4 ms·
I believe this is the "6 strike" system. They agreed to do this last July, and it seems to go into effect a year later. Also, I'm not so sure how "voluntary" t
by nextparadigms 15y ago
I believe this is the "6 strike" system. They agreed to do this last July, and it seems to go into effect a year later.
Also, I'm not so sure how "voluntary" this was, considering the Obama administration was involved to "mediate" the deal. My guess is the White House tried to pressure the ISP's into agreeing with this, though I wouldn't exactly call the ISP's innocent considering pretty much all of them now have their own content services, and it would benefit them to cut down on piracy somehow.
- ekianjo 15y agoYou can only get a benefit if one is willing to pay for content. Piracy does not equal one lost sale.
- rabidsnail 15y agoThe equation is different for cable companies than it is for content producers. Cable companies (I'm including phone companies that provide TV service) are competing with the internet itself, in aggregate. They're thinking much longer term. If they can get people to make a habit of watching TV through them instead of the internet, they win.
- rwmj 15y agoI'm wondering on which planet cable is going to beat the internet. Presumably it's a planet where the people prefer inconvenience, cost and poor usability.
- rabidsnail 15y agoCable is more convenent if you don't care what you're watching and don't want to be made to choose. It's optimized for passive consumption. Most people want a morphine IV drip, not a wine cellar.
- eftpotrm 15y agoIf they can get people to make a habit of watching TV through them instead of the internet, they win. Yup, but surely even a basic viewing session of Internet-based TV would convince even the dimmest bulb that they're fighting a losing battle to keep scheduled broadcast as the primary means of video consumption.
- rabidsnail 15y agoYou underestimate the power of choice paralysis.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]