|
Shaggar posted:for grandma who has an sd tv this is good. that $10 is the entire hd tier that she doesn't need. please die grandma
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
flakeloaf posted:what about the channel-specific "click here and watch our entire tv lineup" sites that every network seems to run for free? those aren't real networks. also your taxes pay for cbc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
and global & ctv (and maybe city) are "local programming" so they may not compete as aggressively with the cableco/isp monoliths, but lots of other channels behind the cableco's paywall are watchable online for "free" someone has to be paying for that somehow quote:those aren't real networks hm interesting quote:In addition to these licensed networks, the two main private English-language over-the-air services, CTV and Global, are also generally considered to be "networks" by virtue of their national coverage, although they are not officially licensed as such. CTV was previously a licensed network, but relinquished this licence in 2001 after acquiring most of its affiliates, making operating a network licence essentially redundant (per the above definition). so i've learned my thing for today because shaggar is right flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:you're describing network peering agreements the peering agreements and in-bounds caching are the actual prioritization. and the companies with them already have the highest possible speeds into and out of the isp networks that they can possibly obtain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:and global & ctv (and maybe city) are "local programming" so they may not compete as aggressively with the cableco/isp monoliths, but lots of other channels behind the cableco's paywall are watchable online for "free" do they got ads. the ads pay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
in the us some channels are offered over the internet to cable subscribers and require a cable account to login and use. some provide these directly on their site (nbcsports) and others are provided thru the cable co via apps or w/e. They're considered part of the subscription and you cant buy access to only the channel, you have to have a full cable sub that includes the channel. wrt those local programs they're just streaming as an extension of the open air broadcasts they likely already do. This is not common in the us because every local channel is its own franchise with their own programming and the content rights negotiations to get those channels up and streaming would probably be a nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:and global & ctv (and maybe city) are "local programming" so they may not compete as aggressively with the cableco/isp monoliths, but lots of other channels behind the cableco's paywall are watchable online for "free" also they are not real networks because they are Canadian. they are American content distributors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:yeah that sort of thing has been going on for years and years, and gently caress anyone that has a problem with that. from my understanding the real beef is with the rule changes that allow for packet shaping and qos to be implemented so that certain applications/traffic get preferential treatment regardless of the peering arrangements. to be totally honest i don't really give a poo poo if they qos bittorrent guys into the ground, but i do think the FCC needs to be able to regulate and review these things in order to make sure that legitimate usage isn't being impacted unfairly if it's going to happen. qos and packet shaping is already legit allowed though the thing is the fcc proposal is basically restating all the various things companies do and deciding most of them are now to be explicitly allowed. a lot of these are things that people have been ignorant of for a long time even though they've been used often quite widely. and the other funny things is justa bout all of this is eqaully allowed in other countries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
the FCC isn't doing anything because they are a reactionary body. if it turns in to an anti-competitive pay to play scheme, then they will step in and start cracking skulls. QoS is only going to take effect on links that have congestion from multiple customers, so the peering links from folks like level3. the ISPs can't hold the people trying to move content around hostage because they always have the option to go back to a CDN or pay for a dedicated link in to an ISP and the "correct" price will be found through negotiation and exploiting the multiple options
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
hey neato, fcc chairman tom wheeler has the same name as cable company lobbyist and CTIA ceo tom wheeler whatever happened to that second guy
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:the FCC isn't doing anything because they are a reactionary body. if it turns in to an anti-competitive pay to play scheme, then they will step in and pass out resumes so they can get jobs lobbying for big telecom after they are done being at the fcc
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
lobbyists are often necessary because the target of the laws being crafted are way way too complex for some bumblefuck rep and staff to write correctly so they need input and assistance drafting legislation. the process can be abused to high hell and you need good legislature to make sure public interests are being served in the process instead of being railroaded. where the hell do you think they're going to get someone with the required knowledge and experience to oversee regulation of telecommunications?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
but please, submit your YOSPOS posting history when you apply for the FCC chair and see how far that gets you with your big ideas
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
the fcc is unironically one of the best national level communications regulatory agencies in the world
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
just get political commissars in all tech companies, they're festering shitpits of bad politics anyway
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:lobbyists are often necessary because the target of the laws being crafted are way way too complex for some bumblefuck rep and staff to write correctly so they need input and assistance drafting legislation. the process can be abused to high hell and you need good legislature to make sure public interests are being served in the process instead of being railroaded. where the hell do you think they're going to get someone with the required knowledge and experience to oversee regulation of telecommunications? you're right, an industry insider can do a good job if they have meaningful oversight, but wouldn't it be just as good to promote someone from within the ranks of a professional public service after a career spent learning about government and regulation, instead of hiring them directly from the upper echelons of the industries they're supposed to be regulating only to release them back into their loving arms when their terms expire. i don't think anyone believes elected reps are in any way qualified to run the departments they're "responsible" for
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:ideally you'd promote them from within the ranks of a professional public service after a career spent learning about government and regulation, instead of hiring them directly from the upper echelons of the industries they're supposed to be regulating only to release them back into their loving arms when their terms expire. i don't think anyone believes elected reps are in any way qualified to run the departments they're "responsible" for you can't learn about "regulation" without learning about what you're regulating.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
no very true industry execs plus meaningful oversight is a good recipe for success, just hope to hell that oversight doesn't fail
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:you can't learn about "regulation" without learning about what you're regulating. are there no other positions in the fcc other than the chairman and the board? can't you come up through the system? e: i legit do not understand how your government works
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:are there no other positions in the fcc other than the chairman and the board? can't you come up through the system? you don't understand how regulation works, apparently. how are you going to work your way from mailroom clerk to the ability to understand the implications and mechanisms of the industry and how new regulations would affect that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:you don't understand how regulation works, apparently. by finishing school and joining a career track that leads you through the managerial levels to the executive ones? the head of the CRTC didn't hatch from an egg laid by the telcos, he worked his way up by spending a few decades as a legal analyst, manager and exec at the department responsible for most federal spending regulations, and at the department he now leads
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:by finishing school and joining a career track that leads you through the managerial levels to the executive ones? the crtc is a 1000 times more cozy with the industries it regulates than the fcc is though. like ridiculously corrupt and allowing tons of abuses of canadian communications customers. also that guy id not spend decades at the crtc he appears to have shifted around multiple countries and government departments with no special knowledge of communications?? Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
well yeah, but the guy at the top looks relatively clean  "effective government oversight" is a fantasy i sometimes have e: i meant decades in the PS, i thought he spent most of his time in the vaults at TBS idk what the right answer is, but it's pretty clear that you can't gain the knowledge you need to run the system effectively without being buddies with the people who'd love to use that same system to gently caress the rest of us so you find out who's in charge of overseeing you, you play golf with him and then try not to take over the world all at once flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:well yeah, but the guy at the top looks relatively clean America has it. the FCC actually works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
that is unironically interesting to me and i would like to read more about this
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:interesting, the way it's been presented in the media makes it seem like it wasn't allowed before yeah that's one way you know you shouldn't listen to them. lots of folks are claiming network neutrality is tradition but in fact it has never existed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:interesting, the way it's been presented in the media makes it seem like it wasn't allowed before companies want to associate themselves with HELPING YOU PROTECT NET NEUTRALITY because it's positive branding, even though there was pretty much no chance of anything bad happening to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
yeah but what if i just oppose anything comcast wants via new legislation on basic principles
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:yeah but what if i just oppose anything comcast wants via new legislation on basic principles then you're stupid??? p simple
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:and that's when it hit me, i had learned to love big telecom now do GMOs
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
u don't need to know much about telecom to provide effective oversight though like you don't need to know about edge routers and qos and ipv6 and any of that nerd poo poo, you just need to know that internet is getting slower, there's only one cable co in town and guess what their prices are going up, and if you don't like that then your alternatives are basically 5mbit dsl and satellite internet ("did you just tell me to go gently caress myself?" "i believe i did, bob")
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:u don't need to know much about telecom to provide effective oversight though yep that's exactly what the net neutrality people want you to think
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:you just need to know that internet is getting slower "you just need to know something provably false" ah yes sound insight
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Actually you need to understand both sides so you dont make laws that actually degrade service like saying no QoS what so ever. oh no no nobody can make a voice call
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
pagancow posted:Actually you need to understand both sides so you dont make laws that actually degrade service I mean if you're running out of bandwidth time to raise prices to make supply and demand meet
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
is 'raising prices' code for 'indexing to inflation'
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Jimmy Carter posted:I mean if you're running out of bandwidth time to raise prices to make supply and demand meet ah yes because everyone loves higher bills
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:"you just need to know something provably false" ah yes sound insight
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 02:19
|
|
