No they are saying that customers can pay more for more features / services. In this case, a bandwidth sharing plan that fits the average consumers usage patterns better, and the ability to make FaceTime calls over 3G which they don't have today. So, actually more for more. Maybe not enough more to compel you to go out and change your plan, maybe you value something you already have more highly (like one of those grandfathered unlimited data plans, for example) but for others this can and probably does look like a good deal.
Don't forget, AT&T is still giving their customers more tomorrow than they have today. Today they have FaceTime over WIFi, and a variety of other apps that do the same thing. Going forward, customers will have access to not only that, but the same great app over 3G service if they have purchased one of the new service plans. This gives folks an incentive to change to the new plan if they are on an older single device data plan that could very well have a more conservative cap than they would have with the share plan, and they are getting additional value added services. Getting more tomorrow than I have today sure sounds like a good deal to me.
"contractors" in a corporate context don't usually mean 1099 contractors but employees of another firm that you have a contract with. So, you can bring someone in who works for a temp agency (their paycheck and benefits are cut by the temp agency) and then your firm pays the agency an hourly rate for the temp. They are "employees" in the IRS context, but called "contractors" because they are an external contractor's employees. Confusing I know but probably not actually an issue in this case.
Even once they are all IP they should probably not all be treated "neutrally." For example, IP multicast video distribution is a heck of a lot more efficient than unicast when we're talking about a large number of people on the same network consuming the same content (like live linear TV). Some traffic is much more sensitive to latency and jitter, (like VoIP traffic) and should probably not be treated equally either. Another example would be content caching and distribution. It's a lot better for the network if content producers cache content close to the edge, maybe even in the nodes, particularly stuff that has to be delivered in a unicast context.
Here is a link to a quora post explaining how it works. It's delivered over a QAM channel, not IP, for the last mile in most cable systems. So, as I was saying, not actually an issue under net neutrality.
Most (virtually all) traditional cable system VOD is not delivered over IP - it is an entirely different network and it does not compete with your internet bandwidth.
As another child post has pointed out, they are not all IP, and while some of them are moving that way, it's going to be years before you can confidently say that they are "all IP," particularly on the live linear video side (by far the largest consumer of the available last mile bandwidth, and the weakest of your examples). Also, right now VOIP and linear television are on special allotments for those extra services specifically. Again, not "all IP" but even further typically not competing for the finite bandwidth reserved for internet traffic.
Even the comcast OTT example is kind of shaky because it's not QOS based. They would not count the traffic against the cap that most people would never hit anyway but they are not prioritizing the traffic either.
Yes: every ISP/TV provider out there counts Netflix against your bandwidth cap, but not the pay-per-view choices you get through their service.
Entirely different network, not actually an issue under net neutrality. There is a specific example of Comcast not counting some of their own OTT traffic against your cap but you need to be very specific about that because on demand services in general, certainly not the common ones, don't work that way.
Phone calls are free, but Skype counts against your bandwidth cap.
Typically a different network, even for the VoIP based providers
Watching live TV doesn't slow down your internet connection, but streaming a video through Youtube does.
Extremely different kind of network. QAM delivered video is fundamentally one to many,oh, and on entirely different channels on the wire from your IP services.better examples please. These are very leaky.
By default committing a crime in one country while in another or committing a crime in one country and then hiding out in another is not illegal in the eyes of the country one his hiding out in or performing the crime from. Enter extradition treaties which enable country A, in which you are a criminal, to request that country B send you off to face the charges. How is this case potentially any different from that of say, Richard O'Dwyer? link
Assuming this is all just a big bureaucratic game to get Assange into the US to face a secret indictment - should he have to stand trial for his part in a criminal conspiracy to acquire and publish classified information, why or why not?
There is still the issue of transmitting and storing that power but yeah, it's entirely feasible that solar could - eventually - take a huge chunk out of the market for baseload generation. It would appear that the subsidies are having their intended effect -- inflating the market enough to drive down the costs associated with production and stimulate research. If and when it works, there will be a lot of unhappy energy producers out there who are not making the appropriate renewables investments today - however, if they are in that camp they probably don't know which way the wind is blowing anyway (and wont be quite smart enough to crush it entirely as a result). I think if we have to get there eventually, what's the harm in letting china share part of the costs? We all win in the end why delay the future.
You're burying the lead here guys. The tarrif is supposedly in response to unfair competition (dumping) - not the larger underlying issues of endemic competitive advantages / disadvantages. Equally good and valid discussion but here the larger issue seems to be - is the capability to produce "green" energy sources from within the country crucial enough to protect at the expense of the taxpayers.
And as you rightly point out we probably also need to pin some of those externalities on the dirty energy producers. The real issue there is that a good number of people may not be able to afford the true cost of the energy that they are consuming. (of course that goes to show)
Peak load during summer months in the US when solar generation is at its best (and power demand is at its highest) would be a good example of this. More solar panels mean less time spent running "peaker" units (that are only turned up when extra energy is needed to feed the grid). Baseload electrical generation is not that variable. Interestingly enough energy usage patterns are not the same in all parts of the world. England for example uses more electricity during the winter (for heat) than they do during the summer so it's good to note that this example does not work well in all contexts.
Without subsidies this market probably wouldn't exist. Solar is massively expensive per watt relative to other sources of energy. Unless you taxed the heck out of them you would just end up with more dirty energy and little to no solar at all.
It's really tricky though. We are massively subsidizing our domestic solar industry as well to enable production at below the true cost because we care about it as a means of domestic energy production. In the end import taxes are not going to make up for the fact that it's cheaper and more efficient to make some of these things overseas now. Are the chinese playing fair? Probably not. Does it really matter in the long run? Probably not.
Photo-voltaic panels are not cheap enough or efficient enough to be a truly economic means of producing electricity. The subsidies potentially enable economies of scope and scale to the point where it would be economical. Long way to go though still.
To the government that the US can no longer sustain a competitive domestic solar panel industry. This was predicted in shockingly accurate detail by HBS researchers 3 years ago. Protectionism is only going to make it worse -- amazing that these ideas still fly.
Indeed, implementations of the concept but are these implementations of the specific claims of Microsoft's patent application? That's what matters for prior art.
I don't have any greater faith in Microsoft research than I have in any other organization (including tiny start-ups who also choose to file patents). One of the protections is litigation. Many silly patents that actually make it to that step end up defeated because greater amounts of resources are put into finding prior art that specifically conflicts with the method which was patented (and litigated over). I would not be shocked or troubled if someone immediately posted valid prior art, but it is a little troubling that few of the people contributing to this discussion understand what that actually means. Fight the battle on terms which actually give you a shot at victory!
Slashdot Mirror
No they are saying that customers can pay more for more features / services. In this case, a bandwidth sharing plan that fits the average consumers usage patterns better, and the ability to make FaceTime calls over 3G which they don't have today. So, actually more for more. Maybe not enough more to compel you to go out and change your plan, maybe you value something you already have more highly (like one of those grandfathered unlimited data plans, for example) but for others this can and probably does look like a good deal.
Don't forget, AT&T is still giving their customers more tomorrow than they have today. Today they have FaceTime over WIFi, and a variety of other apps that do the same thing. Going forward, customers will have access to not only that, but the same great app over 3G service if they have purchased one of the new service plans. This gives folks an incentive to change to the new plan if they are on an older single device data plan that could very well have a more conservative cap than they would have with the share plan, and they are getting additional value added services. Getting more tomorrow than I have today sure sounds like a good deal to me.
"contractors" in a corporate context don't usually mean 1099 contractors but employees of another firm that you have a contract with. So, you can bring someone in who works for a temp agency (their paycheck and benefits are cut by the temp agency) and then your firm pays the agency an hourly rate for the temp. They are "employees" in the IRS context, but called "contractors" because they are an external contractor's employees. Confusing I know but probably not actually an issue in this case.
The same is true for most cable system video on-demand services as well.
Even once they are all IP they should probably not all be treated "neutrally." For example, IP multicast video distribution is a heck of a lot more efficient than unicast when we're talking about a large number of people on the same network consuming the same content (like live linear TV). Some traffic is much more sensitive to latency and jitter, (like VoIP traffic) and should probably not be treated equally either. Another example would be content caching and distribution. It's a lot better for the network if content producers cache content close to the edge, maybe even in the nodes, particularly stuff that has to be delivered in a unicast context.
Here is a link to a quora post explaining how it works. It's delivered over a QAM channel, not IP, for the last mile in most cable systems. So, as I was saying, not actually an issue under net neutrality.
Most (virtually all) traditional cable system VOD is not delivered over IP - it is an entirely different network and it does not compete with your internet bandwidth.
As another child post has pointed out, they are not all IP, and while some of them are moving that way, it's going to be years before you can confidently say that they are "all IP," particularly on the live linear video side (by far the largest consumer of the available last mile bandwidth, and the weakest of your examples). Also, right now VOIP and linear television are on special allotments for those extra services specifically. Again, not "all IP" but even further typically not competing for the finite bandwidth reserved for internet traffic.
Even the comcast OTT example is kind of shaky because it's not QOS based. They would not count the traffic against the cap that most people would never hit anyway but they are not prioritizing the traffic either.
Yes: every ISP/TV provider out there counts Netflix against your bandwidth cap, but not the pay-per-view choices you get through their service.
Entirely different network, not actually an issue under net neutrality. There is a specific example of Comcast not counting some of their own OTT traffic against your cap but you need to be very specific about that because on demand services in general, certainly not the common ones, don't work that way.
Phone calls are free, but Skype counts against your bandwidth cap.
Typically a different network, even for the VoIP based providers
Watching live TV doesn't slow down your internet connection, but streaming a video through Youtube does.
Extremely different kind of network. QAM delivered video is fundamentally one to many,oh, and on entirely different channels on the wire from your IP services.better examples please. These are very leaky.
By default committing a crime in one country while in another or committing a crime in one country and then hiding out in another is not illegal in the eyes of the country one his hiding out in or performing the crime from. Enter extradition treaties which enable country A, in which you are a criminal, to request that country B send you off to face the charges. How is this case potentially any different from that of say, Richard O'Dwyer? link
Assuming this is all just a big bureaucratic game to get Assange into the US to face a secret indictment - should he have to stand trial for his part in a criminal conspiracy to acquire and publish classified information, why or why not?
Amen brother!
Well said.
There is still the issue of transmitting and storing that power but yeah, it's entirely feasible that solar could - eventually - take a huge chunk out of the market for baseload generation. It would appear that the subsidies are having their intended effect -- inflating the market enough to drive down the costs associated with production and stimulate research. If and when it works, there will be a lot of unhappy energy producers out there who are not making the appropriate renewables investments today - however, if they are in that camp they probably don't know which way the wind is blowing anyway (and wont be quite smart enough to crush it entirely as a result). I think if we have to get there eventually, what's the harm in letting china share part of the costs? We all win in the end why delay the future.
You're burying the lead here guys. The tarrif is supposedly in response to unfair competition (dumping) - not the larger underlying issues of endemic competitive advantages / disadvantages. Equally good and valid discussion but here the larger issue seems to be - is the capability to produce "green" energy sources from within the country crucial enough to protect at the expense of the taxpayers.
And as you rightly point out we probably also need to pin some of those externalities on the dirty energy producers. The real issue there is that a good number of people may not be able to afford the true cost of the energy that they are consuming. (of course that goes to show)
Peak load during summer months in the US when solar generation is at its best (and power demand is at its highest) would be a good example of this. More solar panels mean less time spent running "peaker" units (that are only turned up when extra energy is needed to feed the grid). Baseload electrical generation is not that variable. Interestingly enough energy usage patterns are not the same in all parts of the world. England for example uses more electricity during the winter (for heat) than they do during the summer so it's good to note that this example does not work well in all contexts.
Tell that to the US manufacturing sector
and proliferation FUD
Without subsidies this market probably wouldn't exist. Solar is massively expensive per watt relative to other sources of energy. Unless you taxed the heck out of them you would just end up with more dirty energy and little to no solar at all.
It's really tricky though. We are massively subsidizing our domestic solar industry as well to enable production at below the true cost because we care about it as a means of domestic energy production. In the end import taxes are not going to make up for the fact that it's cheaper and more efficient to make some of these things overseas now. Are the chinese playing fair? Probably not. Does it really matter in the long run? Probably not.
Photo-voltaic panels are not cheap enough or efficient enough to be a truly economic means of producing electricity. The subsidies potentially enable economies of scope and scale to the point where it would be economical. Long way to go though still.
To the government that the US can no longer sustain a competitive domestic solar panel industry. This was predicted in shockingly accurate detail by HBS researchers 3 years ago. Protectionism is only going to make it worse -- amazing that these ideas still fly.
Indeed, implementations of the concept but are these implementations of the specific claims of Microsoft's patent application? That's what matters for prior art.
I don't have any greater faith in Microsoft research than I have in any other organization (including tiny start-ups who also choose to file patents). One of the protections is litigation. Many silly patents that actually make it to that step end up defeated because greater amounts of resources are put into finding prior art that specifically conflicts with the method which was patented (and litigated over). I would not be shocked or troubled if someone immediately posted valid prior art, but it is a little troubling that few of the people contributing to this discussion understand what that actually means. Fight the battle on terms which actually give you a shot at victory!