No, the article mischaracterizes the ruling. The ruling actually states that the FCC has the authority to regulate net neutrality, just not in the way they did.
Making a tollbooth for the internet sounds like a tall order.
Net neutrality is dead. Bow to Comcast and Verizon, your overlords - latimes.com
My fear with net neutrality going away was that ISPs could throttle bittorrent traffic and not take much flak because most users don't bittorrent a ton of things and it's generally used illegally.
But now that so many people are streaming video it's going to be tough for an ISP to throttle that bandwidth without outrage. Even if the federal government doesn't believe it's constitutional to force net neutrality on private businesses I'm somewhat hesitant to believe that ISPs will be able to successfully throttle network traffic in a significant and profitable way.
I changed the title, because this forum has more journalistic integrity than the LA Times.
Last edited by Tuco; 01-17-2014 at 04:23 PM.
Well that's easy, they market it as a feature. They aren't restricting bandwidth, they are offering an exciting new internet package known as Netfinity that will offer high speed connectivity to a large group of media related websites! It would be a gradual thing, I am sure. But I don't think there would be all that much backlash, Americans are able to tolerate an awful lot without backlash as long as you're not on Duck Dynasty.
But I'm staying positive on this. It seems like this was more of a formality than anything and the FCC will just have to go fix their shit.
Now they will be able to offer different tier packages that allow you to have access to high data stream sites like youtube but to prevent to much backlash everyone will get a basic amount of youtube videos or data rates and of course yahoo/Comcast/insert proprietary video service is free to all subscribers of all package levels. Sites like TPB will be blocked or bandwidth capped to 1/kb an hour or something at providers discretion. Now pre-authorized/verified torrent traffic will be allowed (and if you are a higher package subscriber you get access to higher speeds for your pre-authorized torrents!) but all other torrents will be capped. Of course exclusive partnered sites will (at a slight cost) be able to bring you all of their content at the highest speeds for free!
Thinking of ways they could creatively screw us in nice flowery language is just far to easy.
Yeah there's a lot of sneaky ways for ISPs to eventually move their internet service to align with TV service, it remains to be seen how it will play out if they get that leeway.
The root problem will always be the high entrance cost of being an ISP. Tough to really mitigate that without dramatic technology changes, a new huge company taking advantage of a huge drop in quality by entering the ISP business (aka google) or federal intervention.
Some educated comment apparently :
reddit comment on D.C. circuit Strikes down FCC's net neutrality Rules
This is shaping up to be a very controversial decision and, considering the misdirected angst toward the court in other thread, will likely be widely misinterpreted by people who don't understand it. That's not to say it's easy to understand; it's actually very difficult to understand, which is all the more reason not to trust headlines from /r/politics and TMZ. So, against my sense of caution, I'm going to offer just a brief explanation of why the court reached this decision (brief because it's also difficult for me to understand...).
Let's back up and get a tiny bit of information about the FCC powers. The FCC is empowered by the Communications Act of 1934. They are further empowered by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is pretty much the only significant overall of communications law since the 1934 act. The Telecommunications Act gives the FCC certain expansive powers in regulating "common carriers." Specifically:
By virtue of their designation as common carriers, providers of basic services were subject to the duties that apply to such entities, including that they “furnish . . . communication service upon reasonable request,” 47 U.S.C. § 201(a), engage in no “unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services,” id. § 202(a), and charge “just and reasonable” rates, id.
The FCC could force a "common carrier" to provide a service to all reasonable customer requests at the same rate, without discrimination. This common carrier designation only applies to companies providing telecommunications services, and only to the extent that they do so. 47 USC § 153(51) ("A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this chapter only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services..."). The FCC is allowed to regulate other providers in other ways, but the authority to force a company to treat all customers equally only applies to common carriers.
Now let's look at the net neutrality regulations that are at issue in this case. The court says:
The Order first imposes a transparency requirement on both fixed and mobile broadband providers. . . .Second, the Order imposes anti-blocking requirements on both types of broadband providers. It prohibits fixed broadband providers from “block[ing] lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.” . . . Third, the Order imposes an anti-discrimination requirement on fixed broadband providers only. Under this rule, such providers “shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.”
So the regulations promulgated by the FCC impose 1) transparency requirements, 2) anti-blocking requirements, and 3) anti-discrimination requirements. As to the latter two, those sound very similar to the sorts of regulations that the FCC only has the power impose on common carriers. This wouldn't be an issue if the Verizon services were considered common carriers, but by the FCC's own rules they're not. Expressly not. The FCC has instead chosen to classify broadband providers as "information services," not telecommunications providers. And as § 153 of the Telecommunications Act says, only telecommunications providers can be common carriers.
We think it obvious that the Commission would violate the Communications Act were it to regulate broadband providers as common carriers. Given the Commission’s still-binding decision to classify broadband providers not as providers of “telecommunications services” but instead as providers of “information services,” see supra at 9-10, such treatment would run afoul of section 153(51)
So the remainder of the decision - the important part - deals with whether those last two regulations (anti-discrimination and anti-blocking) are common carrier regulations. If they are, the FCC has drawn its own box here. It can't call something an information service provider and then regulate it as if it were a telecommunications provider.
Thus, we must determine whether the requirements imposed by the Open Internet Order subject broadband providers to common carrier treatment. If they do, then given the manner in which the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers, the regulations cannot stand.
(Another problem is it's classification of mobile broadband providers as "private" instead of "commercial" services, but that's more complexity than is needed for this post ("Likewise, because the Commission has classified mobile broadband service as a “private” mobile service, and not a “commercial” mobile service, see Wireless Broadband Order, 22 F.C.C.R. at 5921 U 56, treatment of mobile broadband providers as common carriers would violate section 332: . . .))
The FCC responds to this by arguing that the end users (you guys and gals at home) are the customers, not the "edge providers" (the websites and such). Since the FCC is only regulating treatment of edge providers, it's not subjecting the companies to common carrier treatment because they're still free to discriminate against the end user (i.e., charge different rates, choose not to provide service, etc.). The court dismisses that out of hand.
It is true, generally speaking, that the “customers” of broadband providers are end users. But that hardly means that broadband providers could not also be carriers with respect to edge providers. . . . Because broadband providers furnish a service to edge providers, thus undoubtedly functioning as edge providers’ “carriers,” the obligations that the Commission imposes on broadband providers may well constitute common carriage per se regardless of whether edge providers are broadband providers’ principal customers.
They make a couple more weak arguments, such as: 1) that edge providers never "request" service, technically, and 2) never pay for the service, arguing that those are requirements for common carrier status. The court responds that those aren't actually requirements, they are incidental. In any case, the fact that the edge providers haven't done something yet doesn't mean that the rule doesn't impose restrictions on the company. These all strike me as strangely weak arguments...
The court then sinks the last nail into the coffin of the regulation by discussing how the FCC has not even attempted to argue that the regulations aren't essentially the same as common carrier requirements. (I'll leave out most of the complicated stuff, but you can go to the decision if you want to read specifics.)
We have little hesitation in concluding that the anti-discrimination obligation imposed on fixed broadband providers has “relegated [those providers], pro tanto, to common carrier status.” Midwest Video II, 440 U.S. at 700-01. In requiring broadband providers to serve all edge providers without “unreasonable discrimination,” this rule by its very terms compels those providers to hold themselves out “to serve the public indiscriminately.” NARUCI, 525 F.2d at 642.
Having relied almost entirely on the flawed argument that broadband providers are not carriers with respect to edge providers, the Commission offers little response on this point.
Significantly for our purposes, the Commission never argues that the Open Internet Order’s “no unreasonable discrimination” standard somehow differs from the nondiscrimination standard applied to common carriers generally—the argument that salvaged the data roaming requirements in Cellco. In a footnote in the Order itself, the Commission suggested that it viewed the rule’s allowance for “reasonable network management” as establishing treatment that was somehow inconsistent with per se common carriage. See Open Internet Order, 25 F.C.C.R. at 17951 U 79 n.251. But the Commission has forfeited this argument by failing to raise it in its briefs here.
In any event, the argument is without merit. . . . The Commission has provided no basis for concluding that in permitting “reasonable” network management, and in prohibiting merely “unreasonable” discrimination, the Order's standard of “reasonableness” might be more permissive than the quintessential common carrier standard.
Whatever the merits of this view, the Commission advanced nothing like it either in the underlying Order or in its briefs before this court. Instead, it makes no distinction at all between the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules, seeking to justify both types of rules with explanations that, as we have explained, are patently insufficient. We are unable to sustain the Commission’s action on a ground upon which the agency itself never relied. . . .. Nor may we defer to a reading of a statutory term that the Commission never offered.
So, now we can go all the way back to page 4 of the brief and sink our teeth into the actual holding here - i.e., the reason why the court struck down the net neutrality regulations:
Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order.
TL;DR: The parts of the Open Internet Order that imposed regulations concerning net neutrality were vacated because the FCC classified internet providers as "information services," not "telecommunication services." The anti-blocking and anti-discrimination requirements, according to statute, can only be imposed on types of telecommunication services. It's the FCC's own fault, not a government conspiracy against net neutrality.
Not everything on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
You guys are fucked, pray the lord Google Fiber, Mouahahahahahahahah !
Not everything on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Cable providers are butthurt that young people don't want to pay wallet raping fees for cable TV, so they want to apply that to the internet instead.
Lets just give these Monopoly corporations the benefit of the doubt because free market, they have our best interests at heart, the government is scary lol, im fucking retarded etc
Net neutrality as a term is a big part of the problem. "D.C. circuit Strikes down FCC's net freedom" would make a lot more sense.
I know quite a few people who have dumped the cable subs, and from what I understand, it is growing, so it wouldn't surprise me to see the cable companies use this as a method for their next cash grab.
If they would stop the bullshit, charging me for channels that suck and do not interest me (hi, ESPN and every related sports channel) and let me pick what I WANT, maybe they would not be losing subs faster than SWTOR did. They wont though, so they have to find more ways to rape us.
I am at the opposite end of the spectrum there, but most of my friends feel the same way you do. In the end, paying for channels you never watch is a bad idea. This relates because eventually I can see Time Warner (our cable provider) charging us to extra each month for the "privilege" of streaming from some channel that only broadcasts Duck Dynasty. Dont want to watch that? Too bad, you are paying for it anyways.
Just think, you're paying for all the porn you don't watch!
Take a month off watch companies crumble )
Obviously the the monopolistic cable companies are scumbags, but if you are torrenting everything you are pushing them into the ass fucking they are going to give everyone. Obviously no one is going to produce the Dark Knight or Breaking Bad or anything else just for people to torrent. If you are torrenting it then you are a leech on the system and once the leeches reach a certain percentage the system breaks and nobody is interested in making these shows anymore.
With regard to bundling, ala carte channels sound nice but if it goes that way then I hope your viewing preferences are in line with the least common denominator. The only way half of the channels on cable exist are due to bundling. You might not like paying for ESPN or Duck Dynasty, but there are a lot of ESPN and Duck Dynasty viewers that aren't interested in Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones or whatever show you watch. Ala Carte channels will lead to higher prices per channel or more likely just a lot of the content going away. Maybe you will be lucky and all the content that goes away will be stuff that you don't like, but be careful what you wish for. Duck Dynasty has much better ratings than Game of Thrones and costs way, way less to produce. If you love Mad Men and hate Desperate Housewives you are the one that is getting subsidized by bundling and not the other way around.
Last edited by BrutulTM; 01-21-2014 at 03:31 PM.
As far as bundling goes, I can't imagine a planet where I would end up paying more than I do now. I'd maybe subscribe to a dozen channels at the most. If you look at how many retarded ass channels there are, bundling has gotten out of control. Honestly, your argument about shows like Mad Men being subsidized sounds like fear mongering that distributors would use.
Between Netflix, borrowing from friends, and Black Friday DVD purchases I don't see any reason to have a cable subscription. All the gamer entertainment content I want is 100% online. If I want to watch a Let's Play, a streamer, a reviewer, or any tournament ever it's the internet or nothing.
The last film I pirated I regretted even bothering.
Maybe, but it has at least a grain of truth to it. Without bundling Mad Men never would have happened, AMC never would have had an audience or the balls to go for it. But because everyone gets AMC as part of the basic cable package, they had an opportunity to expand their programming and took it.
What do you mean, "where music is now"? Do you mean that the profitability of the industry is in rough shape as compared to in the past? Or that there's less original music being produced and released? Or that the quality of all music made has declined? I would imagine you're probably getting to the latter, in which case, I call fucking bullshit. People always think that music was better in the past. And yet somehow, classics keep getting made. And further, the most monetarily successful music in the modern age has always, always, been composed primarily of shit because the general public has awful taste. And amongst all that clutter, there's some actual decent music here and there, but you have to go looking for it. That hasn't changed one fucking bit. Milli Vanilli was well before Napster, bro.
edit: I mean fuck, look at Elvis. Arguably one of the first mega-music acts of the modern age. Sure he made some good music here and there, but most of his success was a result of the same shit Miley Cyrus is doing today: controversy and pushing boundaries and established norms.
Last edited by Eomer; 01-21-2014 at 08:09 PM.
Can't say I'd mind much, or even notice, if 90% of the television industry was thrown over a cliff.
Are there actual numbers on how many subs cable is losing/gaining by the year? I imagine that the people dropping their subs for online content are still a vast minority, we probably overstate it here because we are the kinds of people who would do it and have peer groups doing so as well. But middle America, old people, rednecks, lower classes, most of the middle class, the majority of families with kids....I just assume that dropped subs for internet is fairly minor. Not to say the cable companies still aren't preparing to compensate, but its not exactly the apocalypse that MP3's were for record stores. At least not yet.
I saved like $80 and I didn't even have any premium channels. Netflix streaming is $7.99 a month...
Cable TV is becoming way too expensive for what it provides for the average user. Im with the above here, my whole family maybe watches a total of 10 channels aside the major networks we could get for free out of the 300?? I pay for? And my cable bill is bundled, but I think its around $140ish a month? Thats fucking crazy if you think about it. And no, we dont have premium channels either.
Im also a netflicks member and thats pretty much all my kids watch anymore. It has all their favorite shows on them. From Discovery channel shit down to the cartoons they still watch. I could go woithout TV as well, but its the wife which is the hold out. I dont think I culd convince her to do without.
But if you think about it, regardless, someone has to pay for that shit. If we all cancelled cable and went with netflix or Amazon or whatever, either all the shows would get cut and not made anymore, or we would be paying a ton more for the streaming content. Oh and with commercials we would not be able to FFW through.
Last edited by mkopec; 01-21-2014 at 09:52 PM.
DVR "Rental" fees need to be banned as well
I think it's a bit of hyperbole to say that a 10% decline means that cable TV is history. Obviously the internet is taking a chunk out of it, but the other way to look at is that they still have 90% of their subscribers. I know a few people who don't pay for cable/satellite but I know a lot more that do. It is true that those who don't tend to be on the younger side.
Seems like a bigger sticking point, and why net neutrality is an issue, is that many of us are stuck getting our internet from the same cable companies so they are just going to turn around and make up the money in different ways eventually. Especially with gaming and multiple people gaming or using broadband. I can't get FIOS still I don't think so the top tier cable package is what I'm "forced" to use. I don't know how expensive FIOS is anyway, but that's the only non-cable/satellite TV ISP that comes to mind. Verizon DSL probably would be a downgrade from my cable broadband.
Personally, the only reason I don't cancel by cable TV is because of sports. That's the only reason. My girlfriend doesn't even watch TV, nor do I. I try every now and then, and all I can fucking find is absolute shit reality TV and Big Bang Theory. Fuck, even my former go-to channels like A&E, Discovery, TLC, History and so on that you could depend on to have interesting documentaries and knowledge oriented programming are frequently dominated by reality TV or worse, "Did Aliens pollinate the Earth?" type bullshit programming catering to the fucking morons of this world. It's just awful.
Hopefully with the Rogers/NHL deal, I'll have better options for digital streaming of Oilers games next year. As I understand it, Gamecenter still have a lot of caveats and local blackouts and shit that are designed to make it a supplement to watching games on cable. That should all fall away starting next year with the new TV deal. I'd gladly pay $200-300 a year to be able to stream all Oilers games in HD, so I can save $1,000+ on cable.
I finally cancelled but waited until my NFL team was out of playoff contention. I've been catching playoff games at the bar and/or streaming. I'll have to consider what to do next season but its worth it. There's premium pay pirated streams out there and if Verizon does their cheap ass streaming NFL package again I'm sure there's ways to make that work. Maybe not in "stunning HD" on a huge flat screen TV but fuck it, my TV isn't even that great anyway.
Well yeah, that was my whole point. and you are right, it is the advertizing that supports the shows for the most part, but lets not forget that alot of the content is subsidized by the cable companies and their contracts too. Im just bad at words. But thats exactly right. They will either force advertizing down our throats through the streaming services and make internet more expensive to offset their losses on cable. Which is counter to what makes the streaming media sites so tempting right now. Watch what you want to watch, when you want to watch it, with no advertizing for a small piddly monthly fee, right?
Also, I do not understand how advertizing is not losing revenue with all the streaming, DVR, internet,...etc... They have to be losing some money there I would think??
I mean, the whole "but there will be no money for your favorite shows" argument is lost on me because its not just the prices and convenience. Outside of sports I've grown to loathe TV, even the "good" shows. The whole thing gets really theoretically funky for me in an abstract metaphysical way. If you follow our train of thought here, the advertisers are paying for commercial time so we go buy their products. Which we do, and probably do despite advertising in many cases. So we are paying them to pay the cable companies, who we are also paying, to deliver us more content that exists entirely so that they can advertise in hopes we go out and pay for their products. Pretty circular. I've gotten to a point where I feel like I've really looked behind the curtain. I'm just very jaded and can't suspend disbelief anymore watching TV. All I see is a sound stage that exists solely for the purpose of some corporation being able to beam their latest marketing slogan into my skull. The less I watch the more even the best shows seem so trite and removed from the real world of people living and being active individuals.
I know sports are essentially the same but I still find them more compelling. I do have reservations about what sort of organization I'm supporting at times though, especially the NFL. But they've got a good hook with their product and I still find it more real than some drama or sitcom.
Last edited by Famm; 01-21-2014 at 10:16 PM.
So again I ask you or someone else, are the advertisers noticing any of this yet? Im assuming such recording contraptions are only in just a small segment of American homes, but surely this has to be affecting them somehow? Or are we just realizing that advertizing does shit all and we would buy that shit regardless?
Your point about DVR's and peoples growing attachment to skipping commercials is certainly true though but that's partly because commercials are usually uninteresting and "forced" on the viewer at inconvenient times. Everyone hates it when the good scene is interrupted by a commercial even though that's how the show was designed. When given the ability to skip that annoyance people flock to it. It annoys me so much I usually prefer to wait until entire seasons are over just to skip over middle/end of episode cliffhangers.
Last edited by Selix; 01-21-2014 at 10:48 PM.
That link I posted above goes into it a bit. Seems that marketing has lagged in responding to the shift but they are starting to take notice. The thing is though that TV still provides a unique opportunity to them, which is to target a large chunk of audience at a specific time. Which is why super bowl ads are still record breaking expensive.
But that would seem to play into the DVR and streaming dynamic. More and more people are interested in doing just what Selix said. You just wait and watch a whole season at once some rainy weekend. The days of "must see TV" or appointment television are dwindling for shows. In the 90's for example it was like the night Seinfeld aired or new episodes of Friends and the resultant next day water cooler talk. These days in the office you hear people's conversations more like "I haven't gotten that far yet" "oh, then I won't ruin it for you!". Sports are more unique in that regard since its live and the big game results will be all over the media and everyone's lips the next day. We just had this talk in the NFL thread in regards to the league's incredibly heavy advertising loads during games. Most people aren't going to DVR it to watch later, they will sit through ads to view it live.
Reality TV has possibly filled that void a bit because it can make for water cooler sort of event television. But ever since American Idol gave way to like Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo Boo its become an over saturated genre. And those basic cable channels have enormous blocks of dead time to fill, unlike networks, so they just run marathon blocks of their hit reality shows all the time anyway.
The ads are still getting bang for the buck even though they cost more than ever, precisely because the opportunities to grab prime spots where "appointment television" still exists are more valuable than ever. When TV was pretty much all there was, pre smartphones and internet, they could carpet bomb the channel lineup. Now the opportunity to reach a giant segment at once is even more prized because you just can't do it in any other medium. When its a normal day with no major TV event, people's attention is split among various devices and of course they are skipping ads in one way or another.
I'd say that's why cable companies are going into panic modes faster than advertisers. The more TV loses ratings, the more of those blocks of captive audience they lose, and the less appealing TV will be for marketing dollars.
Last edited by Famm; 01-21-2014 at 11:09 PM.
Pretty good article on this topic.
Cable TV Model Not Just Unpopular But Unsustainable - Forbes
Advocacy groups like Consumers Union have long pushed for an à la carte solution, in which customers can pick and choose which channels they want to pay for. Senator John McCain has even proposed recent legislation to that end (with muted support in Congress it should be noted). The populist appeal of such a move is obvious. Under the current model, a high value channel like ESPN costs $5.54 per subscriber according to SNL Kagan. The rub is that you’re paying that rate whether you want to watch ESPN or not.
There is a significant obstacle to getting cable companies to unbundle channels, however. Bundling is exactly how channels are being licensed to cable operators by the media companies themselves. Disney owns ESPN and when a cable distributor wants to carry the country’s premiere basic cable channel, Disney includes it in their own bundle of less popular channels like ESPN Classic. Disney can’t charge a per subscriber rate anywhere near as much for ESPN Classic, of course – think cents not dollars – but each additional channel Disney airs is an additional opportunity to sell advertising.
And if Disney were somehow convinced to sell ESPN in an à la carte model? With non-sports fans dropping the channel, Disney would need to charge a substantially higher per subscriber rate to maintain the same revenue from a now smaller pool of subscribers. While some of you may not shed a tear for the sports fan forced to pay perhaps $30 instead of $5.54 for a single channel, the same fate would befall high value channels that you do want to watch. In addition, cable companies have long argued that less popular channels would not be economically viable in an à la carte model and would simply be dropped altogether.
And if you’re wondering why a sports channel is commanding the highest fees to distributors, look no further than the huge sums ESPN pays to televise live sports. The network’s N.F.L. contract to broadcast Monday Night Football games through 2021 for example is a staggering $15.2 billion. That’s a lot of money but it’s a cost industry watchers are confident the network can absorb because of the ESPN subscriber rate everyone is paying on their monthly bill. It’s clear that under the current programming and distribution model that eliminating the bundling option is not going to lower costs to the consumer.
As for the decision, there was good and bad. The reddit comment covers the bad, but not the good. This stuff gets pretty complicated, it's administrative law, which is its own whole separate body of law. The gist of it that Congress (or other branches of government) will delegate some power to an administrative body to handle shit, like communications. Congress often grants pretty broad powers, like, to make up an example "you have the power to adopt regulations reasonably related to keeping water clean". The admin. body then sets about handling shit. When one of its rules or regulations is challenged, the question is did it act within the scope of the authority granted to it by Congress. The body needs to point to some statute and say, see, that's why we can do what we did.
There's a number of statutes that grant the FCC a number of powers. In the net neutrality case, the FCC pointed to a statute and said this is where we get the power to enact the net neutrality regulations. A few years ago, the FCC held the opposite position. It had said that the particular statute did not give it these powers. So Verizon said, the statue doesn't give the FCC any powers at all, the FCC had already said so and it can't change it's mind for no reason, and, even if the statute does give the FCC powers, it's only so much power, like a 4 out of 10. This net neutrality stuff is way beyond the scope of what it can do. It's like a 10.
The Court decided the statue does give the FCC powers, the FCC is free to change its mind about the statue , and the statute gives the FCC broad powers, like a 9 out of 10. But, the net neutrality rules were a step too far.
The ISPs are def not happy that the Court decided the statute at issue gave the FCC any power at all, much less really broad power.
Last edited by Simas; 01-22-2014 at 01:32 AM.
But the shit I think of as classics someone like my wife probably just thinks is shit. And the reverse is true, also. Which is kind of what I'm saying about the bundling. I really like the Cooking channel in HD. Do I like it enough to pay 15 bucks a month for it after they do away with bundling? Probably not.I probably don't even like it enough to torrent the shows that would be produced in the death throes of the network. They are going to have to figure out a way to compete wit the internet but they don't have it now, and right now we all benefit from the shitty, horrible way the system is run. At least in some small way.
I think quite a bit of existing channels where they have needles 3-4 versions of the same shit (MTV1 through MTV1,124, Cooking channels, Disney channels, Music channels, etc.) would find themselves combining. But more importantly a large number of shows would probably just go online and become videos or podcast episodes. This is certainty where I see the future headed anyway.
In the future the real advertisement king will be online targeted ads al la Google and Amazon anyway. Imagine if google bought the streaming rights to the NFL for youtube.
The next thing cable companies will be going too is cloud based DVR's, so they can insert ads and you can't skip them.
You don't really need to have a 24/7 broadcast schedule "channel" anymore. You want to watch the new game of thrones? Its available starting Sunday night at 9 PM eastern. Pay X amount and watch it when ever you feel like. Need to catch up on the entire series? Pay X amount per episode, or Y amount for the whole season, or Z amount for the entire series archive and watch when you want. Hell, I can see it being an extra fee for subsequent viewings after the first, and I'm cool with that, I get that these things need to make money. But the entire delivery model is outdated and the companies that don't evolve with the times are going to get fucked in the long run just like much of the recording industry and the home video industry.
As much as everybody hates commercials, that model still makes sense and we should probably plan on not being able to skip them in the future. It would be interesting if they just gave you the option to choose. Like when you click on a show on your cloud DVR you could watch it with commercials for free or without them for $1. I really don't know how people would go on that or even how I would go. I think for my favorite shows it would be worth a buck to watch without commercials. Especially in serious dramas (Breaking Bad, Justified, Mad Men) the commercials really take you out of it even if you're fast forwarding them on the DVR.
I'm going to try and figure out a way to solve my sports watching problems. If I can figure it out by the summer, I'll probably go without cable (well, DirecTV) forever. I can use that money to get a higher tier internet package for better streaming/quicker torrenting. Could probably use some of that money to buy a new HTPC too.
I know everyone in the NFL thread always talks about that, but how is the quality?
I found the quality to be absolute top notch (as far as streaming goes) the one year he tried to share his log in with all of us before they promptly clamped down. That's probably what I'll do this year now that I cut off cable TV.
The quality is fantastic. Most of the streams are in HD. You'll need a solid internet connection, especially if you stream your team's game, along with redzone(I'll switch over during commercial breaks).
The only issues I've ever run into are the streams occasionally crapping out/running slow. It's frequent enough to be annoying, but not frequent enough to keep it from being be an amazing deal.
Last edited by Kirun; 01-22-2014 at 10:09 PM.
You also are able to watch stuff that doesn't air in the states. I've watched a few Cricket matches on there.
PSN: Araxen, Xbox Live: Araxen II, WiiU: Araxen, Steam: Araxen
Fuck this thread is really making me consider ditching my directtv and going full stream/torrent.
How does this fit into your tv/advertising concept for america
In many countries, including the United States, television campaign advertisements are considered indispensable for a political campaign. In other countries, such as France, political advertising on television is heavily restricted, while some countries, such as Norway, completely ban political ads.Spoiler:
Last edited by fanaskin; 01-23-2014 at 12:22 AM.
I've been a subscriber of mma-tv.net for over a year now. It might be the best subscription service I've ever had. Every sport. There might be only five Reds games I won't get a season (there are a limited number of channels and European sports are pretty popular on there) and a few Warriors games. Other than that, I get everything. Even Cincinnati Bearcat games - basketball and football. Not only that, but you also typically get the more popular TV shows. They air in Eastern time, but I don't mind. Archer, Justified, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire. Really, sports and those select few shows are all I care about. MMATV is the shit.
Interesting video above if you watch the whole thing.
The thing that scares me the most about this is now were at the mercy of the ISP regarding content. Correct me if im wrong, but they can now block whatever they deem as counter intuitive to their business. And push whatever suits their goals.
digital millennium copyright act is probably just as bad as net neutrality which is just another tool in the toolbox to squash the little guy.
Yeah I have been on the fence about getting a VPN for a while now. The only problem is, that only really handles traffic to and from a computer. Other devices, not so much. So like your PS3/4 or Xbox or Roku or whatever won't be able to take advantage of that unless you have a proxy in your house you can run everything through.
You can setup your vpn on many managed routers.
What about Uverse all in one thing they got set up in my house?
Been waiting for him to chime in for 6 years.
Hey, maybe you shouldn't have appointed Tom Wheeler to the Chairman of the FCC if you were for Net Neutrality? Maybe you could have appointed a guy that was also for it instead of a guy that instantly began dismantling what little neutrality there was? Wheeler used to be a lobbyist for the cable companies for fuck's sake.
I mean, I'm glad that Obama is saying these words but his actions thus far on this issue have been piss goddamn poor.
Obama saying that shit after appointing Wheeler is like a gay saying he isn't gay but his boyfriend is, while he is fucking him from behind.
Like, Wheeler immediately began dismantling what little neutrality there was.
Amazon, Google, Facebook and Others Disagree With FCC Rules on Net Neutrality - WSJ
Now, if Obama can get something done than great. But he's already done some pretty systemic damage with his appointment of Wheeler.In late April 2014, the contours of a document leaked that indicated that Wheeler's FCC would consider promulgating rules allowing Internet service providers (ISPs) to violate net neutrality principles by making it easier for Internet users to access certain content — whose owners paid fees to the ISPs (including cable companies and wireless ISPs) — and harder to access other content, thus undermining the traditional open architecture of the Internet. These plans have received substantial backlash from activists, the mainstream press, and some other FCC commissioners. In May 2014, over 100 internet companies including Google, Microsoft, eBay, and Facebook signed a letter to Wheeler voicing their disagreement with his plans, saying they represented a "grave threat to the Internet". As of May 15, 2014, the fast lane bill passed voting with a 3/2 vote. It will now be open to public discussion that ends July 2014.
Again, I like the words I'm reading but Wheeler has had the cornerstone internet companies write him a letter and tell him he's fucking things up.
Oh, I have no doubt that Comcast, Verizon, and the like are going to fight this tooth and nail with all their money / lobbying. I'm just happy to see something rather than nothing.
Im not going to lie. I actually got excited when I heard the news. I guess for milenials net neutrality is a very important topic.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH):
It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that the Obama administration continues to disregard the people’s will and push for more mandates on our economy. An open, vibrant Internet is essential to a growing economy, and net neutrality is a textbook example of the kind of Washington regulations that destroy innovation and entrepreneurship. Federal bureaucrats should not be in the business of regulating the Internet – not now, not ever.
In the new Congress, Republicans will continue our efforts to stop this misguided scheme to regulate the Internet, and we’ll work to encourage private-sector job creation, starting with many of the House-passed jobs bills that the outgoing Senate majority ignored.
Does anyone in congress know what the fuck they are talking about?
Originally Posted by Noodleface
Obama and wheeler are playing the long con here. They know democrats are on the downslide right now and Obama coming out publicly in support of it means at least 50% of the country and legislature will be against it no matter what. Then after neutrality fails, they just be like "lol sorry we tried" while heading to the bank to cash giant checks from Comcast and Verizon.
In the end it's just about whose gonna get to cash the check from this, the benefit of the people is the last thing on their minds. It's who gets to make the money, which is why our government fails.
Keeping in mind that a lot of the more nebulous FCC reg rulings have yet to affect anything -what Obama and so many people say they want isn't really net neutrality at all, it's really regulating ISPs to the extent that you instruct them they must install these cables and equipment to these homes because they must have access to the full Netflix library at HD speeds. So while most people on both sides of the fence are misinformed - net neutrality is really an idiot's red herring and a comical buzzword as long as you have massive ISPs who OWN your tunnel to the information superhighway. Enforcing net neutrality might remove a few easy super-villian schemes Comcast is dreaming up, but it isn't going to force them to plug cables in or upgrade equipment, which is what really needs to be done.
The entire internet architecture is based on $$ = speed. The fact is that the necessary bandwidth from point A to point Z wasn't negotiated with all parties to begin with in most of these Netflix deals. That's not a neutrality issue, that's an infrastructure issue that's only going to be fixed by either making internet a state/federal utility or forcing these companies to allow competition and use their lines.
An analogy to many of the current Netflix problems would be NYC charging $10 more to go over the GW Bridge but saying you wouldn't have to pay Jersey Turnpike tolls - only without informing New Jersey or asking their permission. It just doesn't work out.
My worry with the 'zealous' net neutrality yes-men movement is that as one might surmise, true neutrality is a deathwish. That would give illicit traffic (DDOS/bots) legally the same priority as a credit card transaction. I'm hoping it won't come to that, but the FCC already has some truly screwed up regs and I do not trust these people to do it properly. Similarly, the slippery slope comes into play... as soon as you give 'negative' priority to bots, why not give hospital medical systems priority over other traffic? Soon enough you have a long list of bullshit.
IMO the best solution is the government should slap the shit out of the ISPs and let IEEE define the FCC guidelines to enforce how ISPs handle traffic.
Last edited by Palum; 11-11-2014 at 02:08 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)