AVSIG: Net Neutrality wwswsigarch.jpg (7236 bytes)

✈ . . . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . ✈ . ✈ . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . . . Touch-and-Go to our Live Forum (This is a Read-only Archive of the 2004-2017 AVSIG Forum)


AVSIG Discussion Sections >> Hardware/Software

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]
Top Gun


Reged: 09/13/01
Posts: 5059
Loc: Minnesota
Re: Net Neutrality [Re: Russell Holton]
      #445349 - 11/29/17 09:43 AM

Quote:


I guess the best way to describe it is that I wast a ISP with good network management (protocol discrimination), but is content/owner neutral.




Absolutely agree. I spent some years getting very familiar with the detailed design and implementations of QoS (Quality of Service) prioritization of traffic based on on traffic type. Frankly, it is amazing that it can be tuned as well as it can be, but it helps greatly to control great swaths of the pathways so you can set the same standards throughout, so latency sensitive traffic (such as video and voice) can get the regular snippets of space it needs on a regularly recurring basis.





Quote:

What troubles me about the "net neutrality" side is that I'm unsure if what they're proposing is going to accomplish what I want or if it's going to lead to a unmanaged network (which I don't think any consumer wants).




And that is a very good question. I have not looked closely enough in the 2015 agreement to see what it says.

John


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gil Buettner [KAUW]
Top Gun


Reged: 05/16/04
Posts: 2847
Loc: Gateway to the Northwoods
Re: Net Neutrality [Re: Russell Holton]
      #445350 - 11/29/17 09:48 AM

Quote:

Worse, we end up like the local stations negotiating with the cable companies:

Stations: "Without us, you have no content. Pay us"
Cable: "Without us, you have no customers. Pay us."







I fought the retransmission battles over the years from the TV station side. It was ugly and still is.

For me, the fundamental unfairness was watching cable pay for other content such as ESPN and The Weather Channel, but because we were broadcasting our content over the air, they felt it was OK to take our signal and sell it to customers without compensation to us or our network.

Cable was not adding viewers for us. The signal was always there, free with an antenna. (And more and more these days, people are going back to free over-the-air programming which is also higher quality video.)

We knew that the majority of viewing on cable was going to the four major networks and to local stations for news, weather and sports.

It is only fair that we somehow get compensated for that content. The sad thing is... cable operators just add that amount to the customer's monthly bill.

This has nothing to do with net neutrality, I know.

--------------------
-Gil

Edited by Gil Buettner [KAUW] (11/29/17 09:49 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Russell Holton
AVSIG Member


Reged: 07/07/05
Posts: 14136
Re: Net Neutrality [Re: Gil Buettner [KAUW]]
      #445357 - 11/29/17 01:16 PM

Quote:

Cable was not adding viewers for us.




That would be market dependent. Where I live, I can only get one or two OTA. Partly because I live in an apartment, but partly because most of the TV stations moved their transmitters.

I'm pretty sure most people have given up their outdoor antennas in favor of using cable. So, without cable, the customer base would dramatically decline unless people decided to put up outdoor antennas again.


Quote:

For me, the fundamental unfairness was watching cable pay for other content such as ESPN and The Weather Channel, but because we were broadcasting our content over the air, they felt it was OK to take our signal and sell it to customers without compensation to us or our network.



Don't those channels provide advertising slots for the cable company to insert local ads? Do you know how that works out on the balance sheet between cost and income?


Quote:

This has nothing to do with net neutrality, I know.



Thread drift is tradition. <g>


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]
Top Gun


Reged: 01/11/03
Posts: 20065
Re: Net Neutrality [Re: Russell Holton]
      #445358 - 11/29/17 01:43 PM

Millenials don't like cable, doing a lot of cord cutting. OTA TV is a tool in their arsenals, along with various streaming services.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/z433e8/over-the-air-antennas-hdtv-cord-cutting

--------------------
www.scottdyercfi.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gil Buettner [KAUW]
Top Gun


Reged: 05/16/04
Posts: 2847
Loc: Gateway to the Northwoods
Re: Net Neutrality [Re: Russell Holton]
      #445360 - 11/29/17 03:38 PM

Quote:


Don't those channels provide advertising slots for the cable company to insert local ads? Do you know how that works out on the balance sheet between cost and income?







I don't really know but I suspect subscriber fees are more important than advertising revenue. Cable is charged a per-subscriber fee for ESPN, etc., and yes, they do get "avails" (jargon for time available for sale).

From my perspective, cable rates per commercial are incredibly low compared to broadcast, but also incredibly high when viewed - properly - based on "cost per thousand" of viewers.

There are many, many advertisers who are naÔve and judge the value on the cost of a single commercial. They can't believe how cheap it is compared to broadcast TV.

There are ad agencies and informed advertisers who judge the value based on how many eyeballs that commercial will reach. They understand that cable is really far more expensive.

Cable operators know exactly how many subscribers they have, and base rates on that number. It is misleading, because the subscriber audience is spread across all of those channels. You would have to run your ads on many, many cable channels to come close to one ad on one television station. And not only many channels, but also on many different cable systems in a single TV market.

Yes, it is market dependent. If you are in a business that only needs to reach potential customers in one city, there are times when a targeted campaign on cable is worth it, especially if you have a narrow demographic and can buy the channel or channels that reaches that demo well.




--------------------
-Gil


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Dave Siciliano (ADS)
Top Gun


Reged: 05/17/04
Posts: 8469
Loc: ADS (Dallas, TX)
Re: Net Neutrality [Re: Russell Holton]
      #445361 - 11/29/17 03:40 PM

I'm in a home in north Dallas. Almost all the transmission antennas are in far south Dallas. If I put up a normal antenna, I can get most of the free over air channels, but one of the networks is in a different location; so, one would need to have an antenna that changes direction. Even with that, a few have marginal reception where I am. So, my default is Dish.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ray Tackett
Top Gun


Reged: 04/30/04
Posts: 8892
Loc: Philadelphia, USA
Net Neutrality [Re: Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]]
      #445362 - 11/29/17 03:44 PM

Here, in a major metro area, with a clear three-mile line of sight to the
local antenna farm, I get 79 OTA channels* and so don't pay my ISP to provide
TV -- just internet and phone,

Hanny streams her favorite cable-only programs to her iPad.


*The count includes the bandwidth splits, e.g. 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4.

--------------------
Ray,

Owner, Lake Wood Be Gone

Turning quality lumber into sawdust and noise since 2013.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Russell Holton
AVSIG Member


Reged: 07/07/05
Posts: 14136
Re: Net Neutrality [Re: Dave Siciliano (ADS)]
      #445369 - 11/29/17 05:09 PM

Nice. But my problem is terrain.
Add in the fact that in the conversion to digital, nearly all the stations switched from VHF to UHF, the signals don't travel like they used to. Hills kill any hope I have.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Re: Net Neutrality [Re: John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]]
      #445374 - 11/29/17 07:55 PM

Iím pretty sure the ISPs have been managing their networks for the last couple of years will no observable ill effect. Nobody expects them to go completely hands-off: Iím paying for good service, and that includes the associated engineering tasks. The excitement starts when the ISPs start ďmanagingĒ for reasons other than good network hygiene...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Russell Holton
AVSIG Member


Reged: 07/07/05
Posts: 14136
Re: Net Neutrality [Re: Scott Dunham (RDU)]
      #445377 - 11/29/17 08:52 PM

Quote:

Iím pretty sure the ISPs have been managing their networks for the last couple of years will no observable ill effect.




Yeabut. Consider this: We want to strive to erase racism. But at the same time, we want to maintain a legal distinction between adults and convicted felons with the latter having fewer rights (such as not being able to possess a firearm).

What we don't want is rules that either directly, indirectly overturns that distinction because certain races are over-represented in the convicted felon group. We want to remove race-based discrimination, but not at the price of "discriminating" against convicted felons.

Likewise, we want our network to be politically neutral, but still have QOS. All it would take is a court case that finds QOS violates net neutrality and we'd be in a bind.

Ultimately, I think we all want the same results. It's just that given the fine distinction between "company neutral" and QOS, I'm far more leery about the competency of people drafting the laws to give that to us.

Edited by Russell Holton (11/29/17 08:57 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 119 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Mike Overly 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 7782

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us AVSIG

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5

Logout   Main Index    AVSIG Aviation Forum