Samsung's warning: Our Smart TVs record your living room chatter - CNET

[kf4hcw]

On 2015-02-12 07:39, Rob Seastrom wrote:
> Absolutely incorrect.  Verizon refused to give away product (on-net
> bandwidth) that has been on their rate card for over 15 years, for
> free.

Verizon saw and took an opportunity to redefine the rules that underpin
peering.

Instead of viewing the likes of Netflix as one of the many valuable
resources on the Internet for which they can charge their customers
access fees, their monopoly position allowed them to reinterpret that
and reverse it. Instead of (I'm sorry, in addition to) charging their
customers for access to resources on the Internet, they would now
reclassify their customers as an exploitable resource and charge Netflix
to access those customers.

This also allowed them to cut out a middle-man... great for them, bad
for the Internet. Your A->B->C is worse than A->C is oversimplified and
misleading. I stand by my statement that diversity and redundancy are at
the heart of creating reliability. Further consolidating the Internet
into fewer and fewer monopolies works directly against that principle.

As for my sources -- I quoted only one, and it was a matter of
convenience. The actual statement from the FCC was linked directly in
that article and appeared to be interpreted with reasonable integrity.
You shouldn't read any more into it than that.

Best,

_M

-- 
kf4hcw
Pete McNeil
lifeatwarp9.com/kf4hcw