LinusMediaGroup is sponsored by anti net-nuetrallity corporations... kind of.

[AndThenThereWas1]

I watched a recent LinusTechTips video and a youtube commenter got me thinking. LinusTechTips is sponsored by hulu plus and hulu is owned by three companies(comcast, 21st Century Fox, and Disney). But what do we know about these three companies? Well to start with, we know comcast is anti net neutrality and they will gain a lot from the death of net neutrality. They have been working together with other ISPs to kill net neutrality. 21st Century Fox on the other hand has been a bit more quiet. We do however, know that Fox and Disney, being big media, have major ties between corporations like Comcast, time warner and Verizon. In fact, 21st Century Fox recently made an offer of $80 billion for time warner. These content providers/creators, stand to gain a lot from the death of net neutrality. Their close ties with ISPs and back door deals would amount to major profits. Its no mystery that we don't see Fox's or Disney's signature on the FCC letter sent out in May.

So what do you guys think? Does accepting a sponsorship from Hulu mean linus is inadvertently helping anti net neutrality corporations? Keep in mind that every viewer that clicks and signs up for Hulu plus is giving money to these companies. That money could be used to fight against net neutrality.

[Jade]

They buy ad space and give users incentive using a code for LTT specifically so they can see the traffic and pull they're getting from the ad space. They're not formally sponsored.

[RyanShep97]

They buy ad space and give users incentive using a code for LTT specifically so they can see the traffic and pull they're getting from the ad space. They're not formally sponsored.

 

Couldn't put it better myself!

[Guest andyysplash]

Meanwhile, in the UK I'm not sure if the likes of BT are pulling anti-net neutrality shenanigans (don't have the speed to watch 1080p let alone see if there's a difference through a VPN or straight Youtube) but assuming they don't then for all intents and purposes, I'm not really bothered as long as Linus can keep LMG going the way he wants.

[The_Strict_Nein]

Meanwhile, in the UK I'm not sure if the likes of BT are pulling anti-net neutrality shenanigans (don't have the speed to watch 1080p let alone see if there's a difference through a VPN or straight Youtube) but assuming they don't then for all intents and purposes, I'm not really bothered as long as Linus can keep LMG going the way he wants.

 

The problem with the UK is that apart from several area such as London and the major cities and Hull, EVERYWHERE relies on BTs connection. Because they have no competition in most areas they have no incentive to make their service competitive by driving up speed and down prices. They charge what the want and give crap connections.

 

Glad I live so close to London

[Guest andyysplash]

The problem with the UK is that apart from several area such as London and the major cities and Hull, EVERYWHERE relies on BTs connection. Because they have no competition in most areas they have no incentive to make their service competitive by driving up speed and down prices. They charge what the want and give crap connections.

 

Glad I live so close to London

 

I know what you mean, but since others rely on their wiring they are pressured into at least making the infrastructure usable. As for prices, living in an area where you can't get Virgin media (and probably not Sky broadband, though I'm not sure on that front), it does kinda suck that they have a monopoly.

 

However, they just put FTTC cabinets in my village (finally!) so I can't complain and in a way would like them to win contracts just so I can get a 'normal' connection. The fact it takes fibre to deliver me what some had years ago just shows how distance and old wiring can affect a connection. I think my street cabinet's 30+ years old and wasn't designed for internet use