Partly true. Not "reposts" but certainly links and quotes.
But TD offers references to other stories WITH re-interpretations, corrections, and different opinions shared, and hypocrisies exposed. You know, the things that this article points our are missing in the mainstream.
Basically, among the main value-adds of Techdirt is fixing the news that is broken. And TD also has a tremendous amount of original stories, original analysis, and fact checking as well.
So, I did "go figure", and it didn't look good on you.
"the volume of data associated with this content drives significant incremental investment in the network and the need to purchase more bandwidth in order to maintain the user experience and this must be funded" --Bend Broadband
"Right, but that's bullshit. U.S. residents already pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world; money that any earnings report will clearly illustrate is more than enough to offset what at this point is only modest network upgrades" -- Karl
It's not bullshit. You are conflating two things:
1) There is not enough competition, there is monopoly or duopoly, so ISPs abuse that power to charge high rents. That's also true.
2) More data traffic does not cost more money for the ISP. That's false. There are annual billions spent on infrastructure upgrades, equipment upgrades (CapEx), and truck rolls, energy use, network payments to Tier 1 carriers, staffing, maintenance (OpEx). The amounts spent are related to the amount of data traffic the network carries. MORE TRAFFIC COSTS MORE.
The problem you're feeling, as always, is just #1. US customers pay too much regardless of caps, and we do so because of a lack of viable competition.
Caps, by themselves, are not wrong. They are just a part of the service offering limiting how many trips you can make to the buffet table. If ISPs want to impose them, that's just their right as they design and shape their product.
When Taco Bell sells you a 12oz drink to go for $1...it could have been 16oz, or it could have been unlimited fountain drinks. The fact that they offered just 12oz at a buck is a cap, and it's not unfair. It's just the shape of that product offering.
What I'm saying here is very unpopular on this site, but be sure to understand me correctly:
a) YES, many ISPs are using caps in an anti-competitive way, to reduce the viability of competing video services that run OTT. This is wrong, an monopoly issue, and fodder for the FTC.
b) There is nothing inherently wrong with caps, and they even have a fundamental fairness and logic to them, in that: customers that use more should pay more, and should fund the next round of capacity investment.
c) Of course consumers, and Techdirt readers, don't like caps. Who wants a limit applied to them. But the discussion isn't about what we want or feel. It's about economics and policy.
d) Yes, caps limit innovation. But so does any resource that is not infinite. Bandwidth is NOT infinite, so the fact that a scarce resource constrains innovation is the correct outcome. It is not the only such limit. Things like Human Resources, money, waking hours, and available technology ALSO limit innovation. Doesn't make it wrong. In fact, much the opposite, treating a scarce resource as "free" would result in the wrong economic allocations.
e) I agree 100% with Karl that the ISP that caps traffic should not be allowed to exempt their own content from that cap. This is clearly an unfair monopoly practice of service-tying.
f) I agree that more competition would reduce the use of caps. More competition is needed.
g) Stop hating on caps. Start hating on any anti-competition use of caps.
"Right, but that's bullshit. U.S. residents already pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world; money that any earnings report will clearly illustrate is more than enough to offset what at this point is only modest network upgrades"
It's not bullshit. You are conflating two things:
1) There is not enough competition, there is monopoly or duopoly, so ISPs abuse that power to charge high rents. That's also true.
2) More data traffic does not cost more money for the ISP. That's false.
The problem, as always, is just #1. US customers pay too much regardless of caps, and we do so because of a lack of viable competition.
Caps, by themselves, are not wrong. They are just a part of the service offering limiting how many trips you can make to the buffet table. If ISPs want to impose them, that's just their right as they design and shape their product.
When Taco Bell sells you a 12oz drink to go for $1...it could have been 16oz, or it could have been unlimited fountain drinks. The fact that they offered just 12oz at a buck is a cap, and it's not unfair. It's just the shape of that product offering.
What I'm saying here is very unpopular on this site, but be sure to understand me correctly:
a) YES, many ISPs are using caps in an anti-competitive way, to reduce the viability of competing video services that run OTT. This is wrong, an monopoly issue, and fodder for the FTC.
b) There is nothing inherently wrong with caps, and they even have a fundamental fairness and logic to them, in that: customers that use more should pay more, and should fund the next round of capacity investment.
c) Of course consumers, and Techdirt readers, don't like caps. Who wants a limit applied to them. But the discussion isn't about what we want or feel. It's about economics and policy.
d) Yes, caps limit innovation. But so does any resource that is not infinite. Bandwidth is NOT infinite, so the fact that a scarce resource constrains innovation is the correct outcome. It is not the only such limit. Things like Human Resources, money, waking hours, and available technology ALSO limit innovation. Doesn't make it wrong. In fact, much the opposite, treating a scarce resource as "free" would result in the wrong economic allocations.
e) I agree 100% with Karl that the ISP that caps traffic should not be allowed to exempt their own content from that cap. This is clearly an unfair monopoly practice of service-tying.
f) I agree that more competition would reduce the use of caps. More competition is needed.
g) Stop hating on caps. Start hating on any anti-competition use of caps.
But Karl, if you slow down broadband enough, then people will need to drive hard drives around town in order to move content. At this point, using sneakernet, the road traffic is directly related to broadband speed and access.
I can't see anywhere where I "downplay risks". I merely say that uMich's assertion of "There are risks, so don't do it" negates a well-thought cost/benefit analysis. It also doesn't discuss some simple measures that can reduce that risk.
There absolutely are benefits that must be considered.
Also, the uMich risks are overstated. You see, hackers are scary because they can be anywhere in the world and attack your digital assets...but to go in your front door, thieves need to be physically present and risk physical arrest. But once they are physically present...
...what is the easier way to enter an IoT locked home? Hack the users phone to get at the user's IoT SmartThings base to hack the user's smartlock, or...ah...just break a window?
Wow. Usually this "descendants of musicians" stories revolve around a cast of ne'er-do-wells who pick through the ashes of their ancestors for the family jewels.
But this case offers a neat contrast: One descendant wants to actually WORK for his spoils, i.e. literally sing for his supper, while the others want to prevent him from actually performing art that the paying public will enjoy.
Ahmet: "No, Dweezil. Don't perform and create new value. Just get back here and pick through these ashes with us."
And, I've solved two robberies with them, and one liability question. One a motorcycle next door where I could identify the vehicle. For liability, a dump truck cut cables by mistake, and I could identify the company from the logo on the door.
Both of those are camera functions, though. In my main home, My Smartthings setup is relegated to control of lights.
But at a lake house in Canada, I connected a door lock too. I use the IoT features to alert me when the front door is unlocked, to program door codes, and to operate the HVAC.
This allows my family to save lots of money by lowering the thermostat way down in the winter, but activate the heater prior to going to the house. We use water sensors and cameras to alert us to potential ice and flood damage at lake level, and in the house.
The remote programming of the door locks allows us to give service personnel temporary access by programming a code for them that we promptly erase. By using IoT, NOBODY ever gets a key they can copy, nor a hiding spot for a physical key. This increases our safety.
Thus in my total experience, IoT has increased my safety, lowered my energy use, and solved two crimes and one liability.
I agree entirely with the uMich engineers in the video, however, there are benefits as well as costs of an IoT home. I have to weigh the security costs against these benefits, and in the end, I'm pretty sure the IoT smarthome is worth it.
One way to use these tools, but not be too exposed to risk is to silo them a little - that is, don't connect your light control system to your door locks. Don't install too many external apps, and to generally protect your home LAN with a good firewall.
Foscam cameras, for example, were known to have been hacked. If they were on the Internet, hackers could port sniff, find the cam, and view it. But if you had all your cams behind a gateway with a good firewall, you would be safe. Or even if you just password protect your cams beyond defaults.
Anyway, I don't kid myself that I'm not hackable. Everything is. But I try to make it hard, and I weigh the cost/benefit of the IoT.
"we've argued against calling fair use a "limitation and exception" to copyright, because that's misleading."
Yeah! It is copyright ITSELF that is a "limitation and exception" to our freedom to repeat things we've seen or heard - a right which humans had for some 400,000 years as homo sapiens. A legally enforced monopoly is, by definition, a limitation and exception.
I am not entirely against this limitation and exception, but only where it incentivizes more useful knowledge and art.
"So please, just leave, and never post here again."
You gotta be kidding! If you can't handle a different opinion and some debate, then I would suggest that it is YOU that would be best served by finding the exit.
I DO and I WILL defend usage caps. You are apparently driving "the bandwagon to ban all usage caps everywhere". OK, then. When will I see you also demanding unlimited consumption for one price at: - theme parks - the butcher - the gas station - your gas, water, or electric utility - your yoga or fitness class - your college or university - or just about ANY of the other businesses you work with in the world.
I know the arguments that: i) Once the infrastructure is installed, ii) it is essentially free to offer bandwidth.
However, I think that argument is wrong.
The evidence shows that the demand for bandwidth is constantly growing, requiring ongoing investment in infrastructure. AT&T alone invests as much as $20 Billion a year. Even if they lie and exaggerate, you'll agree that this is non-trivial.
I believe that the people that use more of the current and the future capacity should pay more for that capacity, and that those that use less should pay less.
Also, I know that at quiet times, there is lots of spare capacity, but at peak times, the network is constrained. A constrained network means that bandwidth is scarce, which means economics applies. The ISPs need to find a way to manage demand during peak times. A cap requires consumers to think about their data consumption - that is a good thing.
I've seen the mobile Internet start with an "unlimited model" of data until around 2010. What we got was users who treated bandwidth as if it cost zero, which was not correct. In turn, developers wrote apps that treated bandwidth as if it cost zero. These apps were chatty, used waaaay more data than they needed to in order to accomplish their goals. You see, when a resource is priced at zero, the math means that strange things happen. The "free" resource is used to fix all problems. The result was congested mobile networks, scarce resources being used but used in an often wasteful manner. That makes baby Adam Smith cry.
I, personally, don't "like" caps. They limit me. But I can rise above my personal wants, and apply economics theory to the problem. I mean, I also want "unlimited gasoline" when I go to the gas station for a flat rate of $50, but I don't get that either.
Now, here is one colossally stupid statement:
"Again, all ISPs / Cellular carriers should be mandated, by law, to have sufficient infrastructure and bandwidth to provide for 125% of their customers paid for bandwidth being utilized 24 hours a day, 365.25 days a year."
If you got your wish above, your ISP bill would be North of $300/month. Businesses pay for such connections with guaranteed throughput. But they don't get it for the same price you pay, do they? You are paying for "Best effort" service, they are paying for
The stupid claim you made could also be shown to be ridiculous for road capacity, like:
"Again, all states should be mandated, by law, to build sufficient infrastructure and lanes to handle 125% of the citizen's cars, being utilized 24 hours a day, 365.25 days a year."
Infrastructure planners have long pondered the extreme positions of building nothing, or building everything. Thankfully, they have landed in the middle, with capacity planning and estimation. You just advocated to pave everything so we can all drive at the same time.
Yes - we need more competition to keep the ISPs honest No - caps are not, themselves, evil Yes - ISPs are often dicks, and generally over-promise. But we should get angry about the over-promising, not the economic reality that capacity costs money.
Year after year, as these stories build up, they create a body of work that throws shade at the excuse of:
"A few bad apples" when some police activity is finally found "wrong".
More and more, it seems that the nations various police forces are actually more the case of "a few good apples" in an mostly spoiled batch. And the worst is that (a la Serpico) it must not be much fun to be a good apple in that batch, which would push them out of the force.
We know that the "thin blue line" means that they do the opposite of pushing out the spoiled apples, so if they are welcome to remain on the force, we should be concerned about (and measure) the exit rate for the good apples.
Karl. This just isn't a "Comcast is bad story". I mean, god knows, Comcast stories usually are, but this one isn't.
The fact is, in some places, they had caps of 300GB, and now those are raised to 1TB. That is good.
Good, good, good. Good. It's really good.
Now, I know you hate caps, but then you should hate this higher cap significantly less, which, to get redundant, makes it good.
You and Mike have long held the position that caps like 300GB were bad because, while 95% of users don't hit those caps TODAY, as Internet use grows, they are likely to hit those caps in the future. But what if the caps also grow in the future, as they have done today? Then, the ISPs' claims that "the caps are simply to make the heaviest of users pay their share" are much more credible.
As much as we hate them for their lobby efforts, their sham lobbyist, their bundling of channels, their terrible customer service, their abuse of the franchises we have given them, their failed promises, and their anti-competitive behavior (damn, that's a long list)...
...Comcast has steadily increased speeds, invested in the network, upgraded their DOCSIS versions, and now raised the cap.
I'm down with most of your articles, but raising the cap puts holes in your prediction that the 300GB cap would end up punishing far more people than the heavy users.
Yeah, I'd prefer "unlimited". But I'd also like my every meal to be an all-you-can-eat buffet, and my trips to the gas station to be pay-one-price. I can't always get what I want.
And we agree that until there is some valid competition, we'll never know what the right market outcome actually is.
On the post: Local Fox Affiliate's Reaction To Brutal Police Beating Is A Dereliction Of Its Duty
Re: Re: Re:
But TD offers references to other stories WITH re-interpretations, corrections, and different opinions shared, and hypocrisies exposed. You know, the things that this article points our are missing in the mainstream.
Basically, among the main value-adds of Techdirt is fixing the news that is broken. And TD also has a tremendous amount of original stories, original analysis, and fact checking as well.
So, I did "go figure", and it didn't look good on you.
On the post: ISPs Are Now Forcing Cord Cutters To Subscribe To TV If They Want To Avoid Usage Caps
Re:
On the post: ISPs Are Now Forcing Cord Cutters To Subscribe To TV If They Want To Avoid Usage Caps
It's No Bullshit
--Bend Broadband
"Right, but that's bullshit. U.S. residents already pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world; money that any earnings report will clearly illustrate is more than enough to offset what at this point is only modest network upgrades"
-- Karl
It's not bullshit. You are conflating two things:
1) There is not enough competition, there is monopoly or duopoly, so ISPs abuse that power to charge high rents. That's also true.
2) More data traffic does not cost more money for the ISP. That's false. There are annual billions spent on infrastructure upgrades, equipment upgrades (CapEx), and truck rolls, energy use, network payments to Tier 1 carriers, staffing, maintenance (OpEx). The amounts spent are related to the amount of data traffic the network carries. MORE TRAFFIC COSTS MORE.
The problem you're feeling, as always, is just #1. US customers pay too much regardless of caps, and we do so because of a lack of viable competition.
Caps, by themselves, are not wrong. They are just a part of the service offering limiting how many trips you can make to the buffet table. If ISPs want to impose them, that's just their right as they design and shape their product.
When Taco Bell sells you a 12oz drink to go for $1...it could have been 16oz, or it could have been unlimited fountain drinks. The fact that they offered just 12oz at a buck is a cap, and it's not unfair. It's just the shape of that product offering.
What I'm saying here is very unpopular on this site, but be sure to understand me correctly:
a) YES, many ISPs are using caps in an anti-competitive way, to reduce the viability of competing video services that run OTT. This is wrong, an monopoly issue, and fodder for the FTC.
b) There is nothing inherently wrong with caps, and they even have a fundamental fairness and logic to them, in that: customers that use more should pay more, and should fund the next round of capacity investment.
c) Of course consumers, and Techdirt readers, don't like caps. Who wants a limit applied to them. But the discussion isn't about what we want or feel. It's about economics and policy.
d) Yes, caps limit innovation. But so does any resource that is not infinite. Bandwidth is NOT infinite, so the fact that a scarce resource constrains innovation is the correct outcome. It is not the only such limit. Things like Human Resources, money, waking hours, and available technology ALSO limit innovation. Doesn't make it wrong. In fact, much the opposite, treating a scarce resource as "free" would result in the wrong economic allocations.
e) I agree 100% with Karl that the ISP that caps traffic should not be allowed to exempt their own content from that cap. This is clearly an unfair monopoly practice of service-tying.
f) I agree that more competition would reduce the use of caps. More competition is needed.
g) Stop hating on caps. Start hating on any anti-competition use of caps.
On the post: ISPs Are Now Forcing Cord Cutters To Subscribe To TV If They Want To Avoid Usage Caps
It's not bullshit. You are conflating two things:
1) There is not enough competition, there is monopoly or duopoly, so ISPs abuse that power to charge high rents. That's also true.
2) More data traffic does not cost more money for the ISP. That's false.
The problem, as always, is just #1. US customers pay too much regardless of caps, and we do so because of a lack of viable competition.
Caps, by themselves, are not wrong. They are just a part of the service offering limiting how many trips you can make to the buffet table. If ISPs want to impose them, that's just their right as they design and shape their product.
When Taco Bell sells you a 12oz drink to go for $1...it could have been 16oz, or it could have been unlimited fountain drinks. The fact that they offered just 12oz at a buck is a cap, and it's not unfair. It's just the shape of that product offering.
What I'm saying here is very unpopular on this site, but be sure to understand me correctly:
a) YES, many ISPs are using caps in an anti-competitive way, to reduce the viability of competing video services that run OTT. This is wrong, an monopoly issue, and fodder for the FTC.
b) There is nothing inherently wrong with caps, and they even have a fundamental fairness and logic to them, in that: customers that use more should pay more, and should fund the next round of capacity investment.
c) Of course consumers, and Techdirt readers, don't like caps. Who wants a limit applied to them. But the discussion isn't about what we want or feel. It's about economics and policy.
d) Yes, caps limit innovation. But so does any resource that is not infinite. Bandwidth is NOT infinite, so the fact that a scarce resource constrains innovation is the correct outcome. It is not the only such limit. Things like Human Resources, money, waking hours, and available technology ALSO limit innovation. Doesn't make it wrong. In fact, much the opposite, treating a scarce resource as "free" would result in the wrong economic allocations.
e) I agree 100% with Karl that the ISP that caps traffic should not be allowed to exempt their own content from that cap. This is clearly an unfair monopoly practice of service-tying.
f) I agree that more competition would reduce the use of caps. More competition is needed.
g) Stop hating on caps. Start hating on any anti-competition use of caps.
On the post: When A Fingerprint IS The Password, Where Does The Fifth Amendment Come Into Play?
Re: Re: Is it a testamonial act?
The state is only governed by what it can do."
^ So much this. They see tech development as specifically FOR them.
On the post: When A Fingerprint IS The Password, Where Does The Fifth Amendment Come Into Play?
Crappy Workaround
Use an unusual finger for your phone's lock.
Set the "lock after x unsuccessful attempts" to 3
Then have it fall back to a password
When compelled by the court, use the wrong fingers three times. Oops, sorry, FBI. My bad. Problem solved.
On the post: AT&T Buries Language In Missouri Traffic Bill To Hinder Broadband Competition
But It IS Related To Road Traffic
This is no mere hypothetical, see
http://www.fastcompany.com/3048163/in-cuba-an-underground-network-armed-with-usb-drives-does-the- work-of-google-and-youtube
If we're lucky, Missouri will soon have equal data infrastructure as Cuba...but without the medical coverage.
On the post: Samsung SmartThings Platform Latest To Highlight Internet Of Things Security Is A Joke
Re: Re: Re:
There absolutely are benefits that must be considered.
Also, the uMich risks are overstated. You see, hackers are scary because they can be anywhere in the world and attack your digital assets...but to go in your front door, thieves need to be physically present and risk physical arrest. But once they are physically present...
...what is the easier way to enter an IoT locked home? Hack the users phone to get at the user's IoT SmartThings base to hack the user's smartlock, or...ah...just break a window?
On the post: Zappa Threatens Zappa Over Zappa Plays Zappa
Working
But this case offers a neat contrast:
One descendant wants to actually WORK for his spoils, i.e. literally sing for his supper, while the others want to prevent him from actually performing art that the paying public will enjoy.
Ahmet: "No, Dweezil. Don't perform and create new value. Just get back here and pick through these ashes with us."
On the post: Samsung SmartThings Platform Latest To Highlight Internet Of Things Security Is A Joke
Re:
I do.
And, I've solved two robberies with them, and one liability question. One a motorcycle next door where I could identify the vehicle. For liability, a dump truck cut cables by mistake, and I could identify the company from the logo on the door.
Both of those are camera functions, though. In my main home, My Smartthings setup is relegated to control of lights.
But at a lake house in Canada, I connected a door lock too. I use the IoT features to alert me when the front door is unlocked, to program door codes, and to operate the HVAC.
This allows my family to save lots of money by lowering the thermostat way down in the winter, but activate the heater prior to going to the house. We use water sensors and cameras to alert us to potential ice and flood damage at lake level, and in the house.
The remote programming of the door locks allows us to give service personnel temporary access by programming a code for them that we promptly erase. By using IoT, NOBODY ever gets a key they can copy, nor a hiding spot for a physical key. This increases our safety.
Thus in my total experience, IoT has increased my safety, lowered my energy use, and solved two crimes and one liability.
I agree entirely with the uMich engineers in the video, however, there are benefits as well as costs of an IoT home. I have to weigh the security costs against these benefits, and in the end, I'm pretty sure the IoT smarthome is worth it.
One way to use these tools, but not be too exposed to risk is to silo them a little - that is, don't connect your light control system to your door locks. Don't install too many external apps, and to generally protect your home LAN with a good firewall.
Foscam cameras, for example, were known to have been hacked. If they were on the Internet, hackers could port sniff, find the cam, and view it. But if you had all your cams behind a gateway with a good firewall, you would be safe. Or even if you just password protect your cams beyond defaults.
Anyway, I don't kid myself that I'm not hackable. Everything is. But I try to make it hard, and I weigh the cost/benefit of the IoT.
On the post: The Proper Channels For Whistleblowers Are Still A Joke
Puzzle Extraction
...and forget about keeping any Rubik's Cubes.
On the post: The Proper Channels For Whistleblowers Are Still A Joke
Typo - Please fix
You forgot the air quotes (or actual quotes) around
"Proper Channels".
On the post: Australian Gov't Commission: Copyright Is Copywrong; Hurting The Public And Needs To Be Fixed
Yeah! It is copyright ITSELF that is a "limitation and exception" to our freedom to repeat things we've seen or heard - a right which humans had for some 400,000 years as homo sapiens. A legally enforced monopoly is, by definition, a limitation and exception.
I am not entirely against this limitation and exception, but only where it incentivizes more useful knowledge and art.
On the post: Facebook Has Lost The War It Declared On Fake News
Re: Fool me once, shame on...hmm... how does that go?
(I'm so filled with ennui, that I could not complete my ellipsis.)
On the post: Nervous About Regulatory Action, Comcast Bumps Usage Caps To One Terabyte Per Month
Re: Re: Gotta Disagree Here
You gotta be kidding! If you can't handle a different opinion and some debate, then I would suggest that it is YOU that would be best served by finding the exit.
I DO and I WILL defend usage caps. You are apparently driving "the bandwagon to ban all usage caps everywhere". OK, then. When will I see you also demanding unlimited consumption for one price at:
- theme parks
- the butcher
- the gas station
- your gas, water, or electric utility
- your yoga or fitness class
- your college or university
- or just about ANY of the other businesses you work with in the world.
I know the arguments that: i) Once the infrastructure is installed, ii) it is essentially free to offer bandwidth.
However, I think that argument is wrong.
The evidence shows that the demand for bandwidth is constantly growing, requiring ongoing investment in infrastructure. AT&T alone invests as much as $20 Billion a year. Even if they lie and exaggerate, you'll agree that this is non-trivial.
I believe that the people that use more of the current and the future capacity should pay more for that capacity, and that those that use less should pay less.
Also, I know that at quiet times, there is lots of spare capacity, but at peak times, the network is constrained. A constrained network means that bandwidth is scarce, which means economics applies. The ISPs need to find a way to manage demand during peak times. A cap requires consumers to think about their data consumption - that is a good thing.
I've seen the mobile Internet start with an "unlimited model" of data until around 2010. What we got was users who treated bandwidth as if it cost zero, which was not correct. In turn, developers wrote apps that treated bandwidth as if it cost zero. These apps were chatty, used waaaay more data than they needed to in order to accomplish their goals. You see, when a resource is priced at zero, the math means that strange things happen. The "free" resource is used to fix all problems. The result was congested mobile networks, scarce resources being used but used in an often wasteful manner. That makes baby Adam Smith cry.
I, personally, don't "like" caps. They limit me. But I can rise above my personal wants, and apply economics theory to the problem. I mean, I also want "unlimited gasoline" when I go to the gas station for a flat rate of $50, but I don't get that either.
Now, here is one colossally stupid statement:
"Again, all ISPs / Cellular carriers should be mandated, by law, to have sufficient infrastructure and bandwidth to provide for 125% of their customers paid for bandwidth being utilized 24 hours a day, 365.25 days a year."
If you got your wish above, your ISP bill would be North of $300/month. Businesses pay for such connections with guaranteed throughput. But they don't get it for the same price you pay, do they? You are paying for "Best effort" service, they are paying for
The stupid claim you made could also be shown to be ridiculous for road capacity, like:
"Again, all states should be mandated, by law, to build sufficient infrastructure and lanes to handle 125% of the citizen's cars, being utilized 24 hours a day, 365.25 days a year."
Infrastructure planners have long pondered the extreme positions of building nothing, or building everything. Thankfully, they have landed in the middle, with capacity planning and estimation. You just advocated to pave everything so we can all drive at the same time.
Here read up a bit:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/wan-automation-engine/white_paper_c11-7 28551.html
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3003545?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Yes - we need more competition to keep the ISPs honest
No - caps are not, themselves, evil
Yes - ISPs are often dicks, and generally over-promise. But we should get angry about the over-promising, not the economic reality that capacity costs money.
On the post: NYPD Using 'Nuisance Abatement' Law To Force Small Businesses To Install Cameras, Agree To Warrantless Searches
A Few Bad Apples
"A few bad apples" when some police activity is finally found "wrong".
More and more, it seems that the nations various police forces are actually more the case of "a few good apples" in an mostly spoiled batch. And the worst is that (a la Serpico) it must not be much fun to be a good apple in that batch, which would push them out of the force.
We know that the "thin blue line" means that they do the opposite of pushing out the spoiled apples, so if they are welcome to remain on the force, we should be concerned about (and measure) the exit rate for the good apples.
On the post: Nervous About Regulatory Action, Comcast Bumps Usage Caps To One Terabyte Per Month
Gotta Disagree Here
The fact is, in some places, they had caps of 300GB, and now those are raised to 1TB. That is good.
Good, good, good. Good. It's really good.
Now, I know you hate caps, but then you should hate this higher cap significantly less, which, to get redundant, makes it good.
You and Mike have long held the position that caps like 300GB were bad because, while 95% of users don't hit those caps TODAY, as Internet use grows, they are likely to hit those caps in the future. But what if the caps also grow in the future, as they have done today? Then, the ISPs' claims that "the caps are simply to make the heaviest of users pay their share" are much more credible.
As much as we hate them for their lobby efforts, their sham lobbyist, their bundling of channels, their terrible customer service, their abuse of the franchises we have given them, their failed promises, and their anti-competitive behavior (damn, that's a long list)...
...Comcast has steadily increased speeds, invested in the network, upgraded their DOCSIS versions, and now raised the cap.
I'm down with most of your articles, but raising the cap puts holes in your prediction that the 300GB cap would end up punishing far more people than the heavy users.
Yeah, I'd prefer "unlimited". But I'd also like my every meal to be an all-you-can-eat buffet, and my trips to the gas station to be pay-one-price. I can't always get what I want.
And we agree that until there is some valid competition, we'll never know what the right market outcome actually is.
On the post: DOJ Drops Other Big Case Over iPhone Encryption After Defendant Suddenly Remembers His Passcode
Re:
"OK. Give me that plus immunity for whatever u find on phone?"
"Done."
On the post: Ex-Game Maker Atari To Argue To The US PTO That Only It Can Make 'Haunted House' Games
Atari Is A Haunted House
As many as 10 ghoulish soul-suckers roam the halls there, drawing the life-force from the living.
So don't wear a red-shirt, don't be black, don't split up, and whatever you do, don't develop new games and content, cuz here there be demons.
You say you don't believe in ghost stories, USPTO? Well, you'd best start deary, cuz you're in one.
On the post: Netflix CEO Says Annoyed VPN Users Are 'Inconsequential'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>