Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:The Rights View of Net Neutrality (Score 1) 945

Unfortunately, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh compose a major percentage of where conservatives get their "news". Add FOX to that mix and I bet you cover close to 95%. Any conservative who reads outside the problem networks already correctly knows the issues for and against Net Neutrality, but they're not the ones the GOP is going to be listening to when it comes down to saving their seat.

Comment Re:Shaking in my boots... (Score 1) 400

I understand what you're saying, but I have two problems with your analysis.

The first is that unlike the electrical grid, telephone and internet are *unlimited* resources, or more accurately, they are only limited by the infrastructure in place, and even then, it's usually only the last hop that limits the connection, not the backbone. So while my local cable company may indeed have trouble between 5-6 PM, that trouble is entirely within their infrastructure - it's not that "the net" is "busy".

That being said, it leads me to the second problem I have, which is that by allowing the access provider to define the last hop total bandwidth, and then partition it according to a tiered pricing plan, you are basically allowing them to set the scarcity of a 'resource' to fit whatever price they want to charge for it. It gives them absolutely no incentive to improve upon their infrastructure, just the opposite in fact. Why would they increase their overall bandwidth and reduce the scarcity that they charge a premium for?

Comment Re:Shaking in my boots... (Score 1) 400

Perhaps I am misinterpreting your sarcasm, but... It really doesn't matter what *you* do with your cell phone connection to the internet. If someone pays for access (usually up to a given Gb amount - unlimited is a whole different animal here) they should be able to use that allotment however the hell they want and not get charged yet again because they like Netflix. I'm not about to waste my allocation on a freaking video on my phone, but if someone wants to *pay* for that bandwidth then they should be able to. And your access provider should be able to charge whatever amount they feel they can justify for that bandwidth allocation, *but NOT twice*.

Comment Re:Disneyland Analogy (Score 1) 400

Not this again... By "free" I was referring to the idea that I am free to go where I want and not be charged yet again by my access provider. Sure, there are many (if not most) sites that individually may charge me for access (via ads or literal subscription - and thus pay for "the internet"), and I am free to pay the fee or not. But it's double-dipping by my access provider to hit me up for a specific site simply because they can't provide what they are charging me for. Either raise your price for access, or stop advertising "internet access" to your customer base. The problem is that the "access" providers, such as Verizon, want to be "content" providers, even though they aren't actually producing the content. Cable TV has been doing this for decades.

Comment Disneyland Analogy (Score 4, Insightful) 400

There was a time, not so long ago, when a good business strategy was to make you product as appealing as possible so that everyone would want to buy it. That's exactly the opposite of today. Today, the business models for the major carriers all focus on just how much they can screw us for before we yelp. They are literally destroying their own market. The reason the internet has been so successful is that once you have paid for access, where you go has been mostly free. This is like Disneyland going back to a ticket system. The only real question is, who will be the "E" ticket rides...

Comment 15 Days? (Score 3, Insightful) 212

Forgive my ignorance, but why the delay? Is this "punishment" for not viewing it when it's broadcast? I mean, why wait more than 24 hours? If you are that much of a fan of a show, you're going to watch it when it airs, yes? And if you already have NetFlix, then offering it more quickly would just increase your chances of acquiring new viewers that might turn into fans who might just watch it when it airs. If you are already a fan, then it's just gravy in case you miss an episode. So where is the advantage to waiting?

Comment Re:The government IS causing the loss of value (Score 1) 424

Our local paper (yes, I'm local to the house. Another family member lives just beyond the evac zone) mentioned that the bomb squad HAD tried a robot, but that they felt (an so did many other experts) that they could not safely use even a robot to remove the materials. Keep in mind that there are homes to either side of the house in question. I have heard that they are going to shield the other homes, but I for one wouldn't want to be hear they are going to do a 'controlled burn' of the explosively volitile structure 10 feet away from my living room...

Comment Not to be morbid, but... (Score 3, Insightful) 1018

Attacking the U.S. government was dangerous enough, but with the amount of collective money behind the banks, pharma and energy, I sure wouldn't want to be anyone associated with WikiLeaks right now. A ten-million dollar per head contract for these people would be chump change for the companies involved.

Comment Re:Cable and Internet companys care (Score 1) 548

As a cable company, you offer TWO completely *different* and separate services. You offer TV programming, and you offer internet access. The fact that NetFlix uses your internet access IN NO WAY impedes on your ability to provide TV programming. There is no direct competition, save for literal eyes, and that has to do with the actual content provided, which you have little or no control over from the networks. So sorry your pay-per-view service isn't working out for you. If you don't have the resources to 'compete' with services like NetFlix, then maybe you should stick to just providing the pipe, yes? Cable companies need to stop trying to be 'content providers' and remember that they are really just 'access providers'.

Comment Re:A Simple Solution (Score 1) 548

No, the guy using his ISP connection for just email wouldn't be paying enough to cover the cost of the pipe and the connection in the first place. It would also completely remove the ISP's incentive to increase their infrastructure. More so, how long do you really think it will be before content goes completely on-demand? I ditched my cable TV service months ago, using only NetFlix and other sources for my entertainment needs, and I'm not alone. Knowing that it's all going to be about pipe size (actual use is almost meaningless to the provider from a cost standpoint - save for how it impacts THEIR network), the ISP's will immediately start double dipping. They'll charge you for usage AND a "base" infrastructure fee. They may even triple dip by adding on special 'access fees' for services like NetFlix or VoIP.

Comment Hulu Hypocrisy (Score 1) 338

I see. Hulu says you can't play their content on Google TV... nor an iPhone... UNLESS you pay them for it. Hulu Plus. But the very same content can be had for free if I happen to have my laptop with me. So, is their plan to slowly pick and choose who they want to have to pay? I predict Hulu Plus for Google TV any day now.

God, I hate Flash.

Slashdot Top Deals

The moving cursor writes, and having written, blinks on.

Working...