And just think of all that time people spent trying to 'un-pervert' their phone cord. Of course it seemed more annoying than perverted at the time.
Your logic has failed utterly. Who wants the numbers? The broadcaster and the advertisers. Who do they want numbers on? Everyone watching the broadcast in any manner in the area. Who does that include? People who bought their own antenna, people with cable, and people renting an antenna from others. Who might that include? Why Aero, of course. Nice attempt at a red herring.
If you just want to stamp your feet and shout no no no, be honest and do that.
Even I do it. Right now I have a cable internet connection at a site that is about 250 miles from the "home address"
So you're saying that Aero isn't responsible for that problem and isn't even necessary to perpetrate the fraud? No wonder you're so anxious to find a donkey to pin the tail on.
I'm basing it on the typical conditions I see in an interchange or meet-me. Have you ever done any networking beyond the workgroup/office level?
It's fairly clear in the history that Comcast deliberately damaged throughput to force a 'peering' that wouldn't actually cost them anything.
The very concept of 'peering' with someone who doesn't own a network is odd. Especially so when Netflix already offers a cache box for any ISP that wants to reduce the upstream cost of serving Netflix to their customers.
If ten people can sit around a table and decide what to pay me, I should be able to have 10 people sit around a table and decide what I will work for.
You know corporations rig the game. Do you still see unions in a bad light now?
anything OVER 9000 is probably out of control
You mean the ports that had to be reconfigured with 'no shut'?
Because they don't know who the Aereo customers are, and it is not cost effective in any way for them to send out a blanket mailing to everyone asking for Aereo customers to respond.
So then, what dark magic do they use to find the other OTA viewers that leave Aero customers out?
They manage this for OTA and cable consumers because the percentages of them are much much higher. Sending out 10,000 solicitations for OTA and cable may reach 3000 or more valid targets. Enough for a statistically significant measure. That same 10,000 may hit one Aereo customer. Then, of course, the number of Aereo customers would have to be reported (more data going to big corporations).
And what evil spell keeps them from adding a checkbox on their solicitations for Aero customers or just lumping them in with OTA (since it is OTA, just with a long antenna cable)? You know, do you watch TV using your own antenna, cable, or Aero?
Why would Aero pay Nielsen anything? Does Toshiba pay them? How about Panasonic? LG? How about Radio Shack? It's the TV stations and advertisers that pay Nielsen for viewership figures, so it's on Nielsen to actually capture accurate figures and that includes people renting an antenna from Aero.
BTW, since the pattern of your answers shows you may not know this, Aero already restricts customers to stations whose nominal broadcast area includes their home address.
Because the discussion is about colonising the galaxy. Maybe the reason we haven't seen any other civilisations is that they reach a point where they are comfortable and see no reason to expand beyond their home planet.
Any chance this means Google is going to back-pedal on Google+ ?
I'd welcome Google splitting it's products such that you can subscribe to YouTube without also being signed up to Google+ and GMail and Maps and the kitchen sink. Or vice versa.
Remember, you're the product in all those services, and by forcing G+ on you, Google's enhancing the product for sale.
About the only thing is that they can take back the whole "Steve Jobs said G+ was a joke" thing, but really, G+ is a great way to get back at Facebook. Because well, Facebook aims to be a closed community - Facebook's tracking is limited to sites that have Like buttons.
Google's ability to sell ads (Facebook can only sell ads within its network - it doesn't sell ads outside of Facebook, yet) means it reaches practically the entire Internet (Google, and Google-owned ad networks are around what, 98% of desktop browsers, and practically all mobile browsers), meaning it's out-Facebooking Facebook in its ability to gather user information (i.e., non-voluntarily-provided information), thus offering advertisers a far better product.
Sure its last results are down, but they're still massively profitable, and within a short period of time (cost-per-click is down, which means the last 2% are dying) Google would really get at everyone.
Hell, Android was released just so Google wouldn't be locked out of iOS ad sales.
Face it - Google's addicted to ad money, and Google knows it - it's their massively primary revenue stream, the alternatives are a joke (iAds - you get LESS information about users from them than Google, they cost mode, and are limited to iOS), so Google's really the big guy. Google's trying to save Google Glass before the internet brands it as an always-present surveillance camera worn by people with more money than sense (i.e., Glassholes). Because otherwise it'll kill it as a data gathering option Google has to sell more ad data.
Hell, think GMail's picture-proxy is for your safety by "not reveailing your IP address"? Why bother, when the proxy will happily load you tagged images confirming your e-mail address and that you read it. Perhaps think what Google has next in store - i.e., that Promotions tab might be the phase.
Have you seen the receipts? I see no evidence that they did anything but change a configuration.
The ISPs make a big deal about how usage has gone up since the '90s, but I have seen how the cost of the hardware has plummeted since the '90s. Back then, a SMALL GigE switch cost over $1000/port. If you needed to switch a lot of connections, you would have to build a Clos network of switches and that would seriously push the price up.
These days, the same capability is going for about $10/port (or $50/port with greatly improved management). Meanwhile, on the long haul side, improvements in the hardware allow you to push 10 times the data through the old fiber for the same cost. Just a normal upgrade cycle would bring these improvements into the ISP's infrastructure. On top of that, they have received billions in subsidies to improve connectivity to everyone and have fulfilled none of their promises.
So given all of that, it's a better bet that they pocketed it.
Nice try at the misdirection there, but the matter at hand is racial discrimination in university admissions. She supports it.
It COULD be done fairly, but they don't want that. By fairly, I mean they set up fair queueing with a reasonable commit for each customer, then allow the customer to apply QOS tags to decide how to prioritize their own traffic within the commit. Naturally, they should allow borrowing between customers and make sure the commit is enough to support VOIP.
OK, so not my local dogcatcher, but clearly the dogcatcher general has taken the 1st dog hostage and then sent one of those magazine cutout ransom notes: "End net neutrality or the pooch gets it".
That was just a great time for America when the Tea party blocked the budget! Just imagine how much greater if we had also defaulted on the debt.
None of them amounted to anything. Post scarcity societies go nowhere. They don't explore or invent things. Its a dead end.