Karl, You know I don't agree with you on caps. So let's forget that this time.
What is more interesting here is the confluence of this story, and the recent brouhaha over ad blockers and ads.
For people actually hitting those 300GB caps, and being asked (forced) to pay the extra $10, what portion of their > 300GB was advertising?
I mean, I really don't know. What portion is it? Assuming they're streaming long-form video, it may not be a huge share, but if it's over 5GB, it starts to matter.
Do the anti-adblock people really think we want to pay our ISP bill, and an extra mark-up to stream their annoying pre-roll and multi-media ads?
But what you are doing is relying on your skills as a pre-cog to pre-punish them for that pre-crime. That is not justice.
If regulators allow zero-rating, it is ONLY fair if the same price of transport is paid by ALL content companies. But in this manner, it IS fair. Do I trust the big ISPs not to take it one step further and choose winners? Heck, no. But the crime is in that second step, NOT the first.
There is ample precedent. Trans Canada Pipelines is in the news lately for Keystone XL - they operate pipes and charge other companies for transport of natural gas. But there was a company called Western Gas Marketing Limited, wholly owned by TCP that sold gas. The regulator said these two must operate separately, and (here's the connection) TCP could charge other gas companies for transport, but must charge Western Gas the same fees for transport. This de-coupling ensured that the monopoly of the pipe did not determine the winner in the natural gas sales market. So, IF network operators want to do zero-rating, there is a fair way: they must decouple their content biz from their transport biz, and charge the same prices to all comers. Neutrality is thus preserved.
This illustrates the beauty of Google's "Nexus" strategy. They have some decent ideas, some moonshots, and some leading initiatives, they invest in them, labeling it as "Beta".
1) If it fails completely, fine, lessons learned, move on. Examples: Dodgeball Grand Central (Google Voice) Plus Hangouts (messenger) Google Wallet (but spawned Android Pay) Picasa
2) If it fails as a business, but illustrates what can be done, then they've pushed the other vendors forward in ways that strategically benefit Google. Examples: Self-driving car early Nexus phone models Nexus tablets
3) If it turns out to be ROI positive from a cash perspective, Or a huge strategic win, they can scale it up at the pace they choose, and diversify while earning more total profit. Examples: Advertising on search results Chrome Browser A mobile OS called Android Maps Gmail recent Nexus phones models Google Fiber Voice recognition
4) Examples that haven't yet been classified as 1-3 Google Project Loon Google Fi MVNO home Wifi Hub in car Android Auto Android Pay Goggles, Cardboard
The key to the Nexus strategy is that even when you fail, you push others to match your offerings, you teach consumers what they could demand from other vendors, and you pull other companies to deliver faster, or come out of "stealth" mode.
"Research shows that zero-rated applications are far more attractive to users than those that are not."
Well, yeah. But is that such a bad thing?
I mean, here at Techdirt, we love disruptive technologies that use "free" to offer increased value to users. Google offers maps for free and kills off in-car GPS sales. Waze offers free better driving data, and eats into Google maps. All good, right? So why is "Free" so wrong when used by incumbents?
I want a Neutral Network, but neutrality, in the case of zero-rating, simply means that the zero-rating ability should be open to ALL content providers, not just the ones chosen by the ISP. Yeah, that may be tougher for startups than bigger players, but tough shit, right? Competition was never promised to be easy.
"This makes police work harder" is a bullshit reason to ignore the 5th Amendment. Data doesn't exist for the purpose of making their job easier. Tough. Similarly, "this makes it harder for startups" is a bullshit reason to say zero-rating is bad. Data pricing from incumbents doesn't exist to make it easier for new entrants.
Lower prices, free offers...these are all valid elements of competition. Economists see it this way, except when the low prices are just a short-term way to kill off competition, which we call "dumping". But zero-rating is NOT dumping (although it could be if it were restricted to the ISP's preferred partners.)
As long as zero rating is "open", as in all content providers have fair access to offer them, then I cannot see it as evil.
Think of rail transport. What if BNSF charged for rail cargo across the country. But Ford offered free delivery of it's cars, by paying BNSF. That would offer Ford a market advantage. Is that unfair? NO, so long as BNSF also offers the same option to GM, Honda, or upstart Tesla. Seller pays shipping is not a new idea, and is not unfair.
Karl, you're picking sides here. You are on the side of the upstart, the underdog. Frankly, so am I. But that doesn't mean that we have to argue that every move the incumbent makes which is advantageous to them is wrong. Some of their moves are just a good strategy. In this case, it increases consumer choices, offers something to consumers who may not want to pay for data at all, and offers content businesses the ability to innovate on some different business models.
And set the controls to your post's time of Oct 21st, 2015 @ 4:48pm?
Great Scott! That would take more energy than a Raman Spectrometer! I'm guessing about 1.21 gigawatts.
Wait a minute, here. TellSpec seems to have solved the problem of delivering surges of electricity in small packages. Could it be they've actually invented a flux capacitor?
Mike, is there a picture of "...a secondary part crudely taped onto it"?
Nope. Cuz people are sheeple, and won't get the information from the shackled doctor. Even the Techdirt article here is too "insider baseball" for the average Joe to read or understand.
And, BTW, a character assassination of Dr. Persaud is basically a certainty. The results of which will mean that other prescribing MDs will question his (unclear, unreleased) findings, but take the drug company reps side of the story as they play golf (/tennis/steak dinner/etc) together.
Without legal grounds to reveal the real data on the efficacy of the drug, agencies, insurers, and individuals will all carry on as if the drug were effective.
An analogy, you ask? Sure. Prayer is statistically proven useless with respect to improving health outcomes. Christians in the US live pretty much the same lifespans as Atheists, and with essentially the same level of wellness. So, how important has that information been in reducing the use of prayer for health?
Wait, did the Verizon statement just make a bait and switcheroo?
Without the benefit of looking at the contracts, it seems to me that the Agreement is about Fiber FIOS service, yet the Verizon statement seems to refer to Cable:
"there are no residential areas of the city where Verizon does not offer cable service."
Is that just a poor choice of words (cable for fiber) or is Verizon counting some other cable as if it were fiber? Not rhetorical; I'm really asking.
Except that the #1 dictionary definition of elite is: "a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities"
"superior" implies better breeding, education, or something. It does NOT imply more poweruful.
Merriam Webster defines elite as: 1 the choice part 2 the best of a class 3 the socially superior part of society 4 a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence
The insiders of the TPA are NOT the choice part, nor the best in the class, nor socially superior. They are just a bunch of douchbags who have finagled undue influence in policy. That's definition 1 - 3.
So, are they 4? NO! Because while they do "exercise much power or influence", they do not do so by virtue of position of education. They do so by courting legislators, and being more focused/involved than the average citizen.
I'd be kinda on board with our congresspeople negotiating a deal behind closed doors in secret. So long as they presented their work with adequate time to review it.
These people are our elected representatives, and we [an informed electorate would] have the power to kick them out.
But what really ticks me off is the long list of special interests who WERE allowed to see the sausage being made. And who in fact supplied text, opinion, and objectives to the USTR. These businesses, for example the MPAA, should have no greater access than you or I.
The fact that the @#$# TPP WASN'T a secret to these special interests, but WAS a secret to the citizens, that REALLY pisses me off.
Fudge! Don't put this on elites. I'm a elite. This is not about highly educated or rich people. You can shit on us some other time, when we're to blame.
The TPP is not an elitist move. It's a douchebag move.
The TPP is from some powerful industries in the USA, with strong lobbies, and the ear of DC. They are not "elites". The RIAA, MPAA, the drug lobbies are not elite. They are self-interested powerful lobbies.
Other than your word choice of "elitist", I agree with you.
Because, this is one of those "Facts are facts" type of discussions. My facts are the same as your facts. "Free Trade" has a specific meaning, and the TPP is a force away from that, not towards it.
The TPP is not about Free Trade. It restricts trade. It restricts business. It supports entrenched major businesses. New entrants trying to compete, from anywhere in the world, have FEWER options and MORE restrictions because of the TPP. That is not freer, that is less free.
Since intellectual property expansion is such a big part of the TPP, and IP laws are specifically about limiting the ability of businesses to do things, than is, by definition, against free trade. Back to the same point, the TPP is anti-free trade. There just can't be any intelligent debate on this fact.
Now, we can have different opinions on whether the deal is good or not. We can argue if helping a few powerful American industries internationally truly benefits the average American. There can be all sorts of opinions on the actual effects of the TPP.
But there cannot be any intelligent debate on whether it is a "Free Trade" deal, or a deal that is against freedom of trade.
For me, the straw that broke the camel's back was "Regiggering"
I mean, when I try to load a page and read it, the text keeps jumping up, down, left, right, up, down...so that I lose my spot four or five times. Then the pop-over comes.
But that jiggering of the text location is what made me run to ad blockers years ago. It's why I still hate mobile phone browsing compared to desktop Chrome.
"the fact that the lion's share of the country remains on sluggish, last-generation speeds thanks to limited to no real competition. "
Not really. MOST of the country remains sluggish because they are an economically unattractive target for incumbent or new ISPs. That is the underlying reasons why there is no competition for their business.
Now, where the population is dense, speeds are also sluggish because of a lack of competition, which in that case is because of protectionist, anti-competitive business processes and regulations.
The story of US broadband is really two very different stories: one rural and the other urban.
Similarly, while Starbucks is on every corner in towns, there are no adequate choices for coffee in Chloride City, California https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chloride+City,+CA+92328 ...but I think we should chalk the cause up to lack of population density and addressable market, not the resulting lack of competition.
I'm getting increasingly frustrated by the concept of "standing". It seems as though the sole purpose of the concept is to help the government avoid justice by keeping secret things secret.
The method is for the gov't to not reveal that the plaintiff actually does have standing, because that's classified information, and as such, the plaintiff cannot sue in a way that establishes their standing.
Basically, I could sue saying "You spied on me, and I intend to prove it in court." and they would respond with "Prove it first, or we don't go to court."
Just as "parlay", a pox on the pirate that first invented "standing"!
Re: Hayward police are corrupt, should all be fired
Sadly, standard fare. Known baddies are just left alone, like in your story. I've got two:
1) Cops show up at 3AM at my place in Mountain View, ask me if I've authorized somebody to use my credit card at a hotel. No. Well, a guy with a sheet of paper, and all my details on it with CC number was just caught climbing into a school window. Nope, not my friend. He goes to jail on the B&E. My credit card company confirms $9,000 worth of fake charges on the card. I ask, do you want to catch the crook? He's in jail right now, I have his police report #. Nope. Thanks, we'll just write it off (and charge it back to the merchants and our customers in the form of fees).
2) My father in law has his motorcycle stolen in Berkeley. He files police report and insurance claim. A week later, he sees the bike parked in front of a house. He parks and calls the cops "I'm looking at my stolen motorbike, you guys gotta come down here and catch the guy." They say nope, they're too busy.
What? Too busy hassling protesters, issuing speeding tickets, and hassling low-income blacks? Seems there is precious little interest in catching actual bad guys. I just don't understand it.
Meanwhile, I get nervous around police - will they give me a ticket for some trivial thing? A rolling stop? If you're poor or black, it's surely much worse.
On the post: With 12% Of Comcast Customers Now Broadband Capped, Comcast Declares It's Simply Spreading 'Fairness'
Re: I'm (not very) shocked!
Framed as "You can get 50 HD movie downloads per month" seems a lot more reasonable "You only get 7 hours of Internet per month."
So, your analogy is pretty disingenuous.
On the post: With 12% Of Comcast Customers Now Broadband Capped, Comcast Declares It's Simply Spreading 'Fairness'
Are They Paying To See Ads?
What is more interesting here is the confluence of this story, and the recent brouhaha over ad blockers and ads.
For people actually hitting those 300GB caps, and being asked (forced) to pay the extra $10, what portion of their > 300GB was advertising?
I mean, I really don't know. What portion is it? Assuming they're streaming long-form video, it may not be a huge share, but if it's over 5GB, it starts to matter.
Do the anti-adblock people really think we want to pay our ISP bill, and an extra mark-up to stream their annoying pre-roll and multi-media ads?
On the post: The EU Prepares To Vote For Awful, Loophole-Filled Net Neutrality Rules
Re: Re: People Like Free
But what you are doing is relying on your skills as a pre-cog to pre-punish them for that pre-crime. That is not justice.
If regulators allow zero-rating, it is ONLY fair if the same price of transport is paid by ALL content companies. But in this manner, it IS fair. Do I trust the big ISPs not to take it one step further and choose winners? Heck, no. But the crime is in that second step, NOT the first.
There is ample precedent. Trans Canada Pipelines is in the news lately for Keystone XL - they operate pipes and charge other companies for transport of natural gas. But there was a company called Western Gas Marketing Limited, wholly owned by TCP that sold gas. The regulator said these two must operate separately, and (here's the connection) TCP could charge other gas companies for transport, but must charge Western Gas the same fees for transport. This de-coupling ensured that the monopoly of the pipe did not determine the winner in the natural gas sales market. So, IF network operators want to do zero-rating, there is a fair way: they must decouple their content biz from their transport biz, and charge the same prices to all comers. Neutrality is thus preserved.
On the post: With Another Major Expansion, Google Fiber's Looking Less Like An Adorable Experiment And More Like A Disruptive Broadband Revolution
The "Nexus" Strategy
1) If it fails completely, fine, lessons learned, move on.
Examples:
Dodgeball
Grand Central (Google Voice)
Plus
Hangouts (messenger)
Google Wallet (but spawned Android Pay)
Picasa
2) If it fails as a business, but illustrates what can be done, then they've pushed the other vendors forward in ways that strategically benefit Google.
Examples:
Self-driving car
early Nexus phone models
Nexus tablets
3) If it turns out to be ROI positive from a cash perspective, Or a huge strategic win, they can scale it up at the pace they choose, and diversify while earning more total profit.
Examples:
Advertising on search results
Chrome Browser
A mobile OS called Android
Maps
Gmail
recent Nexus phones models
Google Fiber
Voice recognition
4) Examples that haven't yet been classified as 1-3
Google Project Loon
Google Fi MVNO
home Wifi Hub
in car Android Auto
Android Pay
Goggles, Cardboard
The key to the Nexus strategy is that even when you fail, you push others to match your offerings, you teach consumers what they could demand from other vendors, and you pull other companies to deliver faster, or come out of "stealth" mode.
On the post: The EU Prepares To Vote For Awful, Loophole-Filled Net Neutrality Rules
People Like Free
Well, yeah. But is that such a bad thing?
I mean, here at Techdirt, we love disruptive technologies that use "free" to offer increased value to users. Google offers maps for free and kills off in-car GPS sales. Waze offers free better driving data, and eats into Google maps. All good, right? So why is "Free" so wrong when used by incumbents?
I want a Neutral Network, but neutrality, in the case of zero-rating, simply means that the zero-rating ability should be open to ALL content providers, not just the ones chosen by the ISP. Yeah, that may be tougher for startups than bigger players, but tough shit, right? Competition was never promised to be easy.
"This makes police work harder" is a bullshit reason to ignore the 5th Amendment. Data doesn't exist for the purpose of making their job easier. Tough. Similarly, "this makes it harder for startups" is a bullshit reason to say zero-rating is bad. Data pricing from incumbents doesn't exist to make it easier for new entrants.
Lower prices, free offers...these are all valid elements of competition. Economists see it this way, except when the low prices are just a short-term way to kill off competition, which we call "dumping". But zero-rating is NOT dumping (although it could be if it were restricted to the ISP's preferred partners.)
As long as zero rating is "open", as in all content providers have fair access to offer them, then I cannot see it as evil.
Think of rail transport. What if BNSF charged for rail cargo across the country. But Ford offered free delivery of it's cars, by paying BNSF. That would offer Ford a market advantage. Is that unfair? NO, so long as BNSF also offers the same option to GM, Honda, or upstart Tesla. Seller pays shipping is not a new idea, and is not unfair.
Karl, you're picking sides here. You are on the side of the upstart, the underdog. Frankly, so am I. But that doesn't mean that we have to argue that every move the incumbent makes which is advantageous to them is wrong. Some of their moves are just a good strategy. In this case, it increases consumer choices, offers something to consumers who may not want to pay for data at all, and offers content businesses the ability to innovate on some different business models.
On the post: Stupid Legal Threats: Sketchy Crowdfunded Food Scanner Company Threatens To Sue Site That Reported On Phantomware Product
Re:
Great Scott! That would take more energy than a Raman Spectrometer! I'm guessing about 1.21 gigawatts.
Wait a minute, here. TellSpec seems to have solved the problem of delivering surges of electricity in small packages. Could it be they've actually invented a flux capacitor?
Mike, is there a picture of "...a secondary part crudely taped onto it"?
Does it look like this?
http://goo.gl/aDFuTg
On the post: Health Canada Threatens To Sue Doctor If He Reveals Whether Clinical Trials Data Shows A Drug Is Safe Or Effective
Re:
Yeah. Just prove that what you did was in the public interest. Easy.
Worked for Assange and Snowden, after all. Let's contact them in their New York penthouses to see what they think.
On the post: Health Canada Threatens To Sue Doctor If He Reveals Whether Clinical Trials Data Shows A Drug Is Safe Or Effective
Re: A telling response
And, BTW, a character assassination of Dr. Persaud is basically a certainty. The results of which will mean that other prescribing MDs will question his (unclear, unreleased) findings, but take the drug company reps side of the story as they play golf (/tennis/steak dinner/etc) together.
Without legal grounds to reveal the real data on the efficacy of the drug, agencies, insurers, and individuals will all carry on as if the drug were effective.
An analogy, you ask?
Sure. Prayer is statistically proven useless with respect to improving health outcomes. Christians in the US live pretty much the same lifespans as Atheists, and with essentially the same level of wellness. So, how important has that information been in reducing the use of prayer for health?
On the post: Once More: The TPP Agreement Is Not A Free Trade Agreement, It's A Protectionist Anti-Free Trade Agreement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Add Pittsburgh To The List Of Cities That Say Verizon Ripped Them Off
Switcheroo?
Without the benefit of looking at the contracts, it seems to me that the Agreement is about Fiber FIOS service, yet the Verizon statement seems to refer to Cable:
"there are no residential areas of the city where Verizon does not offer cable service."
Is that just a poor choice of words (cable for fiber) or is Verizon counting some other cable as if it were fiber? Not rhetorical; I'm really asking.
On the post: Once More: The TPP Agreement Is Not A Free Trade Agreement, It's A Protectionist Anti-Free Trade Agreement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities"
"superior" implies better breeding, education, or something. It does NOT imply more poweruful.
Merriam Webster defines elite as:
1 the choice part
2 the best of a class
3 the socially superior part of society
4 a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence
The insiders of the TPA are NOT the choice part, nor the best in the class, nor socially superior. They are just a bunch of douchbags who have finagled undue influence in policy. That's definition 1 - 3.
So, are they 4? NO! Because while they do "exercise much power or influence", they do not do so by virtue of position of education. They do so by courting legislators, and being more focused/involved than the average citizen.
On the post: Once More: The TPP Agreement Is Not A Free Trade Agreement, It's A Protectionist Anti-Free Trade Agreement
Re: It doesn't matter...
These people are our elected representatives, and we [an informed electorate would] have the power to kick them out.
But what really ticks me off is the long list of special interests who WERE allowed to see the sausage being made. And who in fact supplied text, opinion, and objectives to the USTR. These businesses, for example the MPAA, should have no greater access than you or I.
The fact that the @#$# TPP WASN'T a secret to these special interests, but WAS a secret to the citizens, that REALLY pisses me off.
On the post: Once More: The TPP Agreement Is Not A Free Trade Agreement, It's A Protectionist Anti-Free Trade Agreement
Re:
And isn't "negotiated in secret" already a good enough reason to be against it?
On the post: Once More: The TPP Agreement Is Not A Free Trade Agreement, It's A Protectionist Anti-Free Trade Agreement
Re:
The TPP is not an elitist move. It's a douchebag move.
The TPP is from some powerful industries in the USA, with strong lobbies, and the ear of DC. They are not "elites". The RIAA, MPAA, the drug lobbies are not elite. They are self-interested powerful lobbies.
Other than your word choice of "elitist", I agree with you.
On the post: Once More: The TPP Agreement Is Not A Free Trade Agreement, It's A Protectionist Anti-Free Trade Agreement
Re:
The TPP is not about Free Trade. It restricts trade. It restricts business. It supports entrenched major businesses. New entrants trying to compete, from anywhere in the world, have FEWER options and MORE restrictions because of the TPP. That is not freer, that is less free.
Since intellectual property expansion is such a big part of the TPP, and IP laws are specifically about limiting the ability of businesses to do things, than is, by definition, against free trade. Back to the same point, the TPP is anti-free trade. There just can't be any intelligent debate on this fact.
Now, we can have different opinions on whether the deal is good or not. We can argue if helping a few powerful American industries internationally truly benefits the average American. There can be all sorts of opinions on the actual effects of the TPP.
But there cannot be any intelligent debate on whether it is a "Free Trade" deal, or a deal that is against freedom of trade.
On the post: You Can Now Turn Off Ads On Techdirt
Re: video ads is the issue
I mean, when I try to load a page and read it, the text keeps jumping up, down, left, right, up, down...so that I lose my spot four or five times. Then the pop-over comes.
But that jiggering of the text location is what made me run to ad blockers years ago. It's why I still hate mobile phone browsing compared to desktop Chrome.
On the post: Government Report Declares Broadband An Essential, Uncompetitive Utility, Wistfully Ponders If Perhaps We Should Do Something About It
This Part Is Not Exactly True:
Not really. MOST of the country remains sluggish because they are an economically unattractive target for incumbent or new ISPs. That is the underlying reasons why there is no competition for their business.
Now, where the population is dense, speeds are also sluggish because of a lack of competition, which in that case is because of protectionist, anti-competitive business processes and regulations.
The story of US broadband is really two very different stories: one rural and the other urban.
Similarly, while Starbucks is on every corner in towns, there are no adequate choices for coffee in Chloride City, California
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chloride+City,+CA+92328
...but I think we should chalk the cause up to lack of population density and addressable market, not the resulting lack of competition.
On the post: DOJ Insists That There Is No Proof Verizon Wireless Shared Phone Data With NSA
Your Standing in It
The method is for the gov't to not reveal that the plaintiff actually does have standing, because that's classified information, and as such, the plaintiff cannot sue in a way that establishes their standing.
Basically, I could sue saying "You spied on me, and I intend to prove it in court." and they would respond with "Prove it first, or we don't go to court."
Just as "parlay", a pox on the pirate that first invented "standing"!
On the post: Appeals Court Says The Batmobile Is A 'Character' Covered By Copyright
Re:
...And Mitts are like puppets.
On the post: ACLU, Lawyers Group Sue Cali Police Department Over $3,000 Fee Demand For Body Cam Footage
Re: Hayward police are corrupt, should all be fired
1) Cops show up at 3AM at my place in Mountain View, ask me if I've authorized somebody to use my credit card at a hotel. No. Well, a guy with a sheet of paper, and all my details on it with CC number was just caught climbing into a school window. Nope, not my friend. He goes to jail on the B&E. My credit card company confirms $9,000 worth of fake charges on the card. I ask, do you want to catch the crook? He's in jail right now, I have his police report #. Nope. Thanks, we'll just write it off (and charge it back to the merchants and our customers in the form of fees).
2) My father in law has his motorcycle stolen in Berkeley. He files police report and insurance claim. A week later, he sees the bike parked in front of a house. He parks and calls the cops "I'm looking at my stolen motorbike, you guys gotta come down here and catch the guy." They say nope, they're too busy.
What? Too busy hassling protesters, issuing speeding tickets, and hassling low-income blacks? Seems there is precious little interest in catching actual bad guys. I just don't understand it.
Meanwhile, I get nervous around police - will they give me a ticket for some trivial thing? A rolling stop? If you're poor or black, it's surely much worse.
Next >>