Getting rid of cable...

I use BasicTalk. I pay $11 a month for unlimited calling anywhere in the U.S. It has the same basic VoIP setup as a number of other providers, but it's only $11!

Just set everything up, and wow! It is really noticeably better quality than the picture delivered by cable.

Ironically, we hadn't set up an antenna at our new house. I did so just before New Years. Picture is great on everything except... CBS. We're too close to the tower, in something called the umbrella, or something.

That's because unlike a cable signal, broadcast signals are uncompressed.

Did you notice what you quoted?

So everything's good, except for the tantrum my boys threw. They'll get used to the change once I allow them to watch TV again.

Speaking of that......

Comcast, my internet provider today, called me yet again to beg me to upgrade to a "faster" internet speed and they would free of charge toss in cable TV......

Premium cable subscriptions dropping.

Amazon rumored to be in talks with TV networks.

More at the link, perhaps the networks are considering this as a back up plan if Aereo wins in court.

Barry Diller, the guy who got the Fox TV network off the ground, has done this incredibly Rube Goldbergian thing so that people can pick up broadcast channels via the web. This pisses the local TV stations off something fierce, since it means that they can no longer rape the local cable companies, by demanding exorbitant sums of money to have the "honor" of carrying their programming. (Indeed, during a recent spat, one of the cable companies suggested its customers sign up for Aereo, rather than subject themselves to the indignity of paying more for cable.) Diller's counting on the Cablevision decision (which ruled cable systems were legal in the US) covering his operation, and so far, the courts have generally ruled in his favor. The broadcast networks are so upset by this that they've threatened to stop broadcasting if the courts find what Diller's doing is legal. The networks thought that they'd pull a fast one on Diller, and petitioned for SCOTUS to hear the case, figuring Diller would want to obstruct that, since if he loses, he's out of business. Diller, however, basically said, "Bring it the fuck on, bitches!" Diller's smart, he's spent a lot of money on Aereo, even though he knows that no matter what happens, the company isn't going to be around for long (sooner or later, the TV stations will decide to cut out the middleman and send their content directly over the web to end user, rather than a middleman like Diller), for basically a "Fuck you!" to the TV stations and the networks. You've gotta admire a man with gigantic balls like that.

That works if there's no data caps, and you don't have too many people downloading movies all at the same time so that it chokes off the bandwidth. Its probably technically illegal, but its like downloading the Star Wars Holiday Special: You're getting something that's not offered by anyone else (in this case, its high speed internet at a lower cost), and the moment somebody began legally offering it to you, you'd happily pay for it, but until then, fuck 'em.

If I could find easy DIY instructions on how to make compact solar powered wifi repeaters, I'd be building them, and running a string of them from all the various places that offer free wifi so that I could pick the signals up and completely cut the cord here. (I'd probably have better service, since the cable internet tends to go out at night during cold weather).

Cool on both counts. Hopefully Amazon is talking to ESPN, streaming is wide open for some cable free sports.

Although at that point Amazon becomes the cable company, eventually prices could go right back up.

And the episode is up! Much of the stuff has already been covered in this thread, but its still worth giving it a listen/watch for the things that they mention which we haven't discussed.

Gizmodo's piece on cutting the cord. Worth a read, what with the proposed merger between Comcast/NBC and Time Warner Cable, you can expect to be assraped by your cable/internet provider if this goes through.

So now we have the potential merger of Time Warner & Comcast, plus Netflix is now paying Comcast to not throttle their data. I think this is a bad idea.

Its far from ideal. There are rumors that the FCC is going to change things in order to force the ISPs to adopt net neutrality rules. Google had said that they were done with rolling out fiber and now they're talking to more cities about rolling it out. These are still early days.

Hopefully, ISPs will be ruled as common carriers. That's the only way to prevent the privatization of U.S. internet.

herp derp

Because Comcast is direct competition to Netflix, and more business for Netflix means potential loss of business for Comcast, while they transfer Netflix's data over "their" wires. Netflix has to use their fiber, just as a business has to have telecommunication lines. Phone companies are considered common carriers. It's about time ISPs are considered the same.

Actually, its more than just that. Netflix has a low-cost solution to handling the demands streaming puts on ISPs networks. Every ISP in the US except Comcast and Verizon have happily worked with Netflix to resolve the problem (at no cost to the ISPs, I might add). Why might that be? Given that Comcast and Verizon are the two of the largest ISPs in the country, it certainly can't be because they can't afford it. Both Comcast and Verizon own shares in rival streaming services. Comcast is part owner of Hulu, while Verizon owns a stake in Red Box.

And since the court ruled that the FCC can't enforce net neutrality requirements on ISPs, customers on both Comcast and Verizon have reported lower quality of service when streaming Netflix (or Amazon in some cases) which magically clears up if they connect to the streaming service via VPN (which means their ISP has no idea who they're connecting to, and if the ISPs routers were truly overloaded because of traffic from Netflix, as they claim, would give you even shittier performance).

herp derp

Netflix's Open Connect You'll also want to take a listen to this podcast. It has discussions with people pretty familiar with the industry on this matter. While Dan Rayburn understands the technicalities of what all happened, if you pay attention to what he says, you'll notice that one minute he's claiming that nobody knows how much money was involved in the Netflix/Comcast deal and the next he's claiming that Netflix is saving huge wads of cash thanks to this deal. If you don't know the dollar figures involved, then you can't really say if somebody was saving money, now can you? Jeff Jarvis really lays out a good case as to why, even if Rayburn is right, this is still a bad outcome.

Here's a good overview of the Netflix-Comcast arrangement, which evidently would meet net neutrality requirements:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schu...fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/theunderwoodofnetneutrality

Gotta admit, I'm having trouble figuring out whether this is a bad or good thing. Some experts interviewed for the article seem likewise unsure.

herp derp

Netflix ISN'T putting services in Comcast's data centers. Netflix had offered to do that before and Comcast has always refused. This is stated clearly in the podcast.

Also, while Cogent (whom Rayburn dislikes because they drive a hard bargain, BTW, Rayburn's magazine is entirely ad supported with no subscription costs at all, so can't be considered objective on many things) couldn't deliver the service they promised Netflix (supposedly, there have been questions about Cogent for years, but in an industry where you're hot shit one day and flushed sewage the next, they've somehow managed to hang on) that's hardly plausible as the source for the problems Netflix was having with Comcast. Cogent could get the traffic to Comcast's network, but Comcast didn't want to let it in because they weren't happy with what Cogent was paying them.

Finally, Rayburn likes the Roku because of how much content it has available, but if you want a higher quality stream from Netflix and you're on Comcast, then an Apple TV is the better bet as they don't use Cogent to stream to the Apple TV, but Level 3. This will change in a few weeks when Netflix and Comcast get everything in place.

herp derp

herp derp

Cogent may, or may not have a problem, but let's remember the timeline of events. The courts rule that the FCC cannot impose net neutrality on ISPs with the rules as they currently stand, almost immediately after this, Netflix customers on Comcast begin to notice that the quality of their stream begins to degrade. So what changed, besides the rules affecting the ISPs to cause this to happen? Did the number of subscribers to Netflix suddenly jump? Did Comcast decide to "pull an Enron" and take a bunch of their servers off-line for "unscheduled maintenance?" Or is it something else? Given that for companies who buy in bulk (like ISPs) routers and servers are dirt cheap and have very low operational costs (seriously, all the companies that have big data centers publicly share with everybody the ways they've found to lower operational costs, and even the largest data centers have only a handful of workers), I can't really buy that its a strain on Comcast to add a few racks, especially since they've got no problems with raising my bill, knowing that I've no other choice in this area for high speed service. Oh, and if Comcast's network was being overloaded by Netflix, then all users should see their service degrade, even if they're not using Netflix because the network is over-saturated. That is, if Comcast's following net neutrality requirements, if Comcast isn't, then only certain types of data will be impacted, namely those that Comcast is screwing over. Netflix isn't Cogent's only customer, and given that it was only Netflix's content that was impacted, then it sure looks to me like Comcast are being the dicks in this situation.

But hey, Netflix can afford to pay whatever Comcast wants, right? And hey, they use a lot of bandwidth, so they should pay more, after all, they're the one's hogging the series of tubes! This is starting to sound like the kind of arguments used when it comes to the fights between the cable companies and the networks. You know, the ones where cable drops a network until the two sides come to an agreement on how much the cable company has to pay the network. What happens if Netflix and Comcast get into a protracted battle? You can't cancel Comcast and switch to somebody else with the same kind of speeds in most areas. You can switch to DSL, but that's going to be slower. And all companies tend to get greedy over time, especially when they have a monopoly, so I have no doubt that not only is Comcast going to go back to Netflix and demand more money, but they're also going to start putting the squeeze on other companies to cough up money, saying, "Well, you know, we can't really keep up unless you guys help us, and since Netflix has paid for their servers, their customers are going to get priority."

Moore's Law means that its getting cheaper and easier to expand the capabilities of the web, by rights, that means what you're paying for internet service should also be going down. Its not. In the UK, where the government wired up the country and then private contractors vie to provide service to the end users, costs to the customers are much lower and speeds are higher. We're getting shafted.