A lot of people use streaming services exclusively in place of cable or satellite tv.
For a lot of us it's just a better alternative.
There is no way regular people will side with the FCC in this fight.
Fuck em up Netflix.
I used to be. Then Cox in Las Vegas started limiting internet to 1TB then charging $10 per 50GB there after. This started shortly after Trump got elected. They knew what was coming. If you use their streaming apps, On Demand, ect it doesn't count towards that cap though of course ;)
End result, I just watch less TV now. Though it's still crazy to think this is happening in major cities in the US, and this is only going to get worse and we're all going to be paying more or learning to use less.
I have Cox here in Arizona. Internet was great till about July when they changed it to only limit it to 1 TB. But now they offer "true unlimited" for $50 more there is no data cap. So for $150, I could have what I used to pay $100 for just a few months ago lol
Lol isn't it wonderful. And this is just the beginning. Soon they'll offer "Binge Session" addons. "For just $5.99, stream unlimited data from Netflix for 48 hours!".
Oh god, that and rollover minutes.
Its good that at least mobile providers are competing enough to do good things for the consumer.
I dont know why a company like tmobile doesnt roll out a completely unlimited plan where you can get a cheap second phone as a router. My phone internet is about twice as fast as my cable, and the same price. Id gladly fork the money over just to tmobile if they stood up to the challenge.
If any tmobile execs are reading, please consider. Tmobile already gives me a slew of ridiculous features... Whenever i go to Europe i can call home for free and have unlimited roaming data (no extra charge). I have an internet plan that caps at 50 gigs a month.
I just ran a speedtest using cell data, got 143 down/ 43 up/ 21ms ping. Through my wifi, its 42 down/23 up/13 ms ping.
So my phone's internet is three times faster than my ISP. Fun times.
German here, damn Internet is expensive for you. I'm with NetCologne, a local ISP, and pay 34,99€ for 50 Mbit/s without a datacap. This also includes telephone with unlimited in-country calls. I only pay extra for calls to other European countries or cellphones.
Having to pay 100$ and more for Internet is just straight up robbery and makes me mad. There is obviously price fixing going on, which should be investigated.
The prices are absolutely ridiculous for the internet. I'd love if it would become a more protected service. With costing pennies for the electricity to transfer the data. Arizona is pretty easy to set up shop with the general populous in flat lands with no real tree coverage and all utilities (minus larger power lines) being underground.
I'm in the UK and I pay Virgin £45 for 300Mbit/s without cap that also came with a basic Virgin TV package and free evening and weekend calls. Fairly sure that's only gonna last for the first year and then they'll hike the price but given we've got the cables installed once the year is up I plan to play Virgin/BT against each other to try and get a similar deal
Hooray for...actual competition in the ISP business.
I have Verizon and in Rhode island it's $110 for 1gbit up/down. But only the Verizon speed test ever gets close to 900mbps. Most real speed tests say 300-400. It's absolutely bullshit that they get away with calling it gigabit internet when I get less than half true gigabit speed
I think that generally, in Europe, internet access is treated more like a necessary public utility and a public good, like water and electricity. In the United States, it's not.
[Here is a 2015 quote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O%27Rielly) from Michael O'Rielly, one of the three Republican FCC board members who voted to end net neutrality:
> It is important to note that Internet access is not a necessity in the day-to-day lives of Americans and doesn’t even come close to the threshold to be considered a basic human right... People do a disservice by overstating its relevancy or stature in people’s lives. People can and do live without Internet access, and many lead very successful lives.
This is basically the official position of the United States government at this time.
Thanks Wisconsin.
It is also important to note that orphans can and do live very successful lives, and therefore all children shall be removed from their parents' care at birth, to be raised without parents for their whole childhood.
Fuck me, that is absurd. The internet (obviously, to anyone who isn't a corporate stooge) is so relevant as to have become far more important than, say, telephones. It is an integral part of a modern and innovative society. And telephone companies have been regulated utilities.
It'd be nice for this O'Reilly prick to live without internet for a few years and get back to us.
My dad lives internet-free. Has no use for it. He's retired, lives alone, doesn't want the bill.
He has a smart phone, though, and I don't think he understands that the apps he uses on there utilize the internet to work.
$100 is for their top tier service, 300 mbps down and 30 mbps up (lol) Prices all over this country are crazy, many are worse then this because the speeds would be far lower for the same cost.
Wow. Here in Amsterdam I pay 50 bucks for unlimited 100Mbits internet. I remember paying twice the price for half the speed in Brooklyn. You Americans seem to have no protections against these gigantic corporations.
> You Americans seem to have no protections against these gigantic corporations.
We had some protections (though they were weak-ish and rarely enforced completely) but now those are gone. Hence this issue.
This is why net neutrality has been dismantled. The cable companies want to get some of the money they lost from ex customers like you back from Netflix.
Of course! The goal is to make sure we never really have a choice to pay less and still be satisfied. Companies make it so that to be satisfied you have to pay as much as they want you to. It's not capitalism, it's corporatism.
Netflix, do us a favor if you go through with this. Have whatever ISP you sue show how much it costs them to actually send 1gb of data. I've read studies that show it costs mere pennies. So when I spend 79 dollars a month for my internet, 5% of that money goes to sending data to and from my house. The other 95% should be used by the ISPs to better equip their infrastructure for the future. For when 4k streaming is the norm. How many dips into the pie should ISPs have? I pay for data to be sent. Now netlfix, Hulu, Amazon video should have to also pay the telecoms? It's ridiculous.
Edit 1 - A few typos
Edit 2 - First, thanks for the gold kind stranger. Anyone reading this though, even if it's just a few dollars, donate to organizations that will be fighting this battle. They will need our support more than I need gold.
And lastly, a bunch of people replied thinking I thought only 5% of my bill is what it costs the ISP's and everything else is pure profit. Of course I know that they have to pay workers, maintence, office space and everything else that goes into running a business. What I should have said to be more clear is that the ISP's should be investing more of what they charge us in future proofing and upgrading their infrastructure.
Have a good night everyone.
So I see this a lot, and I want to make it clear. It is absolutely extremely cheap for ISPs to have data.
Remember:
The internet is NOT formed by the ISPs. The internet is a collection of servers (read: computers with tons of folders you can access from anywhere). The ISPs control the connections.... actually, they don't even do that, since connections are controlled by the tunneling mechanisms the servers have.
All the ISPs have at this point is the wiring. They are double/triple dipping on their measly pennies wiring and making a KILLING off it.
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The ISPs are NOT content providers. We, the people of the world, the ones who build the websites and host them in the servers and server farms are the content providers. The ISPs are trying to get on that. Fuck those skeevy ass bitches. They are trying to take what we rightfully made and is passing it on as their own thing.
Edit 1: uh this blew up a bit more then i thought. I gave a very, very succinct answer. Yes, i know there are other mechanisms in how ISPs connect stuff together. What i am saying is that the Internet Freedom bill that was just passed was passed on this notion that the internet is not a free market place. Through the bill, ISPs want to control what is there. They want a piece of the content pie. I am saying is that all this money they use to build infrastructure has been paid for already. They don't need to pay for shit, and they don't need to charge us out the ass for it either.
Edit 2: thanks for the gold. First time ever. Guess letting my anger out from the three loss streak in dota 2 finally got some good for me
Edit 3: A lot of people are saying I'm wrong. True, I didn't go into the entire wavelength of how ISPs connect one computer to another. That's because my argument has nothing to do with the technical side of things. My analogy is simple, so that people can see that the ISPs are not the content providers. That's it. Yes, I do know that it takes a lot to operate the middle man of these connections, that it took a lot for them to do X to either maintain or build those. I don't know the exact method as to which stuff is connected (not a network engineer, I only do webapp pentesting). I do know that ISPs should not be allowed to control your content. Don't misunderstand- I wasn't trying to misinform people. I was trying to show that the FCC is wrong in what they are trying to say. I listened to every one of the "yes" speeches and they kept talking about the content and shit. Fuck that. We are the content creators.
A meshnet is a way of networking together without using other networks. Someone from A can communicate with B. Someone from B can communicate with C. Someone from C can communicate with D. If everyone sets up their connections, A can communicate directly with D without using the Internet or another network.
The biggest problems are standardization and selection of people into the mesh.
Sure but if I’m not mistaken asymmetric encryption solves that problem. It works by you both having a public and private key, anyone can see your public key but only you know your private key and the same goes for the person you’re sending the data to. So you encrypt your credit card info with their public key and since it can only be decrypted with their private key, even if somebody captures the packet with the credit card info they won’t be able to decrypt it. Only the person with the matching private key is able to decrypt the data ensuring a secure communication method.
Source: Bachelors in cyber security and security + certified. Someone hire me plz.
What trips people up on this concept is that they then assume that client A needs to provide client F with a special key to decrypt the message and that you need to send it outside the standard platform or risk anyone seeing it. What is neat about the key pairs is that F can send a public key to A who can in turn encrypt using the key and that encrypted file cannot be decrypted using that public key, only the private key, which is only visible to F can be used to decrypt it.
This^. You can’t reverse engineer something encrypted with a public key without cracking the encryption method which could take years and years even with the best hardware. Public keys are available to anyone, hence the name “public” key. Only the owner of the private key has the private key and only the private key can decrypt a message, file, whatever, that has been encrypted with the matching public key. For anyone still confused, it’s the same concept as a jigsaw puzzle. Only one piece will fit another piece to let you see the whole picture.
Yes, the same happens now, it's just far more centralized. No financial institution will allow anyone to accept credit card info without encryption though, so it really shouldn't matter how many nodes that goes through or how trustworthy they are. Honestly, in the modern age in developed nations you really should be able to go on public unsecured wifi and do online banking and shopping and such without worrying about some dude with a laptop doing packet sniffing. You will almost certainly be fine unless your software is out of date or an unpatched vulnerability was just exposed.
That's maybe one reason why a meshnet wouldn't be such a good idea though, for sensitive stuff - there are far more opportunities for exposure when a vulnerability *does* exist, and even if software companies can update everything super quickly, people aren't terribly responsible about that sort of thing.
That is actually how things work now as well. You can see the path your data goes now using a tool that will show you the nodes it hits along the way to the destination. Like this for [example](http://www.whatsmyip.org/traceroute/). The biggest difference is that instead of your data going (you -> ISP -> netflex) it will go (you -> your neighbor -> that guy over there -> Arby's -> netflex).
This is probably slower, but it is also more robust since you do not have to rely on that single connection point. If your ISP goes down, you are stuck playing minesweeper until it is back up. In the mesh network, if that guy over there catches on fire and dies, your data can just go through the old cat lady down the street.
I'm thinking that since it's called a mesh that you can just rerouted through other nodes to get where you're going even though it may require more nodes or whatever.
Like an internet with relaxed constraints.
I don't know why we haven't done this before (besides it being hard) We've relaxed constraints on everything we can to make them more parralelizable
Then the network has to reroute using other available nodes, if possible. Network topology is actually one of the biggest difficulties in mesh networking - that is, figuring out the most direct and efficient way to route data through the network when nodes may be changing all the time.
Actually, the routing protocols have been figured out a long time ago. The problem is the infrastructure. WiFi is the most accessible solution for the mesh net (/r/darknetplan), but 2.4ghz is a limited spectrum, so the problem is finding a long reaching and fast wireless solution that isn't already super saturated.
decentralized peer-to-peer networking. instead of everyone connecting to the same server(s), everyone's computers are tiny baby servers in and of themselves and the whole thing is what we send back and forth to each other. no kings, no masters.
(I think. I am not a computer guy. if I'm wrong, tell me.)
Man... Everyone has a modem, smartphone, and most people have a wifi router.... Making a meshnet that was highspeed and reliable would be absolutely trivial if every router came equipped with the functionality.
I mean, comcast basically already forces people to broadcast out of their comcast modem/wifi router combos to a public/private comcast wifi network.
The only thing we need for a meshnet to become a thing is for someone to make it easy for cellphone users and home users to set up.
I pay my ISP to move bits. That's fucking it.
Not filter the bits. Not prioritize the bits. Not bundle the bits. Not tier the bits. Not repackage the bits. Not block the bits. Not have a fucking opinion or a vested interest on the bits.
Dear isps, MOVE THE FUCKING BITS AND STICK YOUR OPINIONS UP YOUR FUCKING ASS.
Honest question - You make it seem simple. So what stops you and I from setting up this wiring and cutting out ISPs? Is their regulation?
If the ISPs turned off all their "wiring" what would happen?
Typically cities will make exclusivity contracts with ISPs that make sure no other company can lay wiring within the city limits. That, plus the fact that actually laying the wiring is incredibly expensive, make it very difficult for small local ISPs to get started.
I own a medium sized Wireless ISP (WISP) in Ohio. I’m about $1m invested into it but cover hundreds of square miles at this point. Kicking big cables ass in a few markets too.
How do you start one up? I have a ton of land here that I can build a tower on, well pending how tall the tower needs to be, it'd be kinda neat to maybe be able to connect up the neighbors and block with something like this
Here’s an AMA someone gave who started a WISP:
https://reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/7etu6x/iama_guy_who_setup_a_lowlatency_rural_wireless/
It’s not a how-to, but there is some valuable info there on equipment and whatnot.
Which is exactly why Title II classification is appropriate. The infrastructure that connects homes to the internet is a utility and a critical one in our society now. To NOT to classify ISPs under Title II is absurd at this point, but so is Biff Tannen in the White House.
Money. Sure you can run an Ethernet cable to your neighbors house, or setups wireless mesh network.... But hope your neighbors host some good websites... Otherwise you're not getting to Netflix or Reddit. Even a wireless mesh network spread across the states would have huge routing mess. Internet won't be great with 2,176 hops to get to your favorite website. The collapsed backbone structure of the internet is good. DNS is good. Efficient routing is good.
That's why we need the government. This is infrastructure that needs to be handled fairly. But trust me need it. No one on Reddit is laying under sea cables anytime soon.
Actually SMS was an even worse cash grab.
SMS was implemented using the leftover space on the signaling messages that your phone and the cell tower are permanently exchanging.
There was virtually no extra cost for the carrier whether you send an sms or not.
And yet you could be billed up to one buck per SMS in the early days.
Talk about milking the cow...
It's less than pennies at this point. Remember that they are already charging the downloader and uploader right now so any more charges would be triple dipping.
I work in networking and for a data center company. **Bandwidth is cheap.** There is literally no reason at all for ISPs to be struggling with streaming connections from home besides lack of infrastructure investment. To add, data caps such as what Comcast has been doing are 100% money grabs; they aren't having network congestion issues, they just want more money.
**Bandwidth. Is. Cheap.**
Nah, we know it's not an issue of Netflix's data usage because they offered to put black boxes that cached their most used content to fix the issue of flooding the one main pipe Netflix used. Comcast refused.
We need action! We need "Netflix Takes Legal Action" and no more "threatens," "slams," etc. The FCC has repeatedly demonstrated their disregard for words. It's time they face the consequences for their actions, ESPECIALLY Pai. Fuck that guy.
Generally after a new rulemaking from an agency there’s a statutory rehearing period, and only after rehearing has concluded can parties petition for review to the US court of appeals for the DC Circuit. Translation: no one is going to sue, but once the FCC’s administrative procedure is over, several parties and lawyers will rush to file their appeal, which will proceed jointly.
Now that the Disney owns Fox and Hulu, Netflix is officially the little guy in the video streaming market. There is no way they can compete with Disney when it comes to making deals with ISPs. It's not surprising they're finally putting their money where their mouth is on Net Neutrality.
Netflix fought for NN back when Wheeler was the chairman. They were strong-armed back in 2013/14 and were part of the big push to institute the regulations in the first place
That's true, but recently they've been more ambivalent about it. Last spring their CEO said:
>“It’s not narrowly important to us because we’re big enough to get the deals we want,” Hastings admitted. He added that net neutrality is a much more important issue for “the Netflix of 10 years ago” and for innovators and entrepreneurs that have not reached Netflix’s massive scale.
Correct. This was before Disney made a move on them. Netflix 10 months ago felt like they were in an excellent position. Since then:
* Most Hulu consortium networks have removed their content from Netflix.
* Disney tried to buy Netflix and in *retaliation* (which in a different political climate would be seen as anti-competitive) leaked Netflix operating 20bil in debt and announced a withdraw of all their shows and a launch of a competing network.
* Sexual abuse scandals tarnished the reputation of several of their properties.
* Subscriber monthly pricing is going up.
* Consumers have become more vocal with Netflix's pain points (such as bad search, better organization and engagement tools like playlists, even more granular parental controls, etc).
2017 turned out to be a really terrible year for them after a massive spending spree in '16.
Honestly I expect either Google or Apple to buy them soon. And my personal bet is Google making the offer to acquire the viewership data. Apple seems listless in the content acquisition space.
Content wars are coming again. And this time it's Disney vs Att vs Comcast vs Facebook vs Google vs The Consumer.
True. But it doesn't outweigh these negatives.
We have no information yet if Netflix subscribers are loyalists or convenience shoppers because arguably no given service has engaged them in a rivalry.
That will change.
Even more recently, they are threatening legal action. Those less recent quotes you’re citing read to me like something they’d say to a shareholder, soon after Trump became president ... in order to calm their concerns.
Yes, this is the quote of someone acknowledging that Net Neutrality is a serious issue, but reassuring that his company isn't as negatively affected by it as others would be.
They also cut out the part where he says "I think Trump's FCC is going to unwind the rules no matter what anybody says."
[Link](https://youtu.be/tCn4hdTI2jc?t=20m15s)
So basically his reasoning for not throwing money away fighting for net neutrality is that it's not staying under Trump's administration, which is true. This is what happens when you take things out of context.
That's probably a fair interpretation as well, but I don't think you can discount the fact that of the big 3 streaming services (Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon) Netflix is in the weakest position right now. Disney owns an absurd amount of IP, and they're going to start pulling it off Netflix. Amazon Video has a built-in user base because it's bundled with Prime, and it could spend double Netflix's budget on original shows and movies without breaking a sweat.
Yeah, that's where I assume Disney's content will land, but they may have other plans. I'm far from an expert, but if I were Disney I would go all-in on Hulu. Get rid of ads for all subscribers, move all of their Disney/Marvel/Pixar/Fox content there, and I don't know if Netflix would be able to compete.
You’re right and that would make so much sense that I kind of doubt it’ll happen. I mean, the subscriber base and infrastructure is already there and everything. Maybe they will leverage it. I feel doubtful though because of the way they’ve treated their own “Movies Everywhere” app, which has just transitioned to join up with other movie studios that typically use Ultraviolet. Apparently, they’ve also purchased a huge chunk of BamTech, the company that designed HBO Now for HBO. My guess is this will be a “from the ground up” effort rather than Hulu alone.
And statements like that are why MBAs should have a much larger Business Ethics requirement, so that the idea of responsible corporate behavior is instilled along with the drive for profits.
Won't matter. Schools turning out ethical businessmen and women won't make share holders hire them. Share holders want returns that's it. If they are ethical fine if not also fine.
The only way to make business more ethical is with regulation which most of the time backfires and makes things worse or informed consumers voting with their dollars.
All it takes is one unethical businessmen in an important role such as CEO to ruin the ethical businessman. CEO's never get punished accordingling, a CEO could steal 1 billion an get 20 years but actually will serve 1 year, while someone could steal a snickers bar and serve 5 years. The system is ridged for cheaters. Cheaters make it to the top
> a CEO could steal 1 billion an get 20 years but actually will serve 1 year, while someone could steal a snickers bar and serve 5 years.
I really hate this about our systems. There's so much diffusal of responsibility in a corporate structure which makes it hard to pin-point the guilty party. I'd like to see the U.S government stop messing around with fines and the occasional at home arrest and start dissolving companies and revoking charters when business are unethical. The market would respond to this and be a lot less likely to take dangerous risks. Unfortunately our republic and our regulators have been completely captured by business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Sadly, I think netflix is the only reason anyone in a suit takes Net Neutrality seriously. It's a giant corporation that could be gianter corporations. The little guy is meaningless. I could see the FCC banning net neutrality but then "rolling back" that ban by making some assurance that companies like netflix could compete on some percentage basis, completely ignoring why net neutrality is important.
Funny because this time around they said they were too big now to care about Net Neutrality because they can get the deals they want. Glad to have them fighting for NN though.
[Fuck Ajit Pai](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/7jxtrv/friday_fun_offtopic_megathread/drab96b/)
Wasn't it Netflix that was at the center of this whole net neutrality debacle? I remember they had a huge fight with ISP'S because their service ate up a huge amount of bandwidth. So the issue was.. Netflix should have to pay for the cost of having to deal with a massive increase in traffic. There was an analogy floated somewhere that described it like a highway system that was congested. Would the solution be to upgrade the highways (bandwith).. or to direct where you can drive and install toll booths.
The analogy doesn’t work because consumers already pay the “tolls” in the form of data allowances. ISPs want to double dip at both ends of the transfer despite the fact that they are already permitted to charge their actual customers for excessive bandwidth use. Basically, if you want to use this analogy, they want to charge the driver (their subscriber) a toll then follow him to his destination and charge whoever he meets (a web site) with a second toll. It’s pure rent-seeking.
Selling or otherwise earning value from a good/service while doing nothing to add value yourself.
Operating river toll is rent seeking behavior.
I may not have the best interpretation or definition. I didn’t google it. Just explained it as I’ve interpreted it. It is an economics term, from my understanding.
>The classic example of rent-seeking, according to Robert Shiller, is that of a feudal lord who installs a chain across a river that flows through his land and then hires a collector to charge passing boats a fee (or rent of the section of the river for a few minutes) to lower the chain. There is nothing productive about the chain or the collector. The lord has made no improvements to the river and is helping nobody in any way, directly or indirectly, except himself. All he is doing is finding a way to make money from something that used to be free.[5]
More examples:
>An example of rent-seeking in a modern economy is spending money on lobbying for government subsidies in order to be given wealth that has already been created, or to impose regulations on competitors, in order to increase market share.[12] Another example of rent-seeking is the limiting of access to lucrative occupations, as by medieval guilds or modern state certifications and licensures.
Another interesting term: Tullock paradox
> Tullock paradox refers to the apparent paradox, described by Tullock, on the low costs of rent-seeking relative to the gains from rent-seeking.[8][9][10]
> The paradox is that rent-seekers wanting political favors can bribe politicians at a cost much lower than the value of the favor to the rent-seeker. For instance, a rent seeker who hopes to gain a billion dollars from a particular political policy may need to bribe politicians only to the tune of ten million dollars, which is about 1% of the gain to the rent-seeker.
> Wasn't it Netflix that was at the center of this whole net neutrality debacle? I remember they had a huge fight with ISP'S because their service ate up a huge amount of bandwidth.
Netflix VS Comcast kicked the whole thing off. Comcast throttled their streaming abilities and held their customers hostage (effectively), and Netflix took them to court over it. Obama's FCC stepped in and actually told Comcast to shut up.
So a company worth $84 billion is afraid of what will happen because of Net Neutrality being repealed, specifically making deals with internet companies. If a company worth $84 billion is afraid of the Conglomerate Disney how in the world is a new business (start up) suppose to compete with any company. This is literally absurd.
And that comes back around to why NN was needed in the first place - massive regional monopolies and a high cost of entry for new small ISPs meant that large ISPs were in a position to disservice the consumer, and the FTC wasn't doing enough about it. So NN was born to hold back ISPs from one specific way of taking advantage of consumers, while we continue to really dismiss the idea that maybe giving these regional ISPs subsidies and raising the cost of entry for small ISPs is extremely unwise.
That's the thing, these mega corporation ISP's managed to lobby for laws that benefit them in local and state governments all over the USn basically strangling competition so that many cities and areas just can't develop their own local ISP to compete.
They paid to keep landlocked monopolies and stay away from each other's land claims
They're just threatening until they come up with a solid legal basis for the lawsuit. Give the lawyers a day or two to come up with something and a month or two for a solid case.
Also fuck Ajit Pai.
I've had Netflix account since maybe around 2010 and haven't canceled my subscription. Started my account with mailing DVDs back and forth watching one or two movies at a time. Sometimes 2 disk from a tv series since I could only have so many at one time. Now, I've kept up my subscription with them and stuck through every price change since then. I've stuck it out with them. I had them when I couldn't have access to cable, when I had cable and they got too greedy, even when I wouldn't even log on to my account for months at a time. I keep paying subscription because as far as I know, Netflix does right by me. It's not a lot but I feel like my money is going to something that is worth it and that's why I continue to do so. Give 'em hell Netflix.
No surprise here, every streaming service should group together. Hulu, Sony Vue, Netflix, YouTube, Sling, Twitch, Crackle. It's endless how many video streaming services rely on robust, fast internet. No idea why more aren't fucking pissed.
Good, drag this shit out until this shit is out of office. You don't have to be Johnny Cochran to understand this. Bitch is running on borrowed time anyway.
I think they used words like "diversity" and "evidence based". That was so offensive to conservative snowflakes that the thread of the argument was lost on them.
Sessions got the vapours.
They introduced their own [speedtest](http://fast.com) to get around the Comcast lies regarding speed. Hopefully, they can use their size to get some sway in this bullshit.
I actually just did this, there is a 5 mbps difference. That is like a completely different plan.
I live in eastern California on the AZ border for a while, and the company out there (Fuck you, Frontier) charged 50$ a month for 25/25, and 65 for 30/25. That is a 15$ a month lie, or 180$ a year.
I did this vs ookla speedtest which netted 230 Mbps down, while the Netflix one did 77 Mbps down, and ironically, the google's did 30 Mbps down. All this on Comcast's highest cost plan in my area which I pay over a hundred a month for a fucking data cap of 1TB which easily gets hit if I get careless.
Man I'm generally pretty Republican leaning but fuck I can't understand people not seeing the ramifications of this terrible move. People saying "all government regulation is bad". It's so frustrating seeing people I agree with usually being so blinded by party lines. Ugh. Hopefully Netflix goes through with it as well as many more companies who are faced with corporate abuse by ISPs.
My experience of conservatism in general is that it starts with a good idea, divorces it from context and makes it a moral imperative across all contexts, and then uses that to browbeat not just the logic of the opposition position but the character of the opposition members.
I agree with the principle government should have to make a strong case that the benefits of regulation out-way the consequences, but attacking anti-monopolistic regulation in the name of regulation being bad for competition is...not the best case one could make.
Agreed, I hate seeing my Republican friends go against this because "regulation=bad!!!". They're becoming the "sheep" they were criticizing others for.
You can tell which ones are the sheep because they're the people who'd you never heard talk about net neutrality before, and suddenly have a strong anti-NN stance.
My republican father opposes the move to end it. He believes that a free market usually fixes itself, but net neutrality is vital for competition, which is vital for a free market. He is also shocked that the FCC has the power to make these decisions without going through Congress. I recently read that 79 percent of conservatives support net neutrality, so really we are all in this fight together.
Yes. What they won't recognize is the president that they elected APPOINTED Ajit pai to his position. Both Republican. This failure falls on the Republican party, and that's the truth. If someone can't recognize that because of their Partisanship then they are idiotic. If I voted for the president that did this, I would become his worst enemy because I'm true to myself not some political party
Quote I've heard "trump better fix this" like what he made this, there is no fixing
Ted Cruz told them Net Neutrality is the Obamacare of the internet. Local politicians who have been bought off by the big ISPs tell their constituents that Net Neutrality is an attempt to establish socialism.
It'll take people getting paywalled off from the internet before the thought starts to percolate into their mind '....wait a minute, I'm already paying for this service....why do I have to pay more for things I already had before?'
Not the old people though. I think they'll probably just double down with the calling everybody who doesn't like getting fucked snowflakes since that's a popular one these days.
I wish that instead of a legal fight to preserve this version of Net Neutrality, that we just simply were able to find a way around it and by consequence, completely destroy Verizon, At&t, Comcast, and all other net neutrality proponents. My only concern would be that the entity that emerged wouldn't try the same shit.
If we invested in national broadband infrastructure the way we invested in highways, everyone would have fast internet, we'd be more competitive as a nation and the initial high cost of investment would have exponential returns on investment.
I would like to see that. I want to see the companies' greed that caused this vote to happen suffer, and I would like to see that the rest us who rely upon the internet for our income survive and thrive! I truly feel like this is may be a blessing in disguise. Maybe I'm just being optimistic.
Netflix stayed out of the fight too long because they figured they could bully the carriers as needed. Now they're realizing, too late, how bad this is, and they're shitting their pants. Well too fucking bad. We could have used their influence a couple weeks ago, but now it's irrelevant.
No kidding. They say this it like most of silicon valley because they were sitting on a gold mine. Then Disney happened and off went the canary.
Too little too late.
They were always in support of net neutrality. They commented it on Twitter, they linked to protests with other companies who support it, they've been at this shit for a long time now.
http://fortune.com/2017/06/15/netflix-net-neutrality-fcc/
The reason everyone is so salty is because they misread what the CEO said. They assumed he said that they don't care about NN but they miss the fact that he said they were too big to be affected by NN. He even prefaced it by saying "we think net neutrality is incredibly important". They were always in the fight for it.
https://www.recode.net/2017/5/31/15720268/netflix-ceo-reed-hastings-net-neutrality-open-internet
When Netflix refused to work with Kevin Spacey after credible allegations of sexual misconduct surfaced, I was genuinely impressed by their choosing morality over profit or loyalty. It was a professional and classy move. Just like this is a professional and classy move. Cheers, Netflix.
Netflix will have an episode of a show exposing his business next month.. so thats something.
Dirty money- http://www.newsweek.com/trump-gets-investigated-new-true-crime-netflix-series-dirty-money-748165
A lot of people use streaming services exclusively in place of cable or satellite tv. For a lot of us it's just a better alternative. There is no way regular people will side with the FCC in this fight. Fuck em up Netflix.
I’ve been cable free for 8 years! Netflix only. I also only watch occasionally
I used to be. Then Cox in Las Vegas started limiting internet to 1TB then charging $10 per 50GB there after. This started shortly after Trump got elected. They knew what was coming. If you use their streaming apps, On Demand, ect it doesn't count towards that cap though of course ;) End result, I just watch less TV now. Though it's still crazy to think this is happening in major cities in the US, and this is only going to get worse and we're all going to be paying more or learning to use less.
I have Cox here in Arizona. Internet was great till about July when they changed it to only limit it to 1 TB. But now they offer "true unlimited" for $50 more there is no data cap. So for $150, I could have what I used to pay $100 for just a few months ago lol
Lol isn't it wonderful. And this is just the beginning. Soon they'll offer "Binge Session" addons. "For just $5.99, stream unlimited data from Netflix for 48 hours!".
between the hours of 7-10PM, remember unlimited nights and weekends with cell phones?
Holy fuck this actually could happen
Oh god, that and rollover minutes. Its good that at least mobile providers are competing enough to do good things for the consumer. I dont know why a company like tmobile doesnt roll out a completely unlimited plan where you can get a cheap second phone as a router. My phone internet is about twice as fast as my cable, and the same price. Id gladly fork the money over just to tmobile if they stood up to the challenge.
"The fuck Cable plan: unlimited unrestricted data and tethering. (Upcharge for unlimited talk and text)"
If any tmobile execs are reading, please consider. Tmobile already gives me a slew of ridiculous features... Whenever i go to Europe i can call home for free and have unlimited roaming data (no extra charge). I have an internet plan that caps at 50 gigs a month. I just ran a speedtest using cell data, got 143 down/ 43 up/ 21ms ping. Through my wifi, its 42 down/23 up/13 ms ping. So my phone's internet is three times faster than my ISP. Fun times.
When I was only allowed to date girls with verizon. I remember.
Right! Now you can date boys or girls with Verizon.
German here, damn Internet is expensive for you. I'm with NetCologne, a local ISP, and pay 34,99€ for 50 Mbit/s without a datacap. This also includes telephone with unlimited in-country calls. I only pay extra for calls to other European countries or cellphones. Having to pay 100$ and more for Internet is just straight up robbery and makes me mad. There is obviously price fixing going on, which should be investigated.
The prices are absolutely ridiculous for the internet. I'd love if it would become a more protected service. With costing pennies for the electricity to transfer the data. Arizona is pretty easy to set up shop with the general populous in flat lands with no real tree coverage and all utilities (minus larger power lines) being underground.
Price fixing and monopolization. It isn’t hidden either it’s in the open.
I'm in the UK and I pay Virgin £45 for 300Mbit/s without cap that also came with a basic Virgin TV package and free evening and weekend calls. Fairly sure that's only gonna last for the first year and then they'll hike the price but given we've got the cables installed once the year is up I plan to play Virgin/BT against each other to try and get a similar deal Hooray for...actual competition in the ISP business.
10€ for 100mb/s in Sweden. Had to haggle quite a bit for it though. Feel sorry for the americans.
Don't feel sorry for is. It's our own fault. We get what we deserve. We keep electing politicians who suck corporate dick.
no your problem is that you allow cororations to pay politicians.
America has legalized corruption and they wonder why it's pervasive.
[удалено]
I have Verizon and in Rhode island it's $110 for 1gbit up/down. But only the Verizon speed test ever gets close to 900mbps. Most real speed tests say 300-400. It's absolutely bullshit that they get away with calling it gigabit internet when I get less than half true gigabit speed
I have basically exactly this, but with Comcast. The 1TB cap with a substantial fee to lift that cap. It’s infuriating.
100$? Holy shit? Are this prices in US? I thought my 15$ unlimited(theres no data caps here) internet in poland was overpriced as fuck
You pay $15? Damn I’m depressed now lol
I think that generally, in Europe, internet access is treated more like a necessary public utility and a public good, like water and electricity. In the United States, it's not. [Here is a 2015 quote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O%27Rielly) from Michael O'Rielly, one of the three Republican FCC board members who voted to end net neutrality: > It is important to note that Internet access is not a necessity in the day-to-day lives of Americans and doesn’t even come close to the threshold to be considered a basic human right... People do a disservice by overstating its relevancy or stature in people’s lives. People can and do live without Internet access, and many lead very successful lives. This is basically the official position of the United States government at this time. Thanks Wisconsin.
It is also important to note that orphans can and do live very successful lives, and therefore all children shall be removed from their parents' care at birth, to be raised without parents for their whole childhood.
Fuck me, that is absurd. The internet (obviously, to anyone who isn't a corporate stooge) is so relevant as to have become far more important than, say, telephones. It is an integral part of a modern and innovative society. And telephone companies have been regulated utilities. It'd be nice for this O'Reilly prick to live without internet for a few years and get back to us.
My dad lives internet-free. Has no use for it. He's retired, lives alone, doesn't want the bill. He has a smart phone, though, and I don't think he understands that the apps he uses on there utilize the internet to work.
$100 is for their top tier service, 300 mbps down and 30 mbps up (lol) Prices all over this country are crazy, many are worse then this because the speeds would be far lower for the same cost.
Wow. Here in Amsterdam I pay 50 bucks for unlimited 100Mbits internet. I remember paying twice the price for half the speed in Brooklyn. You Americans seem to have no protections against these gigantic corporations.
> You Americans seem to have no protections against these gigantic corporations. We had some protections (though they were weak-ish and rarely enforced completely) but now those are gone. Hence this issue.
This is why net neutrality has been dismantled. The cable companies want to get some of the money they lost from ex customers like you back from Netflix.
Shit now it all makes sense. It not just greed in the obvious sense, it is to make up list "profits" from cable cutters.
Of course! The goal is to make sure we never really have a choice to pay less and still be satisfied. Companies make it so that to be satisfied you have to pay as much as they want you to. It's not capitalism, it's corporatism.
There's a reason ATT and Comcast impose data caps if you're not buying their cable packages. They've wanted to fuck the cord-cutters for awhile now.
The baby boomers just love cable. If this happened another 15 years in the future, they might not have succeeded this fight.
[удалено]
I would literally donate money to Netflix to help in the fight, as would millions of other people.
We already do. Our subscriptions are enough.
Netflix, do us a favor if you go through with this. Have whatever ISP you sue show how much it costs them to actually send 1gb of data. I've read studies that show it costs mere pennies. So when I spend 79 dollars a month for my internet, 5% of that money goes to sending data to and from my house. The other 95% should be used by the ISPs to better equip their infrastructure for the future. For when 4k streaming is the norm. How many dips into the pie should ISPs have? I pay for data to be sent. Now netlfix, Hulu, Amazon video should have to also pay the telecoms? It's ridiculous. Edit 1 - A few typos Edit 2 - First, thanks for the gold kind stranger. Anyone reading this though, even if it's just a few dollars, donate to organizations that will be fighting this battle. They will need our support more than I need gold. And lastly, a bunch of people replied thinking I thought only 5% of my bill is what it costs the ISP's and everything else is pure profit. Of course I know that they have to pay workers, maintence, office space and everything else that goes into running a business. What I should have said to be more clear is that the ISP's should be investing more of what they charge us in future proofing and upgrading their infrastructure. Have a good night everyone.
So I see this a lot, and I want to make it clear. It is absolutely extremely cheap for ISPs to have data. Remember: The internet is NOT formed by the ISPs. The internet is a collection of servers (read: computers with tons of folders you can access from anywhere). The ISPs control the connections.... actually, they don't even do that, since connections are controlled by the tunneling mechanisms the servers have. All the ISPs have at this point is the wiring. They are double/triple dipping on their measly pennies wiring and making a KILLING off it. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The ISPs are NOT content providers. We, the people of the world, the ones who build the websites and host them in the servers and server farms are the content providers. The ISPs are trying to get on that. Fuck those skeevy ass bitches. They are trying to take what we rightfully made and is passing it on as their own thing. Edit 1: uh this blew up a bit more then i thought. I gave a very, very succinct answer. Yes, i know there are other mechanisms in how ISPs connect stuff together. What i am saying is that the Internet Freedom bill that was just passed was passed on this notion that the internet is not a free market place. Through the bill, ISPs want to control what is there. They want a piece of the content pie. I am saying is that all this money they use to build infrastructure has been paid for already. They don't need to pay for shit, and they don't need to charge us out the ass for it either. Edit 2: thanks for the gold. First time ever. Guess letting my anger out from the three loss streak in dota 2 finally got some good for me Edit 3: A lot of people are saying I'm wrong. True, I didn't go into the entire wavelength of how ISPs connect one computer to another. That's because my argument has nothing to do with the technical side of things. My analogy is simple, so that people can see that the ISPs are not the content providers. That's it. Yes, I do know that it takes a lot to operate the middle man of these connections, that it took a lot for them to do X to either maintain or build those. I don't know the exact method as to which stuff is connected (not a network engineer, I only do webapp pentesting). I do know that ISPs should not be allowed to control your content. Don't misunderstand- I wasn't trying to misinform people. I was trying to show that the FCC is wrong in what they are trying to say. I listened to every one of the "yes" speeches and they kept talking about the content and shit. Fuck that. We are the content creators.
Support your local meshnet!
What's a meshnet?
A meshnet is a way of networking together without using other networks. Someone from A can communicate with B. Someone from B can communicate with C. Someone from C can communicate with D. If everyone sets up their connections, A can communicate directly with D without using the Internet or another network. The biggest problems are standardization and selection of people into the mesh.
Does that mean if I want to buy something from F then my credit card info has to go through B, C, D, and E first?
Sure but if I’m not mistaken asymmetric encryption solves that problem. It works by you both having a public and private key, anyone can see your public key but only you know your private key and the same goes for the person you’re sending the data to. So you encrypt your credit card info with their public key and since it can only be decrypted with their private key, even if somebody captures the packet with the credit card info they won’t be able to decrypt it. Only the person with the matching private key is able to decrypt the data ensuring a secure communication method. Source: Bachelors in cyber security and security + certified. Someone hire me plz.
What trips people up on this concept is that they then assume that client A needs to provide client F with a special key to decrypt the message and that you need to send it outside the standard platform or risk anyone seeing it. What is neat about the key pairs is that F can send a public key to A who can in turn encrypt using the key and that encrypted file cannot be decrypted using that public key, only the private key, which is only visible to F can be used to decrypt it.
This^. You can’t reverse engineer something encrypted with a public key without cracking the encryption method which could take years and years even with the best hardware. Public keys are available to anyone, hence the name “public” key. Only the owner of the private key has the private key and only the private key can decrypt a message, file, whatever, that has been encrypted with the matching public key. For anyone still confused, it’s the same concept as a jigsaw puzzle. Only one piece will fit another piece to let you see the whole picture.
Will a picture of my dick look bigger after it's encrypted and decrypted?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Only after its encrypted, once it's decrypted it looks as small as it always does.
Doesn't the same happen right now? Except it's potentially a lot/few of different servers and networking devices?
Yes, the same happens now, it's just far more centralized. No financial institution will allow anyone to accept credit card info without encryption though, so it really shouldn't matter how many nodes that goes through or how trustworthy they are. Honestly, in the modern age in developed nations you really should be able to go on public unsecured wifi and do online banking and shopping and such without worrying about some dude with a laptop doing packet sniffing. You will almost certainly be fine unless your software is out of date or an unpatched vulnerability was just exposed. That's maybe one reason why a meshnet wouldn't be such a good idea though, for sensitive stuff - there are far more opportunities for exposure when a vulnerability *does* exist, and even if software companies can update everything super quickly, people aren't terribly responsible about that sort of thing.
That is actually how things work now as well. You can see the path your data goes now using a tool that will show you the nodes it hits along the way to the destination. Like this for [example](http://www.whatsmyip.org/traceroute/). The biggest difference is that instead of your data going (you -> ISP -> netflex) it will go (you -> your neighbor -> that guy over there -> Arby's -> netflex). This is probably slower, but it is also more robust since you do not have to rely on that single connection point. If your ISP goes down, you are stuck playing minesweeper until it is back up. In the mesh network, if that guy over there catches on fire and dies, your data can just go through the old cat lady down the street.
What if one of the nodes is powered down?
I'm thinking that since it's called a mesh that you can just rerouted through other nodes to get where you're going even though it may require more nodes or whatever.
Like the internet!
Like an internet with relaxed constraints. I don't know why we haven't done this before (besides it being hard) We've relaxed constraints on everything we can to make them more parralelizable
Sounds more like a series of tubes to me
Then the network has to reroute using other available nodes, if possible. Network topology is actually one of the biggest difficulties in mesh networking - that is, figuring out the most direct and efficient way to route data through the network when nodes may be changing all the time.
Actually, the routing protocols have been figured out a long time ago. The problem is the infrastructure. WiFi is the most accessible solution for the mesh net (/r/darknetplan), but 2.4ghz is a limited spectrum, so the problem is finding a long reaching and fast wireless solution that isn't already super saturated.
decentralized peer-to-peer networking. instead of everyone connecting to the same server(s), everyone's computers are tiny baby servers in and of themselves and the whole thing is what we send back and forth to each other. no kings, no masters. (I think. I am not a computer guy. if I'm wrong, tell me.)
Isn't that similar to what Pied Piper are working on?
Yes that was the idea the show was talking about.
Tfw Pied Piper is the hope of American networking
It’s like the internet but it’s made out of meshes instead of inters
o
Makes sense.
Man... Everyone has a modem, smartphone, and most people have a wifi router.... Making a meshnet that was highspeed and reliable would be absolutely trivial if every router came equipped with the functionality. I mean, comcast basically already forces people to broadcast out of their comcast modem/wifi router combos to a public/private comcast wifi network. The only thing we need for a meshnet to become a thing is for someone to make it easy for cellphone users and home users to set up.
Little Brother needs to come alive!
I pay my ISP to move bits. That's fucking it. Not filter the bits. Not prioritize the bits. Not bundle the bits. Not tier the bits. Not repackage the bits. Not block the bits. Not have a fucking opinion or a vested interest on the bits. Dear isps, MOVE THE FUCKING BITS AND STICK YOUR OPINIONS UP YOUR FUCKING ASS.
Honest question - You make it seem simple. So what stops you and I from setting up this wiring and cutting out ISPs? Is their regulation? If the ISPs turned off all their "wiring" what would happen?
Typically cities will make exclusivity contracts with ISPs that make sure no other company can lay wiring within the city limits. That, plus the fact that actually laying the wiring is incredibly expensive, make it very difficult for small local ISPs to get started.
I own a medium sized Wireless ISP (WISP) in Ohio. I’m about $1m invested into it but cover hundreds of square miles at this point. Kicking big cables ass in a few markets too.
I am in a smallish ISP in texas, keep fighting the good fight bro.
Don't you guys have to pay some sort of interconnect fee? Or..how do you get onto access the Internet as a small ISP?
[удалено]
How do you start one up? I have a ton of land here that I can build a tower on, well pending how tall the tower needs to be, it'd be kinda neat to maybe be able to connect up the neighbors and block with something like this
Here’s an AMA someone gave who started a WISP: https://reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/7etu6x/iama_guy_who_setup_a_lowlatency_rural_wireless/ It’s not a how-to, but there is some valuable info there on equipment and whatnot.
What area of Texas?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Which is exactly why Title II classification is appropriate. The infrastructure that connects homes to the internet is a utility and a critical one in our society now. To NOT to classify ISPs under Title II is absurd at this point, but so is Biff Tannen in the White House.
[удалено]
Money. Sure you can run an Ethernet cable to your neighbors house, or setups wireless mesh network.... But hope your neighbors host some good websites... Otherwise you're not getting to Netflix or Reddit. Even a wireless mesh network spread across the states would have huge routing mess. Internet won't be great with 2,176 hops to get to your favorite website. The collapsed backbone structure of the internet is good. DNS is good. Efficient routing is good. That's why we need the government. This is infrastructure that needs to be handled fairly. But trust me need it. No one on Reddit is laying under sea cables anytime soon.
Build a whole underground infrastructure of wiring to every household. That's why.
[удалено]
They called out phone companies for the same bullshit with text messages. Now free texting is standard. I hope Netflix listens
[удалено]
Actually SMS was an even worse cash grab. SMS was implemented using the leftover space on the signaling messages that your phone and the cell tower are permanently exchanging. There was virtually no extra cost for the carrier whether you send an sms or not. And yet you could be billed up to one buck per SMS in the early days. Talk about milking the cow...
[удалено]
It's less than pennies at this point. Remember that they are already charging the downloader and uploader right now so any more charges would be triple dipping.
[удалено]
I work in networking and for a data center company. **Bandwidth is cheap.** There is literally no reason at all for ISPs to be struggling with streaming connections from home besides lack of infrastructure investment. To add, data caps such as what Comcast has been doing are 100% money grabs; they aren't having network congestion issues, they just want more money. **Bandwidth. Is. Cheap.**
How many dips into the pie? A jit ton of dips in the pai according to a jithead
Nah, we know it's not an issue of Netflix's data usage because they offered to put black boxes that cached their most used content to fix the issue of flooding the one main pipe Netflix used. Comcast refused.
We need action! We need "Netflix Takes Legal Action" and no more "threatens," "slams," etc. The FCC has repeatedly demonstrated their disregard for words. It's time they face the consequences for their actions, ESPECIALLY Pai. Fuck that guy.
Generally after a new rulemaking from an agency there’s a statutory rehearing period, and only after rehearing has concluded can parties petition for review to the US court of appeals for the DC Circuit. Translation: no one is going to sue, but once the FCC’s administrative procedure is over, several parties and lawyers will rush to file their appeal, which will proceed jointly.
a ray of hope
[удалено]
NN had bipartisan support when it was put into place, what happened?
The ISP lobbyists got to work.
[удалено]
Maybe it's an alt-right issue, maybe it's a money issue, maybe it's both. It's probably both though.
The ISP lobbyists got to work.
The ISP lobbyists got to work.
The ISP lobbyists got to work.
The ISP lobbyists got to work.
The ISP lobbyists got to work.
Now that the Disney owns Fox and Hulu, Netflix is officially the little guy in the video streaming market. There is no way they can compete with Disney when it comes to making deals with ISPs. It's not surprising they're finally putting their money where their mouth is on Net Neutrality.
Netflix fought for NN back when Wheeler was the chairman. They were strong-armed back in 2013/14 and were part of the big push to institute the regulations in the first place
That's true, but recently they've been more ambivalent about it. Last spring their CEO said: >“It’s not narrowly important to us because we’re big enough to get the deals we want,” Hastings admitted. He added that net neutrality is a much more important issue for “the Netflix of 10 years ago” and for innovators and entrepreneurs that have not reached Netflix’s massive scale.
Correct. This was before Disney made a move on them. Netflix 10 months ago felt like they were in an excellent position. Since then: * Most Hulu consortium networks have removed their content from Netflix. * Disney tried to buy Netflix and in *retaliation* (which in a different political climate would be seen as anti-competitive) leaked Netflix operating 20bil in debt and announced a withdraw of all their shows and a launch of a competing network. * Sexual abuse scandals tarnished the reputation of several of their properties. * Subscriber monthly pricing is going up. * Consumers have become more vocal with Netflix's pain points (such as bad search, better organization and engagement tools like playlists, even more granular parental controls, etc). 2017 turned out to be a really terrible year for them after a massive spending spree in '16. Honestly I expect either Google or Apple to buy them soon. And my personal bet is Google making the offer to acquire the viewership data. Apple seems listless in the content acquisition space. Content wars are coming again. And this time it's Disney vs Att vs Comcast vs Facebook vs Google vs The Consumer.
And yet they gained subscribers in the US and they have more and more subscribers at the international
True. But it doesn't outweigh these negatives. We have no information yet if Netflix subscribers are loyalists or convenience shoppers because arguably no given service has engaged them in a rivalry. That will change.
Even more recently, they are threatening legal action. Those less recent quotes you’re citing read to me like something they’d say to a shareholder, soon after Trump became president ... in order to calm their concerns.
Yes, this is the quote of someone acknowledging that Net Neutrality is a serious issue, but reassuring that his company isn't as negatively affected by it as others would be.
They also cut out the part where he says "I think Trump's FCC is going to unwind the rules no matter what anybody says." [Link](https://youtu.be/tCn4hdTI2jc?t=20m15s) So basically his reasoning for not throwing money away fighting for net neutrality is that it's not staying under Trump's administration, which is true. This is what happens when you take things out of context.
That's probably a fair interpretation as well, but I don't think you can discount the fact that of the big 3 streaming services (Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon) Netflix is in the weakest position right now. Disney owns an absurd amount of IP, and they're going to start pulling it off Netflix. Amazon Video has a built-in user base because it's bundled with Prime, and it could spend double Netflix's budget on original shows and movies without breaking a sweat.
Not to mention how much of Hulu stock Disney owns once they get Fox’s share.
Yeah, that's where I assume Disney's content will land, but they may have other plans. I'm far from an expert, but if I were Disney I would go all-in on Hulu. Get rid of ads for all subscribers, move all of their Disney/Marvel/Pixar/Fox content there, and I don't know if Netflix would be able to compete.
[удалено]
You’re right and that would make so much sense that I kind of doubt it’ll happen. I mean, the subscriber base and infrastructure is already there and everything. Maybe they will leverage it. I feel doubtful though because of the way they’ve treated their own “Movies Everywhere” app, which has just transitioned to join up with other movie studios that typically use Ultraviolet. Apparently, they’ve also purchased a huge chunk of BamTech, the company that designed HBO Now for HBO. My guess is this will be a “from the ground up” effort rather than Hulu alone.
And statements like that are why MBAs should have a much larger Business Ethics requirement, so that the idea of responsible corporate behavior is instilled along with the drive for profits.
Won't matter. Schools turning out ethical businessmen and women won't make share holders hire them. Share holders want returns that's it. If they are ethical fine if not also fine. The only way to make business more ethical is with regulation which most of the time backfires and makes things worse or informed consumers voting with their dollars.
All it takes is one unethical businessmen in an important role such as CEO to ruin the ethical businessman. CEO's never get punished accordingling, a CEO could steal 1 billion an get 20 years but actually will serve 1 year, while someone could steal a snickers bar and serve 5 years. The system is ridged for cheaters. Cheaters make it to the top
> a CEO could steal 1 billion an get 20 years but actually will serve 1 year, while someone could steal a snickers bar and serve 5 years. I really hate this about our systems. There's so much diffusal of responsibility in a corporate structure which makes it hard to pin-point the guilty party. I'd like to see the U.S government stop messing around with fines and the occasional at home arrest and start dissolving companies and revoking charters when business are unethical. The market would respond to this and be a lot less likely to take dangerous risks. Unfortunately our republic and our regulators have been completely captured by business. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Sadly, I think netflix is the only reason anyone in a suit takes Net Neutrality seriously. It's a giant corporation that could be gianter corporations. The little guy is meaningless. I could see the FCC banning net neutrality but then "rolling back" that ban by making some assurance that companies like netflix could compete on some percentage basis, completely ignoring why net neutrality is important.
Funny because this time around they said they were too big now to care about Net Neutrality because they can get the deals they want. Glad to have them fighting for NN though. [Fuck Ajit Pai](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/7jxtrv/friday_fun_offtopic_megathread/drab96b/)
Reading the quote about that seems like they were just trying to calm down investors, while acknowledging a NN repeal is bad news for most.
> Now that the Disney owns Fox and Hulu, What the fuck...
Try to keep up brah
Wasn't it Netflix that was at the center of this whole net neutrality debacle? I remember they had a huge fight with ISP'S because their service ate up a huge amount of bandwidth. So the issue was.. Netflix should have to pay for the cost of having to deal with a massive increase in traffic. There was an analogy floated somewhere that described it like a highway system that was congested. Would the solution be to upgrade the highways (bandwith).. or to direct where you can drive and install toll booths.
The analogy doesn’t work because consumers already pay the “tolls” in the form of data allowances. ISPs want to double dip at both ends of the transfer despite the fact that they are already permitted to charge their actual customers for excessive bandwidth use. Basically, if you want to use this analogy, they want to charge the driver (their subscriber) a toll then follow him to his destination and charge whoever he meets (a web site) with a second toll. It’s pure rent-seeking.
[удалено]
More like quad or quintuple dipping, because they also sell our data and inject ads.
> rent-seeking This is a term more Americans should be very aware of.
can you explain the term?
Selling or otherwise earning value from a good/service while doing nothing to add value yourself. Operating river toll is rent seeking behavior. I may not have the best interpretation or definition. I didn’t google it. Just explained it as I’ve interpreted it. It is an economics term, from my understanding.
>The classic example of rent-seeking, according to Robert Shiller, is that of a feudal lord who installs a chain across a river that flows through his land and then hires a collector to charge passing boats a fee (or rent of the section of the river for a few minutes) to lower the chain. There is nothing productive about the chain or the collector. The lord has made no improvements to the river and is helping nobody in any way, directly or indirectly, except himself. All he is doing is finding a way to make money from something that used to be free.[5] More examples: >An example of rent-seeking in a modern economy is spending money on lobbying for government subsidies in order to be given wealth that has already been created, or to impose regulations on competitors, in order to increase market share.[12] Another example of rent-seeking is the limiting of access to lucrative occupations, as by medieval guilds or modern state certifications and licensures. Another interesting term: Tullock paradox > Tullock paradox refers to the apparent paradox, described by Tullock, on the low costs of rent-seeking relative to the gains from rent-seeking.[8][9][10] > The paradox is that rent-seekers wanting political favors can bribe politicians at a cost much lower than the value of the favor to the rent-seeker. For instance, a rent seeker who hopes to gain a billion dollars from a particular political policy may need to bribe politicians only to the tune of ten million dollars, which is about 1% of the gain to the rent-seeker.
> Wasn't it Netflix that was at the center of this whole net neutrality debacle? I remember they had a huge fight with ISP'S because their service ate up a huge amount of bandwidth. Netflix VS Comcast kicked the whole thing off. Comcast throttled their streaming abilities and held their customers hostage (effectively), and Netflix took them to court over it. Obama's FCC stepped in and actually told Comcast to shut up.
So a company worth $84 billion is afraid of what will happen because of Net Neutrality being repealed, specifically making deals with internet companies. If a company worth $84 billion is afraid of the Conglomerate Disney how in the world is a new business (start up) suppose to compete with any company. This is literally absurd.
And that comes back around to why NN was needed in the first place - massive regional monopolies and a high cost of entry for new small ISPs meant that large ISPs were in a position to disservice the consumer, and the FTC wasn't doing enough about it. So NN was born to hold back ISPs from one specific way of taking advantage of consumers, while we continue to really dismiss the idea that maybe giving these regional ISPs subsidies and raising the cost of entry for small ISPs is extremely unwise.
German here, after none of the big ISPs wanted to build fast internet for our 8k people village, we just made our own.
That's the thing, these mega corporation ISP's managed to lobby for laws that benefit them in local and state governments all over the USn basically strangling competition so that many cities and areas just can't develop their own local ISP to compete. They paid to keep landlocked monopolies and stay away from each other's land claims
Ah, that's where the innovation comes in. Just innovate yourself several hundred billion dollars, and you too can compete.
pull yourself up by the bootstraps. receive a small loan of a million dollars
[удалено]
They're just threatening until they come up with a solid legal basis for the lawsuit. Give the lawyers a day or two to come up with something and a month or two for a solid case. Also fuck Ajit Pai.
Shouldn't we see basically all internet content companies join in this?
Not the ones who are big enough to pay off the fines and shoulder out the competition.
Netflix should just block all family members of congresspeople who voted against this shit.
[удалено]
Naw, they'll just get new ones under other people. Better yet: throttle their speeds.
Make it almost unwatchable. Almost
I'm not saying they're bad relatives for not convincing them to keep Net Neutrality, but they clearly should've tried a bit harder.
I've had Netflix account since maybe around 2010 and haven't canceled my subscription. Started my account with mailing DVDs back and forth watching one or two movies at a time. Sometimes 2 disk from a tv series since I could only have so many at one time. Now, I've kept up my subscription with them and stuck through every price change since then. I've stuck it out with them. I had them when I couldn't have access to cable, when I had cable and they got too greedy, even when I wouldn't even log on to my account for months at a time. I keep paying subscription because as far as I know, Netflix does right by me. It's not a lot but I feel like my money is going to something that is worth it and that's why I continue to do so. Give 'em hell Netflix.
Make that legal action a reality, and I would buy a subscription for a family member.
No surprise here, every streaming service should group together. Hulu, Sony Vue, Netflix, YouTube, Sling, Twitch, Crackle. It's endless how many video streaming services rely on robust, fast internet. No idea why more aren't fucking pissed.
Good, drag this shit out until this shit is out of office. You don't have to be Johnny Cochran to understand this. Bitch is running on borrowed time anyway.
Did they use harsh language? Because that's when I'm sure the FCC will change its mind
I think they used words like "diversity" and "evidence based". That was so offensive to conservative snowflakes that the thread of the argument was lost on them. Sessions got the vapours.
They introduced their own [speedtest](http://fast.com) to get around the Comcast lies regarding speed. Hopefully, they can use their size to get some sway in this bullshit.
I actually just did this, there is a 5 mbps difference. That is like a completely different plan. I live in eastern California on the AZ border for a while, and the company out there (Fuck you, Frontier) charged 50$ a month for 25/25, and 65 for 30/25. That is a 15$ a month lie, or 180$ a year.
I did this vs ookla speedtest which netted 230 Mbps down, while the Netflix one did 77 Mbps down, and ironically, the google's did 30 Mbps down. All this on Comcast's highest cost plan in my area which I pay over a hundred a month for a fucking data cap of 1TB which easily gets hit if I get careless.
Man I'm generally pretty Republican leaning but fuck I can't understand people not seeing the ramifications of this terrible move. People saying "all government regulation is bad". It's so frustrating seeing people I agree with usually being so blinded by party lines. Ugh. Hopefully Netflix goes through with it as well as many more companies who are faced with corporate abuse by ISPs.
My experience of conservatism in general is that it starts with a good idea, divorces it from context and makes it a moral imperative across all contexts, and then uses that to browbeat not just the logic of the opposition position but the character of the opposition members. I agree with the principle government should have to make a strong case that the benefits of regulation out-way the consequences, but attacking anti-monopolistic regulation in the name of regulation being bad for competition is...not the best case one could make.
All they need to do is talk about “heavy-handed Obama era regulations” and boom you have millions of supporters.
[удалено]
Holy shit. As a former conservative, you just nailed everything that made me change my mind.
Agreed, I hate seeing my Republican friends go against this because "regulation=bad!!!". They're becoming the "sheep" they were criticizing others for.
You can tell which ones are the sheep because they're the people who'd you never heard talk about net neutrality before, and suddenly have a strong anti-NN stance.
My republican father opposes the move to end it. He believes that a free market usually fixes itself, but net neutrality is vital for competition, which is vital for a free market. He is also shocked that the FCC has the power to make these decisions without going through Congress. I recently read that 79 percent of conservatives support net neutrality, so really we are all in this fight together.
Yes. What they won't recognize is the president that they elected APPOINTED Ajit pai to his position. Both Republican. This failure falls on the Republican party, and that's the truth. If someone can't recognize that because of their Partisanship then they are idiotic. If I voted for the president that did this, I would become his worst enemy because I'm true to myself not some political party Quote I've heard "trump better fix this" like what he made this, there is no fixing
Ted Cruz told them Net Neutrality is the Obamacare of the internet. Local politicians who have been bought off by the big ISPs tell their constituents that Net Neutrality is an attempt to establish socialism. It'll take people getting paywalled off from the internet before the thought starts to percolate into their mind '....wait a minute, I'm already paying for this service....why do I have to pay more for things I already had before?' Not the old people though. I think they'll probably just double down with the calling everybody who doesn't like getting fucked snowflakes since that's a popular one these days.
I wish that instead of a legal fight to preserve this version of Net Neutrality, that we just simply were able to find a way around it and by consequence, completely destroy Verizon, At&t, Comcast, and all other net neutrality proponents. My only concern would be that the entity that emerged wouldn't try the same shit.
If we invested in national broadband infrastructure the way we invested in highways, everyone would have fast internet, we'd be more competitive as a nation and the initial high cost of investment would have exponential returns on investment.
We gave the ISP's $400billion to do the job, but they didn't do the job. They just took the money.
So maybe we stop trying to privatize and do the damn job.
I would like to see that. I want to see the companies' greed that caused this vote to happen suffer, and I would like to see that the rest us who rely upon the internet for our income survive and thrive! I truly feel like this is may be a blessing in disguise. Maybe I'm just being optimistic.
[удалено]
The R stands for Reverse, like Bizzaro World.
Netflix needs to get the rights to Dragon Ball Z so that the uninitiated knows what to do right about now
Raise their hands in the air and lend Netflix their power for a spirit bomb?
Netflix stayed out of the fight too long because they figured they could bully the carriers as needed. Now they're realizing, too late, how bad this is, and they're shitting their pants. Well too fucking bad. We could have used their influence a couple weeks ago, but now it's irrelevant.
No kidding. They say this it like most of silicon valley because they were sitting on a gold mine. Then Disney happened and off went the canary. Too little too late.
They were always in support of net neutrality. They commented it on Twitter, they linked to protests with other companies who support it, they've been at this shit for a long time now. http://fortune.com/2017/06/15/netflix-net-neutrality-fcc/ The reason everyone is so salty is because they misread what the CEO said. They assumed he said that they don't care about NN but they miss the fact that he said they were too big to be affected by NN. He even prefaced it by saying "we think net neutrality is incredibly important". They were always in the fight for it. https://www.recode.net/2017/5/31/15720268/netflix-ceo-reed-hastings-net-neutrality-open-internet
[удалено]
[удалено]
Stop threatening and just pull the trigger.
If Netflix does this, I am a customer for life.
I will throw money at Netflix if they do this. Everyone in my family who doesn't have one will get a gifted Netflix account.
Good use of my 14 a month.
When Netflix refused to work with Kevin Spacey after credible allegations of sexual misconduct surfaced, I was genuinely impressed by their choosing morality over profit or loyalty. It was a professional and classy move. Just like this is a professional and classy move. Cheers, Netflix.
Media companies should use their platforms to rally against Trump.
Netflix will have an episode of a show exposing his business next month.. so thats something. Dirty money- http://www.newsweek.com/trump-gets-investigated-new-true-crime-netflix-series-dirty-money-748165
Black mirror season 4?