South Korean ISPs Block Smart TVs Ain't Gonna Ride Their Pipes for Free! For years we've discussed how incumbent phone company executives live in a bubble, believing that they magically deserve a cut of any traffic that so much as touches their network. It's the kind of logic that began the network neutrality debate back in 2005, when then AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre declared he "wasn't going to let Google ride his pipes for free." This idea that content companies get a "free ride" has been a cornerstone of telco think ever since, even if it's not supported by the facts. That hasn't stopped this argument from being made time and time again by broadband industry lobbyists, assorted hired mouthpieces and fauxcademics as their employers try to argue that companies like Google, Netflix and the BBC (iPlayer) should pay for network upgrades -- simply because. The fact-free nature of the claim also hasn't stopped carriers from stupid behavior, as evidenced by the fact that ISPs in South Korea are now blocking smart TVs....because they consume data (via GigaOM): KT started restricting internet access to Samsung’s smart TV applications, starting at 09:00 am, Friday. This is expected to inconvenience 250,000 Samsung smart TV users who subscribe to KT’s high-speed internet service. The dispute has been festering for a while as KT insists smart TVs share the costs of quality maintenance of the internet as they tend to hog the networks, while TV makers argue they have no obligation to do so. The idea that Samsung should pay an extra toll simply because their device uses broadband (that consumers already pay for) is the same absurd logic used by AT&T to ignite the histrionic U.S. network neutrality debate. In this case the ISP in question not only wants an extra "just because" fee, but they likely want to protect their fledgling IPTV service (named "Ollie") from competition running along their network. Despite significant profit margins and abundant new revenue streams ( advertising via webmail, BVAS, selling clickstream data, DNS Redirection revenue, charging to get around spam filters, targeted behavioral advertising, fees to pay your bill in person or on the phone) you're supposed to believe that poor, cash-strapped telecom conglomerates can't survive unless they're allowed to play "troll under the bridge."
|
  kontosxyzzy
join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY | Bring it on! This is probably the quickest way to make it economically feasible for outside, non-incumbent competition to flourish.
Just imagine how much easier it would be for "LocalISP" to beat the big guys if they could advertise "basic Internet includes access to all your favorite streaming sites (Hulu, netflix, etc.) -- no additional ISP charge." | |
|  | | | Re: Bring it on! The point of the internet is that you're supposed to get access to where you want, so advertising in the way that you suggest just made it so that the big guys win... | |
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Why do they need to be "cash strapped"? The fact of the matter is that the ISP's are in business to make money. As much money as they can figure out how. So if they think they can do this by banning smart TV's, then that's what they'll do. The BoD would fire the CEO if he/she didn't. They can make that business decision whether or not they're already profitable, or "cash strapped". Welcome to capitalism. | |
| | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Why do they need to be "cash strapped"? But they should do it by making consumers pay for bandwidth, not by asking a television manufacturer for revenue. The manufacturer is simply providing what the consumer wants. This is like the electric company asking hair dryer manufacturers for revenue because their product's use a lot of energy.
Whenever someone uses the phrase "welcome to capitalism", I like to ask them to pause and think of it as a professional sports game. Unless we want something like the games played in ancient Rome, all sports, no matter how violent, are played by a good set of rules. The rules exist because the primary purpose of the game is to entertain fans. Lopsided victories and dynasties do more harm to the game than every team being competitive. This is what this country considers capitalism. I believe the railroads forced us to figure this out over a hundred years ago and just like professional sports changes rules from time to time, we've been refining them ever since.
What better example do we need of a coercive monopoly than what's going down in Korea? | |
| | | | | | Re: Why do they need to be "cash strapped"? They need to give a price, and then charge a price. Don't lie and add extra conditions after the fact. It's really truth in advertising, imho.
I don't care how much they want to make. I want a service where the terms do not change over time in their favor. It's dishonest. | |
| | | | | | said by PDXPLT:The fact of the matter is that the ISP's are in business to make money. As much money as they can figure out how. So if they think they can do this by banning smart TV's, then that's what they'll do. The BoD would fire the CEO if he/she didn't. They can make that business decision whether or not they're already profitable, or "cash strapped". Welcome to capitalism.
The ISPs are rent-seeking monopolies. In infrastructure the barrier of entry is so high that no one has the capital needed to compete. Even if they did, the money required to build out the lines, steal a large enough % of customers from the competition, advertise massively to get your name out, and avoid any legal or predatory pricing obstacles from your opposition, would require decades to earn a ROI. No one is going to waste their money on such a venture.
That's not capitalism. That's nothing like capitalism. People like you, essentially laymen, haven't a clue what terms like "capitalism" or "free market" even refers to. | |
|
| | kontosxyzzy
join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY | Re: Bring it on! You missed my point. I was trying to illustrate that the only way the incumbent ISPs are going to be beaten by the (currently non-existent) competition is if they start to do stupid things like not providing access to services that their customers want.
The little guys can't effectively compete on technology, or price, but they can compete on not being asshats. | |
| | | | | | Re: Bring it on! No, I didn't miss your point, I wanted to make a parallel point and opine on possible interpretation of your point.
If you start using the opposite side of any argument's terminology, then you've already lost ground on ending the argument. It's a pretty well know psychological tactic that is used today.
I agree with your point though. | |
| | | | | | said by kontos:You missed my point. I was trying to illustrate that the only way the incumbent ISPs are going to be beaten by the (currently non-existent) competition is if they start to do stupid things like not providing access to services that their customers want.
The little guys can't effectively compete on technology, or price, but they can compete on not being asshats.
You missed the point that no one can compete because this is an infrastructure monopoly. At the very least pick up an Econ 101 textbook before you go mouthing off this issue. | |
|
| | Broadband utopia... grass is greener LOL! jk!
I don't think you guys realize how good we have it here in the US. | |
| |  DaarkenRara AvisesPremium
join:2005-01-12
Southwest LA
kudos:1 | Re: Broadband utopia... grass is greener Seeing that most internet connections in S.Korea are 2x's the speed here, without caps and overpriced services, yeah its really great how good we have it.
--
Getting it Done. | |
| | | | | Re: Broadband utopia... grass is greener said by Daarken:Seeing that most internet connections in S.Korea are 2x's the speed here, without caps and overpriced services, yeah its really great how good we have it.
What good is no caps and 2x the speed if you can't use your connection the way you want?
I have gigabit at work (not just Gigabit LAN) and it's really not at all different, experience wise, from 50Mbps at home. | |
|
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by fifty nine:LOL! jk!
I don't think you guys realize how good we have it here in the US.
Hows that google tv working? WHAT? BLOCKED? NO WAY! | |
| |  Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:21 | Lagging!
SK Telecom just needs to be slapped across the face once. A good chunk of ISPs here in the US and Canada need a kicking in the rear a few times. | |
| | | | said by fifty nine:LOL! jk!
I don't think you guys realize how good we have it here in the US.
You don't have a clue. I've been to South Korea and the speeds are ridiculously fast. Even wireless 3G is much, much faster than 3G over here.
The reason this ISP is blocking traffic is because they have their own IP TV service called "Ollie" that they want to succeed. It's really that simple. | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Whitacre was on to something In an era where network demand grows incessantly, fed by devices like "Smart TVs" and companies like Netflix, ISPs can not, and should not, be expected to accommodate the traffic volumes without compensation.
I would much rather subscribe to an ISP that licenses traffic priority (QoS) for a fee, than one that offers "all you can eat" and makes us suffer as my neighbors saturate the common pipe elements, "because they can", to paraphrase Bubba.
There is nothing "absurd" with assigning a value to volume or class of data. | |
| | | | Re: Whitacre was on to something said by elray:compensation
aka "my monthly bill" | |
| | | | I'm confused by your comment. I get a bill every month from Vz. I pay it. Vz is compensated. End of story. | |
| | | | So is it the 1 or the 0 that's worth more? In the end, it all winds up being 1 or 0, nothing more, nothing less. each byte of data wheter it be an email or a media stream ends up as a 1 or a 0, so which is worth more? | |
| | | | | Re: Whitacre was on to something said by GroovyPhoenx:So is it the 1 or the 0 that's worth more? In the end, it all winds up being 1 or 0, nothing more, nothing less. each byte of data wheter it be an email or a media stream ends up as a 1 or a 0, so which is worth more?
So what about music CDs?
You're paying for 1s and 0s, yet a william hung greatest hits CD isn't going to cost as much as a beatles box set.
because it's just all 1s and 0s. | |
| | | | | | Re: Whitacre was on to something Because Beyonce wants mega millions for her album, and William Hung is happy to be performing with his Hung Jury band on a fictional people's court show.
I suppose the difference is, Google doesn't want additional revenue (or any at all, really!) from the end users' ISP for people watching videos on YouTube. | |
| | | | | | That's NOT the ISPs business. They make the CD, not the content on the CD. | |
|
| | | Let me guess the Internet is a "series of tubes" and they can only fit so much material in those tubes, is how you see it? I mean, just the other day, my staff sent me Internet and I didn't get it until yesterday. Damn tubes got clogged!!
On a serious note, you have no f'ing clue what you are talking about shill. | |
| | | | Prioritizing data? OK, then, whose data gets the higher priority? How do we choose? And why should it be whatever company chooses to pay the ISP? After all, if I'm their customer, I'm already paying them. Why can't I choose what data I need to come in fastest to my connection, you know, the one I'm paying for?
If they're so worried about "bandwidth hogs", then the real solution is for them to allocate bandwidth in such a way so that a user can't suck down data so quickly that it impacts their neighbors. If the ISP claims to be building this multi-lane data highway, then they need to manage it so that each sub only gets to use one lane. But they won't do that because that would mean they have to lower their advertised speeds, which would look bad on their ads. Well, what's the point of paying for 50 mbp/s service if you can't actually use it?
All this is is a money grab, plain and simple. | |
| |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by elray:In an era where network demand grows incessantly, fed by devices like "Smart TVs" and companies like Netflix, ISPs can not, and should not, be expected to accommodate the traffic volumes without compensation.
I would much rather subscribe to an ISP that licenses traffic priority (QoS) for a fee, than one that offers "all you can eat" and makes us suffer as my neighbors saturate the common pipe elements, "because they can", to paraphrase Bubba.
There is nothing "absurd" with assigning a value to volume or class of data.
And all net neutrality issues can be resolved by billing-by-byte billing plans. Who cares how much or from where the content comes as long as the ISP gets to charge the heaviest users the heaviest fees.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
| | | | | Re: Whitacre was on to something I'm fine with that, as long as it's real UBB, not this crap the big telcos and cable companies want to call UBB. If they want UBB, then it needs to be a minimal charge per month for the connection (say, $10), then a reasonable amount per byte (maybe 1 cent per 100 MB). That would work out to $35 ($10 connection fee + $25 usage) for 250 GB. Now, we can argue over how much data should cost, but the model itself is entirely reasonable. Granted, grandma's connection will probably come in at just over $10, but, hey, if the networks are loaded down with all these data hogs, as the ISP's claim, then they ought to make out like bandits. | |
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Whitacre was on to something said by ISurfTooMuch:I'm fine with that, as long as it's real UBB, not this crap the big telcos and cable companies want to call UBB. If they want UBB, then it needs to be a minimal charge per month for the connection (say, $10), then a reasonable amount per byte (maybe 1 cent per 100 MB). That would work out to $35 ($10 connection fee + $25 usage) for 250 GB. Now, we can argue over how much data should cost, but the model itself is entirely reasonable. Granted, grandma's connection will probably come in at just over $10, but, hey, if the networks are loaded down with all these data hogs, as the ISP's claim, then they ought to make out like bandits.
I agree with your billing provisos on UBB. No tiers. Just a connected cost & a cost per byte. And the cost per byte could be set so that light users pay light bills and heavy users pay big bills, but the existing profit margin of say 15 to 20% is maintained for ISPs.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
| | | | | | | Re: Whitacre was on to something Yep, and, as for speed, it can be managed in a way that no single user will be given enough speed so that, if they choose to run their connection wide open, they won't severely impact anyone else's access. Model it on how the water department manages water pressure. I'm sure they've developed a solution, and, although Internet access isn't the same as access to water, the principle would be the same: you get as much data as you can handle without impacting anyone else, and your usage will be determined by your devices, just like your water usage now is determined by your faucets. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by Romney2012:And all net neutrality issues can be resolved by billing-by-byte billing plans. Who cares how much or from where the content comes as long as the ISP gets to charge the heaviest users the heaviest fees.
that's great! let's set up ISPs as utilities and have rigorous 3rd party validation of the consumption meters, with penalties for incorrect billing. Then it would be just like water or electricity! | |
| | | | | | Re: Whitacre was on to something No! No! No! We can't do that! After all, if we treat Internet providers like utilities, that would imply that Internet access is an essential service, and we all know that no one really needs to have an Internet connection in this day and age.
Of course, although Internet access at home is purely a luxury, wireless Internet is essential to our survival as a nation, as evidenced by the federal government seeking to reassign every sliver of spectrum to the wireless carriers, especially the biggest ones. And TV is definitely a necessity, since there are all sorts of regulations giving renters and condo owners the right to erect satellite dishes, plus rules on how programmers can't discriminate against satellite when selling their channels to distributors.
Yeah, having 500 channels on the TV and 3G and 4G data service is clearly critical. But home Internet access? Who uses that besides kids living in their parents' basements? | |
| | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| Minus the storage costs and creation costs. In other words, it better be CHEAPER THEN DIRT, because obtaining dirt is way more expensive.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | said by Romney2012:said by elray:In an era where network demand grows incessantly, fed by devices like "Smart TVs" and companies like Netflix, ISPs can not, and should not, be expected to accommodate the traffic volumes without compensation.
I would much rather subscribe to an ISP that licenses traffic priority (QoS) for a fee, than one that offers "all you can eat" and makes us suffer as my neighbors saturate the common pipe elements, "because they can", to paraphrase Bubba.
There is nothing "absurd" with assigning a value to volume or class of data.
And all net neutrality issues can be resolved by billing-by-byte billing plans. Who cares how much or from where the content comes as long as the ISP gets to charge the heaviest users the heaviest fees. Billing by byte does not reflect the realities of broadband provision costs. This has been explained to you an absurd number of times, and yet you still deign to propose unhelpful solutions.
There is ignorance, and then there is willful ignorance. Yours is the latter, and it's far more destructive to progress in a modern society.
The reality is this Korean ISP wants to make its own IPTV service, "Ollie", succeed while pushing out the competition using its monopoly. | |
|
| | | elray, you either really misunderstand the issue or you are a troll. | |
| | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
|  firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
·Frontier Communi..
| said by elray:There is nothing "absurd" with assigning a value to volume or class of data.
Awesome. It's racism for internet data.
I'll tell you what, if the ISP wants to charge me extra for things fine, then they can upfront advertise and make it very clear what the data and speed limits are on their offered tiers. If they actually are not selling a 7M pipe then make the law say that they have to make it very clear in non-psyche talk that they offer up-to-speeds and limit access to specific types of data being used on specific types of equipment.
Lets back up to you first statement too.
said by elray:In an era where network demand grows incessantly, fed by devices like "Smart TVs" and companies like Netflix, ISPs can not, and should not, be expected to accommodate the traffic volumes without compensation.
So what you're saying as time passes, those in the business for 10-15 years of offering network connectivity to internet data shouldn't be expected to keep pace with the demands via the exact services they offer? Instead these businesses should be allowed to limit the access to the data on the internet to some people while allowing the exact access others want and to make all the customers pay more for these biased services?
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | But it's not NetFlix or SmartTV manufactureres that should pay. Consumers should pay. What you propose, in my opinion, is monopolistic extortion and ass backwards.
Just because network connections happen to be smarter than other utilities (water, electricity, sewer), the utility should not be able to use that information to extort upstream money.
Auto manufacturers make cars but do they create traffic jams? Should the government be allowed to tax them to improve highways? | |
| | Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by elray:In an era where network demand grows incessantly, fed by devices like "Smart TVs" and companies like Netflix, ISPs can not, and should not, be expected to accommodate the traffic volumes without compensation.
I would much rather subscribe to an ISP that licenses traffic priority (QoS) for a fee, than one that offers "all you can eat" and makes us suffer as my neighbors saturate the common pipe elements, "because they can", to paraphrase Bubba. The major flaw in your logic is that the ISPs were the ones to sell customers that bandwidth.
Suppose there's a water shortage and you have a well, so you decide to make a little money by selling water to your neighbors. You buy a bunch of cheap plastic buckets in three different sizes, and you price them as follows;
5 Gallon = $10
8 Gallon = $12
12 Gallon = $15
What do you think is going to happen if someone pays you for a 12 Gallon bucket and you tell them that they can only fill it up halfway?
If you didn't intend to let people take 12 gallons of water, you shouldn't be selling 12 gallon buckets. It's as simple as that.
Unfortunately, ISPs seem to think that they can sell people 120 gallon internet connections and limit them to 12 onces of use. If they didn't want (or can't suppose) people actually using that much bandwidth, then they shouldn't be selling it to them in the first place.
Or do you seriously expect me to believe that the ISP tech departments aren't smart enough to take the max transfer rate and multiply it by the number of seconds in an average month to determine the max possible bandwidth each user can consume, so that they 'accidentally' give people too much bandwidth? | |
| | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | | said by elray:In an era where network demand grows incessantly, fed by devices like "Smart TVs" and companies like Netflix, ISPs can not, and should not, be expected to accommodate the traffic volumes without compensation.
I would much rather subscribe to an ISP that licenses traffic priority (QoS) for a fee, than one that offers "all you can eat" and makes us suffer as my neighbors saturate the common pipe elements, "because they can", to paraphrase Bubba.
There is nothing "absurd" with assigning a value to volume or class of data.
What's absurd is your propensity to lie and deceive the audience of readers.
Network traffic is not growing "incessantly". It's grown at a very consistent 30% annually, while new technology has decreased the cost of providing that bandwidth at an even faster rate. Thus 10 gigE links are being replaced by 100 gbps links.
The reality is ISPs have spent less and less money every year upgrading their networks as their costs have dropped significantly.
This Korean ISP has its own IP TV service, called "Ollie", that they want to succeed. They're using their monopoly over the pipes to push out competition. | |
| |  Doctor OldsI Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18
1 edit | said by elray:In an era where network demand grows incessantly, fed by devices like "Smart TVs" and companies like Netflix, ISPs can not, and should not, be expected to accommodate the traffic volumes without compensation.
I would much rather subscribe to an ISP that licenses traffic priority (QoS) for a fee, than one that offers "all you can eat" and makes us suffer as my neighbors saturate the common pipe elements, "because they can", to paraphrase Bubba.
There is nothing "absurd" with assigning a value to volume or class of data.
Whitacre was on something, that's obvious. The customer has already paid for access regardless if it is Google, You Tube, Hulu, Netflix, torrents, news groups, or Wall Street Live Stock feeds. Or should Wall Street pay their fair share since your neighbor might be a day trader and can easily saturate your undersized cable node. Making the destination that the subscriber chooses pay that subscriber's ISP anything is 100% absurd. It is pure Ridiculousness.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time? | |
| | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Whitacre was on something said by Doctor Olds:Whitacre was on something, that's obvious. The customer has already paid for access regardless if it is Google, You Tube, Hulu, Netflix, torrents, news groups, or Wall Street Live Stock feeds. Or should Wall Street pay their fair share since your neighbor might be a day trader and can easily saturate your undersized cable node. Making the destination that the subscriber chooses pay that subscriber's ISP anything is 100% absurd. It is pure Ridiculousness.
Nope. You've paid for basic internet access, not assured delivery.
Your ISP has no obligation to host a fat pipe inbound from Netflix.
Good luck getting your HD streams.
I don't care what you use your access for.
But I don't want to be part of an "unlimited" shared tier, wherein some of you intentionally consume as much as possible, to the detriment of my occasional bandwidth demands.
I've seen this type of saturation in many realms for decades. "Unlimited" and/or "free" are always the factor that creates a tragedy of the commons.
Good luck getting your Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, Roku, et al, to stream consistently. | |
| | | | Doctor OldsI Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18 | Re: Whitacre was on something said by elray:Nope. You've paid for basic internet access, not assured delivery.
Your ISP has no obligation to host a fat pipe inbound from Netflix.
Good luck getting your HD streams. So their obligation is to just send my data one way and someone else (who they randomly choose versus every site large and small) is responsible to pay for me to get the data back that I request? I want what you and Ed are taking........That's some good stuff. That is not the product they sold people and they are wanting to change the rules after the fact. Not going to happen and it goes against yourself as a consumer buying their product. You'd be completely foolish to sign up for that.
said by elray:I don't care what you use your access for. What do you think this "basic internet access" is? One way only? LOL! That's delusional at best and insanity at best. I've paid to send and receive data (any type) and they are making a tidy profit. Trying for any money from only some high visibility destinations is just a money grab by greedy corporations and their greedy CEO's. Nothing more.
said by elray:But I don't want to be part of an "unlimited" shared tier, wherein some of you intentionally consume as much as possible, to the detriment of my occasional bandwidth demands.
I've seen this type of saturation in many realms for decades. "Unlimited" and/or "free" are always the factor that creates a tragedy of the commons.
Good luck getting your Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, Roku, et al, to stream consistently. Works fine here, in fact I streamed 2 Netflix Movies last night and they were perfect! Don't need luck, don't have any AT&T Internet half-products or cable with undersized nodes and oversubscribed nodes so I'm neither bandwidth capped or rate limited.
What you describe doesn't fit any reality. You must have bad lines or live in the boonies
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time? | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | the ISP in Korea would not be doing this if they where just a data pipe. But they have their own IPTV product. This is no different than why Comcast has a Cap, its to shield their video product from a total cord cutter.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
JBear
join:2005-02-24
canada | What?! Isn't a smart TV just another appliance in the home that uses data? Are they going to start individually charging for laptops, desktops, NAS's, smartphones, etc now? | |
| |  woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | Re: What?! It's coming........................... 
--
BlooMe | |
| | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by JBear:Isn't a smart TV just another appliance in the home that uses data? Are they going to start individually charging for laptops, desktops, NAS's, smartphones, etc now?
It may be the VOD apps built-in to the TV that take all the traffic away from KT's VOD service. Sure, you can do VOD from a PC or X-Box or some other device, but being built right in to the TV makes it much easier for the user to dump KT's VOD service.
Here is another look at what is going on:
»asia.cnet.com/blogs/samsung-smar···3415.htm
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
| | firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Google TV didn't take off because websites blocked access to it's specific browser id. All because a group of old men with an agenda didn't like it.
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
| | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: What?! which is why Google TV should just ident itself as a normal Linux machine running Firefox 10 or the equal version of Chrome.
there are no US laws that state Google cannot do this, Copyright law only requires the media consumption be legal and cannot control on which device.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | Just another device A 'smart' TV is just a large all-in-one computer with a bluetooth keyboard. | |
|  RockCakePremium
join:2005-07-12
Woodbridge, VA | Wait a minute... They watch TV in S. Korea? I thought everyone was too busy playing Starcraft.  | |
| | | I told you so..... I think I've said more than once that Korea isn't this wonderful broadband utopia that Karl thinks it is. | |
| |
approval from:
Karl Bode 
thumbs down from:
Karl Bode
| Re: I told you so..... ...aside from that whole being able to get 300 Mbps connectivity and television service and voice for forty bucks thing. | |
| | | | said by battleop:I think I've said more than once that Korea isn't this wonderful broadband utopia that Karl thinks it is.
This ISP is locking out competition so its own IPTV service (aka "Ollie") will succeed. It's that simple. Korean broadband is insanely fast. I've actually *been* to Korea, unlike you, and spent a couple weeks at a friend's house in Seoul. It's god-awful fast there. | |
| | | | | Re: I told you so..... "I've actually *been*" That's apposed to just plain old been? | |
|
approval from:
Karl Bode
state
thumbs down from:
Karl Bode
state
| "fastest and cheapest internet in the world" Perhaps this utopia isn't an almost-free ride for them. There's a lot more to fast Internet than a fast, short, local loop. If they need middle-mile or backbone upgrades to support increased use, customers have to pay to be at the front of an Speedy Internet Arms Race.
It is a good reason to support an independent ISP, but they too have to pay for middle mile and backbone service. | |
| Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
 ·DIRECTV
·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| Double charging dream continues I don't get how anyone can't see this is blatantly a request to double charge for the same data, only with a third level of ridiculousness.
Content provider, weather it be netflix, hulu, and IPTV company pays for their internet connection to send out the data, customers pay broadband bill to get the data he want's from the internet, now you may be able to say the customer needs to pay more for the data because his smart tv is using so much data, but you can't go to the streaming video provider because they have already worked out a deal with their provider. This is basic common sense and how the internet has always worked. there is no free ride anywhere the content provider is paying for their connection(s) because they likely have servers all over the place.
The third level of abstraction is the fact that most if not all of these services are provided by a third party, not samsung, they just installed the apps on there tv.
The truth is they don't want to anger their customers with increased prices, so they go after Samsung in a sad money grab, Samsung blatantly says no this is absurd and they shut down connections to Samsung tv's congratulations you've just done what you didn't want to do anger your customers who now have an expensive smart tv that can't use any of the smart features.
DOH! | |
| |  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Re: Double charging dream continues Yep, overpromise and underdeliver is the typical business model being abused. That is the basic problem many ISPs now face, and not just in S. Korea. I'm not sure what arrangements are being made with regards to network peering in S. Korea, but it sounds like they have contracts in place that are now coming back to haunt their pocketbooks.
Oh, who am I kidding. This is just about protecting control of the existing video distribution methods. | |
|
| | Lower the maximum speeds and eliminate caps! The root of the problem is that all of the Internet providers want to advertise the highest speed possible while only really being able to support a much lower rate. How about we just lower those maximum speeds until we no longer have to worry about bandwidth hogs?
It seems like every ISP wants customers who don't actually use their product to any significant degree. | |
| | | | Re: Lower the maximum speeds and eliminate caps! i am wondering why that tv is sucking up so much bw | |
| | | | | Re: Lower the maximum speeds and eliminate caps! It's not that those TVs are sucking up that much bandwidth, if they were doing 10MB/day before and they are doing 100MB/month now that's "10X increase!" that sounds a lot but it's nothing to cry about.
If you read elsewhere also it says ONLY Samsung SmartTVs are being blocked. Other devices and as well as LG SmartTVs are not gonna be blocked. Main reason for LG though is that they are working out a deal to pay them. | |
|
| | | Exactly; truth in advertising is important. These ISPs shouldn't promise to deliver what they can not deliver. Slow the speed down and allow the consumer to use the connection for whatever purpose THEY chose. The consumer is paying the bill! | |
| | | | said by mlcarson:The root of the problem is that all of the Internet providers want to advertise the highest speed possible while only really being able to support a much lower rate. How about we just lower those maximum speeds until we no longer have to worry about bandwidth hogs?
It seems like every ISP wants customers who don't actually use their product to any significant degree.
No the root of the problem is that this Korean ISP wants to lock out the competition so its own IPTV service (aka "Ollie") can succeed. You don't understand there's an abundance of bandwidth in Korea. Connections are blazingly fast. | |
|
| |
|
|
