesn't stoop to the same tactics? "Comcast has the fastest in-home wifi!"
That may be true; but I don't need 150mbps Wireless-N when the internet won't run more than 10.
Here's the reason this happened.
Too many people were signing up *just* for cable internet and then pirating the cable signal. It's all in the same RF bandwidth; all they had to do was split it to a TV. Digital solved it; to a degree; but they still had people pirating to get locals. Since they pay high retransmission fees for local channels; it's still considered piracy.
One of the providers here kept it reasonable by keeping the internet QAM on separate lines at the node; and connecting a house to one or both; that way you couldn't pirate the TV signal by signing up for internet.
But, essentially; you're subsidizing a cable TV subscription to recover fees they'll lose should you decide to pirate the signal. The recent legislation allowing them to encrypt *every channel* probably won't help bring this down; as they'll take whatever money they can get.
I also find your comment on "wired for residential" confusing. This is not like POTS days. A business account is really nothing more than a standard account with a few additional incentives; usually faster repair service, guaranteed service, etc.
"What are you going to do when the TV providers 'win' and you will have to verify subscription to a pay-service before you can stream anything?"
Hulu has already started this trend; I'm sure once the technology exists to a "universal" degree; all the other providers will have to fall in line.
Cable TV: one way or another; we're going to get your money; even if you don't subscribe to us.
You're incorrect.
Cable companies have to negotiate retransmit fees on *everything*. I just wrote a comment about the rates cable companies have to pay locals in reference to that streaming service that has all the networks angry.
Rates are negotiated on a "per-subscriber" basis. That means your cable company is paying a fee, per-person, to carry the channel. No, I'm not thinking of premium networks; which is I'm sure the thought in your head right now. I'm talking *every channel they are legally not required to carry*. The list of channels they are *legally* required to carry is actually quite small; PGE (Public, Government, Educational) channels and local channels that have enacted the "must-carry" clause.
Everything else, though; has to be negotiated. Your cable system has to pay your local network affiliates/channels to be carried on their system. All of your "basic" cable channels; they also have a transmission agreement. Premium channels even have a retransmission agreement.
Basic cable channels are funded by a mix of advertisements and these transmission agreements; thinking that advertisers solely fund a channel anymore is ridiculous. For one thing; advertisers don't want to pay big rates for national coverage because there's no guarantee their ads will be seen. As part of a retransmission agreement; a cable operator is allowed to insert their own advertisements over top of whatever is being broadcast. This includes local channels too. You might be thinking there's some FCC requirement that makes cable operators provide locals; and you'd be right. Except it's essentially now boiled down to two basic requirements: cable providers have to offer a *very basic* package of just local channels; and they must carry a channel that's invoked the "must-carry" rule. This was created because small independent broadcasters were often ignored by cable providers; refusing to carry them so they could offer more non-local programming. The 1992 act made rules that allowed small stations to invoke must-carry status, to force the cable channel to give them bandwidth. It also set up rules for banning "out-of-market" channels. In reality; it's a bit more complex than that; but it gave local broadcasters the option of requiring a retransmission consent; or invoking must-carry. Of course; if your cable provider agrees to pay retransmission for a local broadcaster; they too, get ads inserted over top. The most famous was last year during an NFL playoff game when Comcast interrupted the end of a play to advertise their recent promotion.
Advertisers are the ones getting the shaft, so it's no surprise they won't pay big bucks.
The fact is; nothing is solely funded by advertisers when it comes to cable. You're paying for all the channels in your package as well as paying to see local channels. Cable companies have their own advertising they place on top of a broadcasters adverts. Prime examples are when a provider drops a local affilate because a retransmission agreement can't be reached; or you lose a bunch of "basic" channels because of a agreement not being made. If advertisers were the only ones solely funding programming; why would they care what they get from a cable company? Why do you think it sometimes takes a while for a new cable channel to creep up on your provider? If it was up to the cable companies; they'd add *any* channel they thought would add value to their service. However, they have to come to an agreement on how much they're going to pay for the right to carry that channel; because the advertisers don't fund the channel 100%. Some channels; like C-Span; are solely funded from retransmission agreements.
Oh, you'll pay. The cable company will find out and you'll be charged for theft of services.
If you've ever had your provider get in to a deadlock contract with an OTA station; you'll realize retransmission fees are a scam.
According to the law; a TV station has two options; they can negotiate a retransmission fee for a cable system; or invoke "must-carry", in which the cable provider is *required* to carry them. The station does not have to pay for a "must-carry" station; they are however required by law to carry them. That's bad for the cable company because they have to dedicate QAM space to a channel they may not want. However, if a cable provider negotiates a retransmission fee; they are allowed at that point to insert "local" ads over OTA stations.
In reality; the stations are only screaming about *potential* loss of profits here. The real losers are the local advertisers; who are paying the bills to keep the station's OTA signal running. Thier ads will only get seen by people with OTA; and those times when a local company isn't inserting ads over airtime.
This is why it's common in some areas for a cable/satellite provider to lose the right to carry a local channel. The station wants more money to reach it's demographic; and when a deal cannot be struck, the channel becomes unavailable. If it's a network affiliate; you lose that network entirely. FCC laws prohibit an "outside" station to be piped in to another market. Ironically; this law was made to protect local advertisers, ensuring they had a better chance to be seen in a market where their ads are already possibly being covered over with whatever promotion your provider is running this month.
The ruling that Aereo is legal was upheld by an appellate court already. They found the place-shifting technology (which is what this is); did not constitute public performance. Likewise; since there was an individual receiver and antenna for each user; there was no breaking of any law.
A2B TV does a similar thing; only with satellite TV. And they've even changed since I first found them. Used to be they'd get you set up with a cable TV account at whatever provider was local to the datacenter, along with a slingbox and "hosting space"; thier new model seems to use satellite TV and you have to send them a receiver. I own a Slingbox (two of them actually); and it's perfectly legal to have them hooked up to my TV's; of course I do pay for a TV service. But what about the Slingbox I sent to my friend in Texas with an OTA receiver so I could watch my favorite football team? Legally, it's my receiver and my hardware; so it *still* falls under placeshifting; and it's still not public retransmission.
Networks are going to complain and bitch because they're "getting thier business model stolen"; they seem to forget thier original business model was providing a service for free that was funded by advertisers; that's shifted in to a service that's still provided free, but paid for by cable and satellite companies. I can't blame advertisers for wanting to pay next to nothing; would *you* want to pay top-dollar for advertising knowing the majority of your demographic on cable or satellite might not see it? Of course not.
Again, it's just the networks sitting there looking at the potential profits they're losing because a lousy business model they created failed; one that was doomed for failure in the first place. What were they doing all those years when analog C-Band was still dominate; and they did not scramble the network fee? All those people were watching network TV without local inserted ads. What were they doing before the 1992 act and cable providers could literally pipe in any OTA channel their antenna farm could pick up; you know, back when the FCC mandated providers had to carry locals. Complicate the matter by the fact the FCC has allowed cable broadcasters to begin encrypting OTA feeds; which were once required to be left unencrypted.
The real issue is if they get this declared illicit; what's to stop them going further? They could begin saying multi-room DVR is illegal; worse yet, they coul
I had a $20 router; you wanna know how reliable it was? I wish I could tell you; because it wasn't. While the wired switch portion wasn't an issue; the wifi-radio loved to overheat and crap out after any real data streaming. Netflix; Slingbox; Youtube; even a Windows Update would cause this $20 router to shut down. I wasn't even using any of the actual router functions (DHCP, Firewall, NAT, etc.); I was merely using it because my ISP supplied router is only capable of 20mhz Wireless-G; which doesn't even come close to my actual line-speed. So I had this old Dell laptop sitting around and a pile of parts. I'd been wanting to make a UPnP based media server with file-sharing capabilities; I figured I'd see if I could make it at least a wifi ap/bridge as well.
Turns out, to make it a wifi-AP; it wasn't that difficult. The main program you need is hostapd; which will allow you to put the wireless card in master mode. Since I didn't need anything but just a basic wifi access point; it was as simple as creating a network bridge between eth0 and wlan0; and writing a configuration file to make hostapd run the card in infrastructure mode with wireless-n and 40mhz channels. Adding the rest of the required software to get a full router setup didn't seem like much of a chore either; plenty of howtos and tutorials for a bunch of Linux distros will tell you how to do this.
The only real downside is a netbook probably doesn't have very good wifi antennas; not to mention the wifi card itself probably doesn't output as much as a full router. Not only will I not swear to that; but depending on the card, you can bump up the transmit power. I've been using my laptop to provide wifi and serve music over my network and it's worked great! I get close to 100mbps transfers without the constant shutting down of my cheap router.
Blah blah blah. Spell-check. What a bunch of dicks. You're worse than Reddit.
Subsidiaries usually act mostly separate from the parent company; more-so now that they merged with MetroPCS.
I'm not trying to act like I know the area. I'm just passing info. I'm blaming spellcheck.
T-Mobile's based out of Belleview; talking to them may prove advantageous.
"I knew it, I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing assholes!"
Screw whatever karma points I'm not going to get...I have nothing too insightful to say on this matter; but i'm going to talk anyway.
I, too, feel it's a trumped up way of making customers pay for a higher tier. I too wonder why they specifically are targeting web-servers than anything else. One part of me wants to say it's a "public" vs "private" aspect. Look at a device like a Slingbox for example. When you get down to it; it's a server. It's a little device that sends data over the internet. At the same time; it's "hidden" and not publically accessible. You need two individual logins to be able to connect to it; one for the slingbox website; another for the slingbox itself. It's not like *anyone* can drive by my IP and go "I think i'll stream some video". I don't know of a single ISP that's had issue with this. I'm sure there's a few people with google fiber running one. Verizon has never taken an attempt to block mine. or tell me I needed to stop running it. Hell, having this insane amount of bandwidth is what made me invest in one in the first place. Same goes for my remote SSH access. Yeah; that's a server alright; but again, it's not a "public" thing...and mine isn't even on a standard port. So, maybe there's a distinction between a "public" server; like an httpd; and "private" servers like SSH, games, torrents; etc. I run a VPN on my network...and that's not even raised any eyebrows by my ISP...and within that VPN I've got access to any server running on my LAN. Again, this is what leads me to believe they make a distinction between public servers pumping out data to everyone; and private servers that "just happen to use your residential" account.
But, let me focus on Verizon for just another minute; since it's the only ISP I've used for the last 11 years (12 if you count the year my DSL was technically GTEi). My original DSL TOS was on like...a 4"x4" leaflet...and said *nothing* about servers. I read that tiny piece of paper three or four times.....GTE (this was before they completely merged the networks sometime in '02) didn't care if you ran a server on your DSL. Therefore; I did. In fact, I ran a server a large majority of the time I was on a DSL connection. Verizon never blocked port 80....and I don't think they even scanned. Oddly enough; the only port they blocked was 25. It was for trying to reduce the amount of spam people's PCs were sending out; and they gave a TON of notice about it. I didn't have a business account...they probably didn't have to tell me; but they did. They even called me to make sure I knew about the upcoming block on incoming port 25. I ran web-servers; ftp; ssh; shoutcast, even an ircd; never had Verizon "get after me" or block any ports.
Ok, granted FiOS isn't offering a 1gpbs plan yet; and I don't know what ever happened to XG-PON...but even now, they don't forcibly prevent you from running a server by blocking ports. A buddy of mine up in MA has a residential FiOS account and has been running an httpd for who knows how long. I've tried running services that are public on standard ports and never had an issue.
There's...a lot I don' t know about how they handle; or even if they check. If google's blocking port 80 incomming (which is what I gathered from some of the comments); then how is it Verizon...whose been called extremely evil...not?
Maybe part of it is the "old" way of thinking it seems tech companies don't want to shake. Maybe they're lumping *anyone* who runs a server as a business; completely shunning the fact a home user might want to run a server as a hobby.
Are you sure you're not talking about the wireless deal? That was between Verizon Wireless and Comcast; along with other cable companies. My understanding of that situation was that in exchange for the wireless spectrum; basically prevents Verizon Wireless from only offering Fios in the oh-so-coveted "Homerun" packages. This went down because some cable companies decided they wanted the homerun packages so badly; they were going to start their own wireless carriers. The problem is; they know nothing about the wireless business. So, they reached an agreement with Verizon to hand the bandwidth to them; and in exchange they would be able to cross-sell each other's services. The "to not encroach" bit was likely misunderstood by the fact Verizon Wireless was forbidden to play favorites with Fios. If a customer came in and wanted a homerun bundle with Comcast; they'd have to do it.
I'd also like to point out that I specifically mention Verizon Wireless; because it's legally a separate entity. Yes; Verizon communications owns 65% of it; Vodafone owns the other 45%. So, in reality; this deal has nothing to do with FiOS expansion. It's Verizon Wireless' deal, not Verizon Communications. Just because VZW has to resell Comcast service in no way means VZC has to stop putting FiOS in each other's territory. The deal was purely to prevent VZW from going "We'll only bundle with FiOS". People were worried it'd mean less incentive/competition because they probably didn't fully understand the deal; and the context it was made in. If anything; it means VZC will have to compete harder to convince people to switch from Comcast without having that VZW bundle wedge.
Verizon stopping it's fiber expansion was simply a matter of money. It was costing them a ton; and adoption was a tad slower than they'd expected. My understanding is they were no longer expanding in to *new* markets; but would finish building out markets that already had service. I still see crews laying fiber in my county; and I've seen them running fiber to some really remote places; simply because the nearby town happens to have FiOS.
Yes, I. Use VUDU...solely because every BD I get has a redemption code for Vudu and UltraViolet. I'm not worried; they essentially got data on my that's accessable...last 4 of the CC number? That's been out there since. Everyone else merely just gets hacked. I don't use the same identity details on important things...you couldn't access my back with jus VUDU info...you need several pieces of info for that. At lease they're doing something; most places just say you're on your own and we're sorry...VUDU gave everyone affected a year of AllClearID identy protection.
First of all; the John Does should have first amendment protection. If the lawsuit works out in the trolls' favor; then kiss first amendment goodbye...because all future rulings will look back on this and say "yes, you can sue someone for sharing an opinion you don't like."
You can watch all the NBC you want; but after 250 hours your viewing will be reduced to MSNBC.
I believe they have an oven that has an integrated refrigerant system to keep food cold. I mean, if you're throwing a tablet in the mix, why not a refrigerator. Next thing you know the stove will be streaming videos across the house.
I live in NoVA too...and Buffet is shutting down our local paper (News & Messenger). This ends actually having an idea of what's going on in the county/locally.
Don't forget; the Sega Dreamcast ran WindowsCE; and performed very well IMO. So, maybe the problem isn't the general purpose OS itself; but the fact it hasn't had any optimizations made to it. If you're that devoted to making an excellent Linux based platform; surely you'd be thinking about how to make the OS as unobtrusive as possible to performance. Linux powers most of the touchscreen bartop Megatouch branded video games. If you've ever seen a Fast and the Furious arcade game; it's some version of Windows (2000 or XP, I can't remember). I say if anyone had the ability to make a successful "home game console"; Valve would be the ones to do it, and do it well.
...till you get a phone that for whatever reason refuses to post tweets. Go ahead apps; try to post a tweet to my account....I can't even tweet from my phone.
Funny, Hulu made me login with my Verizon ID to prove I had a TV subscription. Don't assume InternetTV is the future, Hulu is already starting to comply with the requirement of needing a "cable" subscription. I believe this was mentioned on this site a couple months ago. Pretty soon, if you don't already pay for TV, you won't be able to pay for streaming.
"but I only liked will & grace, one time, one day. Wish I hadn't, cause Facebook now thinks I'm gay"
I really have to wonder how they're determining who's gay and who's not. We already tell it out relationship stats, and sometimes, who. If you're not telling Facebook any of that....then I'm worried about how much data they're collecting and how many assumptions they're making. I already know that since I interact Facebook in a totally different way than I normally would. So...what are they assuming about me?