RIP Internet as we know it: 1969-2013

[Fedaykin]

Comcast, after buying up it's only competition (which never really competed in the first place) has now reached a 'deal' with Netflix wherein Comcast will now charge Netflix for access to Comcast's suscribers.

What does this mean? It means if you are a Comcast subscriber, you will be paying twice for Netflix content. You'll be paying Comcast (your provider) for the bits you consume under your service agreement. Netflix will be paying its provider (not Comcast) for the bits it sends, and YOU will be paying Netflix to pay Comcast for the bits sent ... a second time.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/net...2-23-124491012

In other words, goodby equal access networks, hello to this:



Don't want the above? Support Net Neutrality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

[alkemical]

Crazy how media ownership has changed.

[Rohirrim]

Damn! Sometimes I swear, it almost seems like we're living in a corporatist plutocracy.

[TonyR]

The reason this deal is scary is that for the vast majority of businesses in 19 of the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the country, their only choice for a high-capacity wired connection will be Comcast. Comcast, in turn, has its own built-in conflicts of interest: It will be serving the interests of its shareholders by keeping investments in its network as low as possible — in particular, making no move to provide the world-class fiber-optic connections that are now standard and cheap in other countries — and extracting as much rent as it can, in all kinds of ways. Comcast, for purposes of today’s public , is calling itself a “cable company.” It no longer is. Comcast sells infrastructure subject to neither competition nor a cop on the beat.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...r-america.html

[TonyR]

In comparison with the rest of the developed world, the US has slower broadband speeds and higher broadband prices than just about anybody. When you do find exceptions, they always turn out to be cases of a very clear monopoly: Carlos Slim more or less owns broadband in Mexico, for instance, while a company called Southern Cross controls all of the bandwidth into New Zealand.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmo...ing-bandwidth/

[BroncoBeavis]

Comcast, after buying up it's only competition (which never really competed in the first place) has now reached a 'deal' with Netflix wherein Comcast will now charge Netflix for access to Comcast's suscribers.

What does this mean? It means if you are a Comcast subscriber, you will be paying twice for Netflix content. You'll be paying Comcast (your provider) for the bits you consume under your service agreement. Netflix will be paying its provider (not Comcast) for the bits it sends, and YOU will be paying Netflix to pay Comcast for the bits sent ... a second time.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/net...2-23-124491012

In other words, goodby equal access networks, hello to this:



Don't want the above? Support Net Neutrality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

A different take on what exactly it is Netflix is paying for...

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...01071892041790

Basically they're cutting out Cogent as the ISP delivering to Comcast and paying Comcast directly to essentially host it for them.

If the agreement stays where it is, it's a win for everyone (except obviously the ISP who lost the contract.)

The risk is that the relationship gets cozier from there. But that was always the risk with or without this deal.

[Pony Boy]

I can remember when my wife and I were newlyweds living in Colorado and she would run up a $300 long distance bill talking to her mom and sister. The way I look at it, I’m way ahead of the game if my internet bill doubles.

[houghtam]

I can remember when my wife and I were newlyweds living in Colorado and she would run up a $300 long distance bill talking to her mom and sister. The way I look at it, I’m way ahead of the game if my internet bill doubles.

From a cost perspective, I couldn't agree more. A $40 cable bill in 1985 (which was about what my family payed and the first year we got cable) is about $100 in today's money (which is about what I pay right now, including internet).

The far bigger problem is directed advertising. Your feed is based on what you click. It only serves to shrink the ever decreasing bubble people live in that just enforces your own views. That is, of course, unless you have an open mind and choose to get your news from a variety of sources.

And for the record, WND, ICH and The Blaze aren't any more "variety" than CNN or Fox.

[Taco John]

In other words, goodby equal access networks, hello to this:

I'm always amused at this scare tactic. Pricing will never look like this - this is silly stuff. I'd call it ignorant, except the people who created it know that it's just a scare tactic. Only the people who believe it's possible that pricing will actually look like this are ignorant. This pricing model is impossible.

Net neutrality is a bad idea being pushed by people who don't really understand the technology and what we are on the brink of. The one size fits all pricing model is not going to be sustainable in the future. Forcing that pricing model on infrastructure corporations will not help - it will seriously hurt.

Data is not created equal. Volume matters. We are about to enter an age of computing that is going to fundamentally change the world as we know it. We would be fools to pass this silly Net Neutrality stuff based on the above sort of fear mongering over pricing models.

[Guess Who]

Comcast, after buying up it's only competition (which never really competed in the first place) has now reached a 'deal' with Netflix wherein Comcast will now charge Netflix for access to Comcast's suscribers.

What does this mean? It means if you are a Comcast subscriber, you will be paying twice for Netflix content. You'll be paying Comcast (your provider) for the bits you consume under your service agreement. Netflix will be paying its provider (not Comcast) for the bits it sends, and YOU will be paying Netflix to pay Comcast for the bits sent ... a second time.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/net...2-23-124491012

In other words, goodby equal access networks, hello to this:



Don't want the above? Support Net Neutrality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Yeah this could be a bad deal. Thank Reagon for De-regulation, been down hill ever since.

[Guess Who]

We need about 24 years of Democratic rule to fix the Supreme Court, Big Oil, The EPA, Our tax system and the struggling poor.

[bronco militia]

We need about 24 years of Democratic rule to fix the Supreme Court, Big Oil, The EPA, Our tax system and the struggling poor.

[Guess Who]

From a cost perspective, I couldn't agree more. A $40 cable bill in 1985 (which was about what my family payed and the first year we got cable) is about $100 in today's money (which is about what I pay right now, including internet).
.

... really, so the average wage for middle income America has almost tripled since 1985? You wanna re-adjust that before I go look it up.

[Rohirrim]

I'm always amused at this scare tactic. Pricing will never look like this - this is silly stuff. I'd call it ignorant, except the people who created it know that it's just a scare tactic. Only the people who believe it's possible that pricing will actually look like this are ignorant. This pricing model is impossible.

Net neutrality is a bad idea being pushed by people who don't really understand the technology and what we are on the brink of. The one size fits all pricing model is not going to be sustainable in the future. Forcing that pricing model on infrastructure corporations will not help - it will seriously hurt.

Data is not created equal. Volume matters. We are about to enter an age of computing that is going to fundamentally change the world as we know it. We would be fools to pass this silly Net Neutrality stuff based on the above sort of fear mongering over pricing models.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

- George Orwell, 1984

The internet has become the archive and producer of much of modern human knowledge. Should that be controlled by corporations whose coordinating principle is limited wealth creation for their officers and shareholders? And yet, those are the only ones invited to the table. Do we just sit back and let corporations decide what the future will look like and who will benefit, even down to who will be allowed access to information?

[Guess Who]

Here is an article saying the merger will be good for the consumer. Of course I got it off of Yahoo so it probably is lying.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/break...145347877.html