Roku Has Hired a Team of Lobbyists As it Gears Up For a Net Neutrality Fight (recode.net) 85
Roku appears to be arming itself for the coming net neutrality war. From a report on Recode: The web video streaming and hardware company has plenty at stake as the Federal Communications Commission prepares to pull back rules that require internet providers to treat all web traffic equally. For Roku and others in the business, an end to the Obama-era protections could make it harder -- or, in some cases, more expensive -- to offer content or services to customers at top download speeds. That's why Roku has hired a pair of Republican lobbyists through an outside government-affairs firm, according to a federal ethics reports filed this week, specifically to focus on net neutrality. It's the first time the company has ever retained lobbyists in Washington, D.C. Many in the tech industry support the Obama-era FCC's net neutrality rules, which currently subject telecom companies to utility-style regulation. To Democrats, it's the only way to stop the likes of AT&T, Comcast, Charter or Verizon from blocking competing services or charging media companies for faster delivery of their content.
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me again what did we have before we got capitalism?
Feudalism, which is Capitalism minus the need to compete by the inheritance class
Imperialism, which is Feudalism without the need to keep track of inheritances.
Mercantileism, which is the worst of all three combined with pre-nation state chaos
And before that?
A free market, with those who owed armies owning everything, including the water.
Re: (Score:1)
... and now it's time for somethung else (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You want "acceptable CODEC support"? Then encode with parameters that are compatible with hardware decoders.
Myself, I think Apple went mad with their damn "touch" remote on their 4th generation Apple TV, so my next unit will be a Roku - hopefully with hardware H.265 support because I'm pretty sure Netflix is going to use that one day.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, unless he has a strange habit of changing his encoding parameter from one file to the next then it means he's playing files he got from different sources and not files he encoded himself.
Second, your theoretical "slightly less shitty device" that can play things a hardware decoder IC cannot play means software decoding, which means a more powerful CPU, a higher power draw and more heat dissipation. Not important for something the size and cost of a PC but extremely important for a tiny box lik
Re: (Score:2)
with hardware H.265 support because I'm pretty sure Netflix is going to use that one day.
What use-case do you have in mind? 4K? How likely is it you'll want to watch Netflix on a 4K screen that doesn't have a Netflix app built-in?
If you're not thinking 4K, why care about H.265?
Re:Fuck Roku (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know why people think H.265 means 4K.
I care about H.265 because I could get the same quality from less bandwidth, or better quality from the same bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
I just wonder if Netflix with bother with H.265 for non-4K. Perhaps, as you say, it will make good sense for those without super-fast internet connections.
Re: (Score:2)
It will allow Netflix to get more customers because as you say some people have slower connections and also because people switching to H.265 means less bandwidth required on their end too.
Re: Obama Era Incumbent Support (Score:4, Informative)
You mean Trump, right?
I heard for eight years you can't blame the previous administration for problems.
Re: (Score:2)
You can, but only to a point. If Trump (or his supporters) is still blaming Obama in 2019, that's Trump's problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Generic Party doesn't apply to all. (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you have broadband?
Yes the backhaul seems to be pretty high cost here the city only has 3Gbps backhaul for the whole town but they only offer up to 40Mbps for residents.
The equipment they were installing back in 2004 could do 600Mbps but they have never been able to afford enough backhaul to get near that.
It's kind of like owning a jet but only being able to afford enough fuel to taxi around the runway.
Re:Generic Party doesn't apply to all. (Score:5, Insightful)
And no it's not the fucking backbone that is asking for more money. It's Verizon, AT&T and Comcast.
Fuck off and die.
Re:Generic Party doesn't apply to all. (Score:4, Insightful)
Using eminent domain is a responsibility not a privilege.
Re: (Score:2)
Having internet access is a privilege and not a right.
UN thinks internet access is a human right [businessinsider.com]
"A poll of 27,973 adults in 26 countries, including 14,306 Internet users,[3] conducted for the BBC World Service [bbc.co.uk] between 30 November 2009 and 7 February 2010 found that almost four in five Internet users and non-users around the world felt that access to the Internet was a fundamental right.[4] 50% strongly agreed, 29% somewhat agreed, 9% somewhat disagreed, 6% strongly disagreed, and 6% gave no opinion.[5]"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All that needs to happen is to eliminate the government-granted monopolies in cable and DSL Internet service. Either allow multiple cable and phone companies to install lines in government-controlled easements; or award the line installation and maintenance to a single company and allow multiple cable/phone companies to run their service over the single line (this will probably be the optimal solution going forw
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So what you are proposing is to replace regulation with more regulation?
You propose deregulating the ISPs while adding regulation to the last mile service. And, let's be clear, without regulation, there will be no competition, because the last mile is a natural monopoly.
ISP Monopolies (Score:2)
So switch to another ISP if yours is blocking or slowing your traffic. That's what a market-based solution would dictate.
The real problem is that we have allowed ISP monopolies. I live in the third largest city in the United States and my only choice for Internet access via cable modem is Comcast. There are other cable providers in certain areas of town and for large multi-dwelling buildings, but only one choice in my neighborhood of single-family residences.
If people had a choice of providers then the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is literally what is said.
Read more than the first line.
Re: (Score:2)
You tell somebody to do something and then barely two sentences later admit that it's impossible.
Thanks. Very helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, GP said that. You know what I mean :P
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
this is why companies have been paying for CDN access for almost 20 years now. these days they also pay AWS. or is that evil too?
who streams content across the internet without relying on akamai or one of the other CDN companies? Netflix has enough cash to finance their own CDN boxes and the routers
Re: (Score:2)
"To Democrats, it's the only way to stop the likes of AT&T, Comcast, Charter or Verizon from blocking competing services or charging media companies for faster delivery of their content." Not just to Democrats - pretty much anyone who understands networks just how evil these non-competing, money-stealing, progress-inhibiting ISP's can be.
Right. Democrats.
It's more effective to be one.. (Score:2)
Can I Get a Lobbyist?
It's more effective to BE one. Also cheaper.
Instead of keyboarding your complaints to public fora like Slashdot, type them onto a postcard and mail it to your representative and senator.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Many proponents of net neutrality are mainly concerned about the cost of their video streaming. This puts a big demand on infrastructure and not everybody watches streaming video. I may not want to subsidizes your Game of Thrones addiction.
That is much less a net-nutrality issue and much more a monopoly issue.
Until it becomes legal for any network provider or ISP to run their own wiring through a city, you get exactly the same choice as the rest of us do - none.
It's the fault of laws that enable a single ISP to be a monopoly that are why you have no choice but to subsidize our video streaming addiction.
Fix that and you'll find those of us that want to pay more for the bandwidth to stream video will flock to an ISP that allows it, and people s
Re: (Score:2)
Here is were I find the problem...
If actually using the 100mbps they have sold me puts so much strain on the infrastructure that it can't be sustained without charging more then why sell it to me in the first place.
So if you have a 100mbps connection and a 1TB data cap charged on a monthly basis you would only be able to use your connection at top speed for less than one day out of the month.
It's ridiculous this is even a conversation (Score:2)
Vertical integration results in monopolies (regional ones at least) and consumer abuse once the consumers no longer have reasonable alternatives to turn to.
The carrier and the content provider can not be permitted to have agreements to suppress competition.
Bits are bits, and while in the case of an Internet connection I think there's room for ISPs to enforce SPAM/botnet/DOS protection strategies, to provide generic tiered traffic (to say, minimize delay on real-time traffic over other types not so sensitive
Re: (Score:1)
They are wasting their money (Score:3)
It would be cheaper and more certain than having GOPs do the right things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Internet service should be treated like a utility (Score:4, Insightful)
Unintended consequences (Score:1)
If you rabid net-neut proponents don't watch it, we're going to end up with ISPs that bill by the byte.
This is an incredibly common result of touchy-feely regulations. Remember the days when if your credit was good enough you could get a prime-plus-a-point-or-two credit card, and even with just ok credit you could get 10% or less? The CARD Act [aba.com] sent that the way of the dodo bird -- average introductory rates are now pushing 20% [wallethub.com]. Remember how Dick Durban was going to stick it to the banks by forcing them to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think wireless and wired carriers are really competing in the same market segment such that they could meaningfully affect each others' pricing. Metered wireless carriers charge in the neighborhood of $5/GB or more. At that rate, my home broadband bill would be northward of $1k/month.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, right, I'm sure a letter from the credit card companies is really believable. And even they had to insert this text before they started complaining about the evil guberment:
"The CARD Act has provided consumers with significant benefits, among them the elimination (with
few exceptions) of increases on interest rates on existing balances, whether the regular purchase
interest rate or an introductory or promotional rate. These restrictions help consumers avoid surprises
due to increases in their interest rat
Re: (Score:3)
Your quote has no bearing at all on my point, which was that credit card interest rates have skyrocketed in the same time frame that the prime rate has been at historic lows, after passing legislation that ostensibly was to benefit the little guy. Are you denying that, or are you just trying to distract?
Re: (Score:2)
Aha -- some reflexive mod found the -1, TruthHurts option. That certainly makes up for the utter lack of ability for anyone to cogently articulate what they think the real endgame will be -- can be -- to trying to regulate the latest act in the tragedy of the commons [investopedia.com].
Not FCC rules. FTC and antitrust law. (Score:3)
The net non-neutrality problem is not technical, so the solution to isn't FCC rulemaking.
The problem stems from two aspects of monopoly/cartel control of the market, so the solution is FTC, DOJ, and antitrust.
The two aspects are:
- Vertical integration of ISPs into conglomerates that make most of their money from selling "content" that can be transported over the internet. This gives them massive financial incentives to have their ISP divisions penalize services competing either with their entertainment divisions' online services on the same ISP, or their offline / on other ISPs marketing. Services competing with their own products are penalized unless they pay enough extra to more than make up for their impact on the profit from the conglomerate's own product. "No-neutrality" is one of the manifestations of this anti-competitive tie-in.
- A limited number of competitors results in monopolistic / cartel levels of pricing and service. (The FCC historically considers two providers to be "competition" - though a minimum of three, and usually four or more, competitors are necessary before market forces have good effects on either prices or service levels.) On the service-level side, the incentive is to engage in "rent-seeking" by providing as little service as necessary and charge as much extra as possible, from whichever player can be soaked, for more than a token minimum. (If they don't like it, who will they go to?)
Re: (Score:2)
FTC is specifically forbidden by law to regulate ISPs.
FTC is specifically forbidden by current/b. law to regulate ISPs.
This is something that is subject to change. (It's a one-liner either way.) It's also something that people in the Trump administration are already on the record of having mentioned.
If enough congressmen can be convinced that the problem for them will go away if they do it that way, they could easily do it in a few weeks.
And if the pro-network-neutrality people can be convinced that movin