For a smart umbrella it's pretty dumb.
For a smart umbrella it's pretty dumb.
CBS All Access"
It's not really obscure. They already have about a million subscribers and it may already profitable, though they don't seem to have released individual numbers for the HBO and CBS streaming services so it's impossible to tell. The new content will almost certainly help increase those numbers.
For decades there have been people saying that wanted cable TV to let them buy individual channels instead of a bundle because the increased cost for the handful of channels they want would still be cheaper than the bundled price for 300 channels that they don't want. This gives them what they asked for and it turns out that about a million people weren't just talking out of their ass.
It's pointless to talk about numbers we don't actually know so I'll just address the fact that CBS is not a cable channel, they are a national network of OTA TV stations that anyone in the US can already watch for free. You can even buy a cheap USB TV tuner and record it if you want to watch something later. The only way I'd ever consider paying for it is if I were living abroad but they say they restrict access to only the US and I don't know how much VPN wack-a-mole they do.
They have multiple roles that can be summed up as THE BOSS of the show. Shows have several writers, directors (often changing every episode), and producers but the showrunner usually does all of those things and makes sure everything else is running smoothly. It really is simply that they run the show.
"CBS All Access" should tell you everything you need to know about this show. It's not network TV where everyone can watch it, it's not cable TV, it's not big budget premium channel TV, it's not big budget netflix/amazon streaming originals, it is a network TV channel's obscure streaming site that they are trying to lure nerds into paying for.
It's a self-explanatory term. The person who runs the show and has the highest control over it.
Forgot to mention that the ISP's could also pressure any device manufacturer to secure their products better and all the customers with devices that are inherently insecure could take legal action against the device manufacturers for a defective product.
By that logic why limit it to only IoT. Everything connected to the net should be held accountable which starts with ISP's holding each other and their customers accountable. ISP's need automated ways of telling each other about unwanted DDoS traffic in real time, or even just identifying members of botnets after an attack, and then demanding that those customers be warned/taken offline until they secure their local networks. If an ISP fails to act then their peering links would start getting throttled progressively more until either they fix the problem or they get cut off entirely.
The "we don't know exactly" quote wreaks of bad journalism. It was probably taken way out of context because the author didn't understand what they were being told or they asked a slightly different question than what they wrote.
First off all, ISP's ought to automatically detect abnormal traffic patterns to their clients and start blocking it in a temporary access control list that would expire after some time. There should be a protocol to share this temporary ACL upstream (how far upstream TBD depending on the size of the ACL vs how much routers can fit in RAM). If a source address is continually on the ACL then the ISP owning the address should be automatically notified so that they can take action against the client. If an ISP doesn't take action to cut off these users until they clean any infections / stop being malicious then other ISP's should cut off that ISP.
Yes it would be painful at first but the more that ISP's police each other and their clients then the more botnets would shrink.
whereas the beauty of Uber is, I'm not expected to tip.
Yes, the beauty of Uber is that they told all their customers there is no need to tip and prevented drivers from accepting tips (some would anyways but doing so risked getting kicked off forever) because Uber wants to treat their drivers as neither employees nor contractors. They just settled a huge class action lawsuit a few months ago (might not be finalized yet, too lazy to look) over the "no tips" thing because they mislead customers to believe that tips are already included in the fair (they aren't) and prevented drivers from accepting tips from the few riders kind enough to try to tip anyways.
Uber abuses the hell out of their drivers all in the name of keeping fares low, riders happy, and their own profits up.
It has become common for mobile carriers to give "free" data for certain things which is called 0-rating and many other similar terms. It is usually because those things are popular and use low amounts of data/low steady streams of data that don't cause big delays for other users on the network, or because someone else is paying for it (like facebook and wikipedia paid carriers in India for their services to be "free" to the end users).
The problem with this is that it is giving an unfair advantage to everything that is 0-rated and can actually encourage people to use more bandwidth than what they really want to use. For instance, if streaming audio (pandora, spotify, etc.) uses your data cap but streaming video doesn't then you will be much more likely to stream music videos from youtube even though it uses ~5x the bandwidth or w/e.
If carriers want to encourage us to use low bandwidth then they should just sell data rates like wired ISP's do and use bursting. ie. if you haven't been using the network for a while then the first 10MB can burst at 100mbps but then it will be throttled to 2mbps or w/e and if you pay extra then it will be 3mbps, 4mbps, etc. Then when people first start using the connection it will load things very quickly but if they continue using it then it will be at a low rate that doesn't affect others much.
In your view of what net neutrality is, how can throttling P2P still be considered a violation since it was the primary motivator of the movement? What you described would allow them to throttle P2P however they like as long as they didn't use the protocols themselves.
There is a huge difference between protocols handling data differently as part of their design (ie. UDP doesn't guarantee delivery, TCP does) and ISP's throttling specific content. Everything at layer 7 should be considered off limits for ISP's to fuck with.
The problem is that nobody understands what net neutrality actually is and they get distracted by "free" stuff that takes away their FREEdom.
Network neutrality is about transporting all data the same regardless of what content it is or where it came from, so yes it does say certain types of content can not be treated differently.
Even if we go down your rabbit hole, they are only throttling certain protocols/codecs that they can detect so lots of less popular protocols/codecs are not throttled and any hot new protocols/codecs wouldn't be either. How is it fair if your video is throttled for using a certain protocol/codec but mine isn't because I used something different? Hell, any site that wants to avoid the throttling could just encrypt it to bypass the content detection system.
Seriously read up on your history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The term arose when ISP's were throttling P2P traffic and is about treating all DATA equally similar to how telephone network "common carrier" laws made them treat all calls (data) equally. Networks slowing competitors is just an example of the degenerate behavior that could happen without neutrality to all data.
"Consider a spherical bear, in simple harmonic motion..." -- Professor in the UCB physics department