Mark Cuban Still Has Absolutely No Idea How Net Neutrality Works
from the double-down-on-misunderstanding dept
To be very clear, there are numerous subjects Mark Cuban has a very solid understanding of, ranging from his support of patent reform and the benefits of improving antiquated film release windows to highlighting the SEC's disdain for the 14th and 4th Amendments during his fight over insider trading allegations. But when it comes to net neutrality, modern telecom competition, and the problems caused by letting unchecked duopolists like Comcast run amok, Cuban has pretty consistently made it abundantly clear he has absolutely no earthly idea what he's talking about.
The latest case in point, Cuban trotted out this little gem last week while public outrage at the FCC's grotesque handout to the telecom sector was peaking:
Do #NetNeutraility proponents realize that continuing the rules as is effectively puts @realDonaldTrump in charge of the Internet and it's future ?
— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) November 22, 2017
After taking a pretty severe beating on Twitter, Cuban subsequently doubled down, proclaiming that net neutrality should be killed because, you know, nipplegate happened thirteen years ago:
Do you want @realDonaldTrump and the same organization that felt the need to rule on and take 8 years to evaluate Janet Jackson's Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction in charge of the internet ? Here is why I don't :https://t.co/NDsUmFYue9
— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) November 22, 2017
So look, if you've read our primer on net neutrality or paid attention to our coverage of this subject for the last decade, you should know by now that net neutrality violations are just a symptom of the disease that is a lack of competition in the broadband sector. Net neutrality rules were a temporary, imperfect solution to the fact that nobody in either party seriously wants to address this problem because it would stop campaign contributions from flowing. As a result, our state and federal legislative system is systemically infected by lawmakers willing to sell out the public and the internet for some pocket change.
The result of this isn't pretty. AT&T and Verizon enjoy monopoly control over cell tower backhaul and business data services (BDS). Cable companies like Comcast enjoy a growing monopoly over fixed-line broadband because telcos aka "the market" are refusing to invest in rural and second-tier urban markets. With no competition and apathetic regulators, we've witnessed privacy infractions, net neutrality violations, legendarily-awful customer service, deployment redlining, and endless price hikes (again, all just symptoms of a lack of competition and regulatory capture) time, and time, and time again.
This isn't magically fixed by gutting some modest consumer protections. And keeping net neutrality intact certainly doesn't "put Donald Trump in control of the Internet." There's simply no logical basis for that claim. In fact, passing net neutrality rules is a perfect example of one of the few times over the last twenty years that the FCC actually listened to consumers and was willing to stand up to the nation's powerful telecom duopoly. Punishing them for this based entirely on your gut feelings and misunderstanding of how the telecom sector works only helps ensure that won't be happening again anytime soon.
Cuban (who has sidelined as a commercial pitchman for AT&T), subsequently tried to clarify that the real threat to the internet isn't lumbering telecom monopolies, but Apple and Google app stores:
Let's be clear on NN.
1. No ISP can mess with anything that impacts Apple or Google. Both control the app stores/hardware and operating systems which control the mobile universe (the fastest growing segment of the net and the future w 5g)— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) November 26, 2017
This idea that the real "neutrality problem" is Google and Apple ("search neutrality" or "app store neutrality") has long been an ISP-driven bogeyman we've deflated time and time again. Users have a choice not to use the Google or Android app stores or devices. They have a choice of search engines. But in telecom, there is no choice. If you're lucky, you have a choice of a lumbering cable company or a telco that refuses to upgrade its network. Usually they're engaged in non-price competition because, again, we've let them dictate state and federal protectionism for a generation.
Cuban is part of a subset of folks for whom net neutrality challenges their belief that all regulation is automatically always bad and the government is entirely incapable of ever doing good. The problem is that's not only overly simplistic (it prevents you from actually weighing the merits of each instance of regulation intelligently), it doesn't really work in the telecom sector. If you obliterated the FCC tomorrow, you'd still be stuck with a lumbering monopoly with a stranglehold over the last mile. A stranglehold that bipartisan corruption on the state and federal level would ensure would never be threatened by disruption or innovation.
Net neutrality protects consumers, small businesses, and startups until we can find a way to drive more competition to the market. Some (including Cuban) seem to labor under the belief that advancements in wireless will have us all swimming in dirt-cheap connectivity in no time, making net neutrality irrelevant. Except wireless connectivity is spotty, carriers are booting users off these networks due to low ROI, these connections are usually capped, throttled and expensive, and again, AT&T and Verizon have a monopoly on the backhaul market feeding it all (but don't worry, Trump's FCC is busy protecting that monopoly, too).
You can get rid of net neutrality rules if you first embrace policies that actually drive broadband competition. But we're not doing that. Under Trump's FCC, Ajit Pai is actually busy lowering the base definition of broadband to try and obfuscate this lack of competition. Folks like Pai aren't even capable of admitting there's a problem, making the idea that the former Verizon lawyer wants to fix the problem preposterous. Meanwhile Cuban has been an outspoken Trump critic; are we to presume that Trump magically, mystically got this right? 20 million consumers don't think so.
This isn't the first time we've been over all this. I made many of the same points back in 2014 when Cuban was busy telling anybody who'd listen that net neutrality rules would destroy the internet and prevent sick people from getting necessary medical care (both, again, being lazy canards circulated by ISP lobbyists). Check out the last paragraph of this 2014 post for some unintentional, unfortunate clairvoyance on my part.
It's disappointing that Cuban isn't interested in listening to the countless experts like the EFF telling him that net neutrality rules are incredibly important -- especially for the kind of small businesses Cuban used to represent. It's equally unfortunate that folks that look up to Cuban for guidance are being told to root against their own best self interests -- and to support a Trump agenda item that may just be the most unpopular decision in tech policy history.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, mark cuban, net neutrality
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
dial up internet was still very common as well as "pay by the minute" internet access. Heck there ares till data CAPs WITH NN here and NN also has Zero Rating still not going to protect you from some fuckery anyways.
History & his phat stacks of $$$ proves he succeeded making your comment nothing other than "religious drivel" going against historically established facts.
How can you be this fucking stupid with the internet and facts at your disposal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality isn't about the Internet. It's about the connection to the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG! "Doug Wheeler" back for a FOURTH comment in FIVE years!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahh Blue, you still have the ability to make me chuckle.
So your definition of a "zombie" is someone who comments only when they have something worth saying?
My definition of a "zombie" would be someone who spews mindless drivel everyday, even when it makes zero sense and/or contradicts their previous comments, just as long as they are anti-Techdirt in nature.
Maybe you need a new shtick, your comments are getting a bit blasé these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We'd never hear from him again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suspect mark Cuban has no idea how most things work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sherman Act and Net Neutrality are band aids
The problem is that capitalism is good at serving customer interests as a side effect until it converges to the point where the main target is not delivering value cheaper but delivering cheaper value, by virtue of eliminating rather than beating competition and market, and reevaluating customers from being assets to asses.
Like a magnet, capitalism loses its attraction when you let it actually succeed in excess. It's a great tool as long as it remains on the way to its goal without coming into reach of it.
That's something that evades core capitalists like Cuban: they think what's good for 80% of the way should be even better for the rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sherman Act and Net Neutrality are band aids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sherman Act and Net Neutrality are band aids
Too many people today have forgotten about that, and consider any redistribution of wealth as an unfair attack on the rich and successful.
The US used to have 90% tax rates on the richest people. Now the highest tax rate is just 35.9%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sherman Act and Net Neutrality are band aids
and they do not see themselves as being guilty of same when they fail to pay their employees enough for shelter and food.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sherman Act and Net Neutrality are band aids
Good to know.
Theft is theft, it does not matter if you do it under the color of law, society, or straight up good old fashion brigandry.
Big business has been stealing from the poor for a long time by controlling the economy in cahoots with politicians, taxing the rich for the poor is just the poor in cahoots with politicians to steal from the rich.
Turn about might be fair play, but two wrongs don't make a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sherman Act and Net Neutrality are band aids
Mark Cuban could pay $10mm in taxes next year and it would not make a substantial dent in either his level of overall wealth or his ability to buy the most basic necessities of life for himself and his family. But those $10mm in taxes could help pay for numerous things that help the poor—think improvements to the public education system, repairs to failing infrastructure, and better funding for healthcare.
We have a progressive tax system for a reason: The wealthy can afford to pay more in taxes because they can afford to give up that money without hurting themselves. If Bill Gates lost a billion dollars of his personal wealth tomorrow, that would not really affect his lifestyle. He would still have plenty of money to buy new houses, contribute to his philanthropic causes, and so on. The same could not be said of a poor man who has to decide between paying rent or paying medical bills in a given month—and that is if he can afford to even pay those bills that month.
If anything, the rich should be working to improve the lives of the poor in substantial and significant ways. That they are fighting to retain wealth they will never spend in their lifetimes at the expense of having the government push more poor people into deeper levels of poverty? That should say all that needs to be said about those assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sherman Act and Net Neutrality are band aids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sherman Act and Net Neutrality are band aids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sherman Act and Net Neutrality are band aids
It is about time for employers to start paying their employees enough that they can survive, not just on the streets but with shelter and food. It is time to stop subsidizing cheap ass businesses by providing their employees supplemental income simply because their employer is a cheap ass son of a bitch.
On a side note, so businesses have to report their subsidy as income .. you like the rest of us do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sherman Act and Net Neutrality are band aids
The state - from taxes - funded research of:
These were all high-risk investments - for example GPS was almost shut down in the '80 for overspending. Yet you would deny this venture capitalist it's share of the profits? Why? Don't you like the innovation? Or do you think only the copycats and leeches - Apple, Google, Samsung, ... - are allowed to rip the reward? Have you forgotten, that high-risk investment means high profit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sherman Act and Net Neutrality are band aids
While I agree with the sentiment, the phrase is "reap the reward".
But, I love the anti-tax morons, who happily and constantly enjoy the benefits of taxes while whining that they should be abolished. It's a fun game, especially on the internet, where tax dollars are the only reason they're able to have the conversation to begin with.
Taxes can always be streamlined and nobody likes seeing the money disappear from their pay packet. But the "taxes are theft" crowd re either too stupid to understand how they are being used to benefit them, or too stupid to realise how bad things would be for them if everything had a for-profit motive. I'll take the modern "taxes pay for fire services for everybody" model vs the old "we'll watch your house burn down if it hasn't got our company's plaque on it" model any day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sherman Act and Net Neutrality are band aids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sherman Act and Net Neutrality are band aids
It's better that way, as the troll brigade here would happily edit their comments to distort the conversation even further than they do with their existing lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sherman Act and Net Neutrality are band aids
No rich person ever paid 90% of their income in taxes. Exemptions and deductions back then were even more generous than they are now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sherman Act and Net Neutrality are band aids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sherman Act and Net Neutrality are band aids
Not *any* redistribution. They're usually fine with the stuff that funnels it their way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are two radio-based offerings available, and I've used both as well as DSL in the past. I'm now with one of the radio-based providers, which requires an antenna on my roof.
How does this compare to others? In my mind I feel like I have a few options (though still not cable) for internet providers. It's not clear to me how Title II designation or the looming rescinding of that will affect me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "wevrem" has only 3 comments, and only been absent for one year!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's what Karl Bode’s Techdirt Profile USED to say:
"Karl Bode ... has been babbling, jabbering and prattling about technology, politics and culture ... for more than fifteen years."
Now it's just blank! That's progress for Techdirt, though: understanding that it's foolish to state you're "babbling, jabbering and prattling", and pretend to be an expert too.
Anyway, tip for minion: it's condescending to evaluate someone's understanding as you start with, irritating to high degree when state "Absolutely No Idea". IF your notion is to at all sway Cuban, I can only advise that you take a few years off to learn TACT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blue telling someone to learn tact is a bit like a crackhead telling kids to just say no to drugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He must be as afraid of his own comment history as he is of the content of the articles he keeps trying to distract from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To think that ISP's WON'T do this, means you are blind to past activities of said ISP's, and you are highly delusional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the regulation isn't the same as the goal
I am okay with net neutrality rules. I think there is enough evidence of insufficient competition in this market and of companies like Comcast and it's cohorts doing sneaky (and sometimes not-so-sneaky) things that amount to charging different rates for the same ones and zeros (usually while calling them a different "kind" of data).
However, people on the pro-net neutrality side need to acknowledge a simple truth: The regulations ostensibly intended to accomplish X are not the same as X, even if they initially look similar. What technically aware people think of as net neutrality will not be the same as what the government is able to do under the guise of ensuring net neutrality. It's important to understand that government isn't some wizard casting a net neutrality spell on the internet and then, magically, we have net neutrality. I know that sounds silly, but that's often effectively what people assume with many kinds of regulation. Instead, the government assumes some power to regulate something and then a bunch of rules come out of that. The government then applies (often very selective) discretion in enforcing those rules. That's the reality. Rarely, that enforcement comes close to the ideal and often it does not.
People on Techdirt rightly complain about the ill effects of regulatory capture and similar issues. We need to acknowledge that that is in play with net neutrality as well. Similarly, we see many cases where the government is given the authority to do something that's ostensibly useful and it ends up getting used to do something abusive. That is in play here as well.
I have no idea what's in Cuban's head. But, it's a worthwhile point that, even if net neutrality stays as it has been, Trump's people will be in charge of enforcing the regulations. It's a valid point that changing how this tech sector is defined such that government has more authority over it is giving Trump's people more influence over how the sector is run. I think Mr. Bode has made a strong case that Trump's people are not to be counted on to enforce the rules in ways consistent with what most of us want. We can't go around thinking that, since someone whose views on the topic were more appealing was in charge when the rule was implemented that somehow that cements how it will be used when the next guy comes along. It doesn't. We give the government some authority and the person in charge right now will use it as he sees fit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the regulation isn't the same as the goal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the regulation isn't the same as the goal
Actually, the headline of the article is the Cuban is clueless about NN rules. But, at least part of what Cuban is saying is that redefining the sector (reclassifying broadband services under Title II) gives the government more authority to regulate how the internet runs (that reclassification is not limited to NN) and that the people doing that regulation are not always going to be the people that pro-NN folks want in charge.
The narrow point is that NN may be a worthwhile good. The broader point is that regulation isn't as a straightforward good, because it gives government more authority, which we then have no assurance that it will use in the way that we want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the regulation isn't the same as the goal
I disagree with some of your conclusions but it is truly a pleasure to read the thought, care, and well made arguments you put into writing your post. You have my respect sir.
I agree with you in part that anytime the government exerts rules over something, they necessarily have to have some power over it and there is the chance for abuse of that power in the future.
That being said, in this instance, the FCC already has this power as evidenced by the fact that ISPs started out regulated under Title II, were then reclassified, and have now returned to being classified under Title II, all by the FCC. This has been reinforced by the courts who stated the FCC has the legal power and authority to classify ISPs however they wish. The ability to implement net neutrality rules is merely a consequence of their overall power over ISPs. But it is important to note that this control is only over ISPs, not the internet at large.
I do agree with you overall, a better solution is needed in the long run, but I don't see any reason why today's net neutrality rules can't co-exist with that better solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich Guys Without Clues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
come up with a word and make it mean whatever you want it to and argue your position with it. the resulting arguments get hilarious!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone here??
The telecom industry has been buying and selling each other BACK AND FORTH and making things Complicated for years..
WHO owns WHOM, is appropriate..
ANd the phone system has been subsidized for YEARS..the Gov, even PAID the corps to run lines OUT TO those country folks and small towns..
NO development in this nation has EVER been done, without Gov. backing. EVERY TIME the Corps have STOPPED advancing/improving things the GOV. has had to initiate (give money) to the CORPS to get them to DO SOMETHING..
I just Lost a GREAT Frig, 40 years old, STILL working, but the Door gasket CAN NOT be replaced. and a custom one would cost ALMOST 1/2 the price of a new one..
Bought a new one, and DO YOU THINK it will last 40 years?? is it Fixable? Can you recharge the Gas??
You could with my OLD one..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a nutshell
UNTIL!
Remember, government regulation of neutrality is not the goal. Market force regulation is. The more healthy the markets are, the less power the government needs to correct them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In a nutshell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In a nutshell
They don't always need to be as visible as they need to be here, but effective regulation is the only way to ensure that markets stay competitive and free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In a nutshell
Less power will never become no power.
See Federalist 51... if men were angels, and all that. The consumer protection function of government is an unfortunate side effect of human nature, but a healthy degree of competition uses selfish human interest to check some of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When thinking about these things just remember that free markets and capitalism are anithetical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vested Interests and Mesh Networks.
Back about 2000, Microsoft was saying that it wasn't a monopolist, because there was Open-Source. That was intended to be a kind of cynical evasion, However, as it turned out, by God, there was Open Source. We need a new model of telecommunications which is something like Open Source, and which does not rely particularly on businessmen.
We need to think in terms of line-of-sight mesh wireless networks. Mesh wireless is highly competitive, to the point that it doesn't work as a service business model. It has to be run on a non-profit basis, with each user owning his own equipment. Below is a link to the technical report for MIT Project Roofnet. However, the report excluded the most important things. The important points are these: 1) a non-profit organization, a school-- it happened to be MIT, but it could equally well be the local grade school-- set up base nodes on its own campus; 2) it distributed local node devices to its own students, on terms they could easily afford; and 3) it let the local-node users attend to physically installing the things. That was in 2003.
Equipment is considerably better and cheaper now. Back in the 1960's, when I was a kid in grade school, the school routinely distributed tree seedlings, with instructions to plant them somewhere. It was a cheap and effective way of re-foresting the city. The relevant foundation passes out seven million trees a year, of which five million are actually planted. Let us say, a hundred-dollar wireless unit on every rooftop, which is cheap compared to cable television, and find ways to ensure that people who cannot afford the hundred dollars get a unit for free. Distribute the things through the school system, on the pretext that kids need them for homework. You give one free to any kid which is eligible for Free School Lunch. However, of course, once the machine is in place, everyone in the family can used it, and the WiFi b-band will probably cover the neighbors as well. Spotty cellphone coverage is a consequence of a commercial business trying to see how few base stations it can get away with installing. With any luck, you would get people buying expensive models of wireless relays to prove that they were not welfare recipients. What we need is a "social compact" that every house shall have a wireless relay. "Millions for Defense, but not one Cent for Tribute!"
-------------------------------------------------
https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~rtm/roofnet-b. pdf
https://meraki.cisco.com/blog/2010/02/7-years-after-roofnet-mit-and-csail-choose-meraki-for-wirel ess-lan/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roofnet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbor_Day_Foundation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vested Interests and Mesh Networks.
Unfortunately, a link in such a network has, and will always have less capacity that a single fiber, and if an intermediate link will be serving the needs of multiple users. Note also that you cannot run multiple links directly between the same two points in the network, and so the system will not scale up. Anybody providing trunk capacity between two or more population centers has gone over to fiber because they can run hundreds or thousands of parallel fibers down a single duct, or over poles.
A mesh network, where it is possible to have line of site between nodes to reach a fiber or copper is useful in low population density remote areas, but cannot deal with apartment blocks, or even high density urban areas, as everybody down a line of site is sharing the same limited capacity. Even where it is useful, do not expect to stream higher definition video streams except when only few users are using a common link to the fiber or copper connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Vested Interests and Mesh Networks.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131025/08383625015/bruce-schneier-feudal-internet-how-to-f ight-it.shtml#c154
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160816/05532635253/google-fiber-hasnt-hit-snag -just-evolving.shtml#c190
If your equipment supports angular resolution of a degree or so, you might have parallel data strems running twenty feet apart for five hundred feet. That was the essential finding of Roofnet, that if the data paths were merely lines on the map between nodes, you could create enough of them to control congestion.
My primary concerns do not have to do with high-resolution video streaming. I am more interested in the first, say, 250-500 kbits. I've watched videos which had been compressed down to about 130 megabytes/hr, that is, 300 kbits, and of course they had "artifacts," but they were still good enough to follow the story. From what I can discover, the driving limit if internet video seems to be people who want to watch football over the internet. I know that Mark Cuban takes the view that sports are the most profitable thing to broadcast, because they age se fast, and they don't develope used/secondary markets, the way movies do, and that is why he owns sports teams.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny how people both for and against it think Trump will be profiting from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Tired Old ISP Talking Point
Ifi you don't like Google, there's Microsoft Bing: http://www.bing.com/
A click will take you there.
If you don't like Netflix, there's YouTube.
If I click on your website, you've got a fair chance, and it's yours to blow.
A lot of my Amazon orders seem to get jobbed out to Google, WalMart/Sams's Club, Costco, etc. Naturally, I have looked into the possibility of dealing with the people who are actually delivering the goods. When Amazon orders arrive with Google tape on them, I donn't understand in logistic terms where they have been, or who would get access to my VISA number if I ordered direct. Google doesn't seem to understand that with money and mechandise, you have to be transparent. Costco seems to have a messed-up website which doesn't work if you haven't got the latest new browser. The same for Target, and a bunch of grocery stores. You cannot go blaming Amazon for the fact that your own website will only work with JavaScript or whatever. That's a bit like the bricks-and-mortar shopkeeper who declared that he would only deal with customers wearing three-inch high heels and fishnet pantyhose, and who wondered why he was going out of business. WalMart has difficulty accepting that people need to get things by mail-order, and keeps telling one to go to the store. They do carry some of this stuff for mail order, but it's back-channel. Someone sets up a little company, which is ostensibly a corner store or something like that, takes orders on Amazon, and passes them to Wal-Mart for fulfillment. In effect, you have all these people whom Amazon is saving from their own stupidity, only Amazon will naturally only do that on orders placed through Amazon.
None of the big internet companies are truly monopolists, because there is always someone else, only a mouse-click away.
You cannot fix an internet-access problem by just clicking on a link. It's much more complicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]