
Apple Balks at Higher Web-Access Fees After $1B Video Bet - mcone
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-31/apple-backs-net-neutrality-as-it-steps-up-online-video-effort
======
alansammarone
Out of all the internet giants, at least to me, Apple has time and time again
demonstrated to be reasonably ethical. Their position on encryption, net
neutrality (granted, a bit late), gay marriage, their willingness to fight
political positions which they disagree with... It could certainly be improved
in _many_ ways, but it's still one of the few companies I somewhat trust.
Their innovative character is also something I really like (again, granted, it
used to be much more so in the past).

I used to feel this way about Google too. Given the current events, I don't
anymore, and I'm seriously considering DuckDuckGo.

~~~
tqkxzugoaupvwqr
I’ve been using DuckDuckGo for a few years and can recommend it. Try it. There
is no reason to wait. If you are not happy with a search result, prepend !g to
your search query and DDG redirects you to Google search.

~~~
ivm
I wanted to switch but DDG is noticeably slow in South America compared to
Google. Meanwhile I've been using private windows for all searches for over 3
years already. Hopefully it helps a bit with the bubble issue.

~~~
pcr0
Noticeably slow for me in southeast Asia as well. Other issue is I ended up
using !g on half my searches anyway.

------
ricardobeat
Whoa, long time since I've seen such a clearly misleading / politically
charged headline on mainstream media. TL;DR Apple comes out for net
neutrality.

~~~
zzalpha
Hey, at least they put the ad hominem right in the headline!

------
5_minutes
It's a bit late, mr Cook.

But better late then never.

~~~
SkyMarshal
Not necessarily, here's a good comment on how and why the fight is not yet
lost:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6x0bdy/985_of_uni...](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6x0bdy/985_of_unique_net_neutrality_comments_oppose_ajit/dmcoqey/)

------
eridius
This headline seems to be a bit of a non-sequitor. What does Apple spending
$1B on original content have to do with net neutrality? What matters is how
much online streaming Apple does, and given that they've operated the iTunes
Music/Movie/TV store for 14 years, streaming everyone else's content, I don't
think funding original content of their own is really going to change how much
streaming they do, it's just going to change who owns the content that is
streamed.

------
leggomylibro
Oh, sure Apple. NOW it's bad for incumbent players to have an advantage.

smh

~~~
larkost
Apple has the money to effectively be an incumbent for this purpose. So their
statement is anything but self serving.

~~~
leggomylibro
My point is sort of that they have historically been an incumbent, which
prevented them from speaking out about this sort of thing. Now that they are
trying to break into a new market and stand to lose a lot of money from higher
barriers to entry, of course they come out against them.

It's extremely self-serving.

~~~
IBM
Apple has been selling music and video on iTunes for 14 years. Spending $1B on
content doesn't change anything for them.

------
jpao79
Maybe they should buy Sprint and DIY it. Maybe deliver a cache of video
content at night using multicast.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Broadcast_Multicast...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Broadcast_Multicast_Service)

~~~
muddi900
So Sprint would only work on iPhones?

~~~
jpao79
Yes, in some ways I see this as being more synergistic than self driving cars.

With respect to video delivery, it'd be like Amazon and AT&T's Whispernet but
applied to video instead of ebooks [https://s3-us-
west-2.amazonaws.com/customerdocumentation/Wir...](https://s3-us-
west-2.amazonaws.com/customerdocumentation/Wireless,+Whispernet+and+Whispersync+on+Kindle+2nd+Generation.pdf)

------
chalkandpaste
So, Apple, the richest company on earth, wants to use more bandwidth without
paying more, even though bandwidth is a scarce resource and other people have
invested millions to providing the infrastructure to transmit data?

~~~
syrrim
It would be nice if Bloomberg would explain how this worked. Net Neutrality
concerns itself with ISPs charging websites for the traffic of their
customers, rather than the customers themselves. Apple therefore doesn't plan
on using the bandwidth itself - Apple's users will. If those users want faster
speed, then they should of course have the option to pay for it. Net
neutrality makes sure that the cost of bandwidth is put directly on users,
rather than hiding it by charging Apple.

------
JustSomeNobody
Seriously? Where have they been these past months? Why could they not have
spoken up sooner?

Anyway, let's hope it's not too late.

~~~
X86BSD
Look at how long they tolerated Flash. Just like Justice, the wheels at Apple
turn slowly.

------
freebs
Apple could, you know, spend some cash and help Google build more ISPs. I
doubt they have the courage though.

~~~
IBM
Yeah how's that working out for Google?

~~~
Grazester
Well that's why it was suggested Google needed help.

~~~
IBM
Two turkeys don't make an eagle and Apple trying to roll out fiber would be
throwing good money after bad. Apple is a global company, being a regional ISP
doesn't move the needle for them.

~~~
Grazester
Maybe it would not be just Apple but a consortium of companies. Google, Apple,
Netflix, Amazon and Facebook(since they are launching their video platform
now). If net neutrality falls through I willing to bet there would be a great
incentive for figuring their ISP thing. It would be in their interest after
all.

~~~
X86BSD
This will fail. On an EPIC scale. Google, _google_ , failed with fiber. They
are enormous and have mountains of cash to burn and still when they hit the
cities to deploy, slammed into the granite wall of monopoly telco and cable co
regulations preventing competition with right of ways etc that said telcos and
cable co's put in place over the last 50 years.

The only hope I see for last mile is wireless. It's cheaper, you don't have to
dig anything up, and do not have to wait for the telco's or cable co's to fix
infrastructure, or grant you access to said infrastructure.

Are there hurdles with wireless, of course. But it is clearly the only option
for building out last mile to the home in almost every city in america. On a
cost basis, on a time basis, on any basis. The wireless technology just needs
to be improved. Being able to serve more people per POP, better protocols to
reduce collisions, etc.

