(Last year I downloaded a couple of Lehrer torrents.
But I thought he was dead, and my recent experience trying to buy a Lily Tomlin album had led me to assume (erroneously, I now see) that I simply wouldn't be able to acquire "legitimate" CDs -- and of course, Amazon still won't "ship" a digital track across the US/Canadian border.
I wonder if Mr. Lehrer could be persuaded to come out of retirement long enough to craft a couple of songs on DRM and Intellectual Property?
The problem isn't (in this case) "oversold bandwidth".
The choke-point isn't even occurring on the classic "last mile" connecting to residential/consumer's home computers (where it just conceivably might be somewhat expensive to fix, even though the upgrade would eventually be needed in any case). The customer is general paying for at least five or ten times as much bandwidth as a Netflix stream requires -- and despite the infamous over-subscription rates, those customers connections are actually able to handle that traffic.
The choke-points are elsewhere -- namely, those ports where Netflix traffic enters the ISP's own network. Often, additional ports are already installed and need only be switched on, when "negotiations" with the ISP result in capitulation to the ISP's demands. This is "throttling" on the sly, using deliberate, clumsy but "plausibly deniable" infrastructural means, to accomplish what they're forbidden to do with more surgically precise means such as DPI (Deep Packet Inspection). And in the meantime, those customers who have a little technical savvy can easily reroute their Netflix stream to detour around the choke-point, and regain a reliable netflix stream.
No, the problem is that the Verizon, Comcast and AT&T are pretending that they can't cope with the volume of traffic coming into their network from "outside" that network, which Netflix is trying delivering to those ISP customers (at least, not without being paid extra for the service).
This is despite the inescapable fact that the ISP customers have already paid for that traffic, themselves. Talk about double-dipping. The ISPs are spouting a lot of smoke-and-mirrorstechno-babble about "peering ratios" -- but this is arrantly nonsensical flim-flam: peering ratio calculations have never included "terminating traffic" (ie. traffic that "terminates" inside the network at network users) for the simple reason that this wouldn't even make sense.
What this is about, is holding access to the ISP's customers hostage -- simple extortion for access to customers -- to the market whose access is controlled by that ISP. ("That's a nice internet video business you have there; it would be a shame if those packets didn't make it to your customers.")
This is a blatant attempt to re-write the rules of the internet (and the current head of the FCC, with his approving noises about turning the ISP business into a "two-sided market" is being openly complicit).
I suspect the real issue behind that comment was the Climate Change/Anthropogenic Global Warming "debate". (At least, in my experience, climate change debates are when this meme is most likely to pop up.)
Nicotine is supposedly more addictive than cocaine -- and I know former crack addicts who confirm this -- they've managed to quit their cocaine habit (clean for years or decades) but haven't yet managed to kick their nicotine habit.
> > "Her acting as an active member does not take away from her the ability to be a journalist."
> You are correct. I am however incredibly uncomfortable with the idea that she can wrap herself in the magic cloak of a journalist and we are suppose to ignore her other activities. The UK government doesn't care about her activities as a journalist, and it's incredibly self-serving and more than a little dishonest to do so.
The thing is: her "other activities" are essentially journalistic, and/or to enabling the kind of journalism we supposedly depend on in a democratic society -- ie. keeping the general public properly informed on matters of public policy and public interest.
If that's "activism", then it's precisely the sort of activism in which journalists are supposed to engage.
> Not really. The tobacco industry wasn't willfully blind at all. They knew full well the effects of their products and lied about it.
So, they weren't "wilfully blind", but wilfully feigning blindness? That's a fair point. But by that standard not even Nelson, the textbook example, was wilfully bind, when he held the spyglass to the wrong eye, and said that he saw no signal.