Suzuki SV650 Riders Forum banner

41 - 60 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,766 Posts
It's been over a week and I have to say everyone seems much happier. My step son went insane with joy when he found comedy central shows on Hulu, he stayed in his room for about two days over the holiday break and only came out to eat. I was disappointed to find that Big Bang Theory is not on Hulu and CBS wants a $6 per month subscription to stream their shows. Glad we kept Amazon as we ended up ordering about 10 different things in the last week so the prime account came in handy. I'm setting up my tablet now is a remote to run Amazon prime video over the chromecast as Amazon did not want to partner with Google to have a chromecast app due to their Fire Stick. The Motorola SB6141 was very easy to install and took the signal quick once I called in and gave them the serial number. Turned all my equipment in shortly after the billing cycle restarted so we only paid $90 for the month of January. That was another surprise to me as I forgot we were paying a prorated rate. Still on the fence if I want to upgrade the wireless router to handle our own VPN. For now, everyone seems very happy. I'm glad we cut the cord!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter #42
I'd just gut an HD antenna. A number of videos on youtube about how to set that up so that you can get dozens (or more) stations, from the big 5 networks to ION, shopping channels, and a lot of the new retro stations.

I'd be interested in finding out how to set up your own VPN and what the real advantages are with it vs. just going with a provider for it since they aren't that expensive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,766 Posts
I'm thinking of getting an HD antenna down the road, right now are pretty happy with the streaming services. I also found this today :http://www.sling.com/

not sure I'll subscribe to sling but I like the direction it's going in.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,147 Posts
Got rid of Comcast and got Directv with the Genie and I was able to cancel my Tivo, so altogether I saved over $100 per month! So far I love the Genie, and I have been a Tivo fan for almost 9 years. Search function is not as nice but I am doing fine with it so far!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,766 Posts
Found this today, thought I'd share with the group.
The Federal Communications Commission’s new consumer-friendly net neutrality rules just took effect last week, and it looks like our first big lawsuit is already on the verge of being filed. That’s not surprising at all. What is surprising, perhaps, is that the target of the lawsuit isn’t Comcast or Verizon.

According to a new report, Time Warner Cable is about to be slapped with a lawsuit alleging that the ISP charged a video content provider exorbitantly high rates to avoid being throttled.

DON’T MISS: Try to wrap your mind around the incredible future Google is creating

The FCC and its former cable lobbyist chairman Tom Wheeler shocked us all by proposing new net neutrality rules that were surprisingly fair and pro-consumer. Sure, there may be a loophole or two, but the bottom line is that the new rules prevent the three biggest threats to a fair and open Internet: Paid traffic prioritization, data blocking and bandwidth throttling.

Now, it looks like TWC is about to be accused of holding Internet traffic for ransom violating the new rules where at least two of those faux pas are concerned.

San Diego-based Commercial Network Services (CNS) owns and operates SunDiegoLive, which is a website that serves live video streams from webcams. According to a report from The Washington Post, the company is days away from filing a lawsuit alleging that Time Warner Cable held its traffic — and therefor business — hostage by charging unreasonably high rates to avoid being throttled.

Of course, if a webcam site is unable to deliver smooth video feeds, its business will undoubtedly suffer.

CNS boss Barry Bahrami says TWC’s policies are a “blatant violation” of the FCC’s new net neutrality rules, which took effect this past Friday. “This is not traffic we’re pushing to Time Warner; this is traffic that their paying Internet access subscribers are asking for from us,” he told The Post.

Time Warner Cable responded to the story by stating that it has done nothing wrong, and that CNS’s complaint falls under the much-debated topic of peering.

“TWC’s interconnection practices are not only ‘just and reasonable’ as required by the FCC, but consistent with the practices of all major ISPs and well-established industry standards,” TWC said. “We are confident that the FCC will reject any complaint that is premised on the notion that every edge provider around the globe is entitled to enter into a settlement-free peering arrangement.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter #46
"exorbitantly higher prices." "unreasonably high rates."

A concept that ranks right up there with "extreme..." and "obscene profits."

As though there is some place in the constitution that allows government to regulate any of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter #48
It's a false question as I don't subscribe to the premise that what you're asking exists without government force.

As I said previously on this subject, the restricted choices we have in this market are purely a function of government creating those restrictions.

But then, I also recognize that every "big business" that exists in this country does so because "big government" put them in that position to begin with. And, if somebody like Elizabeth Warren or even Obama and their "you didn't build that" mentality were strictly aimed at big business, I would probably agree with them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,620 Posts
We got rid of DISH about 10 years ago. Same week I disconnected, Charter offers me 1 full year basic service to go with my internet service; free install, no charge for 12 months. Seemed like a no-brainer. Quality of the signal was not nearly as good as DISH (65" set) and we rarely watched, so after the 12 months, I told them to shut it off.

I put an antenna up inside our attic and we get the basic networks, but still rarely watch anything. (Nielson's added a box near the TV that gathers almost no data, so we aren't much help with their ratings :evil6: ) Way too many commercial breaks to keep my interest, and I rarely check out what's on PBS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,345 Posts
It's a false question as I don't subscribe to the premise that what you're asking exists without government force.

As I said previously on this subject, the restricted choices we have in this market are purely a function of government creating those restrictions.

But then, I also recognize that every "big business" that exists in this country does so because "big government" put them in that position to begin with. And, if somebody like Elizabeth Warren or even Obama and their "you didn't build that" mentality were strictly aimed at big business, I would probably agree with them.
You are obviously not familiar with the marker entry barriers in utilities. There is a reason the government got involved in the first place. Monopolies would exist unchecked otherwise. Joe Smith cannot start a utility business on his own. The costs to lay the infrastructure to even start the business create a barrier to market entry. Either the government needs to own the infrastructure and let companies pay a fee to utilize it (inefficient) or they need to find other ways to manage competition and protect the consumers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter #51
We've had this discussion before. The assertion that government intervention was undertaken to increase our options was wrong then. It's wrong now.

The federal government beginning to "manage competition" over a century ago now with this industry is what created the condition you are referring to to begin with.

As I said, trace back every threat of a corporate monopoly back far enough and you'll find a government action that created the threat to begin with.
 

·
Greetings Program
Joined
·
6,272 Posts
Your information is wrong.

1) It wasn't done initially to create competition. It was done to prevent a monopolistic stranglehold on necessary infrastructure.

2) The condition we have now (with regard to telecom) was created when a) Bell was broken up (by Reagan) and b) by de-regulation of the industry (again, by Reagan.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter #53
Your information is wrong.

1) It wasn't done initially to create competition. It was done to prevent a monopolistic stranglehold on necessary infrastructure.
If an action does not create competition, then it does nothing to eliminate a monopoly. The former is a necessary component of the latter.


2) The condition we have now (with regard to telecom) was created when a) Bell was broken up (by Reagan) and b) by de-regulation of the industry (again, by Reagan.)
I often wonder just how out of touch one has to be to actually believe that anything even remotely resembling a utility company in this country has ever come even close to being de-regulated.

But, then, I realize that people actually believe that the energy sector in California was deregulated and that doing so led to rolling blackouts. So, clearly, it's pervasive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,345 Posts
If an action does not create competition, then it does nothing to eliminate a monopoly. The former is a necessary component of the latter.
Where did anyone say the point was to break up the monopoly? The point is regulating the monopoly so the consumer doesn't get bent over backwards. I think required sharing of the infrastructure and allowing the competition to occur at the service level is the best option in cases like this. Having the government own the infrastructure will slow progress but making it required that if you build the infrastructure, you have to lease it to anyone willing to pay for a reasonable fee would maintain progress while reducing the barrier to market entry significantly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter #55
Where did anyone say the point was to break up the monopoly? The point is regulating the monopoly so the consumer doesn't get bent over backwards. I think required sharing of the infrastructure and allowing the competition to occur at the service level is the best option in cases like this. Having the government own the infrastructure will slow progress but making it required that if you build the infrastructure, you have to lease it to anyone willing to pay for a reasonable fee would maintain progress while reducing the barrier to market entry significantly.
Realizing, of course, that none of this falls under the original intent of the commerce clause and, as such, would be a function of state government, not federal.

Having said all of that, the position that I am being asked to accept is quite interesting.

We are told that the telco had a near monopoly. Which, supposedly, needed to be regulated to absolve, because it is apparently impossible, outside of Jesus and/or Communism for anybody, any place, ever, to create their own infrastructure (which creates the additional question as to how the telco created it to begin with). Yet, virtually none of the existing infrastructure existed when government chose to get involved. Which means that all new infrastructure has been created. Which was, supposedly, impossible.

So, in reality, all government did was force everybody else to pay the existing company the money necessary for them to continue to have a monopoly. As opposed to the smaller companies that the government is forcing to lease from simply banning together and using all that money and creating their own.

End result? You still only have one company as a result of government restricting it to a single architecture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,345 Posts
Are you really that dense? It is not impossible to create infrastructure. It is cost prohibitive for almost all competition out there though. Of course the company bringing in all the money can afford the infrastructure. Explain to me how a startup company creates new infrastructure though? What lender is going to take the risk to give them enough money to cover it? Getting into the utility business is not like opening up a store downtown. The higher the barriers to market entry are, the less competition is possible. Monopolies and oligopolies are a quick way to throttle the free market and put consumers at the mercy of companies instead of the consumer having control.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter #57
Are you really that dense? It is not impossible to create infrastructure. It is cost prohibitive for almost all competition out there though. Of course the company bringing in all the money can afford the infrastructure. Explain to me how a startup company creates new infrastructure though? What lender is going to take the risk to give them enough money to cover it? Getting into the utility business is not like opening up a store downtown. The higher the barriers to market entry are, the less competition is possible. Monopolies and oligopolies are a quick way to throttle the free market and put consumers at the mercy of companies instead of the consumer having control.
And yet, every cable company in the country did it. Then, suddenly, no others could.

Every cell phone company in the country did it. Now, we want to start restricting their ability to charge tiered access to data plans (which is where most companies make their money). Pretty much guaranteeing that the players in the game now will be the only players in the game for the foreseeable future.

When you got to the point that you started to believe that government does ANYTHING to help either the consumer or the competitor is beyond me, when it has demonstrably done the exact opposite for over the last 100 years. And, it shouldn't take much for you to understand that.

For every claim they make to want to prohibit monopolies, consumers have ONE traditional telco they can choose from. ONE cable company they can choose from. And, their high speed data access are pretty much restricted to those as well.

So, what monopolies have they really prohibited? And, with companies like Comcast raising their rates pretty much constantly, they obviously haven't done a whole lot about price gouging, either.

The federal government has shown multiple ways over the last several decades that they have an intent to control all forms of communications and media. The more players in that game the less control is possible.

Which pretty much puts it right in line with every other pillar of society. Politics. Academia. Media. Law.

But, you keep believing that we here at government house are your friend and we're here to help you. Even though nothing we have ever done has ever actually done it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,345 Posts
And yet, every cable company in the country did it. Then, suddenly, no others could.

Every cell phone company in the country did it. Now, we want to start restricting their ability to charge tiered access to data plans (which is where most companies make their money). Pretty much guaranteeing that the players in the game now will be the only players in the game for the foreseeable future.

When you got to the point that you started to believe that government does ANYTHING to help either the consumer or the competitor is beyond me, when it has demonstrably done the exact opposite for over the last 100 years. And, it shouldn't take much for you to understand that.

For every claim they make to want to prohibit monopolies, consumers have ONE traditional telco they can choose from. ONE cable company they can choose from. And, their high speed data access are pretty much restricted to those as well.

So, what monopolies have they really prohibited? And, with companies like Comcast raising their rates pretty much constantly, they obviously haven't done a whole lot about price gouging, either.

The federal government has shown multiple ways over the last several decades that they have an intent to control all forms of communications and media. The more players in that game the less control is possible.

Which pretty much puts it right in line with every other pillar of society. Politics. Academia. Media. Law.

But, you keep believing that we here at government house are your friend and we're here to help you. Even though nothing we have ever done has ever actually done it.
I forgot we had such wonderful competition in our utility companies for years and the government just jumped right in and put a stop to that! You should be out teaching business school because clearly, no one with a business background knows what they are talking about. If we just let the free market run rampant, we would live in a Utopia right? I know you are anti-government but you take it to the point of absurdity and that is why most people here do not take you seriously.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter #59
:::shrug:::

Like I said. Nothing that government has ever professed to be trying to prevent or fix by further regulating anything has ever prevented or fixed any of it.

So, you either believe in the gross incompetence of government or that preventing or fixing it was never the intent to begin with.

I'm good with either one.

As far as whether or not most people take me seriously? Given that most people actually believe that a country that no longer ranks in the top 10 of free market economies still represents one (or that one has even existed for the last century, for that matter), you'll have to forgive me if that doesn't really bother me all that much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,284 Posts
I've never had cable or satellite TV since starting out on my own as a senior in high school in the late 90's. For several years, we've used a good digital antenna to get all of the local stations and I use the xbox360 to stream Netflix and my wife uses hulu a fair amount. I'm thinking about getting a Roku, chromecast, or something similar. Can anyone give personal experience on their streaming devices? This may be something I can buy my wife as a Christmas present so I'll be looking to buy soon.
 
41 - 60 of 65 Posts
Top