To be fair, wonking out on the legalese of telecom policy on the lobbying side doesn't mean he actually understood networking. Though even then you'd think he could differentiate between a CDN and a "fast lane."
It's not shocking, no. What's consistently amazing is how well these kinds of ploys work. The newswires have been full all week of news reports that just take Pai's claims at face value and don't really offer any context:
It's little more than a coordinated smear campaign against a net neutrality supporter, yet here we are (I am) discussing it like it's a valid, well-thought out treatise.
Yes, I think the public has been asking Comcast for better customer support for fifteen straight years, and recent news makes it very clear they're still waiting. Consumer outrage only goes so far as an organic impetus for change.
"you are giving me policy. Im asking a business question."
In telecom, where AT&T and Verizon have literally written state and federal law for thirty years business is policy. You don't jump into this sector without lobbyists, lawyers, several billions for lawsuits, and an army of policy sockpuppets. It's not, contrary to the Chicago-school bullhorns, a free market that's working properly.
If you're talking geographically and logistically, Google's picking Western cities that are A. younger so you've got less old-school politics, newer streets, and better fiber conduits and B extremely lacking in competition so you can use the outraged locals as leverage in negotiations.
On this we might almost agree. BitTorrent's overall traffic share is dropping in direct correlation to Netflix traffic increases. BitTorrent comprised 2.8% of peak-period U.S. downstream traffic in North America this fall, compared to 34.2% for Netflix. That said, BitTorrent still represents 33% of peak network usage overseas.
I don't think most people think Title II is a panacea. Keeping sensibility afloat takes work. It is, however, the best path forward in the face of regulatory capture and an uncompetitive broadband market that's simply not getting fixed any time soon.
"I referenced Google because they faced the same hurdles. Yet they were able to go in and get the municipalities to bid to get Google Fiber to come to the city."
They had billions of dollars. Like you have billions of dollars. Things tend to be easier when you have billions of dollars. I'm not sure just anybody could go in and replicate what Google has done without oodles of money for lawyers, lobbying and PR. And you'll note that even Google isn't touching places where major incumbents have had a regulatory stranglehold for generations (like, say, the East coast).
"So with that in mind. What would your answer be?
Like I said above, kill these protectionist state laws that hinder public/private parterships or municipal deployments in areas incumbent ISPs are unwilling to improve or upgrade. I'd also stop throwing billions in subsidies at any of the large companies until we've had a complete audit of the money already spent.
"To replicate what Google Fiber has done. Which city would you think offers the most upside and how much do you think it would cost?"
There's dozens of variables at play. Many states have passed laws written by AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner Cable that hamstring towns and cities from cooperating with Google fiber on public/private builds. If we're chomping at the bit to kill harmful regulations, that's the best place to start.
The problem historically is that investors simply lack the patience to wait for the long-term ROI broadband network investment requires. Meanwhile, smaller carriers lack the cash and firepower to do legal and political battle with AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, who've literally been writing telecom law for thirty years (we then ask why regulation fails us).
Google had the money to burn and wanted to make a point (we need more competition and faster networks for better ads and services), but I'm not sure Google Fiber ever makes its way past a half-dozen target markets.
For the record, we're talking about this 2009 blog post (not exactly ancient history), in which you declare:
"The Great Internet Video Lie is that the internet opens distribution to compete with the evil gate keepers, cable and satellite...If you have dreams of competing with traditional TV network viewing numbers using the internet, dream on.
Netflix launched streaming in 2007, two years before your post. They now have 50 million subscribers. The cable industry lost another net 150,000 customers last quarter, and DirecTV saw their first third quarter loss in the company's history during Q3. You were wrong. Sure, there were teething issues for live simultaneous streams in 2009, but that's increasingly becoming less of an issue (LTE multicast, MLB On Roku, DirecTV's Sunday Ticket broadband delivery, etc.). A history of network engineering should have made that clear that these kinds of obstacles were temporary, even WAY BACK in 2009. I'd have to ask: what do you think about Internet video's potential to compete today on the eve of live streaming service launches from Dish, Verizon, Sony, HBO, and Showtime?
"Im happy to be corrected. Can you provide a list (of gatekeeper abuses)?
Comcast throttling all upstream P2P traffic indiscriminately (which you agreed with and encouraged), Verizon Wireless blocking handset GPS so people had to use their own GPS software, Verizon Wireless blocking Blutooth so people had to use Verizon's software, Verizon and AT&T blocking Google Wallet so people would use their payment platform, AT&T blocking Facetime so people had to pay more for data, ISPs using DNS direction to embed unwanted advertisements, ISPs using DNS direction to redirect users who mistype URLs to their own advertising pages, ISPs using usage caps on uncongested networks to hinder Internet video, Verizon sticking the Nexus 7 tablet in development purgatory while they pushed their own tablet, Madison River blocking VoIP in 2005, AT&T getting Apple to block Skype from 2007-2009, Verizon's decision to cripple tethering functionality on handsets so users had to pay a premium fee, AT&T's Sponsored Data and T-Mobile's Music Unlimited, which discriminate against smaller companies, MetroPCS blocking all streaming video in 2011...
"Can you explain that part of it again (that Title II won't cause harm)? Or at least add the standard disclaimer "past performance is no indications of future returns, etc"
"Maybe in your world that is how you work. But then again , I wouldnt invest in a business that after how many years of existence is dependent on Flattr.
Mike addresses this above, I don't think this sentence makes any sense.
"Find me someone who interacts with the FCC on a day to day basis that supports Title II.
Ask the CLEC's about their fortunes under FCC protection."
Sonic.net CEO Dane Jasper had a front row seat to the ILEC/CLEC wars (his company was one of the few to survive), and deals with the FCC on a daily basis. He thinks Title II is likely the correct path forward:
@camholm No, but absent a competitive market, I do believe Title II will be necessary to fix at least the neutrality issue.— Dane Jasper (@dane) November 15, 2014
You've been repeatedly wrong on Internet video. Not to be insulting but it's really not up for debate. Your blog is like a foggy, digital graveyard of inaccurate predictions and false, sometimes downright bizarre claims about Netflix, Hulu and YouTube. These are YOUR words (there's plenty more where this came from):
"The concept that “over the top” video creates a valid business alternative for content creators is as misguided an internet business myth as there is.
That kind of speaks for itself, no?
"As far as entrepreneurs, few people knew my views on NN until the last couple weeks. Ive looked at thousands of deals over the last 10 years. Not a peep about NN."
Any Google search shows you've been vocally opposed to net neutrality for years, with a particularly vocal flare up in 2009. Anybody worth their salt investigating you for a business pitch would know this. Also, I still don't think that "net neutrality isn't real because the people a billionaire talks to don't mention it much" is really a very cogent point, no matter how many times it's repeated.
"And why do you and others keep on trotting out the ridiculous premise that in 1995 i benefited from NN type rules. Nothing could be further from the truth. I had to pay for priority , i had to pay a premium to get access to dialup (which was under title 2), and to get access to the broadband homes and businesses.
One, nobody said you benefited from "NN type rules," the point was that if you were launching your startup today you'd be forced to be more in touch with these issues. There weren't specific "net neutrality" type rules in 1995, and because you paid for multicast tunnels, peering points and a premium for dial up while getting Broadcast.com off the group doesn't mean, or prove, anything.
"Your premise that only big companies can win is so outdated and ridiculous that you would think its 1968 and you just got fired from IBM."
There's quite a few off topic straw men in your comment, like this one. I don't think I said "only big companies can win." I did say that as somebody who has covered AT&T, Comcast and Verizon specifically for fifteen years, I've seen these companies repeatedly and aggressively use their gatekeeper and lobbying power to crush smaller companies, competitors and entrepreneurs across numerous market segments. As they've grown and consolidated in the absence of competition, that's only getting worse. That's something you've ignored historically, and it's again something you ignore again here.
"Do i like that the big ISPs get to put all kinds of bs fees on us and in our bills. No. But i dont think regulation solves any of that."
Regulation exists. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. You, in contrast, seem to think that somehow, magically, by doing nothing (because government can never, ever work, right?) that everything's somehow going to be ok. Again, as somebody who covers these companies for a living, I can tell you without a doubt that without some smart rules of the road here, things are absolutely NOT going to be ok -- especially for the smaller entrepreneurs of tomorrow.
"And we have 5g on the horizon. Do you think it will get here faster with more regulation ?"
5G isn't even remotely out of the standards over yet, but yeah, I think a complicated global wireless standard impacting hundreds of countries will probably get here just fine whether or not the FCC reclassifies ISPs under Title II. As an aside, did you know portions of wireless infrastructure -- and parts of Verizon's FiOS network are regulated under Title II, and nobody has died? Not a single sky has fallen.
"thats where you are on NN. You got it wrong. You made the mistake of getting religious . THe foundation of the NN argument is what you believe will happen. You provide a few anecdotes from more than 10 years of history as a foundation that your premise must be true.
For me it's really not religion or prediction, it's experience from years of writing about these issues for ten hours a day. I provided your own incorrect statements from the last decade. I also provided countless examples of ISPs using duopoly gatekeeper power to hinder smaller companies (I can provide many, many more). I've provided numerous examples of how Title II really isn't going to be that big of a deal and is the only sensible path forward in the absence of competition.
You, in contrast, seem to be arguing that net neutrality isn't real and rules aren't needed -- because Ayn Rand your tummy tells you so.
There does appear to be a fear of upsetting the industry that pays them by showing them data they don't want to see. Even when Nielsen can be bothered to collect some of this data, they're quick to bury it on demand when it suits the cable and broadcast industry.
Yes, CenturyLink is on the cutting edge of fiber to the press release. Give 1 Gbps to a handful of high-end development communities, then launch a massive press barrage insisting you're on the very cutting edge of next-gen network builds.
On the post: FCC Commissioner Spearheads Flimsy Attempt To Shame And Discredit Netflix For Its Title II Support
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maxwell's equations
https://twitter.com/matthewberryfcc/status/540135260798070784
On the post: FCC Commissioner Spearheads Flimsy Attempt To Shame And Discredit Netflix For Its Title II Support
Re: Re:
On the post: FCC Commissioner Spearheads Flimsy Attempt To Shame And Discredit Netflix For Its Title II Support
Re: Re: Maxwell's equations
On the post: FCC Commissioner Spearheads Flimsy Attempt To Shame And Discredit Netflix For Its Title II Support
Re: unneutral about neutrality
https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dhGeBqxjpeh1nuMuwmVIMFNAXXukM&q=Pai+Netflix&lr=Englis h&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AHJ_VPiNMsypNuG3gugM&ved=0CCwQqgIwAA
It's little more than a coordinated smear campaign against a net neutrality supporter, yet here we are (I am) discussing it like it's a valid, well-thought out treatise.
On the post: The EFF Takes The Contentious, Sometimes Bizarre Effort To Define Net Neutrality Global
Re: Re: Start talking about the actual issue
On the post: The EFF Takes The Contentious, Sometimes Bizarre Effort To Define Net Neutrality Global
Re: And in reverse
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
Re: Clickbait vs. Real Business
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
Re: Re: Yea
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
Re: Re:
If you're talking geographically and logistically, Google's picking Western cities that are A. younger so you've got less old-school politics, newer streets, and better fiber conduits and B extremely lacking in competition so you can use the outraged locals as leverage in negotiations.
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That said, I'm still not sure that justifies your position that it was ok for ISPs to ban all P2P traffic on their networks and ignore it has some valid utility.
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
Re:
The problem historically is that investors simply lack the patience to wait for the long-term ROI broadband network investment requires. Meanwhile, smaller carriers lack the cash and firepower to do legal and political battle with AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, who've literally been writing telecom law for thirty years (we then ask why regulation fails us).
Google had the money to burn and wanted to make a point (we need more competition and faster networks for better ads and services), but I'm not sure Google Fiber ever makes its way past a half-dozen target markets.
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
Re:
You, in contrast, seem to be arguing that net neutrality isn't real and rules aren't needed -- because Ayn Rand your tummy tells you so.
On the post: After Calling Cord Cutting 'Purely Fiction' For Years, Nielsen Decides Just Maybe It Should Start Tracking Amazon, Netflix Viewing
Re: Re:
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re:
On the post: CenturyLink: We Lobby For Protectionist State Laws Because You Didn't Want Faster Fiber Anyway
Re: But here in Denver...
Next >>