Streaming platforms designers are all racists

[alreve]

Of course I hope this is not the case .

But one could wonder. In many parts of the world, internet connections are shaky at best. Where I am, I cannot stream anything higher than 144p. Even at 144p, the video sometimes stops until the browser receives more data. But most streaming sites advertise "full HD", as if that was something to be proud of, as if this was not something excluding people in Africa and elsewhere...

I tested the first 20 streaming sites listed in https://privacysavvy.com/geoblocking...vies-tv-shows/

It lists the supposedly 57 Best Free Online Movie Streaming Sites in July 2024. NONE of the first 20 functioned. About half are "US only". I didn't use any proxy, my connection is slow enough as it is. Even some illegal sites seem to be "US only" - crazy! If they are anyway illegal, why should they care where you stream from???

I was not looking for any illegal streaming, a few black-and-white movies, long since fallen in the public domain, would have made me happy. As long as could watch them in 144p resolution. Couldn't find any.

It's got to be some kind of conspiration, lol

[currentshaft]

They're racist because your internet connection sucks? What a bizarre conclusion.

Anyway, check out archive.org for public domain content you're interested in.

[TheFu]

Of course I hope this is not the case .

Let me get this straight. You think racism has something to do with going after paying customers? Streaming platforms are businesses. They aren't charities. They need to make money, somehow, and typically want to make the most money possible without having to deal with govts that don't have similar laws to where the paying customers are located.

It has nothing to do with racism. Minority races are different in every country, but if there's money to be made, there will be streaming services in them. There are lots of streaming services in India, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and very few European-like people. Are those racist as far as you are concerned?

Now, if you said that steaming platforms were capitalist, I'd 100% agree. They are. There are pros and cons to that.

BTW, streaming services purchase the right to display for specific jurisdictions, so there are many times when people in the US cannot see content from Europe or Asia for different reasons. Usually it is about either payment methods or license restrictions or advertising payers not being available in every country. Especially for TV, in the US, I know of no way to watch streamed content in the US that isn't
a) paid
b) full of commercials that are targeted toward things sold in my country.

I've never tried to watch content from Africa. The average income and fact that few families there have multiple TVs, multiple streaming devices, and multiple computers in their homes (I could be very wrong, that's just my ignorant guess), may have much to do with the lack of streaming services.

Or it could be that a specific govt has decided to control access to specific content. The middle east, Pakistan, China and India are famous for doing this. They are just trying to implement their local standards and prevent offensive content. We can disagree with what different govts do, but they have a duty to represent what their people desire.

I suspect this thread will be closed based solely on the title given. It may be removed. We shall see.

[Shibblet]

Of course I hope this is not the case .

But one could wonder. In many parts of the world, internet connections are shaky at best. Where I am, I cannot stream anything higher than 144p. Even at 144p, the video sometimes stops until the browser receives more data. But most streaming sites advertise "full HD", as if that was something to be proud of, as if this was not something excluding people in Africa and elsewhere...

I live in Alaska. When you travel north (like north of Fairbanks), you notice that everyone has Dish Network. And all of the dishes are pointed at the horizon. This is the ONLY way that these people can get any form of television in their area. Broadcasts don't go very far from the cities... Alaska has a LOT of space. Most of these people also get their internet through dish. Dial-up for Upload, and Dish for Download.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the world does not have internet... or power... or sanitation... or food...

Dish network is not going to launch a satellite just to hover above Alaska in order to gain 0.05% of the number of customers they have in the greater Los Angeles area. That's not cost effective. I hope you see the parallel here...

I tested the first 20 streaming sites listed in https://privacysavvy.com/geoblocking...vies-tv-shows/

It lists the supposedly 57 Best Free Online Movie Streaming Sites in July 2024. NONE of the first 20 functioned. About half are "US only". I didn't use any proxy, my connection is slow enough as it is. Even some illegal sites seem to be "US only" - crazy! If they are anyway illegal, why should they care where you stream from???

Data through the internet still bounces from site to site (node to node) as it goes from it's originating site to yours. The video you want to watch may be coming from Bolivia, but has to be routed through Cleveland (among other routes) before it gets to you.

I was not looking for any illegal streaming, a few black-and-white movies, long since fallen in the public domain, would have made me happy. As long as could watch them in 144p resolution. Couldn't find any.

I think, illegal or not, the amount of data coming your way may be limited to your living location, as well as your service provider in your area.

It's got to be some kind of conspiration, lol

Nope... ever heard of Starlink? There are options.

High speed fiber is still not available in many MAJOR cities. If the company providing the service cannot make money on the service, they're not going to do it. Internet Service Providers are not charities, they are "for profit" businesses. So, if it's going to cost them more to install the area with internet, than they get out of it... that's a no-go.

[Shibblet]

Re: Streaming platforms designers are all racists

Also... Huh?

[TheFu]

Dish network is not going to launch a satellite just to hover above Alaska in order to gain 0.05% of the number of customers they have in the greater Los Angeles area. That's not cost effective. I hope you see the parallel here...

Actually, placing a satellite statically over any place on Earth that isn't near the equator isn't possible. Geosynchronous satellites orbit at 35,786 km (22,236 miles). This is where the time to circle the Earth is the same as 1 Earth day. That's why in far north and far south parts of the world, all the satellite dishes point barely off the horizon. They are pointed to 22K miles above the equator. For the USA, typically, there are eastern and western broadcast satellites for communications/TV and similar services. From Anchorage, that's about 16.5° off the horizon. The farther south you are, the higher the dish will be pointed, until, at the equator, it is pointed 90° (straight up). Same happens in Tasmania and Patagonia. South Africa really isn't THAT far south. Cape Town (33.9°S) is at about the same latitude south as Atlanta, GA, USA (33.7°N) is North. In Asia, remember that Singapore is 3°N of the equator. All of India is in the Norther hemisphere. The most southern point in India is 8°N.

SpaceX internet, Starlink, while it covers most of the Earth, doesn't have downlink locations everywhere and isn't approved by every govt to offer services. Many govts require ISPs to provide govt links for law enforcement purposes. So even if Starlink satellites are flying over most of the Earth at 211-382 miles (much closer than Geosynchronous satellites), they are constantly moving and need to link to the internet from places on Earth with huge pipes. While Starlink may eventually be available to most of the world, getting payments setup and govt regulations solved to every country is a much harder problem.

[Shibblet]

Actually, placing a satellite statically over any place on Earth that isn't near the equator isn't possible. Geosynchronous satellites orbit at 35,786 km (22,236 miles). This is where the time to circle the Earth is the same as 1 Earth day. That's why in far north and far south parts of the world, all the satellite dishes point barely off the horizon. They are pointed to 22K miles above the equator. For the USA, typically, there are eastern and western broadcast satellites for communications/TV and similar services. From Anchorage, that's about 16.5° off the horizon. The farther south you are, the higher the dish will be pointed, until, at the equator, it is pointed 90° (straight up). Same happens in Tasmania and Patagonia. South Africa really isn't THAT far south. Cape Town (33.9°S) is at about the same latitude south as Atlanta, GA, USA (33.7°N) is North. In Asia, remember that Singapore is 3°N of the equator. All of India is in the Norther hemisphere. The most southern point in India is 8°N.

Interesting... I wasn't aware that it was such a narrow area.
So what you are saying is that earth looks like Saturn, instead of rings of debris, it's rings of satellites.

SpaceX internet, Starlink, while it covers most of the Earth, doesn't have downlink locations everywhere and isn't approved by every govt to offer services. Many govts require ISPs to provide govt links for law enforcement purposes. So even if Starlink satellites are flying over most of the Earth at 211-382 miles (much closer than Geosynchronous satellites), they are constantly moving and need to link to the internet from places on Earth with huge pipes. While Starlink may eventually be available to most of the world, getting payments setup and govt regulations solved to every country is a much harder problem.

Yup. This is true... but it's still his best shot.

[TheFu]

Interesting... I wasn't aware that it was such a narrow area.
So what you are saying is that earth looks like Saturn, instead of rings of debris, it's rings of satellites.

Well, there are 20K satellites in many different orbits, only about 9900 actively working. Lots are debris from launch vehicles or crashes. Most of them aren't geosynchronous, since that specific orbit is pretty crowded due to minimum spacing required for safety. There are some that sit between the Earth and Moon at L2 point (Lagrange point) and on the opposite side of the the Earth from the moon at L1. These are places that the moon and earth gravitational pulls cancel each other. There are all sorts of places from about 140 miles to 900K miles for orbits. The moon is about 250K miles away (rough estimate) from my orbital mechanics class. There are lots of other Lagrange points.

A relatively simple summary: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/fe.../OrbitsCatalog

Tundra orbits are interesting for watching specific longitudes (east-west points): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qzss-45-0.09.jpg has a good image. These orbits have huge differences in altitude between apogee and perigee. For Earth observations, that means sensors can't be really specific to the altitude. Can't say more. There's lots of public information on this stuff.

[909mjolnir]

it's possibly not racism, just stupid technical blockages that cause dumb headaches for dumb reasons.
us is a nutty place, though.

[lammert-nijhof]

I don't understand the issue, I live in the Dominican Republic, and I stream today 16:55 at:
Latency 10 ms
Download 80.73 Mb/s
Upload 9.96 Mb/s