Mekister
@rr.com
 from:
Matt 
| Oh really
Hair in me Keaster |
|
|
texans20
Weapons of Masturbation
Premium
join:2002-09-28
Texas!
clubs: | Let it die
Please, it's a bad idea let it stay dead. |
|
whiteyonenh
join:2004-08-09
Keene, NH
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | 768kbit?
I'm stuck here trying to figure out why such a low goal of 768kbit anyways. Thats like the dialup of the broadband world. At the very least, make it 1.5mbit. Although, I also think that this will end in failure, as those that might be interested in this option probably wouldn't buy into any higher package anyways, and for occasional use, I could see someone that otherwise would have a cellular data card or a tethering plan, switch to this free wireless. I'm not in favor of the telcos, but I can see the concern here.
Edit: I can also see them possibly putting a 1GB cap on this service, to appease the telcos very slightly. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| You won't be downloading movies or watching TV over 768Kbps but hey, I'll take 768Kbps web surfing for free any day of the week!
The question is, will it really be free or only accessible after installing some special software with spyware and popup advertisements. |
|
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| reply to texans20
Re: Let it die
said by texans20 :Please, it's a bad idea let it stay dead. Or at least drop the "smut free" part of it.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | I would agree, drop the smut free part and don't allow the big 4 wireless players to bid or buy any company that wins it for the 10 years they have to deploy it. |
|
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| reply to NetAdmin
I agree. The government has no business telling people what they can and can't see online. I'd have no problem with a requirement that the operator offer filtering to those who ask for it, but I don't like mandated filtering one bit.
And for those who say that the government has a right to ask for mandated filtering in exchange for the right to use the spectrum, which is a public resource, it isn't a great stretch for the federal or local governments to demand the same concessions to allow companies to use public rights-of-way to build wired networks. Once you let the censorship genie out of the bottle, it'll be almost impossible to get it back in. |
|
MTU
Premium
join:2005-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA | Total Recall
For a 'hoot', watch "the President's Analyst". (James Coburn, Godfrey Cambridge) |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  Unfortunately this also got canceled with the Dec mtg
Another item that was supposed to the on the Dec. 18 agenda was an order that would make it easier to file program-access complaints, and a proposal to prevent cable and broadcast programmers from making channel or tier placement a condition in program carriage deals with cable and satellite operators. What are the prospects for that item?
For the January meeting, I think they are dim.
You have independent operators coming forward saying they are being forced to purchase programming and put in on certain tiers whether consumers want it or not. And you have consumers who have complained about increasingly high cable rates. The FCC caved in to Hollywood and their paid pols on this one. It lets WB, Disney, Viacom, etc demand that cable and sat operators have to buy their programming in bundles and place it on tiers where it is included in a basic or expanded tier instead of a specialty sports tier or specialty movie tier.
This is what keeps content prices high. The current system keeps all the power with the content companies in contract negotiations. The proposed rule(which is now unlikely to proceed) would have allowed the sat & cable companies to gain some leverage in the negotiations.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | That was the big disappointment for me on the meeting cancellation as well. While I don't see a la carte happening (ever) it would be neat to see, say, the big10 network not be able to require it is on the standard tier. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to TKJunkMail
Yeah, that was pretty much ignored by everyone.
ESPN brags that they can outbid everyone else for things like the BCS bowl games because of the captive revenue from cable & satellite customers. It doesn't matter how high they bid since they really don't have to pay it...the viewers do. There is no market force involved here like there is with an ad-supported network which has to balance the income stream (ad rates) with the program cost (program rights fees) when bidding. And the worst part is that the viewers who don't even watch ESPN are forced to pay into this because Disney demands ESPN be on basic tiers.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
God
IN Vilseck Germany
Premium
join:2002-07-01
Colorado Springs, CO
clubs: | ^_^
there is way too much money involved to be giving us stuff for free, think about grandpa lou paying 40 bucks a month for dsl and all he does is email and ebay. And instead he can get it for fre ... imagine all the people that would leave |
|
k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
| Wireless providers are like little kids
Again these people can't see past their own greed.
So, ok, wireless companies are complaining that their wireless internet (intertubes?) connections are getting used to capacity. In response, many providers put in 5GB caps for laptop connect plans. Fine. Put your silly (possibly unlawful) caps in, but when a wireless alternative comes around the corner to get the usage off your network you kick it in its shiny head. Way to go providers, would you like an arm and a leg with that bill too? I hope the idiots know this is going to happen EVENTUALLY, and next time it will just be higher speeds. DUH! Bandwidth costs are dropping like an anchor (believe it or not, speakeasy is offering a T3 for the price of a T1) what do you think speeds will be wanted next time this gets introduced? I really hope they don't think it will be *slower* because if they do, they are a fool. Who cares if its "smut" free, we have all heard of proxies and SSH tunneling, for those informed with the weird fetishes they know how to get around what ever filter is put into place. If you haven't well I suggest you ask your local neighborhood geek, but please don't abuse the knowledge to view "smut" at work, thanks  .
Were do we drawn the line of stupidity? Someone needs to put their foot down and bust in these CEO offices and give them a nice 5 hour long of electroshock, just to get them back on track with what reality is. |
|
Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Unfortunately this also got canceled with the Dec mtg
said by TKJunkMail :Another item that was supposed to the on the Dec. 18 agenda was an order that would make it easier to file program-access complaints, and a proposal to prevent cable and broadcast programmers from making channel or tier placement a condition in program carriage deals with cable and satellite operators. What are the prospects for that item?
For the January meeting, I think they are dim.
You have independent operators coming forward saying they are being forced to purchase programming and put in on certain tiers whether consumers want it or not. And you have consumers who have complained about increasingly high cable rates. The FCC caved in to Hollywood and their paid pols on this one. It lets WB, Disney, Viacom, etc demand that cable and sat operators have to buy their programming in bundles and place it on tiers where it is included in a basic or expanded tier instead of a specialty sports tier or specialty movie tier. This is what keeps content prices high. The current system keeps all the power with the content companies in contract negotiations. The proposed rule(which is now unlikely to proceed) would have allowed the sat & cable companies to gain some leverage in the negotiations. I have kids and will pay for a Disney teir. I don't want to pay for BET and channels like that. Shopping channels? Hope I don't have to pay for them. I would love ala cart but it won't happen for whatever reason. The liberals need to have their channels on TV and we will pay for them. I'm not even sure if PBS is needed any more. I like a few local programs so we should keep PBS but in the big picture not sure if they beat out discovery, TLC etc.
Back to BET why do I need to pay for that?? Never ever have watched it. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| I don't watch Fox News so I shouldn't have to pay for that, or any Disney channel either for that matter, right?
You were doing fine until the "liberal channels" comment.
Go back and read the story.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
