Tag Archives: Netflix

January 12, 2016 · 20:00

Events that matter

A small first line, I started writing this roughly 20 minutes after the news David Bowie had passed away, the story remains the same, but I added a few things, so at times the timeline reads a little awkward, my apologies for that!

We can take a look at so many things, first there is ‘Making a murderer’, the Netflix show that is creating larger and larger waves. In addition, we see that the State of Wisconsin is keeping access hard. Even though court records should be available, even as today’s world allows for instant creation of PDF files, one Australian woman who requested all documents can do so for the mere $6000. Yes, six thousand dollars. The Wisconsin office has one person full time assigned to this. Can anyone explain why those records are so hard to be gotten at?

It only fuels organisations like the innocence project and this mess is not going away any day soon.

We could take a look at how the UK Watchdog is going soft on banks, which is not even close to the truth. The fact that PwC seems to have been granted support in keeping its tainted name out of nearly all publications and was allowed to keep a low profile is a mystery that will not be solved any day soon. In addition, http://www.accountancyage.com/ has just diminished the 3 billion value loss from Tesco in a mere statement regarding James Chalmers “The last year has not been without its challenges for PwC’s head of assurance. The firm lost the audit of Tesco after 32 years with the embattled grocer following an accounting scandal of its overstated half-yearly results. But that appeared a blip in a year which saw assurance fees rise 9% to £1.1bn, while the firm continues to dominate the FTSE 100 with 40 clients, almost double the number of nearest rival KPMG at 24“, greed is eternal, nothing else seem to matter, making Tesco mere collateral damage in all this. I admit that the former high ranking heads of Tesco started this, yet someone at PwC has been signing off on it whilst the accountancy firm has been charging millions for the years that these events played. The prosecution parties at large do not seem to care, PwC is too large and too powerful. This would imply that nowadays being a mere tool for organised crime might grant a person more integrity.

There are a few more things playing, places like Greece, but for me none of that matters. I just heard that David Bowie died. That is the only news that matters today. I heard it 30 minutes ago and my world stopped. I remember it all. It was 1975, I was in High School and ‘Fame’ was released. It was my first Bowie record (in those days a black disk that you had to rotate ¾ of a turn per second to hear the music correctly. One of those hits that changes things. I had to look it up, but that song got as high as 4^th position in the Dutch charts in those days. After that I got to the Album Low, Heroes, Stage (which was on yellow Vinyl), Lodger and the list went on, it was only after Black Tie White Noise that I started to look at the earlier albums I had missed out on (they were re-released on CD). For a while things went a little silent, there were of course other performers. It was ‘Heathen’ that re-sparked his music in me. In the end, his music never stopped amazing me, for 40 years his music rocked my world without fail. There have been other makers of music, and more will come in the future, yet at this moment, I lost a music giant who remained original until the very end. Not many can achieve this, the bulk will not even make the two decade mark, which does not reflect badly on them, it only shows how remarkable David Bowie was.

So perhaps we will see a new Space Shuttle named the ‘Major Tom’ be launched, perhaps we will see the life that was Bowie on the Silver Screen and we will see an explosion of his hits soon enough, I think back to those naughty evenings on a beach with a topless woman, trying to find out what else fits and listening to the hit Cat People, or going to the ‘the Glass Spider tour’ in Rotterdam.

So as we see another giant exit the stage, we realise that his music remains. I also just realised that I lost a bet with a friend, I wagered the equivalent of $2 that Both Johnny Rotten (John Lydon) and Iggy Pop, would be long dead and forgotten by the time David Bowie would shed his mortality, a bet I made in the early 80’s, it turns out that I am wrong on both counts and weirdly enough all three became legends in their own rights and even as John Lydon is no longer the ‘performer’, he did end up moving into another venue of the arts as he published ‘Anger is an Energy: My Life Uncensored’ in 2014, it is not impossible that the music gene will hit him once more, I wonder if performers like that can truly stop being musicians, just my thoughts on that. In that regard Iggy Pop has not shed his performance gene, so as one of the legends of a previous generation, Iggy can proudly raise his torch of achievement showing us all who failed to see his strength and stamina. The fact that he created a few hits together with David Bowie only strengthens him as a person and signifies in addition my bad call on his early ‘demise’.

Even as Bowie fought a long battle with cancer, he remained active and he was still with us when his last album Blackstar was released on January 8^th, with this David Bowie redefines the old expression ‘he died with his boots on’. He did that, whilst leaving pretty much all his fans breathless with the power of the song Lazarus, many saw it and only two days later the song would hit most of us like a sledgehammer, surpassing the impact of many of his musical milestones. Our idol bestowed one more gem on us.

I feel no sadness, other than for the family and friends he leaves behind, I feel no negativity; I just stare at the massive list of albums he created the dozens of albums he left us and the many dozens of hours of music they represent. Today that is the news that truly matters, we do not mourn what we lost, we rejoice for the music he left us. I admit, it sounds selfish, but it is not, for the simple reason that whenever I saw of him, I saw him celebrating life. We should honour that, so listen to a song or album, watch him in a movie where he played a role in (bonus points for those who watch Labyrinth) and remember that whomever gets to do a mere 20% of what he did will end up having a pretty stellar life.

So tomorrow, more likely one day later I will look at the issues many ignore, but for today it is about saying farewell to a person whose musical presence I thoroughly enjoyed.

One in six before this court

The Guardian had an interesting piece yesterday. The article (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/09/netxflix-murder-whoddunit-petition) with the title ‘Making a Murderer spurs 275,000 viewers to demand pardon for central character‘ is centre in all this. The first thing that came to my mind was the question: ‘Are people stupid, or is Netflix just brilliant?‘ takes a centre stage. You see, we seem to hang onto this notion given by movies and books that wrongful convictions happen all the time. Yet, where is the reality? First of all, the reality is getting buried by pretty much all parties. The best I could initially find was a 2013 statistical highlight. 172,024 matters were received involving 113,893 defendants. The document does have a lot more (at http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2014/09/22/13statrpt.pdf) and I hoped to find a more recent one, but these 121 pages should be enough to get you started. You see, the issue becomes when we try to get a deeper view of the issue, one that might not be in the interest of the U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for United States Attorneys, but when we see on page 8 that 2013 had 61,529 cases files, and we see the claim on page 9 “The rate of conviction remained over 92 percent, as it has since Fiscal Year 2010“, which gets us 56,607 cases.

This document is important for a few reasons, you see, Netflix has created a monster in a few ways. First of all, this is not a legal piece of work, it is an emotional one. An emotional presentation. One would think like many other reality shows bombarding emotions. This would be the first mistake for anyone making that jump. It is a documentary, a presentation made in the best light any camera could do. The view of cars in decay might have meaning, but the mere view is that is, is a view of written off ‘rust’. It all starts with the fact that a person was freed after 18 years when DNA proves him to be innocent. We immediately feel for this person, a sex crime one of the most heinous crimes we would all love to clobber a man like that to death, like a fur dealer kills a baby seal, with a nail board. But then, we are confronted with innocence. This man never did that, so how did he get convicted? These are the thoughts many will have in the first 6 minutes of the pilot. Most will be hooked, I myself saw this and was captured. We get even more turmoil when we consider ‘The wrongful Convictions Blog‘, which has Contributing Editors like Justin Brooks, Professor, California Western School of Law, who is in addition to that Director of the California Innocence Project. I feel certain that Netflix (read: the makers of this documentary) did their homework on this project, so why is there an issue?

The series is brilliant because this could be the first time that this series is sparking the need for a true total overhaul of the American Justice system. As I see it, it is a first that we see ‘more than 275,000 viewers have signed a petition asking President Obama to overturn Avery’s conviction‘ on a scale to this side. Yes, Netflix created a monster, but is it a bad one? When we see numbers like 5,000 – 10,000 wrong convictions, when we realise that 5-10K out of 56,607 represents 8.8%-17.6%, now we get one in six to one in eleven gets wrongfully convicted.

Footnote: This is based on two sets of numbers, there is no clear picture on how many wrongful convictions there are in 2013, giving a debatable number (just making sure that you understand that my numbers remain debatable).

Now the issue shift, it shifts strongly in a direction we cannot predict, because until the numbers were clear we were all (me including) how often does this really happen, so when we see a jail movie where someone states that he was framed, he was innocent, the numbers tell us that one in eleven (lowest denominator) actually could be. When it is a parking fine it is one thing, when it is 30+ days it affects a life possibly forever, the American people now have an issue.

Now we get to the other part. The quote “In a statement, the White House said action in this case would need to be taken at state level – in this instance, Wisconsin. A petition directed at Wisconsin’s governor, Scott Walker, on Change.org has 6,300 supporters, but the governor has said that he will grant no pardons“, we see that the White House parked this on the state level this needs to be on, and the response by governor Scott Walker will not help the White House any, but that is the law, the man got convicted. Yet in that our emotions also play up, because when a person is convicted wrongly once, that state better make damn sure that all the evidence is truly Hunky Dory, because two wrongful convictions of this nature can break a government (and their bank account). Yet in all this we see presentations, presentations from all parties. When we see the claim “Two years after DNA evidence was used to clear Avery of sexual assault in 2003, and as he was starting a claim for $36m in damages, he was accused of the murder of Halbach, who had visited his property to take pictures of a vehicle for Auto Trader“, so is one truly linked to the other? You see, my thoughts take me in a partial other direction. Would any woman go near a man convicted of a sex crime? Even if that man was found to be innocent? Doubt will always be in play there. Now consider the location and the date, October 31^st, aka Halloween. Over that day and the day that follows, we see 12 to 4 degrees Celcius, There is sweat, DNA. There is a premise of planted evidence, what is more interesting, why is there sweat from Avery under the bonnet on a day when it is 12 degrees? Summer, we all get, but late October? Was her camera that heavy? Yet in all that defence, we must also voice the quote “Prosecutor Ken Kratz last week accused the programme’s makers – Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos – of withholding important evidence that led a jury to convict Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey“, which is at the heart of the matter. Netflix gives us a presentation and calls it ‘documentary’, which does not make the accused innocent, yet as evidence is allegedly withheld from the documentary, what do we have now? A mockumentary with a taste of legality? #JustAsking

I cannot tell, because I see one side.

So as we all see that outrage is what Netflix wanted to create, we see a job decently done, but is that all it is? Because I reckon until before this series, the one in six part was never that visible. The issue of innocently found guilty is not a new term, but it was a term that was never so widely known in the US. Making a murderer changes all that in a big way, once larger places get on the bandwagon for advertisement reasons, we will see a few more million getting emotional on the one in six group, as they should. Edward Helmore does give us the vital clue in this article “this is not a trial, but the truncated representation of one by journalists” and as I see it they always have their own agenda, does the viewer realise this?

Yet it isn’t just the image or the presentation, one part of the power that Making a murderer holds is the fact that Laura Ricciardi (one of the two makers) holds a JD from New York Law School and an MFA in film from Columbia University School of the Arts, which gives for the extra bang for the buck, but it does not take away that this remains a presentation, call it a new open presentation by ‘the’ defence; which is happening AFTER the conviction took place.

So will this start a legal change for America? The one thing that does in addition stands out is that the US is too bankrupt to be anywhere near considering a 35 million payout for one in six. That will impact the US in ways it cannot survive, so as Netflix brought a monster to life, we could see a massive change in prosecution and legislation, which if it happens would propel Making a murderer into the historic annals of TV presentations.

We should also take a look at the opposition, one who got his visibility through FoxNews (at http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/01/08/did-making-murderer-get-story-wrong). Here we see “Head of Investigation Discovery Henry Schlieff believes important elements of convicted murderer Steven Avery’s story were left out of the 10-hour Netflix documentary “Making a Murderer,” leading many viewers to draw the wrong conclusion about the crime everyone in America seems to be talking about“, which in my view is not unexpected. Henry Schlieff passed up on the high ratings show, as did HBO. Here lies the issue, part of the response ““We just didn’t feel it right for us in terms of the length,” Schlieff told FOX411. “I think something like this will work really well for Netflix”“. So when was the last time a network passed up on the chance for massive advertisement space opportunities? You can count those occurrences on one hand and you would not need any fingers.

HBO, Henry Schlieff and a few others missed out on a winner, more important, even though there are clear issues with the series, it does something that has not been achieved before; it gives a national and even international light to the massive number of wrongful convictions. Even when taking the lowest number of 5,000, which would not be low, we get close to one in eleven, we might state that one in nine could be closer to the speculated truth, so how many wrongful convictions will it take to overthrow the US justice system as is, as some regard it as a failed system? That conversation is now happening in many US living rooms. The Justice Department might think in way too many households, which will become a much stronger issue down the line, especially when the governor comes up for re-election, even the next presidential election will feel the impact, in an election where every point counts, 10 points come with a bigger bang than what a fair amount of states can offer, so this will become a growing issue sooner rather than later.

In the end, the paths that the series skates on is the implied issue of planted evidence, which is an option but not a given. The pending issue of 34 million gives weight to this, yet in all this most of our minds are stating that this was a rare occurrence. Which many groups are now debating, when a one in six number gets approached the consequence of large claims and the fact that most state coffers could not survive more than a dozen of those. The numbers if even taken at 50% correct give us no less than 4,000 possible cases, which in an equally distributed world implies 75 per state. If even half of that makes it to court, the bulk of the states would go into receivership overnight, the ultimate nightmare scenario.

An issue Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos might hope to steer to as an ulterior motive, but in equal measure we must look at the direct impact. One, was Steven Avery guilty? In light of the previous false incarceration the main question on the mind of most Americans watching that show and if any clear evidence is ever brought to light that there was reasonable doubt, we will see an escalation unlike any we have seen before in American politics and American jurisprudence, because the 275,000 petition at present will be the mere tip of the iceberg, at that point the anger the people will hold can, could and possibly will topple whatever administration is in control at that point.

Which could have been the intent all along! In my personal view, I think that there has been intent all along. It might not have started out in that way, but after the Michael Iver Peterson Case, after the documentary the Staircase and in succession the events of 2010, I think at this point, both Ricciardi and Demos must have realised that their pet project had the opportunity to turn into a legislative and political Behemoth, and they were the only ones with the footage and the cooperation from the involved parties, they basically had the winning ticket to a lottery no one comprehended its existence.

I believe that part of that is shown in the recent interview that the couple had on Vulture dot com (at http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/making-a-murderer-directors-on-steven-avery-case.html). The quote at the very end: “Demos: One of the experiences we hope will come across is what it’s like to be accused in this country, what it’s like to go through this system. The hope is that with firsthand experience, people will think differently about the criminal justice system: what is working and what is not working, and the role each one of us plays in that“.

I think that the Stephen Avery case is the one straw that can now break the camel’s back. If this plays out correctly (for Ricciardi and Demos), if enough doubt can be created we will see a movement towards justice change unlike anything the US government has ever seen before, because two strikes against one person would be met with opposition never seen before, this is at the centre of many places like ‘The wrongful Convictions Blog‘, they will give rise to the issue of ‘the Justice system and what isn’t working‘.

Make no mistake, in the end Avery does not need to be innocent, in the Netflix presentation they would only need to show enough doubt to get a political ball, the size of a wrecking ball rolling in many unpredictable ways.

A digital deception?

There is an interesting weekend going on. First we see people waking up to the Microsoft premise that free is apparently never free, in addition, we now see more and more noises regarding Net Neutrality. We will get back to Microsoft soon enough, because there is more to Net Neutrality than meets the eye. First let’s take a look at the definition of Net Neutrality. Wiki tells us “Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication”, now this sounds interesting, but the reality is not that easy as I see it. For example, consider Oracle Forms, who needs the reserved bandwidth, if we cannot deliver, that solution would become an issue to implement. Oracle Forms is not the only one, many other situations exist where priority is essential. Video conferences is one of several. The idea came from Tim Wu, he is the Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. His paper Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. The paper can be downloaded at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388863.

As any academic work, it is quality stuff, yet, do I agree? I have an issue with the following parts:

On page 1 “Critics, meanwhile, have taken open-access regulation as unnecessary and likely to slow the pace of broadband deployment“, America is about to encounter the point where ALL the TCP/IP addresses have been taken, no more addresses, which means that IPv6 will soon be the only option remaining. You see IPv4 provides roughly 4.3 billion addresses. Companies, people, devices all requiring an IP address (mucho plural), well at some point the end is reached and that point is now, but that is not the entire point of my objections, because “likely to slow the pace of broadband deployment” is about need. I do not see how broadband deployment is hindered by the current system (other than running out of addresses). We have seen an almost exponential growth in getting online. Ever since the broadband has been an option, we have seen spectacular growth. First through normal internet connections, then via cable providers, now in addition we have mobiles with 4G and WiMax providers.

The second quote is “That deviation is favouritism of data applications, as a class, over latency-sensitive applications involving voice or video“. Which might be fair, but for the most, this has apart from specific application NEVER been a true issue. YouTube caches, so I personally have never truly seen an issue, not in over 15 years. Voice is a different situation, is this about VOIP? On one side, in an academic paper we need to keep an open mind, which makes it a good statement, but when we regard government pushed policy “open access alone can be an insufficient remedy for many of the likely instances of network discrimination“, the use of the word ‘likely’ seems a little unacceptable.

The next issue is found on page 158 of the paper “Have broadband operators tended to favour certain uses of the Internet?” To what extent? The goal of this section is to answer these questions, to the extent possible, for broadband networks during the year 2002, so we get answers based on a situation that is 13 years old, so this is BEFORE true smartphones, before quality 3G and whilst 100Mb broadband was rare. 1000Mb is now in some places regarded as slow, we get internet information faster on our mobiles now, than on broadband in those days, overall the growth of speed has been near unparalleled since the beginning of the internet and I am just looking at the last 5 years. The more I read of this 39 page paper, the less this makes sense in the current environment. Not the thoughts by themselves, the thoughts made perfect sense (to a certain degree) in those days. Yet, the ISP’s and Cable providers evolved almost exponential in their offerings. For the same price I now get a little over 10 times the amount I had before. I now end up with 500% download space of what I need (and I have one of the cheapest offers), so far I have not seen any limitation on what I require, so is this a pure American issue? That could be the case, but those pushing Net Neutrality better realise that moving business from US to Canada is not that far-fetched an option, I personally see these events as the FCC seems shooting itself in the foot.

Yet are my thoughts correct? (Always a good question to ask)

Let’s take a look at the Washington Post (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/07/24/republicans-are-trying-to-defund-net-neutrality-will-it-work/), ‘Republicans are trying to defund net neutrality. Will it work?‘ The quote “This week, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a bill that contains an amendment singling out the FCC and net neutrality. Notably, the rider would prohibit the FCC from using its most powerful regulatory tool to police Internet providers — Title II of the Communications Act” is at the centre. Yet, what the Washington Post shows is nothing more than a political side.

It’s CNN that gives us part of the goods (at http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/12/technology/net-neutrality/), they ask a few questions and give us answers. That is what matters. So let’s take a look.

“Isn’t that what exists today? For the most part. In reality, the world won’t look much different on Friday. Netflix won’t suddenly stream any faster for you. AT&T (T, Tech30) and Comcast (CMCSA) won’t abruptly stop laying down high-speed fiber cables and investing in their networks as retaliation“, after which CNN brings a quote that is surprising “And Comcast can’t slow down file-sharing websites, like it did to BitTorrent a few years ago“, which is more than interesting. Because, for the commerce of the USA file sharing is not a good thing, even though downloading movies is copyright infringement, pursuing these events is a near impossible task, especially when those servers are outside of the USA.

Who supports net neutrality? Now this is the number one question. “AOL (AOL, Tech30), Facebook (FB, Tech30), Netflix (NFLX, Tech30), Twitter (TWTR, Tech30), Vimeo and every other major Internet company are in favour of the FCC’s new rules. They create the content you read and watch online, and they don’t want to face discrimination by network owners who can threaten to charge higher fees or slow them down“. This statement is pretty far out there when you are not an American. In America, when you see places like Comcast, you pay for 75Mbs, 150Mbs and prices go up fast. So from this point is there reasoning for Net Neutrality? I still do not agree, but before going into this we need to look at Sprint, they offer unlimited high speeds with a sharable 10Gb for $100. This is less than 40% of the bandwidth I had 6 years ago at half this price. San Francisco gave me decent prices that are in alignment with what we see in Europe. Again, will Net Neutrality solve this?

Now let’s take a look at those supporters, Facebook and Twitter are data collectors, Twitter is the smaller and Facebook in the larger extent. Netflix customers require download power a lot more than Net Neutrality. The same can be said for Vimeo, AOL and Google+ for that matter. They all are vying for a customer base and when a person gets 10 GB at $100, whilst Europe and Australia enjoy prices like $70 for 200 GB you can see the issue at play. I am wondering whether this is about Net Neutrality or is there an issue with cartelisation in the US? We are so used to see that things are cheaper in the US, the fact that the US is leaps behind when it comes to the internet. That does not address the Net Neutrality. In my view it leaves us with more questions. The fact that prices are so high makes me wonder why a place like the US is not more competitive in that regard. But this article is not about that. It seems that Netflix needs download power to survive, and that is lacking in the US. In addition, it seems that the providers are extremely ‘protective’ on pricing, when investigating prices, TWC gave me “You are visiting our website from an area we don’t currently service“, which I got whilst entering a Chicago Address. So in all this, there is a multitude of issues, which have less to do with Net Neutrality and more about the stranglehold on pricing some seem to keep in the US.

Now am I upset? Well that is not really the question is it? I am like many others a capitalist (to some degree), yet that part has always been drenched in reason. As the information is reaching me, reason is not really a part that the internet providers seem to employ in the US. Especially as they offer internet at 33% of the speed and at 20 times the price. So it seems to me that Net Neutrality, even though in this light might have some effect to some of the solutions depending on the internet, yet the overwhelming thought from me is that as the FCC pushes Net Neutrality, we will also see a shift of the business world seeking an alternative.

When we see an argument that “Comcast could slow down BitTorrent traffic (it did)“, yet when we consider an article by Jacqui Cheng from the 24^th July 2010, we see ‘Only 0.3% of files on BitTorrent confirmed to be legal‘, this was from a study that involved 1000 downloads, so 997 were infringing in one way or another, so why is it an issue to slow down BitTorrent?

A final issue should be given to Wired Magazine, who (at http://www.wired.com/2014/01/three-dangers-net-neutrality-nobodys-really-talking/) gives us several views in the article ‘Three Dangers of Losing Net Neutrality That Nobody’s Talking About‘

The first comes from American Library Association head Barbara Stripling “we’re in danger of prioritizing high-quality internet access for entertainment over education“, is this about the costs of a broadband plan? I have seen how this is not cheap, even as the article is only a year old. She also states “Ultimately, “pay to play” only benefits the privileged“, which I can agree with, it will be about usage and bandwidth, Net Neutrality will not up the game for them, it is about pricing and in some cases the prices are overwhelmingly ridiculous.

The second issue is ‘we continue to give more control over the internet to the government‘, which seems to be the case, but why is it done? Draining additional resources, forcing costs that should not be with the government. The quote here is “What’s worse is that we won’t see it coming, because the FCC’s power will creep in incrementally, on a case-by-case basis — a death by a thousand cuts“. Why is the FCC even bothering with this? Regarding the extent of what I saw as it applies to the US, this is becoming an increasing case of ‘Unjust Enrichment‘. Yet, the legal scope is not entirely ready to deal with this from an internet point of view. The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in Schroeder v. Buchholz, 2001 ND 36, 622 N.W.2d 202 that five elements must be established to prove unjust enrichment.

They were:

An enrichment (Telco’s making excessive profits)
An impoverishment (Consumers are charged above their affordable income).
A connection between enrichment and the impoverishment
Absence of a justification for the enrichment and impoverishment
An absence of a remedy provided by the law (clearly in absentia)

It will be hard to prove this part, you see, it is not just about enrichment and impoverishment. The internet world is moving population classes into the haves and the have not, which is a different standard, yet the foundation might apply in finding the remedy for internet pricing, especially when we realise that one in 10 that would end up spending a little over 10% of income to allow for internet (based on the Chicago example), is this an excessive cost? That would be for a court to decide and that decision would not be the same state by state. Yet as that becomes a solution, the Net Neutrality need would diminish.

In the end, I am not convinced that the issues are about ‘neutrality‘, but it is about current technology and about fairness and affordability of the internet, especially when we consider that every child today needs to learn to proper use the internet from a young age, only to keep even with the other players, once the US falls deeper into the pay to play trench, we will see the growth of additional classes of segregation, those who are technically viable users and those who are not. That last one must be avoided at all costs, an issue Net Neutrality as I personally see it will not answer.

Tag Archives: Netflix

Events that matter

One in six before this court

A digital deception?

Recent Posts

Archives