So the man who decided that DRM in HTML5 was a good thing has an opinion on the well-being of the world wide web, eh?
Sorry if this sounds bitter. I'm just posting from a browser unable to access HTML5 content at a regular interval. It's an open source browser, and the suggested "fix" is always using a closed-source browser, OS or both.
I thought this web-thing was supposed to be open and cross platform?
It's not a fair comparison at all. The internet is infrastructure for all globalized network applications. DRM is just software implemented by individual applications that you can take or leave. Whether it exists in a standard is utterly irrelevant to the copyright holders who are DRM's raison d'etre, and keeping it out of standards is an idealogical stance that has no practical benefit. All that would do is make sure that Netflix et al continue to use Flash/Silverlight or whatever proprietary plugin meets the Studios ever-more-stringent DRM requirements. If you think standards bodies can do anything that places even the slightest bit of pressure on content rights holders to abandon DRM you are comically delusional. Studios have the content, they dictate the terms (why do you think Netflix got into the production business?).
I am in favour of net neutrality but worry that everyone is defending a status quo that is still bad. For most consumers and buisness access to the net is hardly free in a financial sense. Entry level bandwidth on AWS/Azure/App engine is still very expensive and seems completely overpriced compared to storage.
For the consumer lack of last mile competition and monthly contracts make competition almost impossible on a day to day basis. An entrepreneur could setup a WiFi hotspot in an area with poor coverage but no one would use it because we are all trying to do everything on a 3g data plan.
I want competition for last mile access that allows the consumer to connect based on the best connection available regarldess of who has provided it. Companies should be paid for providing bandwidth and it makes sense to ask large players like Facebook and Nextflix to pay the bill ($0.2 per GB to guarantee a fast connection to the user should be reasonable). The only way to break the telcos is to fund open compeition.
> Entry level bandwidth on AWS/Azure/App engine is still very expensive
How is that a net neutrality issue?
> Companies should be paid for providing bandwidth
They are, that's what you pay your ISP for and that's what Facebook pays their ISP for. However why should your ISP be able to demand money from Facebook?
What you are proposing is exactly what the cable companies are proposing. Guess what, it doesn't fund competition because if, say Netflix, doesn't pay the protection money, they get throttled to hell where the cable companies service obviously doesn't. Now, Netflix might be large enough now to pay it so you say we have 'competition.' What about the next startup? The company that isn't large yet? That is where competition dies and that is what the cable companies plans are protecting.
>> Now, Netflix might be large enough now to pay it so you say we have 'competition.' What about the next startup? The company that isn't large yet? That is where competition dies and that is what the cable companies plans are protecting.
That is why I mentioned AWS bandwidth pricing. Because bandwidth is usually much more expensive for a low usage startup than a big established. How is that not already a constraint to growth?
Also, I am absolutely not in favour of throtteling connections based on payment. We need a fair system that can be applied with the same terms to everyone. If bandwidth is the big technical constraint why not regulate that instead of protecting shadowy peering agreements that only benefit large players.
It makes growth easy; the more you grow, the cheaper your bandwidth.
Hosting bandwidth is already significantly cheaper than consumer bandwidth, and nobody is forcing you to use AWS. Bandwidth is not the "big technical constraint" as Level3 and Netflix have shown in various blog posts.
>> For the consumer lack of last mile competition and monthly contracts make competition almost impossible on a day to day basis.
In the USA. In the UK I can choose between about half a dozen companies with prices as low as $5 per month for usable broadband. I don't think I've been 100% satisfied with any ISP but only in the customer service area (and mainly because network issues are hard to diagnose). Speed and price are generally OK and there is a lot of variety.
There is little incentive to provide FTTH or to connect rural areas. In some places there is only one 3g provider who you can only use if you have a billing account with that company.
I agree that the UK is miles ahead of the US but can that last forever? What happens when FTTC and 4g are saturated? We are still mostly reliant on a few mobile operators + BT/Virgin for the last mile.
"Based off history"
Haven't read/heard much on this... Curious of examples?
"private ownership of common property"
Bit of an oxymoron you got going there. If something is privately owned, it can't be common(public) property by definition. Even so, we have yet to establish that internet infrastructure is somehow "common/public property". I'm curious how you think that's the case (that internet infrastructure is public property)?
I think it gets to the fact that if enough people need to use private property, it is started to be considered as "common" and private property rights get eroded to the point that it can not be considered private anymore. Like "too big to fail", "too big to be controlled by anybody but the government" is a popular thing. Now, the nominal ownership may be or not be private, but with enough regulation the difference would be only in profit sharing arrangements and not in actual control over the property.
So when the parent post says "doomed to fail", it's not because there's something inherently faulty in private property. It's because people can't tolerate the perceived absence of control over such big things.
The classic historic example is the Commons and their subsequent enclosure in England. Common land that was free to be used by commoners for centuries was suddenly divided up and enclosed, often enough by force, and even went so far as prople rioting and revolting over it because people were robbed of a big part of their livelihood.
I think he means privatisation of services traditionally public, in the vast majority of historical periods and places. Ports are an old example roads are another.
Transport infrastructure is historically most commonly expanded and enhanced as the state gets stronger and wealthier, and as it becomes more empire than state.
See, telling Congress that something is "bribery" and expecting Congress to think that's something bad is just wishful thinking on TBL's part, bless his heart.
That's a good question. Ultimately the FCC only has jurisdiction over American operators. However, net neutrality as a concept is also being debated in other countries. When someone like TBL is commenting on net neutrality I'm never quite sure if he is referring to net neutrality in the USA, or to the wider concept.
Precedentially net neutrality derives from the English common law's notion of common carrier. What you should expect this to mean is that the concept of net neutrality should be similar in all English common law countries. In practice I'm not always sure this is the case.
M-W defines "bribery" in relevant part as: "money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust."
It's only "bribery" if the recipient is in a position of trust. The ISP's are not. They are just businesses operating their wholly private networks. Paying someone to use their private property for your benefit isn't "bribery." It's a basic commercial transaction. E.g. it's not "bribery" for me to pay an Uber Black driver more than an Uber X driver to take me somewhere.
You are narrowly interpreting 'position of trust', ISPs are not only in a position of trust (we give them ALL of our data to look at), they are because of their trusted position subject to all kinds of directives historically more associated with post offices and telephone companies. They carry our data. As such we trust them very much.
The full quote of what TBL said was this:
"We need rules," said Berners-Lee. "If businesses are to move here and start here rather than start in Europe or Brazil or Australia — they're going to look around and make sure, 'Oh, does the power stay up?' And they'll look for other things. 'Is the Internet open?' Will they have to effectively bribe their ISPs to start a new service? That's what it looks like from the outside. It's bribery."
In other words, if you need to pay the gate-keeper for equal access to the subscribers then that's bribery because the common-carrier principle holds that no priority should be given to other people's packets over yours ('without discrimination') and VV. Allowing such differentiation could for instance cripple any voice-over-ip offering that was not sanctioned via deep packet inspection.
That's what this is about, not about a narrow definition of bribery, not every word is to be taken literally but in this case it is close enough that I don't think you can pretend that you did not understand the slight metaphorical component and simply acknowledge that a gatekeeper that needs payment where none should be due is tantamount to having to bribe someone.
Trusting our data (which btw is not true, that's why we have SSL and other crypto) has nothing to do with it. If somebody would pay your ISP for revealing your data - that would be bribery. However, paying ISP to get favorable business deal, like better channel, is no bribery - no more than hiring a private limo for higher price than riding a bus is a bribery of public transportation system. The business of ISP is to provide connections, and paying them for better connection become bribery only if you consider yourself somehow entitled to be provided these connections and not just entering a contract and paying for service. With all respect to Berners-Lee, I don't see where that entitlement would come from.
>>> In other words, if you need to pay the gate-keeper for equal access to the subscribers then that's bribery because the common-carrier principle holds that no priority should be given to other people's packets over yours
That's a circular argument. You declare that ISP has no rights to provide different levels of service (as if that was some obvious law and not the very point being argued) and then conclude that if they do it, it's bribery. But of course, pre-assuming this makes the whole discussion pointless as you declared the victory for yourself before it begun. However, that declaration is baseless - ISP can have different levels of service and do that regularly - they offer different bandwidths, different channel types, etc., etc. and restricting them from doing so serves to purpose but to satisfy a perverted feeling of "fairness" - maybe I cannot buy the best service but at least nobody else can too!
The limo analogy seems backwards when we're discussing paying for favourable access for incoming traffic for customers.
Also bear in mind that those customers have themselves all had to pay for their internet access. Some of those customers will themselves have paid extra for supposedly fast connections.
Communicating on the internet is a two-way transaction mediated by quite a lot of paid third parties. If some of those third parties start trying to extract some rent for premium services, we will have a mess.
What you are saying doesn't make much sense. The "private property" of the ISP's is valuable for content providers only when the public is using it. An ISP with 10 users has exactly 0 power to demand money, even if they have the largest and greatest infrastructure on the market.
Think about this: I, as a user, am paying my ISP money in order to connect and receive content through the Internet, irregardless of the source of that content. I trust my ISP to send that content, and I don't care where it comes from. They should send it as fast as they can (according to my plan) because that's what I pay them for. I think there's no argument there, any user would want to get any content as fast as his plan allows.
Now, my ISP wants to be paid by content providers to give them preferential treatment, breaking completely the trust I put on them when I chose their service. Isn't this exactly "money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust"?
The only way I can imagine this isn't bribery is if they start sending the preferential content faster than your plan allows, while maintaining the rest at the same speed as before. But we know it won't work like that.
I find it interesting how public discussions in the U.S. often are centered around the semantics of single words instead of focusing on the larger picture, which is often connected to morality (entitlement vs. priviledge comes to mind).
The real questions are never even asked. Would a society accept that only rich people would be provided with water in the case of a water shortage? Should one of your children receive more food becuase it scores better grades at school? How important is the delivery of opinions and information compared to water and food? I am not saying that those things can be compared, but these are the things that need to be discussed in public.
Don't worry, this is just because you are reading from rayiner. Lawyers have this tendency to fall into a rabbit hole of explaining things in some legal category, where everyone else naturally operates on morality and expects the law to reflect that.
I don't see where morality comes into play when talking about weighing the interests of different for profit corporations. I realize that people here tend to sympathize with internet companies over telecommunications companies, but that's precisely why we don't just base the law on peoples' conceptions of "morality."
In any case, a debate over words is rarely just a debate over words. Words delineate the scope of expectations and obligations. Which category you fit into dramatically affects what's expected of you and what you're entitled to. Imprecision as to categories on the basis of vague moral arguments makes it easy to ignore the bargain achieved within each category balancing obligations with entitlements.
> I don't see where morality comes into play when talking about weighing the interests of different for profit corporations.
I think you just summarized in one sentence why many people hate lawyers. It's not just that lawyers are dispassionate, doctors are also dispassionate, and people don't hate doctors nearly as much as lawyers. It's that you miss the forest for the trees.
Categories are inherently imprecise, and focusing on them exclusively leads one to focus on delineation of experience as the ultimate arbiter. Categories cannot prefectly map reality, normal people know this, while lawyers ignore this. Those vague moral arguments are what matters to moral people, not some outdated belief that Aristotelian categorization somehow can properly capture reality.
Lawyers categorize circumstance and then map the law onto those categories. When the law doesn't map well to circumstance, or when we cannot properly categorize the facts, we have questions of interpretation.
"When does a change in degree become a change in kind?", or "Do we need a law of the horse?" Both questions assume categorization as the problem. But our minds don't work like that. Everything that we're learning through cognitive science tells us differently.
People hate lawyers because they don't like applying the same rules to people they don't like as to people they like. That's why lawyers fixate on categories. Those abstract definitions force people to take personal prejudices and interests out of the calculation.
I think you're ignoring the natural monopoly position of last mile internet providers. If there were practical ways of providing choice & competition to this portion of the link, the market for last mile would be competitive, and letting private networks play with tradeoffs in net neutral arrangements vs fast lanes would be self correcting.
However, because of the monopoly position, then I feel that net neutrality provisions are the only way to prevent unfair (and economically unproductive) rent seeking behavior on last-mile links. Last-mile may end up between being something of a misnomer - network wise it would be end-customer to wherever a fanout of network links allows choice/competitiveness to come in.
Actually there's another way to preserve the utility of last mile links, but in some ways it's more invasive. That would be to structure the market so the last mile is gov't owned (probably municipal), but access to it is separated along lines of maintenance, operation, and service offerings (across it). This seems like a structure less vulnerable to regulatory capture.
It's not even 'what' may be transmitted but 'how'.
I could let you transmit all your 'skype' packets but at 10 seconds delay. You wouldn't have a leg to stand on wrt to eventual deliver or what was delivered.
I think the problem is that you're referring back to classical models and frameworks of law and business. The internet has become something too big and too great, it's a weird system in that it is the commons yet parts of it are privately owned. New rules should apply. The owners of the tubes (so to speak) should have some privileges that are normally afforded to owners of any business or technology, but they shouldn't be totally free to endanger the state the Internet is in today -- where small startups have some hope of taking on the big players.
Basically, it's a new world, we have to make some new rules.
Monopolies aren't illegal. What's illegal is commercial behavior in furtherance of maintaining a monopoly. You probably don't have just one credible high-speed option because of anticompetitive actions on Comcast or AT&T's part.
(I'm prepared to be wrong about that last point; I'm in Chicago, where I do in fact have several high-speed options).
> You probably don't have just one credible high-speed option because of anticompetitive actions on Comcast or AT&T's part.
> (I'm prepared to be wrong about that last point; I'm in Chicago, where I do in fact have several high-speed options).
Easy to test for: collect prices in areas where there is only one supplier versus areas where there are many and compare.
The typical excuse is that it costs more to supply rural areas. Until there is competition and then suddenly ADSL and Cable drop in price tremendously. This situation existed until recently in one rural area where I had a house, the prices were outrageous. Then, just as we were about to roll out a wireless network for the neighbourhood the prices dropped through the floor. Probably coincidence ;).
There's an element of post hoc ergo propter hoc to this. It's also very plausible that whatever force introduces a competitive high-speed carrier to a rural area also works to reduce prices: for instance, maybe competitive carriers enter the market because something happens to suddenly make that market cheaper to serve.
They do not have legal monopolies. Technically they are mostly de-facto oligopolies. If oligopolies put you in a position of trust, then we can apply the same reasoning to Google/Bing in search, or Google/Apple in mobile OSes, Pepsi/Coke in soda, EBay in auctions, PayPal in online money transmission, etc.
The ones you name have fringe competitors, but fringe competitors that offer slightly less refined services and products at lower prices.
Because of the way the internet is, to use a fringe competitor you usually pay more to get less. (Satellite internet, home LTE providers).
Around here, Verizon and ATT recognize that their only competitor is Comcast (or other company on the list to be bought by comcast) so they set their prices slightly higher and rely on marketing to add perceived value for about the same service. It may not be explicit price fixing (though it probably is), but it's still not good for national economic health or security.
> If oligopolies put you in a position of trust, then we can apply the same reasoning to Google/Bing in search, or Google/Apple in mobile OSes, Pepsi/Coke in soda, EBay in auctions, PayPal in online money transmission, etc.
You're looking at the wrong markets. The fact that an individual customer can choose between AT&T and Comcast provides very little consolation to the likes of Netflix. There is no other provider that can supply Netflix with connectivity between their servers and their customers who subscribe to Comcast. Netflix can't switch those customers from Comcast to AT&T if AT&T provides better terms. Comcast has a monopoly.
The analogy to Apple is completely appropriate. The smartphone customers see plenty of competition but the app developers are at the mercy of Apple for access to customers with iPhones. The same would be true of Google if they prohibited competing app stores as Apple does.
But it only applies to markets where the vendors can and do try to leverage their market power into a related market. Pepsi can't demand a tithe from the makers of cups because it has no control over what cups its customers pour their Pepsi into. You don't have to sell on eBay to accept PayPal.
The common theme is that a company places itself into a position of trust. By inserting themselves as a gatekeeper for third party access to its primary market customers they are carving out a monopoly in the ancillary market(s), which is an affirmative act that creates a position of trust.
Difference is, I can choose google or bing, and pepsi or coke. I can't choose time warner or comcast, they already picked that for me. I only have a single high speed internet option.
There doesn't seem to be any trolling. Adwords provides exactly the function of allowing people to pay to have their results placed above the highest pageranking result.
The claim that offering this spot to the highest bidder is 'organic' seems bizarre at best.
Yes, they are vertically above the highest search result. They also have a different background color.
...... apparently that last sentence is no longer true. No idea when that happened. However, the ads are called out by a yellow button saying "Ad" before the link text.
What ISP's say to companies who want to use the internet, "Either you pay us to access your customers, or we break your kneecaps." This is about both monopolies and mafia business tactics.
Internet has long provided the opportunity for a new comer to challenge the status quo because of net neutrality. Now we are creating a barrier of entry and it is going to be hard for new startups. American dream is correlated to equal opportunity for everybody irrespective of the background. That's what is stake at here.
Elected representatives in America often portray themselves to uphold American dream (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream) ethos. But in practice they support policies that go exactly against that ethos and support gatekeeper policies like net neutrality. Yes it is a global issue. I am putting forth an argument in an American context.
Not to be feared. Let it pass. Please let it pass. This is all that is needed for a company like google or someone else to disrupt the system. This is the final chess piece for Verizon and similar scum to finally get run over.
If we don't allow ISPs to throttle things like Netflix, isn't the impact that all other packets might suffer latency? In that case, is NN a subsidy to large content producers?
No. This is like a library giving me an approved book all at once while taking anything on the non-approved list and giving me one page a week. That's all.
Did Tim envision internet bandwidth consumed by Netflix? Is the current mix of content we consume something he approves of?
Instead of staking out absolutist positions it would be helpful to come up practical solutions now. Some form of fast lanes is inevitable over time and just maybe it could improve the situation of people like me who would likely remain on the "normal speed" lanes.
The point is that your ISP already sells you data allowance and bandwidth, that is they are looking to charge Netflix and other companies for something the consumer has already effectively paid for -
I understand that. My hope is that we might be able to "unbundle" and get some benefit at the lower end. I don't want to subsidize the Netflix streamers by being forced into a neutral model. I'm looking for a cheaper slow lane.
The Neutral model isn't so much about the terms the ISP is offering you as to how they fulfill those terms.
Let's say a consumer pays for a 20MB/S connection with unlimited bandwidth, now the ISP is going to throttle all streaming content on there to say 2MB/S - except (for example for Netflix which has an agreement with the ISP) - so as a consumer you might want to use Amazon Prime or Hulu - but nope -- all of those services are throttled, only Netflix is going to get the full 20MB/S.
Now of course the big companies will pay not to be throttled, but where does this leave, small companies?
What if next time your ISP throttle wikileaks, or some indie internet comic, or any other websites which it finds politically disagreeable?
What's with this "I don't want to help anybody but myself" attitude I see come up whenever there's a discussion of taxes, welfare, or bandwidth pricing?
If you want a cheaper slow lane, it sounds like you are expecting the Netflix users to subsidize you.
I don't understand how in Bolivia I can pay that, and have exactly that with minimal fuss. Meanwhile I hear absolutely insane stuff coming from my friends ISPs in the US. I pay $90/month for a 2MB connection, and get precisely that, either for torrents, Netflix, PS4 online or plain old http downloads.
I can even call tech support here and have a live-person helping me figure out why my internet is not working immediately. No robots, no telephone-software redirects.
You guys don't have that level of quality because Comcast is bribing all of your appointed officials. There is no competition! My father in Boston just got internet and had to sign up with Comcast because there was literally no other choice where he lived. He paid for the service, and guess what 5 hours after the installation technician left the internet didn't work. He called them up, which was a 3 hour hold, and they wanted to charge him $80 for a technician visit. $80 FOR A TECHNICIAN VISIT, they didn't even want to check his internet remotely, like they do here in Bolivia. It's all nickle and diming, and you can't do shit about it.
The FCC is working for Comcast, not for the people. Don't you get that?
>> I don't understand how in Bolivia I can pay that, and have exactly that with minimal fuss.
Exactly! Anyone who thinks fast lanes are necessary must not have looked at how the internet works in the rest of the world where we don't have such huge problems with net neutrality.
If you don't have a SLA, you're not paying for X/s. The cheap consumer plans only advertise the speed as a potential maximum with no guarantee. Moreover, they explicitly state that overuse will result in slower speeds.
So if you want X/s, then you'll need a stricter contract, and will have to pay a lot more than what you're doing now. Or, the ISP can request that upstream services subsidize the bandwidth for downstream customers and that way you won't have to pay more.
>If you don't have a SLA, you're not paying for X/s. The cheap consumer plans only advertise the speed as a potential maximum with no guarantee.
In the backwards-as-fuck US maybe - here they advertise that speed for at least 90% of the time of your monthly contract. Any time under in credited towards you with no fuss. One time I had a week of crap service, and they acknowledged it and gave me two weeks of free internet with no problems. So yes, we do get a SLA.
That's basically the same situation in the USA -- the only time the internet in a lot of places is really congested is during peak hours. Around 6 or 7 I notice a slowdown and then by 10 everything is fine again. Unless you have a business plan or a leased line I highly doubt you have an SLA, probably just good customer service and one of those "guarantees".
I think consumers that want that are being stupid, I'd much rather be able to work at higher speeds at night than have a network wide SLA that says we all get 5 M/s. I'd also much rather pay 20-30/mo for my internet than 60. Think about the ridiculous expense if they needed to engineer highways just to avoid the 2 hours of traffic every day. Would you really be rallying for a 12 lane highway that sits essentially empty most of the day? You're basically paying for a massive amount of stuff that goes unused 90+% of the time.
Completely ignoring the fact that in sane places, this isn't a problem, but this is false advertising at the very least and should be prosecuted as such.
A bare minimum standard is that a line advertised as X meg downstream should be able to reach that speed more often than not.
I don't care what the ISPs think about this. Their sales concerns are their own.
Well, I suspect one of the reasons why they can do that is because they're charging you $90 per month for a 2 Mb connection. I pay $27 per month here in the state for a 25/5 connection that routinely gets about 8/3.
I can't tell if this is defeatist or just insane. Who cares if he envisioned Netflix in the past, his comments are in the light of the present. So yeah, I'm sure bandwidth needs of today - and he's pretty smart, so I'm gonna go with tomorrow - are probably considered in his statement.
But we're not talking about consumption, we're talking about the speed at which I can consume. If you pay for 1G/m and I pay for 1TB/m at 100mbps, I expect all content, no matter it's nature, be delivered at the same maximum capacity reaching 100mbps to you and me equally, no matter the content. I already pay more to be able to stream a mass of content but we still should enjoy equality of delivery of the content we choose to engage in, without a middle party deciding which of that is more important for us.
Exactly, thanks for making my argument more convincingly. I would love to have the people who are willing to pay for 1TB/m subsidize my slower tier. Forcing everyone to have a transport layer that's independent of the content is not a great idea. If you were going to design a new network today you would never go down that path.
Forcing everyone to have a transport layer that's independent of the content is not a great idea. If you were going to design a new network today you would never go down that path.
Actually, yes I would (not the OP). Packets go in, packets come out.
I think that offering a range of diffrent models of threwput and latancy can only be good for the internet as a hole.
What I am conserned with is this, I want to tell the ISP what packets should run with what characterisitcs. I am completly against the ISP making deep packet inspection and deciding the selfs what packets to drop or dely.
I think like in everything else, when you have a finite resources you need a market. Having every packet be the same and then just randomly drop them, is just bad for the internet as a hole. We need QoS we need to be able for some services to run with priority.
When I play video games or skype I dont wanne wait, if I torrent every episode from a podcast the latency does not intrest me so much.
So Im am PRO net neutrality in this sence, the ISP is not allowed to look into my packets and change there priority.
That aside, it's not about what you tell the ISP, it's what the ISP tells the company you're trying to connect to or that tries to connect to you. We need QoS but on the core of the net to avoid congestion, not on the edges to artificially induce congestion! You paid for flat-rate X bits per second up/down internet service then that is what you should get! So DPI and QoS have a spot but only where they are used to improve the service.
The ISPs are now essentially trying to sell their bandwidth twice, once to you - the subscriber - and then again to the companies that those subscribers wish to communicate with. If they didn't want us to communicate then they should get out of the ISP business. What I pay for I should be able to use.
Like I said, they should not be allowed to make choices about my packeges this includeds looking at where Im sending them and slowing it down or speeding it up based on destination. Maybe I defined it to narrowly when I said deep packege inspection, I really meant any choices about my packeges speed should be based on what terms I sent it out.
I think a good buissness model would sell me a standard flat rate and some low latancy GBs.
If a ISP does not improve there network, then I can switch to another one.
Sorry if this sounds bitter. I'm just posting from a browser unable to access HTML5 content at a regular interval. It's an open source browser, and the suggested "fix" is always using a closed-source browser, OS or both.
I thought this web-thing was supposed to be open and cross platform?