Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Throw "Freedom" On It (Score 1) 550

This is not the danger, it will be killed quickly. The danger is when she attaches this to the an infrastructure bill, maybe the defense appropriations bill or some other essential but completely unrelated bill.

That's why it's up to us to repeatedly tell our congressmen what's up. I email mine almost weekly (Kenny Marchant) and while he does a great many things I despise I do have yet to see him sign on as a cosponsor to one of these internet restriction acts. If our congressmen begin to believe they will have to pay a political price, they'll won't want to be the first one to come out in favor of an internet restriction act. If everyone is afraid to be first, then no one will be.

Comment Re:Lift the gag order first... (Score 1) 550

No, not really. Individuals and businesses typically own the property, but the zoning of said property created "easements" which allow utilities access to certain parts of your land. Other than streets, parks and city property the utilities run on private property in my neighborhood. I'd gladly welcome someone digging up my land if it meant I would have a choice other than AT&T or Time Warner Cable, though.

Comment Re:life in the U.S. (Score 1) 255

Yes, but the FCC can't really do that even if they want to, not by themselves. Raising the definition of 'broadband' (heh heh) is something they can do, hilariously enough.

They can use their authority under the 1934 and 1996 telecommunications acts to reclassify ISPs as Title II, then mandate line sharing. They have the authority today to do this, and they should.

Comment Re:powervr (Score 2) 22

you lost me at powervr.

Quoted for truth. I love the flexibility of Intel's in-house graphics, in that they support Linux and Windows both quite well. Using PowerVR takes a lot of flexibility off the table. I suppose if your plan is to always run the manufacturer operating system and do nothing else with the tablet, this is fine. But that's never my plan when it comes to the hardware I buy.

Comment Re:ISPs don't want to take Cogent's money (Score 1) 706

You'd have a valid argument if that's not exactly the system the cable companies operated under until 2002, and the phone companies operated under until 2005. For your logic to hold, there would have been little investment by the cable companies in data service until after 2002 and by the phone companies until after 2005. But that isn't the case; since 2005 infrastructure spending by telcos and cable companies has gone DOWN.

Comment Re:They tried to raise prices 20% unnanounced (Score 1) 392

How does CableCARD work for video on demand or for less popular channels that have been moved to switched video?

On demand service will not work with a CableCard, however some providers (Comcast) offer an IP based on demand service that integrates with TiVo. I use TWC and I just have a Roku with the TWCTV app that lets me use on demand, so I don't miss it. As for switched digital video, there are SDV adapters that cable companies are required by law to give customers who have a CableCard when they offer SDV in the area. Excepting a few occasional hiccups, the SDV adapters work quite well with my TiVos (a 2 Tuner Premiere and 4 Tuner Roamio, both upgraded with 2TB HDDs).

Comment Re:They tried to raise prices 20% unnanounced (Score 3, Informative) 392

Minimum basic cable price (if I don't want to sell my entire soul to the cableco) where I am is $39.48 + $3.99 for a converter box

They blatantly lie and claim that the box is "necessary" "because digital", but it isn't. The real reason they want you to use the box is because of their unilateral insistence on encrypting even the signals that you'd otherwise be able to get unencrypted from an antenna anyway, so that they can charge you a rental fee. But even then, it still isn't necessary because you can get a CableCard instead.

When I had cable TV (only because the TV + internet bundle was cheaper than internet-only that year), I refused the box (and refused to be charged for the box) as a matter of principle.

They are prohibited by FCC mandate from encrypting over the air channels, those must be broadcast "in the clear", and with the copy protect flag set to "copy freely". You just need a tuner capable of grabbing Clear QAM signals to view it (some TVs but not all). If you see a violation of this you can report it to the FCC and they'll get in big trouble. As for the rest of the channels, Time Warner Cable is objectively the worst cable provider, in that they encrypt ALL channels (excluding the Discovery Channel) that they aren't required to decrypt by law. They also set the copy protect flag to "copy once" on all channels except those they are required not to by law. Comcast is a better TV provider than Time Warner Cable, and that's saying something. Comcast uses the copy protect flag more sparingly, and offers more Clear QAM channels. If the merger goes through the only silver lining is that my TV will get better (while my Internet gets far worse... fucking data caps should not exist on wired broadband).

Slashdot Top Deals

Like punning, programming is a play on words.