Oh for mod points. That would be a +1 funny.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
I think this is what people don't get.... it may be true that that links to certain services were weak points, but what Comcast wanted to do was charge the content providers for those links, despite the fact it was already their own customers that wanted (and WERE PAYING FOR) the bandwidth. The larger problem is that I am a Comcast customer, and also a Netflix customer. I pay Comcast a lot of money every month for service - nearly $100 when you include everything (yes, including modem rental), and what I want to use that service for is (sometimes) to stream Netflix. Comcast should want me to be a happy customer with how much I'm paying. They obviously don't give a crap... but since there's no reasonable competition in my area, I (you know, the actual Comcast customer) am screwed. Netflix is not "pushing" their content, I, the customer, am pulling it over the bandwidth I've already paid for.
Every industry with competition is driven towards serving the customer. Period. The problem here is not throttling, it's ultimately a lack of competition and collusion between ISPs. I'm not a big fan of regulations - if you actually have a free, competitive market, you don't need regulations, but companies take advantage and participate in anti-competitive behavior otherwise. The regulations shouldn't restrict the services of the company, they should be to keep the free market free, even if that means that, in the short term, people get their netflix throttled.... long term goals are much more important.
I agree and disagree... I'm one of the people "stuck" with comcast, paying nearly $100/month when you include all the fees and stuff (because I'm not bundling TV or phone service). My only other choice is wireless (Clear, which is not fast enough) or AT&T... which is also many times slower than Comcast. There are other cable companies around, but they seem to have sliced and diced up the areas they serve... when I put my address in with the other cable company, they actually say "good news! you can get service with comcast!"
However, more competition - and not a "coordinated ISP system" would be better. Although it's quite obvious, it's probably also quite difficult to prove these companies are colluding to divde the market in an effort to artificially inflate prices. I don't know what the solution is, but I rarely accept "more government" as an answer.
Irrelevant. We don't need to make specific predictions to predict that things will be bad.
Not irrelevant, because you can't impose these kinds of burdens (financial and otherwise) on people without the certainty that they'll make things better.
I've always felt I should be able to leave the fruits of my labors to my family. Let's take the case of a moderately successful musician whose wife stayed home with the kids while he was out on tour. He's killed in a tour bus accident. Yes, she should continue to collect royalties. They're not all Elvis or Madonna - most musicians barely scrape by. Yes, there should be some reasonable time limit, though. What that is escapes me... perhaps life of spouse; I wouldn't want to say life of children, but then if there are special needs children that are still being taken care of by the family as an adult then it seems unfair to cut them off because their mom died, too.
But where should it end? I don't know... but we need to stop treating all musicians as if they're part of the tiny, less than 1% fraction that makes millions of dollars from being a performer.
But there is one flaw: How would you measure if we have "enough" people in music creation? Do numbers count at all? What about quality? How many pop idols would be needed to outweigh a Leonard Bernstein? How many for an Elvis Presley?
Numbers count only because the more noise there is, the harder it is to find the signal. You like to think that the cream rises to the top, but it's sadly not always the case. Leonard Bernstein and Elvis Presley are only "worth more" because they were early pioneers. If they were breaking into the industry today, do you think they'd have that much success? Just musing.
But what about next time?
What about other vendors?
The quest to further "monetize" customers that have already paid for a product is one that more and more companies are doing. I understand the business reasons behind it, but what about the consumer's rights? Do we have any let? Superfish is an especially egregious example if this problem. It is, in essence, a back door installed into millions of consumer devices. The penalties on a company should be so severe that they couldn't just make it disappear in one quarter, but not so severe that it forces the company in bankruptcy. In other words it needs to be painful enough that other companies will think long and hard about possibly doing something similar, but stopping short of putting the head of the villain on a stick outside the castle walls.
Sadly, I think the extent of the punishment will be a little bad press for a few days, then they'll continue on as if nothing had happened.
Is that you, Bawwy Kwipke?
I agree... I'd rather have separate streaming devices that cost a fraction of the TV and can be replaced when the technology improves instead of having it built in to the most expensive component. I marvel at the people buying really expensive cars with iPhone connectivity... and then Apple changes the connector on it's newer version.
Give me generic, or give me death!