[Discuss] The broader impact of Google Fiber

[Tom Metro]

This article suggests that even though only a tiny population has
benefited from Google Fiber so far, it has already had a larger effect
on boosting competition from existing providers and spurring them to
improve service.

Google Fiber's Ripple Effect
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/514176/google-fibers-ripple-effect/

  The threat of superfast Google Fiber is causing other Internet
  providers to crank up their own offerings.

  ...evidence is emerging that the company has forced broadband
  competitors into offering dramatically better service.

  New data from Akamai, which delivers a hefty portion of all Web
  traffic, reveals a remarkable turn of events in Kansas. In the fourth
  quarter of 2012, Kansas saw the largest jump in average Internet
  connection speeds of all U.S. states compared to the fourth quarter of
  2011, with an 86 percent surge
  [...]
  ...Akamai was able to do some forensic work to see just how small
  Google's service footprint was, and thus just how little it took to
  wake up the competition.

  According to Belson, in the fourth quarter of last year, Google served
  less than a tenth of a percent of the 830,000 Internet addresses that
  Akamai counted in Kansas, or fewer than 830 customers. "Ultimately, we
  didn't see enough unique IP addresses from [Google] that those speeds
  would have unduly influenced the overall [speed] calculation," Belson
  says.

[Akamai seems to be saying that there were so few Google Fiber users in
their sample size, that the boost in average speed for Kansas must be
due to existing ISPs improving their service. -tm]

  In December, Time Warner Cable increased speeds of some services in
  the Kansas City area, boosting its "turbo" service from 15 megabits
  per second to 20 megabits per second and its fastest service from 50
  to 100 megabits per second.
  [...]
  Cable companies like Time Warner Cable and Comcast have the technical
  capacity to speed up service, and also plenty of room to lower prices,
  given the estimate from one analyst...that they typically make 97
  percent profit margins on Internet services.
  [...]
  After Google announced plans for Austin, AT&T quickly announced it
  would match that effort with its own one-gigabit service, and Time
  Warner Cable sweetened its Internet plans with free Wi-Fi in public
  areas to existing customers.


Now, if we could just start seeing some of the benefits in markets where
there isn't a threat of Google Fiber.

Wired has an article covering some of this same ground:
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/04/google-fiber-wicked/

and adds:
  ...smaller companies are also trying to head off Google before the
  company even makes an announcement in their communities. This week,
  for example, the Lawrence, Kansas-based internet provider Wicked
  Broadband began taking pre-orders for a residential fiber internet
  service with speeds to rival Google Fiber's. A gigabit connection will
  cost $100 a month.

Still, this company "is just 40 miles away from Kansas City," so the
Google effect is still quite localized.

And interesting that the ISP they mention is actually installing 4
fibers to each house..."The company is only using two for its service,
so it will be able to lease the other two to other companies, such as
Google."

Hmmm...where would we be today if franchise agreements for Comcast and
Verizon mandated that they install extra fibers and lease them to
competitors?

Meanwhile, an incumbent provider in Provo, Utah - Google's most recently
announced Fiber location - is complaining that the city is treating them
unfairly:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/CenturyLink-Whines-About-Google-Fiber-in-Utah-123997

  Now that Google Fiber's in town, CenturyLink suddenly has the gall to
  whine about fairness, and rather unsurprisingly Provo locals have
  absolutely no sympathy. Part of the beauty of Google Fiber is seeing
  anti-competitive bullies get their comeuppance after years of bribing
  politicians to protect their regional little uncompetitive fiefdoms.
  It's just a shame Google Fiber isn't in oh, about a thousand more
  markets.


 -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Aereo available in Eastern Mass, streaming TV sources

[Tom Metro]

Daniel Barrett wrote:
> We have FIOS connected to the QAM tuner in our TVs. This yields about 100
> channels: PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Weather Channel, etc.
> No specialty channels like HBO.

Nor "extended basic" channels, like USA, TNT, SyFy, etc., I presume.

But I'm surprised to see the Weather Channel included. They must have a
bunch of other cable-only channels thrown in to fill up 100 channels.
Not bad for a $10 package.

If only you could then supplement them with a few extended basic
channels for another $10 or $15. But the cable companies are resisting
any sort of "a la carte" pricing model. It'll expose how much you're
paying for sports channels you may never watch.


>> Now that the FCC has ruled...I wonder how long you'll
>> be able to continue using this service without a converter box.
> 
> Oh joy. ...maybe by the time the two free years are up, a better solution
> will exist.

I just heard today that Aereo is coming to the Boston market on May 15:
https://aereo.com/boston

This company has been in the news this past year a lot. They came up
with a clever "hack" for of the copyright law where they have an array
of thousands of tiny TV antennas in their data center, such that they
can claim that they aren't copying the content of broadcasters, but
instead selling a service to rent access to an individual antenna to a
subscriber.

This loophole and the way they've implemented their DVR service are both
built upon prior case precedent. So far they've been prevailing in the
courts, despite substantial objections (as expected) by the major
broadcast networks.

FOX has famously threatened to pull all of its over-the-air programming
and switch to being a cable-only channel. (I wouldn't think their
affiliates would be on board for that, as it essentially cuts them out
of the picture, but supposedly they are. Or maybe they just recognize it
as an empty threat.)

The broadcasters aren't that concerned about not being paid by Aereo,
but they are fearful that cable companies will see Aereo's success, and
challenge the legality of the retransmission fees they currently pay.
These total in the billions, and make up over 20% of the broadcaster's
revenues.

Aereo has a free plan where you get one hour of live TV a day. The paid
plans start at $1/day for sporadic use, or $8/month. Both come with some
amount of DVR storage.

I'm sure an outsourced DVR-in-the-cloud is ideal for most people, but
it'd be a downgrade from a MythTV system with many terabytes of storage
and real commercial skipping. It will be interesting to see if someone
builds a "virtual tuner" for MythTV that talks to Aereo.


Greg Rundlett wrote:
> I use Over The Air (OTA) digital TV, via a rooftop antenna that cost 
> me about $100.  Most are HD signals.

True. I bought one of these outdoor antennas when it was on sale for
under $20:
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/product/30-2155

and have successfully used it in Canada to pick up stations 20+ miles
away. (I wouldn't say it's the highest quality construction, but good
enough to do the job, and should last if mounted in an attic.)

Tuning in over-the-air should be even easier in the Greater Boston area,
with the only cost being the up-front effort to install an antenna and
the modest antenna cost. (You might need a couple of antennas. One
pointed toward Needham and one pointed towards the Prudential, and a
signal combiner.)


> So, my free TV plus subscriptions to Netflix and Amazon Prime work
> for me.

I've been trying out XBMC with a bunch of third-party plug-ins to get
Amazon Instant, Hulu, and a variety of broadcast networks bundled under
the "Free Cable" plugin.

I've yet to find anything I was looking for that was available through
Amazon Instant for free as part of my Amazon Prime subscription. I've
found shows there I was seeking (actually, they only showed up in a web
search), but they weren't included in the Prime bundle. Their selection
seems rather limited.

The "Free Cable" plugin "scrapes" the programming that broadcasters,
like FOX and NBC, make available through their web sites. I'm not sure
I've ever successfully watched anything through this. Many of the
scrapers seem broken.

I've probably had the most luck with the Hulu plugin. Though even there
I've ran across some shows which are free to stream on the web, but not
found via the plugin. What I don't understand is that I thought the
plugin was not using any official APIs and should appear to Hulu just
like a web user. Surprisingly the plugin does have settings where you
can actually set the number of commercial breaks, and quantity of
commercials shown per break, and yes, you can actually set them to zero.
(I don't mind having a few pre-roll commercials to give Hulu some fair
compensation for the service, but I set the mid-show breaks to zero.)

There are other plugins for PBS and CBS News that I've used a few times,
and they seem to work well. Others for YouTube and dozens of niche
services (TwitTV, Engadget, Wired, etc.).

Re: [Discuss] SCO's Motion To Reopen the Case Is Denied with a Bonk on the Head

[Daniel C.]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Jerry Feldman  wrote:
> And we can blame it on Ralph Yarro. he even has a law named after him.

I lived in Utah when all of this was going down.  Sadly I didn't get
to participate in any of the actual pickets or protests (I had to
work) but it was really interesting to be in the thick of it all.

It looks like Yarro is still pushing his ridiculous "CP80" idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP80  I get the gist of it, but the
implementation they're proposing is so bad it's not even wrong.

-Dan
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] SCO's Motion To Reopen the Case Is Denied with a Bonk on the Head

[Jerry Feldman]

And we can blame it on Ralph Yarro. he even has a law named after him.

On 04/26/2013 02:26 PM, Seth Gordon wrote:

This is the case that never ends;
It just goes on and on, my friends


On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Jerry Feldman  wrote:


SCO has been in chapter 7 for a while now, but they have been trying to
open their case against IBM: http://www.groklaw.net/**article.php?story=**
20130425204940852
For those who don't remember this case, The SCO Group is a company founded
by Glenn Noorda, who also founded Novell. The SCO lawsuits were a method
where SCO was trying to assert that they owned Unix, and were also
asserting that the owned Linuxbecause there was some Unix code Linux. The
SCO vs. IBM was the original case that started this. All court cases were
placed on stay when SCO filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Eventually, the
courts allowed the SCO vs. Novell proceed, and Novell was able to prove
that it owned the rights to Unix, not SCO. For historical purposes, The
Santa Cruz Operation was a company that specialized in desktop PC Unix
systems. They sold their Unix division to Caldera (a Linux distro company)
who renamed itself "The SCO Group". The reason I am posting this is that
has SCO been successful in court, they could have jeopardized Linux. PJ
(Groklaw) states: 'Surely SCO's "We Own Linux" scam must be in the top ten
scams in history, not just in Utah.'





--
Jerry Feldman 
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66  C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] SCO's Motion To Reopen the Case Is Denied with a Bonk on the Head

[Seth Gordon]

This is the case that never ends;
It just goes on and on, my friends


On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Jerry Feldman  wrote:

> SCO has been in chapter 7 for a while now, but they have been trying to
> open their case against IBM: http://www.groklaw.net/**article.php?story=**
> 20130425204940852
> For those who don't remember this case, The SCO Group is a company founded
> by Glenn Noorda, who also founded Novell. The SCO lawsuits were a method
> where SCO was trying to assert that they owned Unix, and were also
> asserting that the owned Linuxbecause there was some Unix code Linux. The
> SCO vs. IBM was the original case that started this. All court cases were
> placed on stay when SCO filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Eventually, the
> courts allowed the SCO vs. Novell proceed, and Novell was able to prove
> that it owned the rights to Unix, not SCO. For historical purposes, The
> Santa Cruz Operation was a company that specialized in desktop PC Unix
> systems. They sold their Unix division to Caldera (a Linux distro company)
> who renamed itself "The SCO Group". The reason I am posting this is that
> has SCO been successful in court, they could have jeopardized Linux. PJ
> (Groklaw) states: 'Surely SCO's "We Own Linux" scam must be in the top ten
> scams in history, not just in Utah.'
>
> --
> Jerry Feldman 
> Boston Linux and Unix
> PGP key id:3BC1EB90
> PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66  C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90
>
> __**_
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/**listinfo/discuss
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] encrypted basic cable

[Greg Rundlett (freephile)]

I throw this out there for consideration you can ditch cable altogether
and get "free" TV.  I think most people don't realize this.

I use Over The Air (OTA) digital TV, via a rooftop antenna that cost me
about $100.  Most are HD signals.  PBS offers many channels OTA
http://antennaweb.org/

So, my free TV plus subscriptions to Netflix and Amazon Prime work for me.
 I also have a PC hooked up to the TV and the TV does YouTube videos so
I've got more than enough time wasters.

Greg Rundlett
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] encrypted basic cable

[Daniel Barrett]

>On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:43:11AM -0400, Daniel Barrett wrote:
>> We have FIOS connected to the QAM tuner in our TVs. This yields about 100
>> channels: PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Weather Channel, etc.  No specialty
>> channels like HBO.

On April 26, 2013, Shankar Viswanathan wrote:
>That is good to know. Out of curiosity, do these channels come in HD or
>are they SD only?

Both HD and SD, on separate channels.

Verizon doesn't advertise this $10/month plan much: they want you to buy
the $100+ bundles with a zillion channels. But if you call and ask about
it, you can get it.

--
Dan Barrett
dbarr...@blazemonger.com

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] encrypted basic cable

[markw]

> Daniel Barrett wrote:
>> I found a similar no-set-top-box plan on FIOS for even less money,
>> $10/month, switched, and never had a problem again.
>
> You're referring to a plan that only covers the retransmission of local
> broadcast stations (and probably public access stations), right?
>
> Are you using it with digital or analog tuners?
>
> At one time, and perhaps still currently, FIOS optical network terminals
> (ONTs) actually provided the basic channels as analog video. Something
> Comcast got rid of years ago. Given the architecture of Comcast's
> network, they had more incentive to do so, as it ate up shared bandwidth
> on their system.
>
> Now that the FCC has ruled that cable companies have no obligation to
> provide the basic tier as unencrypted digital, I wonder how long you'll
> be able to continue using this service without a converter box. (A
> converter box the FCC says you can be charged for, after 2 years.)

This is why conventional cable companies are going away and being replaced
by the likes of netflix and youtube.

The cable companies are forcing people to rent equipment to watch
conventional TV that is increasingly valueless. I mean, have you looked at
prime time TV lately? There is nothing on that's really entertaining, the
news is a joke, and there are so many commercials there is almost no
actual show.

I have basic cable and internet. If basic cable goes away, I'll buy an
antenna. It will be cheaper and more flexible than their set-top box, and
won't have any less content.


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] encrypted basic cable

[Shankar Viswanathan]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:43:11AM -0400, Daniel Barrett wrote:
> We have FIOS connected to the QAM tuner in our TVs. This yields about 100
> channels: PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Weather Channel, etc.  No specialty
> channels like HBO.

That is good to know. Out of curiosity, do these channels come in HD or are 
they SD only?

Thanks,
Shankar
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] encrypted basic cable

[Daniel Barrett]

>Daniel Barrett wrote:
>> I found a similar no-set-top-box plan on FIOS for even less money,
>> $10/month, switched, and never had a problem again.

On April 25, 2013, Tom Metro wrote:
>You're referring to a plan that only covers the retransmission of local
>broadcast stations (and probably public access stations), right?
>Are you using it with digital or analog tuners?

We have FIOS connected to the QAM tuner in our TVs. This yields about 100
channels: PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Weather Channel, etc.  No specialty
channels like HBO.

I watch TV only a few times a year (presidential election returns,
emergencies like last week, and Downtown Abbey), so this kind of minimal
plan works well.

>Now that the FCC has ruled that cable companies have no obligation to
>provide the basic tier as unencrypted digital, I wonder how long you'll
>be able to continue using this service without a converter box. (A
>converter box the FCC says you can be charged for, after 2 years.)

Oh joy. If it gets unwieldy/expensive, we'll probably just drop TV and use
the web. Or maybe by the time the two free years are up, a better solution
will exist.

--
Dan Barrett
dbarr...@blazemonger.com

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Comcast in Arlington

[Jerry Feldman]

On 04/26/2013 09:49 AM, Gary Johnson wrote:

I have a cousin in Arlington who reports Comcast internet is terrible.  The 
house has in the wall cat5,
Many service requests. She reports ' it says internet not available"

The issue here can be one or more of:
bad cat5 cable. (not Comcast's fault)
Flaky router (not Comcast's fault unless it is leased from Comcast)
Flaky cable modem (again, Comcast's fault if it is leased from Comcast)
Bad coax. Normally, the coax can cause all sorts of issues, including 
issues with digital and HD TV. Some of this can be blamed on Comcast.
Lousy physical plant. Comcast generally runs fibre to the last mile, but 
then you are copper from there. Can be many things. Originally, the 
cable was not designed for two-way use. I don't know who was the 
original cable company in Arlington, but some of the cable companies, 
such as Adelphia, really had some low quality stuff.
Issues at the "node". Again, this could be some flaky hardware there. 
Before Comcast, we used to have occasional outages at that levelwhere 
the outages could be upwards from an hour to a few hours. Under Comcast, 
(in Newton) we have had pretty reliable service.





--
Jerry Feldman 
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66  C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Discuss] Comcast in Arlington

[Gary Johnson]

I have a cousin in Arlington who reports Comcast internet is terrible.  The 
house has in the wall cat5, 
Many service requests. She reports ' it says internet not available" 

 
(\ /)
(O.o)
(> <)
 http://GaryJohnsonInfo.info
Life is a long lesson in humility.  -James M. Barrie


  
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Discuss] SCO's Motion To Reopen the Case Is Denied with a Bonk on the Head

[Jerry Feldman]

SCO has been in chapter 7 for a while now, but they have been trying to 
open their case against IBM: 
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130425204940852
For those who don't remember this case, The SCO Group is a company 
founded by Glenn Noorda, who also founded Novell. The SCO lawsuits were 
a method where SCO was trying to assert that they owned Unix, and were 
also asserting that the owned Linuxbecause there was some Unix code 
Linux. The SCO vs. IBM was the original case that started this. All 
court cases were placed on stay when SCO filed for Chapter 11 
bankruptcy. Eventually, the courts allowed the SCO vs. Novell proceed, 
and Novell was able to prove that it owned the rights to Unix, not SCO. 
For historical purposes, The Santa Cruz Operation was a company that 
specialized in desktop PC Unix systems. They sold their Unix division to 
Caldera (a Linux distro company) who renamed itself "The SCO Group". The 
reason I am posting this is that has SCO been successful in court, they 
could have jeopardized Linux. PJ (Groklaw) states: 'Surely SCO's "We Own 
Linux" scam must be in the top ten scams in history, not just in Utah.'


--
Jerry Feldman 
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66  C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Cable Modem Woes / Looking to Compare Notes

[Rick Umali]

Tom, et al.

Thank you for the thoughts on this thread! And Tom, to respond to your
questions:

 > I'm not following whether your in-wall wiring is still in the circuit
 > going to your cable modem, or if it is only being used for the TV. Was
 > the hookup to "the side of the house" temporary to prove you had a good
 > signal, or did he run a new line?

The in-wall wiring is no longer in the circuit. The hookup to the side of
our house is permanent.

>From the side of our house, the line goes to a 3-way splitter: one to the
cable modem, one to the 1st floor, and one to the 2nd floor. Before that,
the 1st floor line was split at the TV to feed the cable modem.

I appreciate the recommendations, especially the one about the admin
interface to the cable modem. I logged into it once, but didn't understand
what I was looking at. The link to dslreports.com helped!

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Tom Metro  wrote:

> Rick Umali wrote:
> > When our TV began to exhibit tiling, we called Comcast, and the
> > technician determined our signal wasn't strong enough. He put in new
> > coax "from the pole" to the side of our house.
>
> Makes sense, as coax cable does seem to degrade with age.
>
> When I upgraded to digital TV service several years back, Comcast techs
> also replaced the coax from the pole drop due to signal loss.
>
>
> > ...said the signal to our cable modem was weak, and he took the coax
> > from the side of the house and directly connected it to the cable
> > modem.
> >
> > ...technician said that the coax in our house walls are of an older
> > generation.
>
> I'm not following whether your in-wall wiring is still in the circuit
> going to your cable modem, or if it is only being used for the TV. Was
> the hookup to "the side of the house" temporary to prove you had a good
> signal, or did he run a new line?
>
> It seems they have repeatedly proven that they are delivering an
> inadequate signal to you. Do their signal measurements still show a weak
> signal at the current location of your cable modem?
>
>
> > He recommended that we replace it...
>
> If it is working adequately for your TV service, I'd probably leave it
> as-is and run a separate line for the modem. With the modem you have the
> flexibility of relocating it to the basement or other out of the way
> location that happens to be close to where the cable enters your house.
> (Then distribute by CAT5 or WiFi from there.)
>
> If there is concern that the old wiring is attenuating the signal, you
> can use a distribution amplifier to isolate the branch going to the
> in-wall wiring.
>
>
> > ...but it's something an electrician would have to do.
>
> I believe from a building code and insurance perspective, a homeowner is
> free to do any low-voltage wiring they wish, even if it is in-wall.
> Whether that's a job you *prefer* an electrician to do, is another matter.
>
>
> > ...Comcast has suggested we replace the cable modem.>
> > My big fear is that replacing the cable modem won't fix anything.
>
> Given the signal problems uncovered so far, a modem replacement doesn't
> sound promising. I'd probably take another stab at improving the wiring
> first. Then try the rental modem approach that someone suggested. You
> might also be able to pick up a modem for close to free n Craigslist
> from someone who has switched to FIOS.
>
> I would also suggest looking into the administration interface on your
> cable modem to see if it has signal strength and quality reporting. (You
> may need to dig around on forums like http://www.dslreports.com/ to find
> out how to access this.) That could help you pin down whether the loss
> of net connectivity is in fact due to poor signal, as you are assuming.
>
>  -Tom
>
> --
> Tom Metro
> Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
> "Enterprise solutions through open source."
> Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/
>



-- 
Rick Umali / www.rickumali.com
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss