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

[Rob Seastrom]

kf4hcw <kf4hcw at lifeatwarp9.com> writes:

> 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.

Paid peering has existed for many many years.  There was no
redefinition here.

> 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.

Facebook pays.  Google pays.  Akamai pays.  You seem to think that
Netflix represents some kind of special new situation and that's not
the case.

> 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.

And I stand by my statement that at this scale, it's pretty much the
only way to make it work.  Speaking of oversimplified and misleading,
I see you took out the part where I talked about the capital
expenditures necessary to add literally terabits per second of
bandwidth to the network.

> 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.

Back to the original premise - the statement from the FCC does not
address any actual problems nor does it represent a particular bit of
progress.

-r