Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-17-10, 07:27 AM   #76
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,950
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Arrogance and fearmongering on display by the monopolies. They see the goal line and they are pushing to take over the internet in the US, so it's come to threats against the FCC. They realize most, easily more than 90% of the US public, don't even have a clue as to what they are trying to do. So this move is an attempt to frame the FCC as 'the bad guy'.

As laughable as it is, it will work on many people, and give ammo to legislators selling their souls to telco lobbying/campaign money and power.

Quote:
AT&T: drop net neutrality or U-verse gets it
By Matthew Lasar | Last updated June 15, 2010 9:30 PM

Back when Google announced it was looking for cities to test its fiber-to-the-home trial network, we profiled a host of municipalities that tried every possible publicity stunt in the book to get the search engine giant's attention. These included a North Carolina city council member who promised to name his offspring after Google's co-founders, along with the mayor of Topeka... who tried to rename his town "Google, Kansas."

But we missed a group of residents from the city of Ventura, California, whose website declares "Give Ventura the Google fiber or the puppy gets it!" in Hostage Situation Gothic font.

"You heard us," the site adds. "And yes, we're totally serious. Totally."

They're not—as evident from a Youtube video that shows the pooch in question, "Padme T. Dog," happily barking "Goooogle" (sort of) every time it's asked whether it wants high speed fiber.

AT&T, however, might be serious when it told the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that if the Federal Communications Commission enacts new net neutrality rules, its U-verse IPTV/broadband service could "get it"—in the sense that the telco might downgrade investment in the offering.

"If this Title 2 regulation looks imminent, we have to re-evaluate whether we put shovels in the ground," AT&T Chief Executive Randall Stephenson told the WSJ.

3-2 from the next guy

That "Title 2" business refers to FCC Chair Julius Genachowski's proposal to partially reclassify broadband ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. At the same time, the agency would "forbear" from using many items in Title II's toolbox, including the regulation of pricing and subscription rates.

Stephenson appears displeased by this plan. Sure, the government could forbear now, he suggests, but what if regulators later change their minds, reverse course, and add new rules?

"I'm a 3-2 vote away from the next guy coming in and saying I disagree with that, I take it away," Stephenson said, referring to the agency's five Commissioner voting system. His comments come as the FCC prepares to release a Notice of Inquiry on its Open Internet proposals on Thursday.

U-verse has offered IP video and middling-speed Internet since June 2006, when it launched in San Antonio, Texas. In December of 2009, AT&T proudly announced U-verse's two millionth TV customer across a service area of 22 states.

But it's been a bumpy road, with AT&T either rolling back its forecast of the number of homes it would serve or telling U-verse broadband subscribers that AT&T reserved the right to temporarily reduce throughput speeds when "a customer is using other U-verse services in a manner that requires high bandwidth." (Translation: watch HD television and your Internet bandwidth could tank.)

That leads to the question du jour: just how seriously the FCC should take Stephenson's warning, given AT&T's comments about U-verse in its 2009 Annual Report:

Capital expenditures in our Wireline segment, excluding interest during construction, which represented 64.3 percent of our capital expenditures, decreased 21 percent for 2009, reflecting decreased spending on U-verse services as the upgrades to our existing network become more mature. In addition, capital expenditures decreased due to less spending on wireline voice services, and lower DSL and High Capacity volumes.

As we were reading this paragraph, the reform group Free Press released a statement that raised the same obvious question.

"AT&T has already slowed down U-verse deployment under the current Title I regime," declared the group's S. Derek Turner, "so to blame the FCC for the company's own investment decisions is simply disingenuous."

Title I is the portion of the Communications Act under which the Commission currently regulates ISPs—albeit weakly since a Federal court struck down the agency's efforts to sanction Comcast's P2P throttling antics under that section.

Indeed, it may be that AT&T is just holding U-verse hostage here, rhetorically speaking. That move gives credence to the small army of Democrats and Republicans in Congress who say they oppose net neutrality rules because of their supposed investment-discouraging effects.
Unable to determine

But it's worth reading the rest of the AT&T report, which suggests that U-verse still has a big role to play in the telco's future—especially as tens of thousands of consumers continue to drop traditional phone service. The company has already asked the FCC to prepare for the extinction of old-school copper wire line access, calling the network and its product "relics of a bygone era."

"We expect continuing declines in traditional access lines and in advertising from our print directories," AT&T says. "Where available, our U-verse services [which include VoIP] are proving effective in stemming access line losses, and we expect to continue to expand our U-verse service offerings in 2010." The assessment also calls the feature "on track to be a $3 billion annual revenue stream" by this year.

As for the report's mention of the agency's proposed net neutrality rules—the survey summarizes them as they were laid out back in October, then, oddly, offers a pretty neutral analysis to investors. "We are unable to determine the impact of this proceeding on our operating results and financial condition at this time."

So how do we read Mr. Stephenson's warning about U-verse? We're hoping AT&T isn't serious. The FCC has emphatically insisted that it won't, err, "unforbear" its Title II forbearances towards ISPs. In fact, as Commissioner Mignon Clyburn argued last week, that has never happened.

"Not only has the Commission never reversed a forbearance decision, but I have not heard anyone complain about this possibility in the wireless context," Clyburn insisted. "This is significant because the Chairman's classification proposal is nearly identical to the regulatory regime under which wireless voice services live today."

More importantly, AT&T has put a huge amount of time, effort, and money into U-verse, which competes with cable for millions of broadband consumers. What's AT&T going to do? Slow the only project that even brings it within shouting distance of DOCSIS 3.0 cable systems and Verizon's FiOS? Relegate itself to perpetual last-place ISP, offering nothing but 6Mbps DSL while competitors rent access to 50 and 100Mbps pipes?

Surely not; as AT&T and other ISPs never tire of telling the public and the FCC, there's "plenty of competition" for Internet access. If (ahem) that's true, AT&T can't simply ride its copper into the sunset unless it is also content with being a mere bargain-basement provider to the "value" segment of the market.

So hopefully this is just economic saber rattling. But even if it is, we're confident it's not the last rattle.
__________________

"We're all going to die, all of us, what a circus! That alone should make us love each other but it doesn't. We are terrorized and flattened by trivialities, we are eaten up by nothing." - Charles Bukowski
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-10, 07:31 AM   #77
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,950
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Which legislators are eagerly selling their souls(and the US out) to the telco money?

Why a huge chuck of the Democrats is who.

Quote:
"74 Democrats sold you out to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast"

Michael Collins

74 Democrats signed a joint letter to the FCC supporting internet throttling by Verizon, ATT and Comcast. Throttling lets carriers slow or block internet traffic. This is a clear attack on net neutrality.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi just endorsed net neutrality. But The Money Party is busy buying votes. Here's a Top Ten list of the biggest rake-offs by the 74 Democrats. They had a total take of $2.8 million with an average of $37,000 a piece from industry sources and lobbyists. No telling how many jobs, trips, and other favors were provided. The Money Party is nothing, if not thorough.

Let your member of Congress know how you feel. Complaint letter to Congress

Why would the major carriers want to control internet traffic by slowing it down or blocking it on occasion?

We'll call it the BP syndrome. They're excessively cheap. In the good old days, the original internet (Telenet's public data network) built network capacity based on "the Mother's Day" principle. The network was built to tolerate peak loads with the same level of service it normally provided, which was excellent.

Since the cable and telephone companies bought up the original network providers, a race to the bottom has begun in terms of quality of service. Instead of maximum quality at all times, the new motto is, "let them eat crap." If the network is too busy, just cut off the public in favor of the higher paying corporate and government customers.

When does the advertised internet speed ever match actual throughput? Test it yourself.

We have a decrepit business and government elite. They're not even smart enough to figure out that the internet is the new third rail of politics.

Let them know that the old bait-and-switch no longer works. We're glad that Speaker Pelosi endorses net neutrality but we expect near universal support from the party.

Spread the word.
Quote:
74 Democrats sold you out to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast

74 Democratic members of Congress just sold you out to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

They signed industry-backed letters telling the FCC to abandon efforts to protect Internet users by prohibiting big companies from blocking Internet traffic.

Not only is this letter an attack on net neutrality, but by signing the industry letter, they are attempting to drastically undercut the FCC's ability to make a fast, affordable and open Internet available to everyone in America. They are actually taking a position against the interests of rural and low-income communities.

This is unacceptable.

We need to make sure these members of Congress know that their constituents are paying attention and will hold them accountable when they undermine net neutrality protections.

Sign our petition to these representatives telling them that you're upset by their decision to side with the wealthy telecommunications corporations over their constituents.

What this comes down to is a principle known as "net neutrality." Net neutrality means that Internet users, not Internet service providers, should be in control. It ensures that Internet service providers can't speed up, slow down, or block Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination.

Of course broadband providers are insisting that we should just trust them and there's no need for consumers to be protected by net neutrality rules. But we cannot trust AT&T, Verizon and Comcast to protect a free and open Internet any more than we could trust BP to protect the oceans.

Without strong net neutrality rules, we might have to rely upon the good will of large telecoms to protect our access to the diversity of political perspectives. We might have to trust companies like Comcast, which actively and secretly interfered with users' ability to access popular video, photo and music sharing applications. We might have to trust companies like AT&T, which censored anti-Bush comments made by Pearl Jam's lead singer during a concert.

A free and open Internet is an important part of 21st Century democracy, but these 74 House Democrats signed a letter that undercut the efforts of the FCC to make sure the Internet stays free and open.

In other words, they decided to stand with wealthy corporations rather than stand up for your interests.

The simple fact of the matter is that powerful companies with a vested interest in this fight like AT&T have armies of lobbyists to push their agenda.

If these 74 House Democrats are going to get the message that it's unacceptable for them to sell out their constituents, it's only going to be because people like you speak up.

So take a minute right now to sign our petition.


The following Democratic members of the House signed the industry-backed letter:

Bobby Bright (AL-02), Mike Ross (AR-04), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Ed Pastor (AZ-04), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8), Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), Jim Costa (CA-20), Laura Richardson (CA-37), Joe Baca (CA-43), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), Allen Boyd (FL-02), Corrine Brown (FL-03), Alcee Hastings (FL-23), Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24), Sanford D Bishop, Jr. (GA-02), John Barrow (GA-12), David Scott (GA-13), Leonard Boswell (IA-03), Wally Minnick (ID-01), Bobby Rush (IL-01), Debbie Halvorson (IL-11), Baron P Hill (IN-09), Dennis Moore (KS-03), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Frank Kratovil, Jr. (MD-01), Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-2), Elijah Cummings (MD-07), Gary Peters (MI-9), William Lacy Clay Jr (MO-01), Russ Carnahan (MO-03), Travis Childers (MS-01), Bennie G Thompson (MS-02), Gene Taylor (MS-04), G. K. Butterfield (NC-01), Heath Shuler (NC-11), John Adler (NJ-3), Albio Sires (NJ-13), Harry Teague (NM-2), Tim Bishop (NY-01), Gregory Meeks (NY-06), Joseph Crowley (NY-07), Ed Towns (NY-10), Yvette Clarke (NY-11), Michael McMahon (NY-13), Scott Murphy (NY-20), Bill Owens (NY-23), Michael Arcuri (NY-24), Daniel Maffei (NY-25), Steve Driehaus (OH-01), Charlie Wilson (OH-06), Marcia Fudge (OH-11), Zachary T. Space (OH-18), Dan Boren (OK-02), Kurt Schrader (OR-05), Robert Brady (PA-01), Chaka Fattah (PA-02), Kathleen Dahlkemper (PA-03), Jason Altmire (PA-04), Christopher Carney (PA-10), Allyson Schwartz (PA-13), Tim Holden (PA-17), Lincoln Davis (TN-04), John Tanner (TN-08), Al Green (TX-09), Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15), Charlie Gonzalez (TX-20), Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Henry Cuellar (TX-28), Gene Green (TX-29), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30), Glenn Nye (VA-02), Rick Larsen (WA-02), Nick Rahall (WV-03)
__________________

"We're all going to die, all of us, what a circus! That alone should make us love each other but it doesn't. We are terrorized and flattened by trivialities, we are eaten up by nothing." - Charles Bukowski
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-10, 07:27 PM   #78
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Lobstrosities
Posts: 10,300
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

This is about a week old, but don't worry I have an update below:

Quote:
95 Democratic candidates back net neutrality as 'First Amendment of the Internet'


Ninety-five Democratic congressional candidates have signed a pledge to support net neutrality in an attempt to turn it into a campaign issue ahead of Tuesday's midterm elections.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee said Thursday that the candidates have signed a pledge calling net neutrality "the First Amendment of the Internet."

The Federal Communications Commission's failure to act on the issue has increased pressure for Congress to enact some sort of legislative framework that would ensure Internet service providers can't discriminate against certain types or sources of content.

"The open Internet is a vital engine for free speech, economic opportunity, and civic participation in the 21st century. I stand with millions of working families and small businesses against any attempt by big corporations to control the Internet and eliminate the Internet's level playing field," the pledge states.

The PCCC has been a vocal critic of the Google and Verizon's outline for an Internet regulatory framework and in August joined a coalition led by Free Press in protesting outside Google's headquarters.

The signers include several Senate candidates, including incumbent Reps. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) and Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) as well as Scott McAdams of Alaska and Alexi Giannoulias of Illinois.

"Losing net neutrality would stifle free speech, innovation and jobs," said Ann McLane Kuster, Democratic candidate for Congress in New Hampshire's 2nd district. "Especially in the 'Live Free or Die' state, hurting Internet freedom by putting new tollbooths on the Internet is a non-starter. And across the nation, Democratic candidates agree."

PCCC senior online campaigns director Jason Rosenbaum said the pledge is the first time congressional candidates have ever joined together to make net neutrality an election issue. He predicted the announcement would help generate enthusiasm for net-neutrality legislation in the next Congress.

The full pledge is below:

"I believe in protecting Net Neutrality - the First Amendment of the Internet. The open Internet is a vital engine for free speech, economic opportunity, and civic participation in the 21st century. I stand with millions of working families and small businesses against any attempt by big corporations to control the Internet and eliminate the Internet's level playing field. In Congress, I'll fight to protect Net Neutrality for the entire Internet - wired and wireless - and make sure big corporations aren’t allowed to take control of free speech online. Mark me down as a 21st century Internet champion!"
UPDATE:

95 candidates, 95 defeats. Not a single pledge signer won their race. Ouch.
__________________
!TRIGGER WARNING!:This post may contain opinions which differ from your own.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-10, 07:35 PM   #79
Time Lord
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 53,226
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Turns out net neutrality was the real hot button issue!
__________________
Never stop punching fascists.
Stop employing thugs and murderers: Abolish police, abolish the military.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-10, 07:47 PM   #80
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,950
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Did I ever mention that not many people understand this stuff?

__________________

"We're all going to die, all of us, what a circus! That alone should make us love each other but it doesn't. We are terrorized and flattened by trivialities, we are eaten up by nothing." - Charles Bukowski
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-10, 08:36 PM   #81
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 38,110
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Quote:
Nov. 5, 2010 9:30 AM ET
Cable subscribers flee, but is Internet to blame?

NEW YORK (AP) — TV subscribers are ditching their cable companies at an ever faster rate in the past few months, and many of them aren't signing up with a satellite or phone competitor instead.

Their willingness to simply go without pay television could be a sign that Internet TV services such as Netflix and Hulu are finally starting to entice people to cancel cable, though company executives say the weak economy and housing market are to blame.

Third-quarter results reported this week by major cable and satellite TV companies show major losses, but don't settle the question of what's causing them.

If "cord-cutting" in favor of Internet video is finally taking hold, that has wide-ranging implications. Consumers who use the Internet to get their movies and TV shows bypass not just the cable companies, but the cable networks that produce the content. The move could have the same disruptive effect on the TV and movie industries as digital downloads have already had on music.

A few weeks ago, the CEO of phone company Verizon Communications Inc. likened cord-cutting to what started happening to the local-phone companies five or six years ago, when people started giving up their landlines in favor of relying solely on their cell phones.

"The first thing when that happens is you deny it," Ivan Seidenberg said. "I know the drill. I have been there."


On Thursday, Time Warner Cable Inc.'s chief operating officer, Landel Hobbs, said the company doesn't see evidence of people dropping cable in favor of the Internet. He said the biggest subscriber losses have been among people who don't have cable broadband services; high-speed Internet — from cable or a competitor — is key to watching video online. These people seem to be going to satellite or giving up on pay TV entirely.

On the theory that college students might be among the first to drop cable TV, the company looked at changes in subscriber figures in college towns such as Austin, Texas, and Columbus, Ohio. They weren't out of line with previous years, and they corresponded to the level of student enrollment, he said.

"We'll continue to monitor cord-cutting, but haven't found evidence where you might expect to see it," Hobbs told analysts on a conference call.

Time Warner Cable lost 155,000 video subscribers in the July-September quarter, compared with 64,000 a year ago.

The only larger cable company, Comcast Corp., reported last week that its subscriber loss more than doubled in the third quarter, to 275,000. Comcast said many of those leaving had taken advantage of low introductory rates that the company offered last year when the analog TV broadcast network was shut down.

The country's eight largest publicly traded pay-TV companies, representing about 85 percent of the subscriber total, had reported their results for the third quarter by Friday. These cable, phone and satellite companies showed a combined gain of 66,700 video subscribers, or a 0.3 percent increase at an annualized rate, about a third the growth of the population.

The figure was a slight recovery from the seasonally weak second quarter, when they gained just 12,400 subscribers. But it's far short of the 401,300 subscribers gained a year ago.

Missing from the tally is the third-largest cable company, Cox Communications, which is privately held and doesn't report subscriber counts publicly. If it lost cable subscribers at the same rate as Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the nine largest pay-TV companies had zero net gain for the latest quarter and lost subscribers in the second.

Cable companies have been losing video subscribers for some time, but they have been compensating by upgrading basic subscribers to more expensive digital tiers, as well as adding broadband and phone subscribers.

However, both Time Warner Cable and Cablevision Systems Corp. lost digital video subscribers in the third quarter. Both added record-low number of phone subscribers, as years of growth are coming to an end.

Meanwhile, Netflix Inc.'s streaming service has become so popular that it is now the largest source of U.S. Internet traffic during peak evening hours, according to Sandvine Inc., a Canadian company that supplies traffic-management equipment to Internet service providers.

A variety of gadgets can send Netflix's streams to the living room TV, including game consoles and the $99 Apple TV box. Many high-end TVs now come with the built-in ability to play Internet content.

Thomas Clancy Jr., 35, in Long Beach, N.Y., canceled the family's Cablevision subscription this spring. He said he has been happy with Netflix and other Internet video services since then, even though there isn't a lot of live sports to be had online.

"The amount of sports that I watched certainly didn't justify a hundred-dollar-a-month expense for all this stuff. I mean, that's twelve hundred dollars a year," Clancy said. "Twelve hundred dollars is ... near a vacation."

But Clancy — who has no relation to the thriller writer — is also an example of the hurdles cord cutters face. He uses an Internet-connected Blu-ray player to get Netflix movies to the TV. And he pulls a cable from his computer to the TV for Internet content Netflix doesn't have. Clancy owns a computer consulting firm and is tech-savvy enough to do all that. Most people wouldn't know how.

Cablevision wanted to raise Clancy's Internet bill when he canceled TV service. That would have made cord-cutting less attractive, but he happens to live in an area where Verizon provides Internet service at speeds that are comparable with the best cable has to offer. He got a better deal from Verizon and switched to that provider.

Most people who have the technological skills to take advantage of Internet video find that the selection of movies and shows isn't broad enough to make the jump worth it, Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett said.

On the other hand, poor people have an excellent motive to cut cable and simply replace it with an antenna or nothing at all, he said.

"The price of cable TV has risen to the point where it's simply not affordable to lots of lower-income homes. And right now there are an awful lot of lower-income homes," Moffett said. "The evidence suggests that what we're seeing is a poverty problem rather than a technology phenomenon."

In addition, high unemployment means fewer new households, as kids are probably delaying moving out of their parents' houses, or people move in with roommates. That can reduce the number of households that pay for TV.

Cable companies would like to get low-income customers back with cheaper cable packages, but their hands are tied. Content providers such as The Walt Disney Co. and News Corp. won't license their channels one by one, so subscribers have to take big, expensive channel packages, or very basic ones, which offer little beyond what's available with an antenna.

Content providers now get billions of dollars in fees from cable service providers, and they want to make sure that whatever new industry model comes along, they'll get paid. It's not obvious yet that Internet video will let them sustain their profit levels.

Six companies create the content that consumes 85 percent of U.S. viewing hours, Moffett said. "Until they get on board, the train's not leaving the station."
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDefault/8ef5...7856a8ecd8eedb

Quote:
Netflix Instant Accounts For 20 Percent of Peak U.S. Bandwith Use

Netflix instant accounts for 20 percent of all non-mobile internet use during prime time in the United States, according to a new study.

Streaming media — real-time entertainment — accounts for 43% of peak period traffic in the U.S., according to Sandvine, which helps ISPs manage their networks and thus has access to buckets of information about usage patterns.

But Netflix alone accounts for nearly half of that between 8 and 10 p.m., and that usage comes from only 1.8 percent of the service’s subscribers.

“Per-user, Netflix is the heaviest user of downstream bandwidth in North America: the average fixed access Netflix connection is 1 megabit per second,” Sandvine said in reply to an e-mail question. “On mobile networks, per user, only Slingbox (at almost 800 kbps) is heavier than Netflix (~125 kbps).”

Streaming video is the most bandwidth-intensive use of the internet, but there are plenty of other choices — starting with YouTube. So the dominance of Netflix, which only offers “studio” fare, would seem to indicate that there is an enormous appetite for profession programming delivered from the cloud.

Good news for Hulu, Amazon Unbox and even YouTube, should its movie rentals service gain traction. Better news for the content creators, assuming they can come up with a killer streaming revenue model and as if they needed any more proof that on-demand, internet delivery is the future. Bad news for cable and satellite — protestations by CEO Reed Hastings notwithstanding.

But Hastings does see that streaming is the engine for Netflix now. “In fact, by every measure, we are now primarily a streaming company that also offers DVD-by-mail,” Hastings said in conjunction with the company’s earnings report Wednesday [pdf]. “At the same time, the introduction of our streaming offering in Canada in late September has provided us with very encouraging signs regarding the potential for the Netflix service internationally.”

The study is the eighth Sandvine has published since 2002.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/...-bandwith-use/

Now, let's say you're a company like Comcast or AT&T or Time Warner. You sell cable TV and you sell internet access. You see your cable TV customers going away, and you see a mere two percent of Netflix subscribers using 20 percent of your bandwidth. And you know that streaming Netflix is only going to get more popular.

What do you do?
__________________
These are my DVDs
360 GamerTag: William T Bunny
PSN ID: William_T_Bunny
"JasonF can do no wrong!" -- Rockmjd23
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-10, 09:44 PM   #82
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

I forget what the issue is since it has been a few months, but I disagree completely with Dr. Mabuse. What a boob.
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

― Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-10, 10:43 PM   #83
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,061
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
What do you do?
Buy Netflix?
__________________
I do Tracer's bidding! -Slop101
Third World countries are worthy of our derision. -Sean O'Hara
Personally, I would say that Tracer Bullet is leading you in the wrong direction. -Supermallet
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-10, 10:51 PM   #84
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,430
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

I guess some ISPs will try to throttle down net speeds for streaming. It's the same bs with data plans for cell phones.

I've been looking at amazon's vod service and really like the idea of having a video library I can access anytime, as opposed to netflix which are only rentals. Apple movies are OK but take up too much hard drive space and can't be streamed or re-downloaded. Amazon's new 720p hd streaming is only 2.5mbps (netflix's about 3.8mbps). Still doesn't seem like much. Video streaming is the future, ISPs should suck it up. Brighthouse is offering 40mbps at $75 a month.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-10, 10:54 PM   #85
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
What do you do?
I only answer that question when it is preface with, "Pop quiz, hotshot."
__________________
JasonF said it "crazyronin understands scripture better than all those Popes"
the mods around here are morons-wendersfan
PSN and Origin: boomanchu2
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-10, 11:11 PM   #86
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyronin View Post
I only answer that question when it is preface with, "Pop quiz, hotshot."


What. Do. You. Do?
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

― Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-10, 11:23 PM   #87
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 38,110
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyronin View Post
I only answer that question when it is preface with, "Pop quiz, hotshot."
__________________
These are my DVDs
360 GamerTag: William T Bunny
PSN ID: William_T_Bunny
"JasonF can do no wrong!" -- Rockmjd23
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-10, 11:22 AM   #88
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,950
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
I forget what the issue is since it has been a few months, but I disagree completely with Dr. Mabuse. What a boob.
__________________

"We're all going to die, all of us, what a circus! That alone should make us love each other but it doesn't. We are terrorized and flattened by trivialities, we are eaten up by nothing." - Charles Bukowski
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-10, 10:45 AM   #89
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,846
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDefault/8ef5...7856a8ecd8eedb

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/...-bandwith-use/

Now, let's say you're a company like Comcast or AT&T or Time Warner. You sell cable TV and you sell internet access. You see your cable TV customers going away, and you see a mere two percent of Netflix subscribers using 20 percent of your bandwidth. And you know that streaming Netflix is only going to get more popular.

What do you do?
A few options I think they will see: 1. Start running more efficiently 2. Charge more for internet access or throttle 3. Go out of business.

Which do you see happening?
__________________
Everyone else is bound to leave, but you.
And they swear their love is real;
They mean, I like the way you make me feel.

gamertag: IAMNOTwiththem
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-10, 06:01 PM   #90
Time Lord
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 53,226
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Apparently the FCC aims to address this December 21st: http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/01/f...december-21st/

Quote:
FCC addressing net neutrality on December 21st (updated)
By Thomas Ricker posted Dec 1st 2010 3:14AM

Well, well, look at what's been added to a tentative agenda when the FCC meets on December 21st: net neutrality. Here's how the item reads:

Open Internet Order: An Order adopting basic rules of the road to preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition, and free expression. These rules would protect consumers' and innovators' right to know basic information about broadband service, right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic, and right to a level playing field, while providing broadband Internet access providers with the flexibility to reasonably manage their networks.

Presumably, a draft order is now circulating amongst attendees, the details of which are of the utmost concern for both consumers and wired / wireless providers alike. According to the AP, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski will outline his net neutrality proposal in a speech on Wednesday, with plans to bring the new rules to a full vote before the end of the year and ahead of the newly elected Republicans taking their seats in the House.

Update: The AP received an advanced copy of Genachowski's speech. Here are the highlights of the FCC proposal:

Wired broadband providers will be required to let subscribers access all legal content, applications, and services with the flexibility to manage network congestion and spam as long as they publicly disclose their network management approach. Broadband providers would also be allowed to experiment with dedicated networks to route traffic from specialized services like smart grids and home security systems as long as they "don't hurt the public internet."

Wireless providers would also be required to disclose network management practices and be prohibited from blocking access to web sites or competing applications like cellphone VoIP services. However, they'd be given more flexibility to manage traffic due to relative bandwidth constraints. In other words, wireless networks will still be special under the FCC proposal, just not as special as the plan pitched by Google / Verizon (which only required transparency) over the summer.

The proposal would leave the FCC's regulatory framework for broadband unchanged as a lightly regulated "information service," not as a "common carrier" as Genachowski had wanted. Another victory for Comcast.

Update 2: The New York Times says that the proposal will allow broadband companies to implement usage-based pricing, charging customers higher rates for heavy data usage.
__________________
Never stop punching fascists.
Stop employing thugs and murderers: Abolish police, abolish the military.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-10, 06:19 PM   #91
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,950
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Yeah the plebeians are going to stand idly by in ignorance, yet again, and this nightmare is going to roll through and change things in serious ways. All so the rich monopolies, who already overcharge for access on both ends, can charge even more and get richer faster.

In the end this will push through the rest of the world disconnecting from the US as the 'controller' of the internet, and we'll be screwed only in the US. Let's hope not.

Quote:
FCC Chairman Announces Fake Net Neutrality Proposal

By Josh Silver, December 1, 2010

This morning, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski announced that he will finally seek a vote on President Obama's top tech issue, "Net Neutrality." There's just one problem: According to the New York Times, it's not even close to the real Net Neutrality that President Obama promised the American people.

The Times report, based on an advance copy of a speech the chairman plans to give today, indicates that the proposed rule is riddled with loopholes and falls far short of what's necessary to prevent phone and cable companies from turning the Internet into something that looks like cable TV, where they decide what moves fast, what moves slow, and whether they can price gouge you or not.

The proposal is a shiny jewel for companies like AT&T and Comcast that have met with the Chairman more than anyone else during the past month, and whose affection he seems to crave more than making good on President Obama's promise.

Now that the FCC's proposed rulemaking has been officially announced, it will be deliberated and modified for the next three weeks, leading to a final vote on Dec. 21.

According to the Times, the proposal:

* Fails to restore the FCC's authority over Internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast and AT&T. This presents the unecessary risk that the new rules, if passed, will be swiftly rejected by the courts. Any other future rules related to the Internet, such as competition policy (which would give you more choices than your expensive monopoly cable and phone company) would suffer the same fate if the chairman continues to avoid the politically challenging but absolutely essential moves that would restore his agency's authority.

* Offers weak protections against "paid prioritization." That is, it could allow ISPs to create tolls on the open Internet that would favor the traffic of a select few who could pay by slowing down the traffic of everyone else. Worse yet, it opens a loophole for "specialized services" that could lead to the creation of a new "private Internet" for a few giant media companies. You might remember that idea as one of the worst ones in the Google-Verizon pact last summer.

* Fails to make even Genachowski's tepid protections apply to wireless connections using mobile devices. With the inevitable explosion of super-fast wireless Internet connections during the next decade, it represents the most blatant sellout to the likes of Verizon and AT&T. Both companies view wireless Internet and phone service as the future. And both companies are among Washington's biggest spenders on PR firms, lobbyists and campaign contributions.

Despite all this, there is still cause for optimism. Genachowski needs three votes to pass the proposed rules. The chances that either Republican commissioner will vote for the measure is near zero, leaving the chairman reliant on Democratic Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Michael Copps. Both are stalwart public interest advocates who have repeatedly expressed their support for strong Net Neutrality rules.

Copps and Clyburn are the "deciders" for the next three weeks, and they have both demonstrated over and over that their top priority is the interests of the American people. If that holds true, there may be a happy ending to this story.

Stay tuned for continued analysis as more information becomes available.
__________________

"We're all going to die, all of us, what a circus! That alone should make us love each other but it doesn't. We are terrorized and flattened by trivialities, we are eaten up by nothing." - Charles Bukowski
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-10, 06:33 PM   #92
Time Lord
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 53,226
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Here's a small sampling of what we'll get without net neutrality:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/19/w...g-per-service/

Quote:
That slide above is no joke -- it comes from a marketing webinar put on by two companies that count Verizon, AT&T and Vodafone as clients, and it describes a system that identifies customer internet activity and charges a different rate for using Facebook than watching YouTube, while allowing access to Vodafone services for free. Yes, that's basically the nightmare scenario for net neutrality advocates. The two companies behind the slide are Allot Communications and Openet, which sell subscriber-management tools to carriers around the world -- tools that Allot's director of marketing says can scan even encrypted packets to determine what service customers are using and charge accordingly. We're not making this up -- here's the direct quote from the webinar:

[We use] a number of different methods to accurately identify the application -- methods like heuristic analysis, behavioral and historical analysis, deep packet inspection, and a number of other techniques. What's key is that we have the best application identification available on the market, which means that even applications that are encrypted or use other methods to evade detection will be correctly identified and classified... We essentially feed this real-time information about traffic and application usage into the policy and charging system. Each subscriber has a particular service plan that they sign up for, and they're as generic or as personalized as the operator wants.

Yeah, that's not how anyone actually wants the internet to work -- except carriers, who've been saying increasingly insane things about charging even smartphone manufacturers for customer data usage lately. What's more, it's rumored that the FCC will cave to Verizon and AT&T and exempt wireless internet service from major parts of net neutrality regulation it's expected to pass next week, so this nonsense could very well hit the US sooner rather than later. We'll be keeping a close eye on things -- we'll let you know.
__________________
Never stop punching fascists.
Stop employing thugs and murderers: Abolish police, abolish the military.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-10, 03:02 PM   #93
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,430
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

So this passed - wouldn't a judge just stop it again?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-10, 03:13 PM   #94
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suprmallet View Post
Here's a small sampling of what we'll get without net neutrality:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/19/w...g-per-service/
we already have big differences in the rates charged by the wireless carriers. Verizon might implement this but if I doubt Sprint or T-Mo will

a few small companies made a new product and are trying to sell it. it's a long way from Verizon or AT&T actually buying it and implementing it

net neutrality is a cool sounding motto, but it's nothing more than a way for amazon, apple, netflix, google and a few other west coast "new economy" companies pass on their costs to the ISP's. it will never stand up to a court challenge

Last edited by al_bundy; 12-21-10 at 03:27 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-10, 04:51 PM   #95
Time Lord
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 53,226
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Well, the FCC fucked us this morning.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/21/f...one-happy-abo/

Quote:
Well, no surprises here -- the FCC just passed a set of limited net neutrality rules by a 3-2 vote. The three Democratic Commissioners, including FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, voted yes, while the two Republican Commissioners both strongly dissented -- to quote Commissioner Meredith Baker, "I really, really, really dissent." The rules haven't been made public yet, but the general understanding is that wired broadband will be more heavily regulated than wireless -- a crucial point as carriers begin investigating pay-per-service charges. That means even net neutrality advocates are unhappy with today's decision -- Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps straight-up said, "Today's action could -- and should -- have gone further." What's more, we're hearing that Verizon is already considering a challenge -- which is odd since the rules appear to track closely with that joint Verizon / Google proposal from the summer. We're still waiting on the full text of the rules and will post a complete breakdown once we get them, but for now hit the source link and check out Genachowski's remarks on the regulations.
__________________
Never stop punching fascists.
Stop employing thugs and murderers: Abolish police, abolish the military.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-10, 04:56 PM   #96
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,950
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

And Still It Comes

by Thomas Lux

like a downhill brakes-burned freight train
full of pig iron ingots, full of lead
life-size statues of Richard Nixon,
like an avalanche of smoke and black fog
lashed by bent pins, the broken-off tips
of switchblade knives, the dust of dried offal,
remorseless, it comes, faster when you turn your back,
faster when you turn to face it,
like a fine rain, then colder showers,
then downpour to razor sleet, then egg-size hail,
fist-size, then jagged
laser, shrapnel hail
thudding and tearing like footsteps
of drunken gods or fathers; it comes
polite, loutish, assured, suave,
breathing through its mouth
(which is a hole eaten by a cave),
it comes like an elephant annoyed,
like a black mamba terrified, it slides
down the valley, grease on grease,
like fire eating birds’ nests,
like fire melting the fuzz
off a baby’s skull, still it comes: mute
and gorging, never
to cease, insatiable, gorging
and mute.
__________________

"We're all going to die, all of us, what a circus! That alone should make us love each other but it doesn't. We are terrorized and flattened by trivialities, we are eaten up by nothing." - Charles Bukowski
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-10, 05:21 PM   #97
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Where it all happens - SoCal
Posts: 20,375
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

The government knows what's best for us. Right?
__________________
"Kneel Before Zod"
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-10, 09:19 PM   #98
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: MA
Posts: 5,188
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

^if by whats best for us you mean whats best for their wallets, then yes.
__________________
Dear AIDS, please cut it out
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-10, 09:48 PM   #99
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 38,110
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Zod View Post
The government knows what's best for us. Right?
Of course not. Telecoms know what's best for us.
__________________
These are my DVDs
360 GamerTag: William T Bunny
PSN ID: William_T_Bunny
"JasonF can do no wrong!" -- Rockmjd23
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-10, 09:54 PM   #100
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: frass canyon
Posts: 16,249
re: FCC to enact "Net Neutrality" [UPDATE: NOT!]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
Of course not. Telecoms know what's best for us.
Don't Telecoms want our money?
__________________
A paternalistic attitude that refuses to consider all citizens as responsible is anathema to the democratic ethos.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:50 AM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0