WTF: Beat Competitors In Europe With Fast Lane Internet Deals
- Thread starter Janiform
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 392
- Likes
- 278
- Degree
- 1
thats the european parliament in a nut shell, one hand doesn't know what the other does, on one hand they are sueing google for favoring their own properties, and now they say it's ok to do that but we will still sue google, well at least I guess we now now were we hid the morons in europe
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 6,140
- Likes
- 12,859
- Degree
- 9
My understanding is that the intent is to do the exact opposite while allowing loopholes for emerging technology, such as self-driving cars that will need to make sure they get fast and accurate data streams up and down. I think we can all agree that that's sensical.
The problem that has everyone claiming they did the opposite is that these loopholes were too broadly defined (if not defined at all...) and we all know that that's how politicians play the corruption game too. "Well... you didn't say we couldn't do this, you just said we could do that..."
It's all going in that direction anyways. The entire game since the technological age has been about the controlling the flow of information. You make sure you know where it's going (Orwell) and you drown out the signal with noise (Huxley). They nailed it T over 60 years ago. I guess the question becomes... did they predict it or accidentally write a nice blueprint for our governments?
Even in the US, no matter how many times iterations of this get defeated, it keeps getting pushed right back through because corporations are dumping millions upon millions into politicians pockets to back it. And even when it fails, they just go ahead and do it anyways.
You Comcast users ever notice how Netflix just doesn't like to run worth a shit randomly? Comcast doesn't want to spend the money running around their colluded territory upgrading physical infrastructure. They didn't anticipate 480p YouTubes or 720p Netflix's or even 1080p streams from more premium services.
They don't think that should be their fault. They don't think they should have to provide what they sell if the demands of the product change. So they want to create a fast lane / slow lane game to charge Netflix more money. But they can't, so they keep throttling Netflix instead, which ends up costing Netflix views, visitors, and eventually subscriptions.
And guess what Netflix will eventually do? They'll pay Comcast a premium to get rid of the bottleneck on their bandwidth. And then they'll charge the customer a higher price to make up for it, possibly more for a little extra profit. And it's not just about bandwidth (nor the fact that Comcast owns 1/3rd of the biggest Netflix competitor, Hulu). It's about these new platforms totally eradicating the old media platforms.
The only people I know that still pay for Cable television are either 50 years of age or older, or too lazy to figure out how to operate computers and tablets. "Just have the cable man come set it up and hand me the clicker."
That scares these ISP fucks because their time is nigh and they didn't adapt. They think money is going to buy their way out of it, and it used to and still might. It might buy them the new platforms. Money definitely used buy them a way out when technology didn't change as fast as it does now. Which further makes you wonder where humanity might be if we didn't have these corrupt bastards impeding progress for profit.
All the while, individual publishers like HBO and Showtime, who spent all these years developing premium content while under the thumb of cable providers now are telling them to get fucked and releasing their own $9.99 a month services. No more middle men sucking out their profits.
It's beautiful, but they're going to go down kicking and screaming and throwing the last bit of their money everywhere they can to try to stop the change. It's going to be annoying until another generation or two dies off and the entire paradigm has finally shifted into a world who never DIDN'T know "$9.99 watch whatever I want whenever I want without commercials" instead of $150 a month for a shit load of channels I didn't want full of more commercials than actual air time.
The problem that has everyone claiming they did the opposite is that these loopholes were too broadly defined (if not defined at all...) and we all know that that's how politicians play the corruption game too. "Well... you didn't say we couldn't do this, you just said we could do that..."
It's all going in that direction anyways. The entire game since the technological age has been about the controlling the flow of information. You make sure you know where it's going (Orwell) and you drown out the signal with noise (Huxley). They nailed it T over 60 years ago. I guess the question becomes... did they predict it or accidentally write a nice blueprint for our governments?
Even in the US, no matter how many times iterations of this get defeated, it keeps getting pushed right back through because corporations are dumping millions upon millions into politicians pockets to back it. And even when it fails, they just go ahead and do it anyways.
You Comcast users ever notice how Netflix just doesn't like to run worth a shit randomly? Comcast doesn't want to spend the money running around their colluded territory upgrading physical infrastructure. They didn't anticipate 480p YouTubes or 720p Netflix's or even 1080p streams from more premium services.
They don't think that should be their fault. They don't think they should have to provide what they sell if the demands of the product change. So they want to create a fast lane / slow lane game to charge Netflix more money. But they can't, so they keep throttling Netflix instead, which ends up costing Netflix views, visitors, and eventually subscriptions.
And guess what Netflix will eventually do? They'll pay Comcast a premium to get rid of the bottleneck on their bandwidth. And then they'll charge the customer a higher price to make up for it, possibly more for a little extra profit. And it's not just about bandwidth (nor the fact that Comcast owns 1/3rd of the biggest Netflix competitor, Hulu). It's about these new platforms totally eradicating the old media platforms.
The only people I know that still pay for Cable television are either 50 years of age or older, or too lazy to figure out how to operate computers and tablets. "Just have the cable man come set it up and hand me the clicker."
That scares these ISP fucks because their time is nigh and they didn't adapt. They think money is going to buy their way out of it, and it used to and still might. It might buy them the new platforms. Money definitely used buy them a way out when technology didn't change as fast as it does now. Which further makes you wonder where humanity might be if we didn't have these corrupt bastards impeding progress for profit.
All the while, individual publishers like HBO and Showtime, who spent all these years developing premium content while under the thumb of cable providers now are telling them to get fucked and releasing their own $9.99 a month services. No more middle men sucking out their profits.
It's beautiful, but they're going to go down kicking and screaming and throwing the last bit of their money everywhere they can to try to stop the change. It's going to be annoying until another generation or two dies off and the entire paradigm has finally shifted into a world who never DIDN'T know "$9.99 watch whatever I want whenever I want without commercials" instead of $150 a month for a shit load of channels I didn't want full of more commercials than actual air time.
emp
BuSo Pro
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2014
- Messages
- 556
- Likes
- 583
- Degree
- 2
OK.. from an European perspective:
What a lot of commentators seem to think of as EU LAW is, in reality eu "law"
The EU defines a minimal common denominator.
Yes, these laws have to be poured into concrete law in each of the member states.
But!
Any country can add and tighten these guidelines.
We have seen this a lot for data protection laws, for example.
The good
In this current case, the thinking behind the EU's ruling is not stupid.
The ruling states that there can be data lanes reserved for "special services".
The intent was to create the posibility to reserve capacity for critical services.
- Mobility(traffic)
- Medical
- Emergency.
In a time where more and more of these rely on internet connectivity, this is IMHO a clear sighted ruling.
You don't want granny to die because your neighbour is downloading adult movies, and the medical apparatus can't connect to the internet.
The bad
Most critics cry about the loopholes in the wording. The EU did not define what makes up a "special service" opening this for any interpretation.
The ugly
Now is when it gets interesting. Each member state now has to make this into country law.
This can be great (airtight definition of "special services"), or horrible ("YouTube $ure is $pecial right?")
depending on the country and corruption of its policy makers.
My take
As stated above, I think the intent is good. I am a strong advocate for net neutrality, but the amount to which critical infrastructure depends on the net is staggering (and a bit scary).
Reserving capacity for these makes sense. Seeing that we are getting to a point where every TV, every phone, every fridge wants to connect and transmit data).
I would have wished for a better definition. Why a vague, but clear enough thing like: "Services vital to life and well-being of the populace" hasn't made it in there, I do not know.
What now?
A lot can and will happen in the 28 member states now.
VERY interesting will be the development in Germany (good hopes) France - (eeeks) and the UK (errr?)
As these can and will set precedent and a general idea of where to head with this.
If you are in places like Greece, Bulgaria, Italy... I'm sorry.
::emp::
What a lot of commentators seem to think of as EU LAW is, in reality eu "law"
The EU defines a minimal common denominator.
Yes, these laws have to be poured into concrete law in each of the member states.
But!
Any country can add and tighten these guidelines.
We have seen this a lot for data protection laws, for example.
The good
In this current case, the thinking behind the EU's ruling is not stupid.
The ruling states that there can be data lanes reserved for "special services".
The intent was to create the posibility to reserve capacity for critical services.
- Mobility(traffic)
- Medical
- Emergency.
In a time where more and more of these rely on internet connectivity, this is IMHO a clear sighted ruling.
You don't want granny to die because your neighbour is downloading adult movies, and the medical apparatus can't connect to the internet.
The bad
Most critics cry about the loopholes in the wording. The EU did not define what makes up a "special service" opening this for any interpretation.
The ugly
Now is when it gets interesting. Each member state now has to make this into country law.
This can be great (airtight definition of "special services"), or horrible ("YouTube $ure is $pecial right?")
depending on the country and corruption of its policy makers.
My take
As stated above, I think the intent is good. I am a strong advocate for net neutrality, but the amount to which critical infrastructure depends on the net is staggering (and a bit scary).
Reserving capacity for these makes sense. Seeing that we are getting to a point where every TV, every phone, every fridge wants to connect and transmit data).
I would have wished for a better definition. Why a vague, but clear enough thing like: "Services vital to life and well-being of the populace" hasn't made it in there, I do not know.
What now?
A lot can and will happen in the 28 member states now.
VERY interesting will be the development in Germany (good hopes) France - (eeeks) and the UK (errr?)
As these can and will set precedent and a general idea of where to head with this.
If you are in places like Greece, Bulgaria, Italy... I'm sorry.
::emp::
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2015
- Messages
- 79
- Likes
- 107
- Degree
- 0
Well said man.
Another interesting concept is "zero-rating", where providers don't charge customers for using specific services. They do this in developing countries with Facebook, Google, and Wikipedia. The question, of course, then becomes: at which point is a service big enough to consider it such a standard part of everyday life that it deserves a zero-rating? IMO all search engines deserve this rating (not just Google, all of them).
I think that as soon as there's room for "creative interpretation" in corrupt countries, "special service CDN's" might be the result.
Another obvious one: it'll be open season on special services, especially in countries with airtight definitions. Hackers gotta have that fast lane internetz...
In other words: good intentions, but things might get as messy as the EU cookie laws with the solution becoming more annoying than the problem. Let's see!
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2015
- Messages
- 79
- Likes
- 107
- Degree
- 0
On point. Paper newspapers, cable television, taxi's... they're all on their way out because consumer behavior has changed. Why pay for a piece of paper when you can check news online? Why pay for cable when you can stream TV from anywhere in the world for free? Why pay for a hotel when you can AirBnB the crap out of Berlin's city center?
Heck, here in Holland there's apps now where you can check what other people in your neighborhood are cooking and see if they cooked more than they can eat so you can eat it or where you can check who in the vicinity has that specific tool you probably only need once or twice so you can borrow instead of buy.