No real notes to speak of this week folks. For the last week before our Christmas episode you get to hear part 2 of our chat with Phil Lozen and Richard Green. If you missed part 1 be sure and go here to take a listen first. It’s well worth it.
In fact, I’d have to say that this week is the better of the two. You’ll get to hear us really dive into the topic of net neutrality, packet shaping, and other ISP issues that are going to affect streaming and downloaded media.
No matter where you fall on this topic, all sides are covered during the show. I don’t doubt that you’ll find a reason to scream at your podcast player at some point. I still do when I listen to this episode again. Be sure and leave us your comments as we’d love to hear your thoughts!
Click here to download Part 2 of Episode 56!
As always, Entertainment 2.0 is sponsored by Dragon Global and Show Analyzer. You can support your favorite Media Center podcast by supporting our sponsors!
| Entertainment 2.0 Subscriptions | ||
 |
 |
 |
First of all, great show! I always enjoy listening to your podcast.
I wanted to comment regarding the debate (which was good to hear, by the way) regarding competition for internet service. I can say that in many areas there is little to no competition for internet service. There was specifically a comment about the low number of FIOS subscribers nationwide. Part of it is cost, but I believe the greater factor is lack of competition. I checked if Verizon FIOS was an option in my area and found out they're not allowed to provide service here. I live in a suburb of Minneapolis and have only two viable options, Comcast and Qwest. It turns out that Verizon is not allowed to provide service in my area because Comcast is a protected cable 'monopoly' in my area. For Verizon to gain access, it would have to go through a lot of legal wrangling to even be given the option to provide service to me. If you multiply that by every municipality, you can see how the cost to a provider like Verizon goes up quickly (beyond the cost they would incur for running fiber to each residence).
I agree that internet service is not infinite and there are a lot of costs to providing a network, but I still think the lack of competition is a greater factor in this case.
Anyhow, just my 2 cents. Keep up the good work!
Adam's right.
I'm listening to this and I'm getting more and more pissed off. This is what is happening and most people are too used to being as*raped to notice:
The cable companies are selling a product to more customers then they can provide.
Think of it this way; The reason this is possible is that most people don't use all their bandwidth all the time, and therefor cable companies can get away with selling the same bandwidth to a lot of people without us noticing.
Just think of how much time you actually spend in your car out of the 24 hours of the day. 2-3 at most unless you are a traveling salesman, ie a youtube junkie in this example. Would you accept that your car dealer sold your car to another 12 people?
I'm listening to this and I'm getting more and more pissed off. This is what is happening and most people are too used to being as*raped to notice:
The cable companies are selling a product to more customers then they can provide.
Think of it this way; The reason this is possible is that most people don't use all their bandwidth all the time, and therefor cable companies can get away with selling the same bandwidth to a lot of people without us noticing.
Just think of how much time you actually spend in your car out of the 24 hours of the day. 2-3 at most unless you are a traveling salesman, ie a youtube junkie in this example. Would you accept that your car dealer sold your car to another 12 people?