The question is "are you against it because he's 14, or are you against it because he's a cheater?"
I think that regardless of age, if the activity isn't acceptable, then it isn't acceptable.
If the guy was PewDiePie instead, would you feel the same way? Or is he old enough that he would deserve it?
For that matter, let's reverse it. Why can a 14 year old upload to YouTube? Can he in fact enter into the contract without his parents permission? If the parents have to give permission, would they be liable?
The problem is "not enough connectivity". That isn't a real NN issue. If all traffic is treated the same, regardless of the size of the pipe, then NN is not violated.
If the ISPs gave preference to (say) Netflix traffic and downgrades everything else, that would violate NN. But just not having a big enough pipe isn't by itself a NN violation.
It is a different problem, and one that should be addressed separately.
The issue is connection ratios, the ratio of end user speed versus network connectivity. There is no regulation on this stuff, and there really should be. It's a question of consumer protection and not of NN.
While both of the laws have a certain vagueness about them, they both are facing the same problem: Some websites are profiting from prostitution and sex trafficking, be it minors or not. They are trying to address that issue.
It's pointless to list all of the criminal offenses on the book against prostitution when online sites and (a) exempt because of the broad nature of section 230, and (b) generally not getting enough information about users to figure out who they are, and (c) generally they object to any move that would require them to know their customers / writers / contributors on their sites.
Section 230 alone creates a situation where a website can do what a print paper could not do. It creates something that a radio or TV station could not do, which is allow others to use their media outlet to promote prostitution without any responsibility.
Like it or not, section 230 is overbroad and has allowed a small but significant number of sites to profit from the sex trade, where no other form of media can legally do the same. It was only a matter of time before someone started to look for ways to address this legal black hole.
Pai is actually playing everyone against themselves, and it's working out for him pretty well.
NN supporters have a very hard time producing quantifiable evidence that their beloved cause "works" any better than the internet worked before NN rules were put in place. So every time the support degrades into a "look at this ISP in Portugal who is actually offering top ups" for mobile users, and not home users.
Anti-NN have an equally hard time to prove anything, because the period of time since NN went into force is too short. Companies are still spending the money planned three to five years ago. Any drop in investment or pulling back on projects will take time to show up.
In the meantime, Pai is letting everyone eat themselves. Those who are not eating are getting poking online, and that in turn leads to a self-immolating frenzy.
Two things are clear, however: 1) there isn't much proof the NN rules have really improved anything, and 2) if the FCC was in it's mandate to move everything to title II, then they have the mandate to reverse that choice.
Meanwhile, you can all go eat yourselves, I guess. It makes Pai smile.
Paul, I think even Ninja got the point, that since there are many methods by which content is currently available "without right", that using torrent traffic or use as the only metric is sort of silly.
It would be akin to using only OTA TV as the only method by which people can legally enjoy stuff.
The availability of legal alternatives doesn't have a direct correlation to reductions in piracy. The whole thing from Brazil in regards to netflix showed that.
So no shit, there is no correlation so there is no correlation.
Except it isn't a conflict of interest. IPTV travels over the same network, but isn't "internet" traffic. There is nothing in net neutrality that defines how a company can use it's own network gear or other non-internet services they can offer.
Comcast is moving from "cable" to IP TV, which delivers the same cable TV product but using digital transmission and is totally addressable on a one by one basis. It's sort of the same thing offered via FIOS, or Bell offers in Canada with it's "Fibe" product.
A 20% drop in torrent activity could be just as easily attributed to Kodi boxes and streaming sites as much as anything else. There is no provable cause and effect in play here.
Tightening prescriptions and distribution would be a big step. Limiting the number of pharmacies that can stock it, limiting it's distribution, and having the product secured in a manner that discourages brute force holdups to steal it would go a long way to getting it off the street.
Tighter restrictions on it's use would also go a long way to keeping people from getting addicted. The fewer people with marginal issues or issues that could be addressed by non-addicting medication that don't end up taking it would certainly have longer term implications.
"Really, patents don't have much to do with the way companies use underhanded tactics to get maximum profit during the patented period? Tactics that have a large amount to do with the current problem. You believe that?"
I think that as a more widely available generic, we might be facing an even greater crisis. Prices would drop, usage would likely go up, and more people would be addicted.
The truth is that it's a medication that should be stringently controlled. The government(s) have failed.
If you mix apples and oranges, you can come up with any answer you like.
Comcast is a good example. Everyone says "look, they are investing even with NN!". Those people, however, would be ignoring WHY they are investing. Comcast is trying to get away from their legacy cable system and instead move to an IPTV model. In many ways it's cheaper for them to do, more secure, allows them to offer an almost endless number of channels, and (unsurprisingly) locks customers into a proprietary X1 cable box.
To do this, they need to upgrade their network to be able to stream (without interruption) 5M per stream per customer. As a result, they are moving forward with plenty of investment as they move to replace their aging cable system.
NN or not, they would be making the same investments because it's the path they chose 5 or more years ago.
The truth is 2 years is too short of a period of time to see a real difference. Telecom runs in a much longer cycle time for their equipment and network. Plans are made years ahead and they are executed and the money spent over the period of time.
The real answer will come 5 to 10 years from now, when companies may choose to stand pat with their current technology for a couple of more years rather than moving forward with new investments. It may show up in ISPs not wanting to add more peering or connectivity to their networks, or reserving a higher percentage for their IPTV and telephony applications rather than assigning it to general internet use.
2 years is too short of a time to see the real effects. By the time you do see them, it may be too late to fix them.
Facebook and Google both make their money in the same manner. They take your personal information, every scrap of information they know about you, every site that they have seen you visit, and they use that to decide which ads you will see. Selling that demographic and interest information is their business.
In both cases, the real solution is separation. Facebook's ad system should not be able to see any of your personal information (except what can be gleaned from IP address and browser info) to determine what ads to show you. The data that they have related to your facebook account should not be allowed to be used by their ads department.
Google is in the same boat. Their ad system depends heavily and almost entirely on feeding back your searches and your site visits into a profile they can profit from.
3rd party trackers on a website are always a bad thing, especially when there is no way to opt out or block them.
The premise of the article is good, but results given seem little speculative and narrow.
1) data collection in the past (pre-internet) was made only at your points of contact, when you bought something, as an example. Now companies like Amazon track your every search, know exactly the things you "like". Visit a webpage with an Amazon ad on it and they will know things that interest you. The internet creates a ton more contact points. Social media takes it one step further, with people literally pouring out all of themselves to feed the machine. They know where you go, when you go, etc.
2) We tend to self-sort on social media, following and tolerating people we like and agree with, and generally ignoring those we don't. We tend to live in echo chambers that reinforce the things we believe in, because that is what we hear.
3) Using Wikipedia as an example seems like a long way to get to a weak point. Facebook is immensely profitable because they deliver very filtered, very controllable eyeballs to advertisers. They are so specific that they are getting in trouble for it because some of the options can be used in very racist ways (like not showing rental ads to black people). Facebook's massive profitability comes from turning your personal information into a commodity. Like it or not, you are the product being sold.
The article basically is a big case of "nothing to see here, just a major plane crash, keep moving, nothing to see here". It seems like a setup for future articles that are going to be based on these three questionable statements.
The forbearing is easy enough to remove, no more difficult than the process Pai is using right now drop Title II entirely.
The forbearing is mostly related to hammering the "1st century internet" square peg into the title II round hole, and exposed it as being relatively inappropriate. Really, there should be a Title XYZ (whatever) to cover the internet with congress defining it and passing it into law.
As for taxation, they really didn't have all that much to say, your buddy Wyden was a big part of passing an internet tax free law that (for the moment) makes the title II tax issues, at least on the federal level, moot. However, the powers to regulate at solidly in title II, and the forbearance on such issues could be easily removed.
Again, the problem at hand is that it's not an act of congress that significantly changed the internet's standing, it's an act of Wheeler. from zero to Title II standing is a big jump, removing self imposed restrictions isn't anywhere near as big a jump.
For what it's worth, the FCC specifically danced around the whole pole law thing. Imagine if they had handled that. I guess the problem of competition is at least a little bit on them.
Moving internet services to title II is pretty heavy handed, not for what it has done so far but what it opens up.
Title II gives the FCC incredible direct power over the internet, from the ability to tax connections to specifying reasonable rates and defining legal content. The implication is that the FCC could (but has not yet) decide that torrent traffic as an example is an unacceptable or illegal protocol, and demand all title II ISPs block it. It would be within their power.
Title II also allows for direct taxation of internet services in the same manner as other public utilities. It could mean, as an example, that a state could impose a "per meg" usage tax that would have to be applied to all users of the ISP utility.
True net neutrality (and proper classification of ISPs) should come from Congress. The critters have been remarkably silent on the whole thing. They have the power to amend the law or write new law to address the issue. Title II was the only square hole large enough to jam the internet shaped peg into. It's not a perfect fit, and the potential for future abuses from government(s) isn't very appealing.
Wow, talk about blaming the wrong things for the outcome.
Patents really don't have much to do with it in reality. People are dying of overdoses not because of a patent, but because they are addicted to it and are unable or unwilling to get help for it.
Moving from Oxy to heroin may be a price issue, but at that point, you are just down the tube of choosing your own pain. Plenty of people OD and die from oxy. Lower the price (or make it generic and even more widely available) and you will just displace heroin as their death of choice.
Huge numbers of people are taking it without a prescription, mostly though pill mills, prescription diversions, forgeries, and of course armed robberies of drug stores. The number of non-prescription users generally far exceeds the number of legit users.
Making it generic and even more widely available wouldn't fix the issues.
The true issues are (a) the US is addicted to legal and illegal opiods, and (b) the US border is so porous that tons of illegal drugs such as heroin are flooding the marketplace.
Work on B, limit the use of opiods as prescription medication, and work on getting those addicted off the drugs. Then patents aren't even an issue. Worrying about patents in all of this is deck chairs on the Titanic material.
Google is getting away from Fiber because they figured out that they can't make money at it, certainly not at the same level as saving 25% tax by shipping the cash offshore as "licensing fees" and "services rendered" by Irish companies.
5% return over a decade is nothing compared to 25% today.
I suggest you look at the ARS Technica article. Most of the increases are attributed to only two companies, and in the case of Comcast, it is work related to making their network ready for the IPTV X1 project. They are essentially moving off of the limits of "cable" and moving to an IP based delivery system, which requires more bandwidth up and down their internal network to support.
The hands off approach has applied since the internet was first turned commercial in nature. We went from zero to widely available with the vast majority of Americans hooked up in more than one way (wireline and wireless) in less than 2 decades.
The results are clear.
"Pai said things that are historically wrong."
Not seeing that. NN was discussed and tosses a couple of times, and aside from tagging internet services as "information services", the FCC applied no specific regulation to the internet until the title II and NN situation. There were attempts, but those were dropped each time.
"Except, by law, the FCC can't just swing back and forth. By law (and Supreme Court mandate), the FCC cannot changes any agency rules in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner -- meaning they need to show strong evidence for why the change is necessary. This is why I think Pai knows that the rules he's putting in place won't survive the inevitable court challenge. Because he has to show that there have been significant and meaningful changes in the market since the 2015 order, which has already been approved by the courts."
I don't think any specific change needs to be shown, only an indication that the current regulations have done little to improve things in the slightest.
I also think that as connection speeds continue to rise as the incumbent players maintain and upgrade their networks in the normal manner, the questions that were "addressed" by NN are slowly going away. Remember, NN is essentially the Netflix rules package, created because ISPs were resistant to adding tons of bandwidth to support someone else's business model.
Many of the ISPs are now increasing their own internal network capacity as they move towards delivering TV as IPTV rather than cable, and they see the need to raise their own network capacity.
Internet speeds to US homes has, on average nearly doubled in 2 years.
So there are plenty of changes, and the trend of change for network speed is up.
Put another way, it's hard to point to anything specifically that says "it's working". At this point, it's not that hard for Pai to make the point that putting internet services under title II was nothing more than a power grab that isn't specifically supported by legislation. Aside from taking control of the internet, as it were, Title II hasn't accomplished anything.
An interesting article Mike. You clearly put your heart into it. Your anger shows through pretty clearly.
However, your anger is more than a little misdirected.
The whole Brand X thing is a red herring. It's not about net neutrality or content or anything like that, it is strictly about the question of can a cable company be forced to share it's network with third party ISPs who want access to their customers but who do not want to build their own network. The answer from SCOTUS was no.
Classifying cable internet as an information service exempted them from that requirement. Many years later, the FCC also classified internet services provided by a phone company in the same manner, equaling up what had been a somewhat uneven playing field.
Other than the move by Wheeler to put internet services under Title II, there really hasn't been a whole lot much of anything from the FCC in regards to the internet in terms of regulation. There has been a lot of poking and prodding, a lot of discussion and public ridicule, but generally things have been pretty quiet without too much in the way of actual regulation. Lots of talk, little real action.
Aside from pitching money at the problem, Congress has been equally quiet.
Ajit Pai certainly glosses over that there has been discussion back and forth over the years. The concept of Net Neutrality has been around since at least June 2002 as a term.
Now, there is the question of investment by the major companies in their networks. ARS Technica has a pretty long article on the subject.
I do find they are working very hard to ignore a few things and twist some words. While they show a "2013-2014 v 2015-2016" increase overall of 5.3%, it doesn't consider a couple of major things. Existing players with large networks must maintain and upgrade them from time to time to keep with the current technology. Comcast, as an example, is making significant investments related to their rolling out of the X1 box and platform for their cable side product. That is IPTV, so it requires that investment is made in many areas to build out their network to support that. It's not specifically internet related, except to say that they are piggy backing their cable product onto their IP network.
ARS Technica also ignores that many of the smaller companies have had significant cutbacks in their investments. A third of the companies reporting had a drop in investment.
So while investment is on the increase (slightly), much of it can be attributed to issues not related to internet service. In fact, the top two "increasing" represent nearly 65% of the net increase.
What you aren't seeing is huge investments from new players. That list they have doesn't show Google (who never reports details in this sort of thing) who went from hell bent for leather investing in fiber to "taking a break, thanks".
So I think that you are being a little melodramatic in saying the Pai is a liar. He is a political guy who is very good at choosing his words and battles. Just like you do from time to time, he leaves out things that don't support his point of view or that could create a point of debate, and highlights the information that he wants you to consume and accept as fact. He is talented in that manner.
I also agree with some posters that personal level attacks on Pai are both counter productive and appear to be leading to nutjobs coming out of the woodwork to create real problems. Pizza bombing his house is amusing but pointless, putting up information about his family is evil and I think deserves a post here on Techdirt to explain just how stupid it really is. It's not about you, me, or Pai as a person, it's about the ideas and the concepts. When you get down to personally labeling him a liar, you have stopped debating concepts and started to debate people. NN isn't about any of that.
On the post: Epic Sues 14 Year Old It Accuses Of Cheating In Videogames After He Counternotices a DMCA On His YouTube Video
Re: Re: Now you're for cheaters, besides pirates.
I think that regardless of age, if the activity isn't acceptable, then it isn't acceptable.
If the guy was PewDiePie instead, would you feel the same way? Or is he old enough that he would deserve it?
For that matter, let's reverse it. Why can a 14 year old upload to YouTube? Can he in fact enter into the contract without his parents permission? If the parents have to give permission, would they be liable?
It goes both ways.
Think carefully about your answer!
On the post: ISPs Are Already Using The FCC's Planned Net Neutrality Repeal To Harm Consumers
NN: The tail wagging the dog
If the ISPs gave preference to (say) Netflix traffic and downgrades everything else, that would violate NN. But just not having a big enough pipe isn't by itself a NN violation.
It is a different problem, and one that should be addressed separately.
The issue is connection ratios, the ratio of end user speed versus network connectivity. There is no regulation on this stuff, and there really should be. It's a question of consumer protection and not of NN.
NN doesn't cover it.
On the post: Seattle Newspaper Files Petition To Peel Back Layers Of Court-Aided Surveillance Secrecy
They are not directly subject of the surveillance.
They are trying to push the public's right to know, but the courts have long held that this "right" as it were has it's limitations.
So just not seeing where they expect this one to go.
On the post: House Internet Censorship Bill Is Just Like The Senate Bill, Except Worse
It's pointless to list all of the criminal offenses on the book against prostitution when online sites and (a) exempt because of the broad nature of section 230, and (b) generally not getting enough information about users to figure out who they are, and (c) generally they object to any move that would require them to know their customers / writers / contributors on their sites.
Section 230 alone creates a situation where a website can do what a print paper could not do. It creates something that a radio or TV station could not do, which is allow others to use their media outlet to promote prostitution without any responsibility.
Like it or not, section 230 is overbroad and has allowed a small but significant number of sites to profit from the sex trade, where no other form of media can legally do the same. It was only a matter of time before someone started to look for ways to address this legal black hole.
On the post: House Internet Censorship Bill Is Just Like The Senate Bill, Except Worse
Re: Re: Re: Hey there, "Rapnel" -- or should I call you "SlinkySlim" or "SinkaJaw"
On the post: Absent Facts To Support Repealing Net Neutrality, Ajit Pai Wildly Attacking Hollywood Tweeters
NN supporters have a very hard time producing quantifiable evidence that their beloved cause "works" any better than the internet worked before NN rules were put in place. So every time the support degrades into a "look at this ISP in Portugal who is actually offering top ups" for mobile users, and not home users.
Anti-NN have an equally hard time to prove anything, because the period of time since NN went into force is too short. Companies are still spending the money planned three to five years ago. Any drop in investment or pulling back on projects will take time to show up.
In the meantime, Pai is letting everyone eat themselves. Those who are not eating are getting poking online, and that in turn leads to a self-immolating frenzy.
Two things are clear, however: 1) there isn't much proof the NN rules have really improved anything, and 2) if the FCC was in it's mandate to move everything to title II, then they have the mandate to reverse that choice.
Meanwhile, you can all go eat yourselves, I guess. It makes Pai smile.
On the post: No Shit: Groundbreaking Study Shows That Giving People 12% Of The Video Content They Want Doesn't Magically Stop Piracy
Re: Re: Missed
It would be akin to using only OTA TV as the only method by which people can legally enjoy stuff.
The availability of legal alternatives doesn't have a direct correlation to reductions in piracy. The whole thing from Brazil in regards to netflix showed that.
So no shit, there is no correlation so there is no correlation.
On the post: The FCC's Attack On Net Neutrality Is Based Entirely On Debunked Lobbyist Garbage Data
Re: Re:
Comcast is moving from "cable" to IP TV, which delivers the same cable TV product but using digital transmission and is totally addressable on a one by one basis. It's sort of the same thing offered via FIOS, or Bell offers in Canada with it's "Fibe" product.
It's not an internet service, so no NN issues.
On the post: No Shit: Groundbreaking Study Shows That Giving People 12% Of The Video Content They Want Doesn't Magically Stop Piracy
Missed
On the post: How Patents Have Contributed To The Opioid Crisis
Re: Re:
Tighter restrictions on it's use would also go a long way to keeping people from getting addicted. The fewer people with marginal issues or issues that could be addressed by non-addicting medication that don't end up taking it would certainly have longer term implications.
"Really, patents don't have much to do with the way companies use underhanded tactics to get maximum profit during the patented period? Tactics that have a large amount to do with the current problem. You believe that?"
I think that as a more widely available generic, we might be facing an even greater crisis. Prices would drop, usage would likely go up, and more people would be addicted.
The truth is that it's a medication that should be stringently controlled. The government(s) have failed.
On the post: The FCC's Attack On Net Neutrality Is Based Entirely On Debunked Lobbyist Garbage Data
Comcast is a good example. Everyone says "look, they are investing even with NN!". Those people, however, would be ignoring WHY they are investing. Comcast is trying to get away from their legacy cable system and instead move to an IPTV model. In many ways it's cheaper for them to do, more secure, allows them to offer an almost endless number of channels, and (unsurprisingly) locks customers into a proprietary X1 cable box.
To do this, they need to upgrade their network to be able to stream (without interruption) 5M per stream per customer. As a result, they are moving forward with plenty of investment as they move to replace their aging cable system.
NN or not, they would be making the same investments because it's the path they chose 5 or more years ago.
The truth is 2 years is too short of a period of time to see a real difference. Telecom runs in a much longer cycle time for their equipment and network. Plans are made years ahead and they are executed and the money spent over the period of time.
The real answer will come 5 to 10 years from now, when companies may choose to stand pat with their current technology for a couple of more years rather than moving forward with new investments. It may show up in ISPs not wanting to add more peering or connectivity to their networks, or reserving a higher percentage for their IPTV and telephony applications rather than assigning it to general internet use.
2 years is too short of a time to see the real effects. By the time you do see them, it may be too late to fix them.
On the post: Everything That's Wrong With Social Media And Big Internet Companies: Part 1
Re: Re: Too Speculative and Narrow
Facebook and Google both make their money in the same manner. They take your personal information, every scrap of information they know about you, every site that they have seen you visit, and they use that to decide which ads you will see. Selling that demographic and interest information is their business.
In both cases, the real solution is separation. Facebook's ad system should not be able to see any of your personal information (except what can be gleaned from IP address and browser info) to determine what ads to show you. The data that they have related to your facebook account should not be allowed to be used by their ads department.
Google is in the same boat. Their ad system depends heavily and almost entirely on feeding back your searches and your site visits into a profile they can profit from.
3rd party trackers on a website are always a bad thing, especially when there is no way to opt out or block them.
On the post: Everything That's Wrong With Social Media And Big Internet Companies: Part 1
1) data collection in the past (pre-internet) was made only at your points of contact, when you bought something, as an example. Now companies like Amazon track your every search, know exactly the things you "like". Visit a webpage with an Amazon ad on it and they will know things that interest you. The internet creates a ton more contact points. Social media takes it one step further, with people literally pouring out all of themselves to feed the machine. They know where you go, when you go, etc.
2) We tend to self-sort on social media, following and tolerating people we like and agree with, and generally ignoring those we don't. We tend to live in echo chambers that reinforce the things we believe in, because that is what we hear.
3) Using Wikipedia as an example seems like a long way to get to a weak point. Facebook is immensely profitable because they deliver very filtered, very controllable eyeballs to advertisers. They are so specific that they are getting in trouble for it because some of the options can be used in very racist ways (like not showing rental ads to black people). Facebook's massive profitability comes from turning your personal information into a commodity. Like it or not, you are the product being sold.
The article basically is a big case of "nothing to see here, just a major plane crash, keep moving, nothing to see here". It seems like a setup for future articles that are going to be based on these three questionable statements.
On the post: Ajit Pai's Big Lie
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The forbearing is mostly related to hammering the "1st century internet" square peg into the title II round hole, and exposed it as being relatively inappropriate. Really, there should be a Title XYZ (whatever) to cover the internet with congress defining it and passing it into law.
As for taxation, they really didn't have all that much to say, your buddy Wyden was a big part of passing an internet tax free law that (for the moment) makes the title II tax issues, at least on the federal level, moot. However, the powers to regulate at solidly in title II, and the forbearance on such issues could be easily removed.
Again, the problem at hand is that it's not an act of congress that significantly changed the internet's standing, it's an act of Wheeler. from zero to Title II standing is a big jump, removing self imposed restrictions isn't anywhere near as big a jump.
For what it's worth, the FCC specifically danced around the whole pole law thing. Imagine if they had handled that. I guess the problem of competition is at least a little bit on them.
On the post: Ajit Pai's Big Lie
Re: Re:
Title II gives the FCC incredible direct power over the internet, from the ability to tax connections to specifying reasonable rates and defining legal content. The implication is that the FCC could (but has not yet) decide that torrent traffic as an example is an unacceptable or illegal protocol, and demand all title II ISPs block it. It would be within their power.
Title II also allows for direct taxation of internet services in the same manner as other public utilities. It could mean, as an example, that a state could impose a "per meg" usage tax that would have to be applied to all users of the ISP utility.
True net neutrality (and proper classification of ISPs) should come from Congress. The critters have been remarkably silent on the whole thing. They have the power to amend the law or write new law to address the issue. Title II was the only square hole large enough to jam the internet shaped peg into. It's not a perfect fit, and the potential for future abuses from government(s) isn't very appealing.
On the post: How Patents Have Contributed To The Opioid Crisis
Patents really don't have much to do with it in reality. People are dying of overdoses not because of a patent, but because they are addicted to it and are unable or unwilling to get help for it.
Moving from Oxy to heroin may be a price issue, but at that point, you are just down the tube of choosing your own pain. Plenty of people OD and die from oxy. Lower the price (or make it generic and even more widely available) and you will just displace heroin as their death of choice.
Huge numbers of people are taking it without a prescription, mostly though pill mills, prescription diversions, forgeries, and of course armed robberies of drug stores. The number of non-prescription users generally far exceeds the number of legit users.
Making it generic and even more widely available wouldn't fix the issues.
The true issues are (a) the US is addicted to legal and illegal opiods, and (b) the US border is so porous that tons of illegal drugs such as heroin are flooding the marketplace.
Work on B, limit the use of opiods as prescription medication, and work on getting those addicted off the drugs. Then patents aren't even an issue. Worrying about patents in all of this is deck chairs on the Titanic material.
On the post: Judge Backs AT&T, Comcast Nuisance Suit Against Google Fiber In Nashville
5% return over a decade is nothing compared to 25% today.
On the post: Ajit Pai's Big Lie
Re: Re: Slippery words at best
The hands off approach has applied since the internet was first turned commercial in nature. We went from zero to widely available with the vast majority of Americans hooked up in more than one way (wireline and wireless) in less than 2 decades.
The results are clear.
"Pai said things that are historically wrong."
Not seeing that. NN was discussed and tosses a couple of times, and aside from tagging internet services as "information services", the FCC applied no specific regulation to the internet until the title II and NN situation. There were attempts, but those were dropped each time.
"Have you looked at any mirror recently?"
Everyone morning, same guy waves back at me.
On the post: NY Attorney General Investigating Why Dead People Supported The FCC's Attack On Net Neutrality
Re: Re:
"Except, by law, the FCC can't just swing back and forth. By law (and Supreme Court mandate), the FCC cannot changes any agency rules in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner -- meaning they need to show strong evidence for why the change is necessary. This is why I think Pai knows that the rules he's putting in place won't survive the inevitable court challenge. Because he has to show that there have been significant and meaningful changes in the market since the 2015 order, which has already been approved by the courts."
I don't think any specific change needs to be shown, only an indication that the current regulations have done little to improve things in the slightest.
I also think that as connection speeds continue to rise as the incumbent players maintain and upgrade their networks in the normal manner, the questions that were "addressed" by NN are slowly going away. Remember, NN is essentially the Netflix rules package, created because ISPs were resistant to adding tons of bandwidth to support someone else's business model.
Many of the ISPs are now increasing their own internal network capacity as they move towards delivering TV as IPTV rather than cable, and they see the need to raise their own network capacity.
Internet speeds to US homes has, on average nearly doubled in 2 years.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/616210/average-internet-connection-speed-in-the-us/
So there are plenty of changes, and the trend of change for network speed is up.
Put another way, it's hard to point to anything specifically that says "it's working". At this point, it's not that hard for Pai to make the point that putting internet services under title II was nothing more than a power grab that isn't specifically supported by legislation. Aside from taking control of the internet, as it were, Title II hasn't accomplished anything.
On the post: Ajit Pai's Big Lie
Slippery words at best
However, your anger is more than a little misdirected.
The whole Brand X thing is a red herring. It's not about net neutrality or content or anything like that, it is strictly about the question of can a cable company be forced to share it's network with third party ISPs who want access to their customers but who do not want to build their own network. The answer from SCOTUS was no.
Classifying cable internet as an information service exempted them from that requirement. Many years later, the FCC also classified internet services provided by a phone company in the same manner, equaling up what had been a somewhat uneven playing field.
Other than the move by Wheeler to put internet services under Title II, there really hasn't been a whole lot much of anything from the FCC in regards to the internet in terms of regulation. There has been a lot of poking and prodding, a lot of discussion and public ridicule, but generally things have been pretty quiet without too much in the way of actual regulation. Lots of talk, little real action.
Aside from pitching money at the problem, Congress has been equally quiet.
Ajit Pai certainly glosses over that there has been discussion back and forth over the years. The concept of Net Neutrality has been around since at least June 2002 as a term.
Now, there is the question of investment by the major companies in their networks. ARS Technica has a pretty long article on the subject.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-accord ing-to-the-isps-themselves/
I do find they are working very hard to ignore a few things and twist some words. While they show a "2013-2014 v 2015-2016" increase overall of 5.3%, it doesn't consider a couple of major things. Existing players with large networks must maintain and upgrade them from time to time to keep with the current technology. Comcast, as an example, is making significant investments related to their rolling out of the X1 box and platform for their cable side product. That is IPTV, so it requires that investment is made in many areas to build out their network to support that. It's not specifically internet related, except to say that they are piggy backing their cable product onto their IP network.
ARS Technica also ignores that many of the smaller companies have had significant cutbacks in their investments. A third of the companies reporting had a drop in investment.
So while investment is on the increase (slightly), much of it can be attributed to issues not related to internet service. In fact, the top two "increasing" represent nearly 65% of the net increase.
What you aren't seeing is huge investments from new players. That list they have doesn't show Google (who never reports details in this sort of thing) who went from hell bent for leather investing in fiber to "taking a break, thanks".
So I think that you are being a little melodramatic in saying the Pai is a liar. He is a political guy who is very good at choosing his words and battles. Just like you do from time to time, he leaves out things that don't support his point of view or that could create a point of debate, and highlights the information that he wants you to consume and accept as fact. He is talented in that manner.
I also agree with some posters that personal level attacks on Pai are both counter productive and appear to be leading to nutjobs coming out of the woodwork to create real problems. Pizza bombing his house is amusing but pointless, putting up information about his family is evil and I think deserves a post here on Techdirt to explain just how stupid it really is. It's not about you, me, or Pai as a person, it's about the ideas and the concepts. When you get down to personally labeling him a liar, you have stopped debating concepts and started to debate people. NN isn't about any of that.
Next >>