Sure that's cool, but without a rooftop antenna, I get 2 different PBS stations, each which have 3 digital channels, so I get 6 PBS channels. Most programming is in full HD and higher resolution than streaming which always seems to add extra levels of compression. These are the ONLY stations I get without rooftop because PBS transmitters have more geographical coverage than any other network in the US. With my super big-ass gigantic antenna on a 50 ft tall pole, I get a bunch of other networks as well, again with higher resolution than typical cable or streaming. But the point is that even without any antenna, most people get at least one PBS station, which typically will have at least 3 channels multiplexed in their band.
The announcement above seems to be an ad for youtube's $50 streaming service. Anyone who has that service already knows what it carries. Anyone wanting to sign up for that service based on PBS alone should just turn on their TV and see what happens.
It's useful though for Americans living out of the country.
Except the discovery of said works would give IPFS the advantage. If a website is taken down or removes the works, finding it somewhere else becomes the challenge, even though it still exists elsewhere.
With IPFS however, anyone with the file makes it available to anyone looking for it, regardless of who has it, or how many copies there are.
Is it still considered to be throttling when it's in the service agreement?
I have Cricket wireless, and they tell me I am limited to 3mbps speed, which is exactly what reflects in all speed tests I've tried. I am totally OK with that, in exchange for having an "unlimited" data usage plan.
All streaming video I've tried (Youtube, Netflix, DirecTV Now) seem to work and look just fine. They all look no different from when I'm streaming on my 100mbps Wi-Fi.
Generally "throttling" is when your connection is intentionally lowered beyond the base speed. So if you can use that 3mbps all month then it's not throttling.
But are you sure it looks "no different"? 3mbps will probably get you 720p at 30fps. It probably won't get you 1080 or higher, or 60fps.
You could forward all mail from a Gmail address to Fastmail, and then use username+service@gmail.com for each service you use. Might be considered security through obscurity, but if nobody knows your actual email domain except for the Gmail address, less likely to have it attacked. Goes without saying to protect that Gmail account at all costs though.
In the sense of 'government regulation'. They are the ones who can arbitrarily enforce rules, pick and choose winners, and complicate the barrier to entry so much to discourage competition ...all within the law mind you.
> ...ISPs, who are driven by profits and literally nothing else
They live by the profits, and die by them too. That's how free market works.
But who's fault is that really? If a local city council or county commissioners, decide to allow a single provider to control the territory (or selectively restrict competitors)[1], why do the people affected not exercise their voting power to allow more competition?
The abuse of public right-of-ways, franchise negotiations, and unreasonable permitting processes have much more of a negative impact to broadband expansion.
Fault is irrelevant to the falsity of the claim that broadband providers that have been covered by net neutrality cannot, with the repeal of those rules, effectively censor content because customers have a choice of many such providers.
Whoever's fault it is, the fact is that most customers do not have a choice of many providers.
I agree. Nobody is considering the problems an FCC-regulated internet brings to the table. With the exception of the telegram and cinema (those controlled by Western Union and Hollywood), the feds regulate the telephone, radio, and television. The internet is just the latest thing government bureaucrats want control over.
> With the fate of a major Internet policy in the balance, Pai's proposal may lend momentum to U.S. lawmakers who have proposed replacing the current FCC rules with congressional legislation. Republican members of Congress have said they are ready to craft a bill that enshrines some of the existing regulations permanently into law. But that effort is expected to stall without support from Democrats, such as Sens. Edward J. Markey (Mass.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) who argue the FCC can and should regulate ISPs more heavily. [1]
In regards to Facebook, Twitter, etc. creating their own modern walled gardens, let them. They'll soon see the demise that others have, 10-20 years ago.
