Posts by Uncle Ron 345 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Feb 2013
I have watched two other Antares launches and they all seem to have this side-step right after lift-off. Very unnerving and seems wrong. Might be an artifact of having only two engines vs 5 for Saturn V and 9 for SpaceX thing. Thrust vectoring is more difficult with just 2. Anyway, it doesn't seem like an "anomaly."
I don't consider an ISP to be a "startup" in OTT content services. They just happen to own the wires--and huge profits. Poor Telenor wants to offer "TelenorFlix" and finds it tough to compete with the big bad Netflix from the US. They're having a hard time further monetizing (a word I hate) their semi-monopoly, which began over a hundred years ago as a -state owned- monopoly.
IMHO, The ISP's and cable TV companies should stick to their knitting. They shouldn't be allowed to build or buy a content and advert offering on the back of the business they simply inherited. They shouldn't be allowed to use their government sponsored franchise--or License to Print Money--against a successful specialist that has done almost everything right.
This "sense of entitlement" on the part of monopoly telecoms and monopoly cable TV companies around the world is breathtaking. They feel they should be the arbiters--and gatekeepers--of everything we see and hear. We must separate--completely--the plumbing and the content, or this bellyaching--and the consequent fleecing of consumers--will never stop.
I suggest US readers research the position on telecom policy of all candidates--inquire if necessary--and vote accordingly next week. Your cost for internet service could SKYROCKET over the next several years if you vote wrong. I mean a $2,000 to $3,000 per year "tax" increase on the average voter. No exaggeration.
I have a traffic meter on my Netgear router. I stream most of my TV. Netflix, MLB.tv, VUDU movies, CNBC and more using multiple Roku 3's. I average about 750 GB per month. Turn on your traffic meter and check how much you are using. You might be shocked.
I did the currency translation and the math, and this tax alone would cost me $476 per MONTH. That's a $5,700 per year tax increase.
God bless Hungary. I hope this doesn't happen there--or anywhere.
Patent trolls don't "file phoney patents." They buy patents and sit on them waiting to sue somebody. That's what should be illegal. People shouldn't be allowed to do that. Huh? And, if the original owner of a patent, or his heirs/assignees don't actually -use- the patent in something, pretty quickly--something real, and important--they should lose the patent. Even as a developer, you shouldn't be allowed to bottle up a discovery simply to extort money. Use it, or lose it.
I feel strongly about both sides of this argument :-) And that it totally depends on -what- the business is: Finance and Insurance and maybe Retail companies are different from Consumer Products, Manufacturing, and--you get the idea. Some rely on, and can benefit more from, advanced and leading edge IT strategies, and others rely more on other stuff for breakout success. I remember an insurance exec telling me once that, "We're really an IT company that's in the insurance business..."
An IT exec on the board of a car company might be unnecessary--and maybe even a hindrance. Putting the senior IT exec on the board of Boeing might not help so much...
Huh?
It's long overdue that patent reform preclude people from hoarding patents. You're welcome to patent something, put it in your products and receive protection to the fullest extent of the law for the normal number of years. But, if you don't actually use the patent in your own products, or sell the patent very quickly to someone who does, the patent becomes null and void--and unpatentable by anyone else. Just that simple.
The usage "expiration date" should be something like, say, two years. Use it or lose it. What we have now is just dumb. We should put the patent troll scum out of business.
"It's a shame that they didn't invest more money trying to add the extra features to OpenOffice that really would have allowed it to be compatible."
People just have to remember that the reason developments like this don't happen isn't money, it's IP restrictions. Eg., Visual Basic is required make Powerpoint work. To make any Powerpoint clone compatible with Powerpoint created files would impinge on MS IP. MS owns Visual Basic lock, stock and barrel. No Powerpoint clone is -ever- going to be acceptably compatible with Powerpoint. The OpenOffice variants just aren't good enough, fast enough, compatible enough.
I heard that Gerstner bought Lotus for one reason only: Their replication technology. Lotus had that locked up and IBM wanted those patents to use everywhere. Broadband didn't quite exist yet. Replication was -really- useful. IBM didn't give a rat's rear about 1-2-3 or AmiPro or any of it--just the replication part.
I'm a total dummy when it comes to this stuff. Can someone succinctly state how 4 and 6 can get along? Couldn't the world just "switch over" during a weekend, or even shut the whole thing down for a week and convert? Surely it would be worth it to end the v4 nightmare (not just address availability) we have been living in for 2 decades. Shut 'er down and start up Friday a week. Huh?
Even though eBay is a huge, world-wide "thing" it just doesn't have the scale, or acumen, or skill to do all this stuff itself. As sure as I'm sitting here, there is as little "off-the shelf" stuff inside eBay as they can possibly manage to have. They start with open-source (read: free) SW. Then they build their own servers, network stuff, OS stack, messaging system, scheduler, DB, and on and on. They're just to good to use (and pay for) any horrible "vendor" stuff in their house. Their ego is equally too huge to admit that someone else may know better.
Also, as sure as I'm sitting here, the outages they have had in the last week did, or should have, cost them as much as they have saved doing it themselves. I'll bet a steak dinner that DB2 and MQ and GPFS, or whatever Oracle sells that is similar but not as good, would not have let this happen. The big banks around the world know this, somebody should tell eBay execs.
Economies of scale: OEM pays MS something like USD$50 per machine it ships. You pay $450 to OEM and $50 to MS for a $500 machine. Maybe different if OEM gets $$ from other bloatware it ships with MS machines. So, not that much less if you get bare metal. Plus, if you had to separately buy MS OS (if no bundling allowed) it would be A LOT more--maybe 2x, 3x, 4x, if MS had fewer machines to spread costs over.
People are lazy. They simply fire up whatever OS comes with the machine. They don't want choices, i.e., press 1) to install Windows, 2) to install Linux, 3) to insall Edgar's OS. People don't buy an OS. They buy a laptop, or desktop, or whatever and just want to turn it on. You don't buy an OS with a TV set or a BD player.
It's probably unfair to penalize or to consider penalizing MS in 2014 for a marketplace system that has been institutionalized since the 1980's. It's not good or bad, it just is. Huh?
The repliers have made fair points about legislators being bought and paid for by Comcast. But not all have been, and not all are on the record. Force your Congresscritter to state his position on new "last mile" legislation, and reclassifying internet service as a utility. Unless s/he says the right things, vote for the other guy.
Comcast is a damn cable TV company. Franchised in every place they operate to deliver, not own, content. Why they are in the advertising business and speaking at advertising conferences is totally beyond me.
We need to separate "the last mile" from every other business, carefully regulate that, and let everybody compete. This works in other developed countries with better, newer technology, faster speeds, better service, better technology, more competition--and LOWER PRICES.
Don't think for a moment that "slipping ads" into hot spot streams is the end of Comcast's nefarious plans. Imagine, for a moment, that Comcast implements Metered Billing, as they have publicly stated they intend to do. Then imagine that they can now bill you for using the internet WHEREVER YOU ARE! This is their plan for having 'hot spots' all over the place. Think for a moment that each time you turn on a light in a hotel room, or used an air dryer in public restroom in a highway rest stop, or--you get the idea--that YOUR HOME ELECTRIC BILL WAS CHARGED!! That's their plan. To bill you for internet service wherever you are. And they actually intend to use other people's routers to do this! We have to stop Comcast and the other cable and telecoms in the US from taking over and making huge profits from what should be our public utilities. Vote accordingly in November.
Throughout history, every mind-blowingly expensive, unbelievably complex new offensive weapon has many times been trumped by some unbelievably less expensive, much simpler, defensive weapon--or in some cases, rendered useless by it's own impossible complexity. Soon, every bit of data stored and sent anywhere and everywhere will be impossible to decrypt in transmission or in situ in any sort of timely or useful fashion. We'll be reduced back to spying on people with binoculars and microphones hidden in a painting. Good.
The responses I got to "Q from the US" are -very- much appreciated. I am truly grateful to Reg readers for the time and effort. THANK YOU.
I hope many in the US have read these responses and realize, though not a perfect happy utopia, internet service, in general, in the UK is FAR superior and cheaper and more competitive than almost ANYTHING offered to the consumer in the US.
US legislators and regulators: Read these responses carefully. You will not be able to keep the generally crappy, corrupt, monopoly situation in the US a secret much longer. US providers have raised "shaping" and "artificial scarcity" to a high art.
When most people use the term "copper" they mean twisted pair copper wire, not coaxial cable. The difference between twisted pair copper wire and glass fiber is substantial. Between coax and fiber, not so much. One uses electrons and one uses photons. Each (coax and fiber) can shoot 100's of g'bits/second, copper wire cannot.
Huh?
Speed is one thing (no home user really needs this kind of speed--only a business with dozens or hundreds of users, terminals, cash registers, etc.--really -needs- this right? But the speed doesn't matter at all if there's some sort of Metered Billing for usage. This is the ISP publicly stated plan for consumers in the US. What do ISP's in Blighty charge for high-speed internet service? Capped, uncapped, Metered Usage? And at what speeds? THANKS.
I don't trust a single breath (or any other gas) escaping from Tom Wheeler. I feel there is a hidden objective beneficial to his cable and internet industry overlords contained somewhere in here. Something they can use later to justify Metered Billing of internet service. This is the ultimate, pot-of-gold objective that all the cable system and telecom monopolies have. They want us to accept Data Caps, and Metered Billing as a fact of life, and have publicly stated as much. See David Cohen's remarks to Comcast investors in February of this this year.
Metered Billing is not only an unjustified price gouge and profit windfall for these monopolies, but a DISINCENTIVE to them to improve technology and capacity. The old monopolist credo of "create artificial scarcity" is very much in play here in the US. They have also publicly stated they expect the average consumer bill for internet service will be $200 to $300 per month within the next 3 to 5 years--just the bits, no content.
America is sunk as a technology leader if we let this happen.
If the Comcast/Time Warner Cable deal is approved, the new, larger Comcast would serve 91 percent of all Hispanic households and be the top distributor in 19 of the top 20 Hispanic markets. Comcast owns Telemundo. Where do you think that leaves Univision when it wants to offer new channels or transmit anything on anything owned by Comcast? Univision will be thwarted and throttled and screwed at every turn. This is just not right.
This proposed merger would be a NATIONAL DISASTER for America. It cannot be allowed. Please find out where your Congressman and Senators stand on this thing and vote accordingly in November.
You have to carefully look at the setup--the way we set up cable systems in this country--to understand the fatal flaw in the ointment: As another poster above stated, allowing monopoly cable systems to also own content and other services (Comcast is the basket case here) is a fatally designed system. Comcast has a monopoly on the coax cable going into 10's of millions of homes in the US (forget AT&T because DSL over copper wire will never approach coax for bandwidth--never, and AT&T will -never- make the investments necessary to be competitive--never,) and Comcast also owns a HUGE ISP, plus NBC, CNBC, Bravo, USA Network, MSNBC, Universal Studios, Comcast Sports Network, Telemundo and more and more.
If I owned all this, what would my behavior be like? You guessed it: Terrible service, lousy technology, near-zero investment, thwarting competition at every opportunity, and constantly rising prices. This is the natural order of things. Monopolies create artificial scarcity and have no incentive to improve. Why should they? They have no competition--or what they do have can "be dealt with." BTW, if the Comcast merger is allowed, look for a ComcastFlix coming soon through a cable near you. They'll put Netflix out of business pretty quickly, and your new monthly fee for ComcastFlix won't be $9.95. Bet on it. It's what I would do if I ran Comcast. Wouldn't you? David Cohen, SVP of Comcast, has already publicly stated that he expects to implement Metered Billing for internet service "across our footprint" within 3-5 years. And the US National Cable Industry Association has also publicly predicted that the average consumer bill for internet service--just internet service--will be $200 to $300 per month in that same time period.
That's what I mean by "the setup." It's fatally flawed in America and must be changed. If it isn't, we will continue to fall behind other countries--and not just in internet service. Every system administrator reading this board knows that if Comcast doesn't like what El Reg is saying about them, POOF!, El Reg is throttled out of existence to Comcast users. You know it can be done without a trace of evidence. Readers will just stop coming here because, half the time, it just takes too long to load the page--or worse. Goodbye forever.
Terry, "I think you're really arguing for a regulated monopoly." That is -exactly- what I am arguing for. The last mile would be a -very- closely regulated monopoly. Only the last mile would be a monopoly. Call it "plumbing only." No data-centers, no ISP services, no TV channels, no movie studios, no streaming services--none of it. That's why it's called "the last mile." It's just wiring. It's not a sexy business, but it is a monopoly. It is the biggest hurdle to competition that there is in the telecom business right now. And probably for decades to come.
If we made such rules, with a firm set of guidelines as to the value of these assets, there would be thousands of bond issuers lined up to finance the purchase of this "last mile" by city governments, county councils, and private parties based on the usage fees (remember, carefully regulated) that they could collect from both end-user consumers and the "hookers-on." Many developers currently -already- pay for wiring up their new apartment buildings and subdivisions but expansion and maintenance fees would be carefully monitored and performance and profit limits would be set. That's what a regulated monopoly is. Bingo, you have hoards of ISP wanna-be's, and Netflixes, voice, and video and more, champing at the bit to get in this game.
Think about it: If your Comcast or Cox bill is currently $150 per month, how much do you think is going to depreciation, maintenance, and expansion of the WIRE? Ten bucks? Fifteen bucks? The rest goes to HBO, CBS, NBC, ESPN, Fox Sports, etc. How much goes to support Cox "Turbo" internet service? I'm sure as I'm sitting here that it's not much more than the cost of the wire. It shouldn't be one business that can price-gouge based on the fact that they own wire.
What you are suggesting is not only a good idea, it is absolutely vital that we do this. Any reasonable, knowledgeable person, not in the pocket of the cable and telecom industry, would come to this conclusion. Any other solution is good for NO one, except the stockholders and executives of Verizon and Comcast.
How do we get it done? Sue? Vote for Democrats who have already agreed to do it? How?
Verizon springs from a long line of monopolists whose sole objective is to maximize pricing and minimize investment. Monopolies have done this throughout history. They create artificial scarcity. It is -exactly- what I would do if I ran Verizon. I would do everything under the sun, everything even roughly close to being legal, to charge more and more for my scarcer and scarcer product. All the while using little to none of the revenue to improve the product.
It is -not- possible to legislate this mentality out of them. It is -not- possible to regulate this mentality out of them. It is -not- possible to inspect this mentality out of them. The only solution is to re-structure the ISP industry in the US. Separate the "last mile" of infrastructure from EVERYTHING else. No TV channels, no ISP service, no movie studios, no websites, no streaming services--NOTHING. Let every competitor hook up with their offerings and the best ones will win. This is how it's done in some other countries and, guess what--it works. Better service, higher speeds, more offerings, lower prices, newer technology faster.
If your current Congressman and Senators don't commit to this solution, vote for the other guy/gal in the Fall. If we don't do this, America will lose more and more ground to our competitors.
Competition works, monopoly doesn't. Let's do this.
I can see why some app developer would want permissions to do all sorts of things in order to monetize it's free app. But it shouldn't be allowed. Apps ask for all manner of stuff that is in no way required by the app to function. That should be the end of it. I don't load any but the most high viz apps (like Netflix, MLB, etc.) and won't load any that require permissions beyond what the app needs to function. I think Google should clamp down. I'm sick of it. No app needs my friends e-mail addresses in order to function. The developer is simply selling these addresses to third parties. Shouldn't be allowed. A pox on all their houses.
No one has been "bought" by anyone yet. The Comcast deal is by no means done, the AT&T deal is by no means done. Neither of these deals is in the best interest of the consumer, and as publicly regulated monopolies, both Comcast and AT&T (as opposed to just private companies) have to answer to regulators as to the benefits to the public of their grabs. Since there is NO benefit to the consumer (just the opposite) the deals should both be denied.
These companies don't get to operate as competitive, free enterprise players, because they are shielded from competition by their monopoly franchise agreements. They get to be regulated in return for their license to print money. That regulation must include denial of these mergers as there is no benefit. Just more price gouging. If they are allowed to do this, the regulators and legislators are truly corrupt.
I hate to find myself on the same side of -any- issue as Charlie Ergen (I'd hate to even be on the same side of the -street- as Charlie Ergen) but I have to be on the same side here.
I'm as wildly in favor of capitalism and free markets as the next guy, but this isn't that. The cable system monopolies in the US do -not- represent free enterprise or free markets. They are government franchised, regulated monopolies. In return for their license to print money, granted to them by local, state and Federal agencies, they do not get to exercise all the freedoms we grant competitive enterprises. Because they are shielded from competition by their monopoly franchise agreements.
Only if Comcast were willing to divest everything but the last mile of cable (everything includes Universal Studios, NBC, MSNBC, E! Networks, USA Networks, Bravo, Comcast Sports Network, and all of it's ISP activities) would I even listen to a pitch to allow them to merge with Time Warner Cable. Separating the last mile of infrastructure from -everything- else is how it's done in other countries, AND IT WORKS. Better pricing, better performance, better technology, better service, better offerings.
We cannot allow Comcast to own and operate telecommunications in America, and we cannot allow them to impose their taxes on us for the privilege. They will create artificial scarcity, put competitors out of business, and raise prices in the process. It stinks. Charlie Ergen stinks too, but he's right here...
T-Mobil isn't the only culprit--albeit an egregious one. Sprint was (and maybe still is) guilty of cramming/complexifying bills/dealing with crooked vendors. ANY reasonable person would agree that what these mobile and even fixed line "providers" are doing is enabling, and profiting from, plain and simple fraud. They're doing it on purpose, profiting from it, and blatantly screwing their customers.
Why haven't they been made to suffer? Why hasn't jail time been given out? Why hasn't spectrum been taken away from them? Why haven't they been fined, say, $50 for EVERY customer they have? WHY? Because they make huge political campaign contributions and their former chief lobbyist is Chairman of THE FCC! Why aren't campaign contributions and lobbying from regulated companies and defense contractors ILLEGAL? Because we are a stupid people. And we are getting more stupid every day.
If I tried to bill my customers $9.95 per month for something I KNEW they never signed up for, I would go to jail for AT LEAST A YEAR! Take away all T-Mobil's profits for a year. See what happens then.
It appears as though "No-IP" (which I never heard of until this came up) is the sort of company that turns it's head on what it's customers are doing in order to make money. If true, I'd like to see -all- it's "legitimate" users of "No-IP" turn their heads to some other provider. If I -know- a gun buyer is going to use his purchase to commit a crime, then the responsible thing for me to do is -not- sell him the gun, right?
From what I read, "No-IP" -knew- some of it's customers were using it's data-center to store and forward malware and for command and control of criminal botnets. To the tune of TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT of world-wide traffic! They -knew- it.
I read somewhere that 24% of world-wide internet traffic is criminal activity. ISP's and other service providers who turn a blind-eye on this activity for their own gain should be hung out to dry--or worse.
Huh?
Tom Wheeler is the former president of the US Cable Industry Association and it's former chief lobbyist to all government agencies and legislative bodies. He is -also- the former president of the Cellular and Internet Industry Association and it's former chief lobbyist to all government agencies and legislative bodies.
How this guy is -anywhere- near the regulatory process, much less Chairman of the US FCC is -totally- beyond any logic.
You are very lucky. You are also in Canada, correct? Less than 30% of Americans have any such option. Nor are they likely to in "the future." The infrastructure cost in the US would be HUGE. Google's footprint is tiny, and I have never even heard of "Bell Aliant FibreOP FTTH." Is it offered anywhere other than Canada?
Further, in the absence of some US regulatory requirement, an ISP would be plain foolish not to inch closer to the "norm" (Metered Billing) that Comcast et al. are setting up and publicly talking about right now. In fact, it would be "business negligence" to be "altruistic" with shareholders' money, right? Their incentive is to "monetize" their monopoly to the max. Right?
The only solution in the US is that, if Comcast et al. want to be in these other businesses, they should be required to sell off "the last mile" and open it up to all comers. Closely regulate and inspect that "last mile" and let anybody hook on who wants to. That removes the incentive to throttle content companies. As a truly regulated monopoly, the "last mile" company couldn't price gouge. The "plumbing and the water" would not be owned by the same company. This is done in other countries and it works. Some of the industry studies that led to this arrangement, to eliminate shenanigans and price gouging, were done in Canada.
"Those old enough to remember being charged...would probably rebel."
How would they rebel? There is no competition. 70% of Americans have ONE choice for high-speed internet service: Their local cable system monopoly. And the Comcasts and Verizons of the world are not stupid: They will charge just enough, and ramp up charges just enough, over a period of time to stay under the radar of public outrage.
Wouldn't you love to have a business that allowed you to very nicely and very comfortably increase revenue and profit every year BY DOING NOTHING? Look for $200, $300 a month bills--just for internet service--over the next 3 to 5 years. The big shots in the industry are already publicly predicting this!
If America lets this happen, it's the end of the road for America. Not hyperbole.
Of course they throttled Netflix. Of course they did. If I was running Verizon I'd do everything I could to create and maintain artificial scarcity across the board. Netflix is simply the most visible. I believe Aereo is also being throttled. As well as numerous web sites.
An investigation will turn up Nothing of Any Kind. Because every system administrator reading this knows there are countless ways to monkey with a content provider without leaving -any- breadcrumbs whatsoever. It will be the methodology used by the huge ISP's in order justify implementing Metered Billing as quickly and as pervasively as possible. Metered Billing is the real pot-of-gold for the ISP's. Almost limitless profitability.
I believe they are also using Net Neutrality as a red herring to further justify Metered Billing. They will first seem to fight, then seem to cave, on Net Neutrality, then use this "loss" as a further justification (the first being scarcity) to go to Metered Billing.
These are exactly the steps I would take if I ran any of these companies. The strategy is so patently obvious as to require a bribed and paid off lackey to miss.
What do you think?
Swainson is showing his "IBM'ness." IBM has always been a "fast follower" (sometimes not so fast) and was never the first out of the gate on any really new tech. IBM may have "invented" all of it, but they let others test the marketplace first. Dell has never really done any R&D so Swainson fits right in there, since Dell has no capability to be in this game.
HP is probably right that to fully exploit Storage Class Memory (which is what memristor is) would require a new architecture, and a new OS. This new HW/OS combination would completely bypass the traditional I/O subsystem--which is a -huge- bottleneck. The OS would have to be aware of it, and probably (but not necessarily) apps would have to be aware.
However, IBM is also aware of this. In a big way. IBM will certainly be a "fast follower" if HP digs up some paydirt. Of all the "big boys" out there, HP is possibly the most likely to be first out of the gate. But they won't be alone for long...
"...the commission would encourage other cities to consider their own public broadband services to compete with commercial carriers in underserved areas."
Exactly what does cable-lobbyist Wheeler mean by "underserved?" Does he mean "rural" or "poor" or does he simply mean the areas the monopoly cable system doesn't care about? Because they can't make a profit. He's looking for an excuse for his buddies not to have to "serve" them.
IMHO, at least 67% of U.S. households are in "underserved" areas. Where there is essentially no competition for the lucky, incumbent, franchised monopoly. That is, 2 or fewer "broadband" providers. Let me stress that if you more realistically define what broadband is, as NOT being DSL, there is ONE provider. The local cable system monopoly.
I don't trust one breath the current chairman of the US FCC takes. Not one.
I have never written a line of code in my life. Also, I'm not a processor or logic designer. Or an engineer of any sort. So, here goes: It seems that many/most of these bugs/malicious things cause a "buffer overflow." Why is it not possible to simply design in to the HW or SW an absolute stop on buffer overflows under ANY circumstances. Put a brick wall around the "buffer" and don't let anything "overflow" it. If something overflows it just shuts down. Like a sump pump. Huh?
Net Neutrality is crucial for innovation and free market competition and just plain fairness. This is the "equal speed" side of the problem. High speed, and even higher speed, isn't the true important problem. IMHO, Net Neutrality is important, but is really a RED HERRING.
The other, more important, side of the problem, that the huge monopoly ISP's are even more interested in, may actually make them willing to cave in on Net Neutrality: Metered Billing. Capping and metering internet usage is the true pot of gold for the big ISP's. Internet service is already the single highest profit product the monopoly cable systems sell--by far--but you ain't seen nothin' yet:
Allowing them to charge by the Gigabyte (which is totally unjustified) is their ultimate goal and their publicly stated plan. Multiple credible studies, around the world, have shown that the incremental cost of delivering a gigabit of data is almost nothing--nearly unmeasurable. The monopoly cable systems have published (but in Comcast's case "suspended") billing plans for metered internet service that would net them unbelievable and unwarranted profits.
It's not hyperbole to say that these billing plans would make Comcast and the few others, the most profitable companies in the world. Profit margins of 200%, 300%, 400% and more. For a monopoly.
The "cable industry" has projected that internet billing will average $200 per month per household in the next 3-5 years. This is, in my opinion, an equally dangerous situation for the American consumer, for freedom of information, for fair market competition and more. Because of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, Comcast and the others will be far too powerful. They must be stopped.
The last mile is absolutely the key. Why should Comcast be presenting at an advertising convention? Why should an ISP be in the advertising business at all? Why should an ISP own TV channels, a movie studio, and be selling local advertising? We didn't intend to give them this power. It MUST BE STOPPED.
Monopolies are just wrong--except in very basic infrastructure. And then being closely and openly regulated. Comcast and the others should be in the plumbing business and that's all. The last mile should be a utility and be opened up to anybody to hook on and compete. Anything else is corruption, bribery, and a complete rip-off. The US is selling out to some of the worst corruption, on the largest scale, in the history of corruption. This is not hyperbole.
We tend to think of corruption as some petty bureaucrat taking a bribe to speed up zoning or customs, or a cop taking a few bucks to "look the other way," or a legislator taking money to vote yes on a bad military contract. These are NOTHING compared to what's happening in the US FCC, Congress, and the DOJ with this Comcast merger and the Net Neutrality issue. HUGE corruption. More money than any other corruption in history.
Comcast and the mighty few are not stupid. They won't do blatant things, just enough to create artificial scarcity and high prices. There won't be any 404's on Google, but lots of random buffering and random slow response for sites that don't pony up. No innovation--except in billing systems.
Any system administrator can tell you that there are dozens of subtle, hard-to-trace actions that can be taken to screw both users and content providers. A script can be written that is impossible to identify--and nobody knows about it. As long as there is incentive in these companies to do this, it will be done. History has shown this time and time again. We're screwed in the US unless something is done. Something more than a few Senators and protesters whining. We're screwed.
Not even a tiny bit surprised by this headline. Capped/Metered internet billing and ISP Toll Boothing in the US will be THE most profitable "regulated" business in the history of mankind. This is not hyperbole. It will be a true license to print money. Interested parties--mostly Comcast--will spend HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS on lobbying, electioneering, and just plain bribery to lock this in. If we don't stop them, freedoms of many kinds will be dead in America.
Don't forget, and this is a well documented fact, that 70% of Americans have only -one- choice for high-speed internet service: Their local cable system monopoly. Not two choices, which of course would follow each other closely on pricing, but ONE choice. And -of course- DSL is no choice at all. DSL is not fast enough now and will -never- be fast enough.
There may well be a time when Comcast will offer "bulk sales" to "billing services" at a discount and they will offer and bill internet service at a discount to the end user. That's no competition. It may "look" like competition, but it's just Comcast internet service billed by someone else. The electric utilities do this now for electricity service all over my state. A real phoney system.
All the analogies that people use to compare other things to internet service are wrong. Internet service is -not- like groceries, or gasoline, or electricity or "road usage." The incremental cost to the provider of the above things is roughly equal to what they charge the user--plus some kind of profit. The incremental cost to the ISP for internet usage is nearly nothing. Multiple credible studies have shown this, around the world, for years.
The basic fee everybody pays--everybody up and down the street and in every apartment--covers all the cheap commodity servers and the investment and maintenance of the wires and cable and maintenance. It amounts to $500 to $600 to $700 per year per user. And they make a tidy profit on that. Internet service is already the most profitable product the cable system monopolies sell--by far. But, like all monopolies, they aren't investing enough (or any) of those profits in infrastructure. Why should they? Causing or allowing artificial scarcity is what every monopoly has done--throughout history. It is all they are motivated to do. Not innovate.
So don't compare things you buy or use up to internet service. It just doesn't compute.
Please, please don't forget that speed and quantity are two different things. 1Gb/s is nearly meaningless to a home user. Only businesses with dozens or hundreds of cash registers or terminals or employees need that kind of speed. 20 or 30 or 40 Mb/s is plenty for multiple HD video streams and multiple people playing games simultaneously. No problem. 1Gb/s does you no good if you can't afford the metered billing--which is their real plan for the near future, and a complete rip-off.
It doesn't matter how fast your internet connection is if you have to turn it off on the 12th or every month. The capped and metered plans put forth and "suspended" by Comcast will cost a home user $100 or $200 a month or more JUST FOR the Gigabytes. They have published and "suspended" their rate plans. I know this because I have a traffic meter on my router. I know how little the cap will cover and how much my "new" metered billing might be. This is not a joke.
Wrong. Internet service is not like groceries or gasoline or electricity. Multiple credible studies around the world have shown, over and over, that the incremental cost to the ISP for delivering a gigabit of data is almost nothing. Less that a penny. The basic fee charged to users covers 99.99% of the cost to the ISP--including a tidy profit. This is the $40 or $50 or $60 a month you pay for the basic service. That everybody up and down the street and in every apartment pays -every- month. The difference being for faster speed--which does cost the ISP and does have value. Charging for gigabytes is a complete rip-off.
The Comcast CEO has publicly stated (to his INVESTORS' CONFERENCE) that he predicts everybody in the US will be paying for capped and metered internet in the next 5 years. Comcast's current fee structure (which they have "suspended" but which is on the record) is to charge $10 per 50 Gigabytes over a cap, or 2.5 cents per gigabit. That is something like a FIVE HUNDRED PERCENT PROFIT--for a regulated monopoly!
This is what monopolies have done, throughout history: Create artificial scarcity to keep and raise high prices and to innovate as little as possible. They have NO INCENTIVE to innovate. Except in billing systems.
Cable system monopolies have also spoken publicly to advertising conferences on the great things they are doing and plan to do in tailored, targeted advertising over their cables, and what a great platform they have to do even more wonderful things. WHAT THE HECK ARE THEY DOING IN THIS BUSINESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. The monopoly franchises they have been awarded across the US are supposed to be for installing wires and servers in neighborhoods and apartment blocks. Period. Not be in the TV business or the "targeted advertising" business or in the metered internet business. They want to cap and meter service, throttle and block competitors, and set up toll booths for competitors. Believe me, Comcast wants to put Netflix out of business real soon: Watch for ComcastFlix, coming through a cable near you real soon. And not for $9 a month... Comcast already owns NBC, Universal Studios, Bravo, E! Network, USA Network and MORE, so ComcastFlix will have content which is totally free to them to use--NO COST, JUST PROFIT.
This thing has got to be stopped. If your like freedom of choice, and hate unfair taxes (Comcast will be levying new "TAXES" on everybody--users and content providers--as soon as they possibly can) you have to speak up. This is the biggest rip-off in US history. And that's not hyperbole.
If this is allowed to happen it will be the biggest consumer rip-off in American history. "According to Cohen, the move is all about fairness. "People who use more should pay more and people who use less should pay less," he said."
This is complete nonsense, a complete lie, and a complete price gouge by a classic monopolist.
Internet usage is NOT like groceries or gasoline or electricity. Multiple credible studies have shown that the incremental cost of delivering internet service is almost nothing. The basic monthly fee for internet service covers all the cheap commodity hardware and cables and all the rest, so what it -costs- Comcast to deliver a Gigabit above some cap is very relevant. It is less than a penny per Gigabit. Yet the pricing Comcast has published, but "suspended" is at LEAST 250% of that--UNBELIEVABLE--FOR A MONOPOLY!!!
They feel they can get away with this because the internet is "different" than cable TV was. No cable company EVER charged consumers for "how much" they watched TV, but somehow feel they can get away with this. It will be more profitable than anything these monopolists have -ever- done before.
If America falls asleep and lets this happen, it is the end of the internet in America.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
