"walled garden or no garden, which do you say is better?"
Telling people they need to choose Facebook's way or get nothing at all is a false choice.
Facebook doesn't operate in a vacuum, there's a huge amount of subsidized services being proposed that give access to the REAL Internet (Microsoft just announced the deployment of White Space broadband to 500,000 villages, Google just announced free Wi-Fi at train stations).
Because you don't like what Facebook's proposing doesn't mean you're effectively telling India's poor to go to hell.
There's an endless number of ISPs doing this now. Wire a few high-end developments, then market the hell out of "gigabit" speeds even though a few hundred or thousand (out of millions) of your customers can actually even get it.
I only tend to see CNN when at the gym or airport, and even though I know they suck, it startles me to realize just how BAD they really are. Same for all the cable news.
Right. Except there is ABSOLUTELY NO REAL INDICATION of any carrier seriously scaling back investment due to net neutrality. None. Short term or long. It was a bunch of crying and hand waving over some very basic rules of the road prohibiting anti-competitive behavior.
And consumers aren't necessarily opposed to usage-based pricing. They're opposed to what the broadband industry is currently doing: which is taking already expensive existing flat-rate pricing and layering it with entirely new caps and overages.
Or in Comcast's case charging these users an additional $30 to avoid these overages.
Nobody would oppose real value-driven usage-based pricing, since most people would probably pay $10 a month for broadband. But the industry won't offer that kind of pricing for obvious reasons.
If there are any inefficiencies in pricing its the fault of the ISPs. Find one that actually is interested in letting your grandmother pay $5 a month for the actual bandwidth she uses (checking The Weather Channel thrice weekly and e-mail). Contrary to what they claim, nobody is stopping them from offering real value pricing.
"In Québec, where Vidéotron operates, if you're using Bell Internet as your ISP, you can remove all caps for an extra $10/month (depending on you 'services package' (TV, Phone, etc)."
Yes, having a normal, unrestricted connection as a premium option is every ISP exec's pipe dream. Comcast here in the States is now testing an option whereby you pay a $30 premium if you want to dodge a 300 GB cap (with $10 per 50 GB overages).
Well but everybody uses caching for efficiency's sake. It's what Netflix's Open Connect CDN is all about. But I'm not sure that automatically economically justifies imposing an entirely new system of carrier middleman where this traffic becomes cap exempt.
Understand that many people (especially those whose primarily interactions is with the nastier agencies like the NSA) want to believe the government is ALWAYS acting with malicious intent. So to them, that sentence says the exact opposite, and suggests the FCC could be pushing manufacturers themselves to ban the firmware.
It's tomato, tomahto depending on your political beliefs and what part of the government you're used to dealing with.
Re: Re: Re: Things are as bad as they were proported to be
"It doesn't matter in the slightest what the intention is."
Absolutely it does. If the INTENTION isn't malicious, it's much more likely you can get the government to listen to reason and change the wording during the NPRM.
If the intention IS malicious, they're much less likely to field public input since the government heart wants...what the government heart wants.
Re: Things are as bad as they were proported to be
"I take issue with saying this is being blown out of proportion."
Yeah I'm really not saying this is being blown out of proportion.
I'm only taking issue with websites that reported that these rules were final (when this is an in-process NPRM), and those claiming the FCC is INTENTIONALLY trying to ban all third-party custom firmware.
Totally agree that the vague wording could be a HUGE problem.
People still believe the FCC is intentionally being malicious here, though I've been picking the brains of FCC-focused lawyers who claim that's conspiratorial thinking. If the FCC is engaged in a Machiavellian plot to intentionally ban all third-party firmware, I imagine that should make itself apparent pretty soon.
At which point I'll write up a follow up post admitting I'm a total sucker.
On the post: Facebook Hopes Renaming Internet.org App Will Shut Net Neutrality Critics Up
Re: can you really complain about free?
Telling people they need to choose Facebook's way or get nothing at all is a false choice.
Facebook doesn't operate in a vacuum, there's a huge amount of subsidized services being proposed that give access to the REAL Internet (Microsoft just announced the deployment of White Space broadband to 500,000 villages, Google just announced free Wi-Fi at train stations).
Because you don't like what Facebook's proposing doesn't mean you're effectively telling India's poor to go to hell.
On the post: Cox Sues Tempe, Arizona For Its Nefarious Plan To Bring Google Fiber To Town
Re: Cox has only advertised 1gig speeds
On the post: The Weather Channel Finally Gets The Message: Announces Plan To Actually Cover...The Weather
Re:
On the post: The Weather Channel Finally Gets The Message: Announces Plan To Actually Cover...The Weather
Re: Who is watching this?
On the post: FCC's Pai Desperately Tries To Pretend He Was Right About Net Neutrality Rules Killing Broadband Investment
Re:
On the post: Unions Want Verizon Investigated For Neglecting Taxpayer-Funded Broadband Networks, But Nobody Cares
Re:
On the post: Unions Want Verizon Investigated For Neglecting Taxpayer-Funded Broadband Networks, But Nobody Cares
Re:
On the post: Utterly Incoherent Wall Street Journal Missive Blames Netflix For, Well, Everything
Re: A bigger problem with his statement
On the post: Utterly Incoherent Wall Street Journal Missive Blames Netflix For, Well, Everything
Re: Re: Re: Re: Glenn
On the post: Utterly Incoherent Wall Street Journal Missive Blames Netflix For, Well, Everything
Re: Usage based pricing
Or in Comcast's case charging these users an additional $30 to avoid these overages.
Nobody would oppose real value-driven usage-based pricing, since most people would probably pay $10 a month for broadband. But the industry won't offer that kind of pricing for obvious reasons.
On the post: Utterly Incoherent Wall Street Journal Missive Blames Netflix For, Well, Everything
Re:
On the post: Utterly Incoherent Wall Street Journal Missive Blames Netflix For, Well, Everything
Re:
On the post: Videotron Tests Neutrality In Canada: Biggest Music Apps Now Cap Exempt
Re: Analogy or Anal Oh Gee
On the post: Videotron Tests Neutrality In Canada: Biggest Music Apps Now Cap Exempt
Re: Luckily, I don't have to use Vidéotron.
Yes, having a normal, unrestricted connection as a premium option is every ISP exec's pipe dream. Comcast here in the States is now testing an option whereby you pay a $30 premium if you want to dodge a 300 GB cap (with $10 per 50 GB overages).
On the post: Videotron Tests Neutrality In Canada: Biggest Music Apps Now Cap Exempt
Re: Well, no.
On the post: Videotron Tests Neutrality In Canada: Biggest Music Apps Now Cap Exempt
Re:
On the post: No, The FCC Is Not (Intentionally) Trying To Kill Third-Party Wi-Fi Router Firmware
Re: You forgot to underline something
It's tomato, tomahto depending on your political beliefs and what part of the government you're used to dealing with.
On the post: No, The FCC Is Not (Intentionally) Trying To Kill Third-Party Wi-Fi Router Firmware
Re: Re: Re: Things are as bad as they were proported to be
Absolutely it does. If the INTENTION isn't malicious, it's much more likely you can get the government to listen to reason and change the wording during the NPRM.
If the intention IS malicious, they're much less likely to field public input since the government heart wants...what the government heart wants.
On the post: No, The FCC Is Not (Intentionally) Trying To Kill Third-Party Wi-Fi Router Firmware
Re: Deadline has been extended
On the post: No, The FCC Is Not (Intentionally) Trying To Kill Third-Party Wi-Fi Router Firmware
Re: Things are as bad as they were proported to be
Yeah I'm really not saying this is being blown out of proportion.
I'm only taking issue with websites that reported that these rules were final (when this is an in-process NPRM), and those claiming the FCC is INTENTIONALLY trying to ban all third-party custom firmware.
Totally agree that the vague wording could be a HUGE problem.
People still believe the FCC is intentionally being malicious here, though I've been picking the brains of FCC-focused lawyers who claim that's conspiratorial thinking. If the FCC is engaged in a Machiavellian plot to intentionally ban all third-party firmware, I imagine that should make itself apparent pretty soon.
At which point I'll write up a follow up post admitting I'm a total sucker.
Next >>