|
FAUXTON posted:Because Netflix isn't tiering their streaming service now, nor are they offering content packages. Claiming their current offering is a "bundle" is being intentionally obtuse. No it ain't. It is in fact a bundled service, not a la carte in the least.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No it ain't. It is in fact a bundled service, not a la carte in the least. The problem with that view is that Netflix currently views its VOD streaming service as a single network, like a post-linear HBO. The company says that (and in pretty unambiguous terms) in its long-term view note. If that's the definition that prevails, the only unbundling to be done would involve content partners going into business for themselves, like Shout! Factory did a few months ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:If you want ESPN, you're paying for everything under the ESPN/ABC/Disney corporate umbrella and that's quite a bit. And this is why ESPN signing exclusivity on a lot of that stuff is such an insane thing. Suddenly if all you want to watch is hockey they can force you to pay for a bajillion other channels you'll never even turn on. Why should I be paying for Hannah Montana if the only thing I really want is the Penguins games?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:And this is why ESPN signing exclusivity on a lot of that stuff is such an insane thing. Suddenly if all you want to watch is hockey they can force you to pay for a bajillion other channels you'll never even turn on. Why should I be paying for Hannah Montana if the only thing I really want is the Penguins games? Because it subsidizes their other channels. Again, the problem with the traditional channel format is that there's not enough content to reasonably appeal to enough people to remain solvent, with rare exceptions (sports).
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because it subsidizes their other channels. This will only get worse over time, right? TV viewership, especially among demographics that advertisers want to reach, has been dropping pretty steadily. There's also some expectation to maintain or even grow profits in the face of this, and thus the shift to much higher profit-margin formats like reality TV. Anyways, I imagine the intent of TV-related stuff is to open the internet up as a distribution channel in a way that doesn't directly involve telcos/cable companies outside of the actual last-mile connections themselves. It's been a long time though since I've been involved in that world to really understand what this might do though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Pervis posted:This will only get worse over time, right? TV viewership, especially among demographics that advertisers want to reach, has been dropping pretty steadily. There's also some expectation to maintain or even grow profits in the face of this, and thus the shift to much higher profit-margin formats like reality TV. It could be mitigated somewhat if they consolidate some channels. You don't have 3 different Discovery Channels worth of material, but if you combined them all you might have a pretty popular channel, and then you don't need to rely on reality stuff. This is especially true if/when advertisers don't treat DVRs as the devil so you can have stuff "air" whenever and people can just watch it later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It could be mitigated somewhat if they consolidate some channels. You don't have 3 different Discovery Channels worth of material, but if you combined them all you might have a pretty popular channel, and then you don't need to rely on reality stuff. But then instead of having 72 hours a day of advertising slots to sell, they only have 24, and we can't have that!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:But then instead of having 72 hours a day of advertising slots to sell, they only have 24, and we can't have that! The point is that advertising is getting cheaper and cheaper because no one watches [random channel x]. TV companies don't really care about volume of ads, just revenue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
And my point is TV channels, like most businesses, blindly pursue what looks like a bigger immediate profit, even if the end result is less money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:And my point is TV channels, like most businesses, blindly pursue what looks like a bigger immediate profit, even if the end result is less money. They don't though. Right now you can only run one program at one time on one channel in a meaningful way. Hence, multiple channels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Good morning, ISPs. Here are your new rules. Pardon the hit and run, but 400 pages is a little bit much to take in when I'm already running late. EasyEW fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
EasyEW posted:Good morning, ISPs. Here are your new rules. An important point I've noticed already: CDNs are (rightfully) not counted as "paid prioritization for network service".
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:An important point I've noticed already: CDNs are (rightfully) not counted as "paid prioritization for network service". I'm actually in disagreement on this one. Despite the large number of connections, most CDNs are shuttling around (minified!) text files. If Netflix isn't/shouldn't be getting preferential treatment (outside of normal QoS), neither should CDNs. Not so much because I have any particular problem with them, but because it's unnecessary IMO, and you need to keep the playing field as level as possible to close loopholes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Treating use of a CDN as paid prioritization would be a stupid rule.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:I'm actually in disagreement on this one. Despite the large number of connections, most CDNs are shuttling around (minified!) text files. If Netflix isn't/shouldn't be getting preferential treatment (outside of normal QoS), neither should CDNs. Not so much because I have any particular problem with them, but because it's unnecessary IMO, and you need to keep the playing field as level as possible to close loopholes. The gently caress is this? No, most CDNs handle video and graphics and audio, in terms of actual data pushed. CDNs don't get preferential treatment, anyone can choose to host a service in an ISP's data center for rates that are pretty close to general market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
I'm seeing people claiming that carriers are defined as conduits (or something like that) which would them immune to copyright lawsuits and somehow protect end users from the kind of suits that the content industry lawyers were using to get the identity of file sharers. Does anyone know if that's just a bunch of internet lawyering or is there some truth to it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The gently caress is this? No, most CDNs handle video and graphics and audio, in terms of actual data pushed. CDNs don't get preferential treatment, anyone can choose to host a service in an ISP's data center for rates that are pretty close to general market. Only CDNs I've ever used are for javascript libraries 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Only CDNs I've ever used are for javascript libraries You have never used akamai?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
karthun posted:You have never used akamai? There was CoralCDN too, but it doesn't seem to be working anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Only CDNs I've ever used are for javascript libraries You've never used Windows (Windows update uses CDNs) or YouTube or Netflix or Facebook or major news sites or many major image-hosting sites or Steam or other games with online patches from a major publisher? I find that hard to believe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:I'm seeing people claiming that carriers are defined as conduits (or something like that) which would them immune to copyright lawsuits and somehow protect end users from the kind of suits that the content industry lawyers were using to get the identity of file sharers. Does anyone know if that's just a bunch of internet lawyering or is there some truth to it? Internet lawyering on the second part, sort of accurate on the first part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Internet lawyering on the second part, sort of accurate on the first part. So they're not liable for what their end users do? I guess I can see how that would indirectly help end users of a company that gives zero fucks about its business relationship with content producers. Not Comcast or TW users, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You've never used Windows (Windows update uses CDNs) or YouTube or Netflix or Facebook or major news sites or many major image-hosting sites or Steam or other games with online patches from a major publisher? I find that hard to believe. It's obvious from the context that used means "pasted a CDN URL into a source file while building a website"
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
EasyEW posted:Good morning, ISPs. Here are your new rules. the rules themselves are pages 283-290 as far as I can tell, and the entirety of the relevant text to net neutrality is as follows: quote:§ 8.5 No blocking. WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Mar 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:It's obvious from the context that used means "pasted a CDN URL into a source file while building a website" That is not how using a CDN usually works. The CDN url would usually be generated on the fly by the CDN serving your page's images and such. Many don't even use special urls, they simply redirect the browser to the proper place (the CDN Imgur uses works like that). If you yourself are claiming you're familiar with writing a website, you should be aware of this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:So they're not liable for what their end users do? I guess I can see how that would indirectly help end users of a company that gives zero fucks about its business relationship with content producers. Not Comcast or TW users, though. The first part is just a restatement of the DMCA safe harbor and has gently caress all to do with anything this thread is about. E: the immunity isn't absolute, it's conditioned on you behaving and taking down infringing content.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The first part is just a restatement of the DMCA safe harbor and has gently caress all to do with anything this thread is about. E: the immunity isn't absolute, it's conditioned on you behaving and taking down infringing content. I wasn't talking about providing content, though - just acting as a carrier to get anything available on the internet to end users. I assumed DMCA still applied to hosts, but I've seen claims that there are now more protections for carriers, but I think you're saying that's also just the DMCA at work, right? Nintendo Kid posted:That is not how using a CDN usually works. The CDN url would usually be generated on the fly by the CDN serving your page's images and such. Many don't even use special urls, they simply redirect the browser to the proper place (the CDN Imgur uses works like that). Yes, I'm aware of how CDNs work but you don't have to have a sophisticated understanding of them to copy+paste something from https://developers.google.com/speed/libraries/devguide and use a CDN for somewhat loose definition of 'use'
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
There's the 111 retransmission exemption, I guess they could be talking about that, but it isn't common carrier specific - ISPs could take advantage of it already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
I posted the rules on FB from NPR and I was told I place too much faith in bureaucracy. I thought the rules were quite clear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 15:43
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
