I'm talking about the sort of thing we talk about Techdirt every day - copyright law, patent law, restrictions on competition, make-work bureaucracy, etc. etc.
Every one of these things are driven by some kind of special interest or other - people who think their industry, their job, their profession - are somehow more important than everyone else's and so deserve special rules that make life easier for them.
At the expense of everyone else.
And who can deliver these special rules?
Government. Because if anyone else what they're asking, it would be considered a crime.
When government doesn't it, nobody goes to jail, because no laws are broken. But it's still a crime.
And yes, I think about 70% of the population supports it.
It certainly fits with my experience of Americans.
70% or so want goodies from government, and for somebody else to pay for them.
This applies equally to both major parties (and many of the minor ones).
Somehow there's a moral elision going on...if government does the stealing, then it's legal. And if it's legal, it must be moral. So, please - go steal on my behalf.
In a free market *by definition*, sellers can offer whatever goods and services they want.
Including bad ones that no reasonable buyer would want to buy. That's stupid (because the seller will go out of business), but it's not illegal. In a *free* market.
If the market is free, sellers have little practical choice except to offer things the buyers actually want. Because if they don't, somebody else will, and get the business.
So in a free market there's no need for net neutrality - anybody who offers a walled garden isn't going to get any customers.
But only if the market is free, meaning others can compete and make a better offer.
Well you can now. I'm a firm supporter of free markets, but I support net neutrality.
Because the market for telecoms isn't free - it's heavily regulated and rigged - just try to enter the business without greasing a ton of palms from the FCC down to your local city council.
If we had a competitive market in telecoms, I'd be against net neutrality. As long as we don't, we need limits on the abuses monopolists are permitted.
Some "think tanks" are in fact PR firms in disguise.
But that's the unusual case, and I don't think the case with AEI.
Instead, people with an agenda fund the think tank that happens to already agree with their position.
Which is not the same thing as hiring academics to make your case. You're supporting those who - honestly and from conviction - already agree with you.
As I said, I agree with you that AEI is wrong here, and on some (but not all) of the other things you listed.
That doesn't make them a shill. It just means there's a disagreement. We can disagree and argue the merits of the positions without accusing each other of bad faith.
Sad thing is, what T-Mobile is doing may be useful
Throttling a video stream creates backpressure to the video server, forcing the server to reduce the bitrate (and video quality).
The sad thing is, T-Mobile is correct that this can actually be useful.
I'm sure many of their customers prefer to use less data (that they pay for) and accept lower video quality in exchange. My (old) eyes can't tell the difference between HD and SD on a tiny phone screen, yet most video servers will push the maximum quality stream that'll fit on the channel.
The problem is just the lying and confusion about it.
They want to call it "optimizing" because that sounds way better than "throttling".
This is a marketing problem - they should have found an honest way to describe what they're doing that doesn't sound bad. (That, and make it trivial for customers to turn it off when they want.)
They could have called it a "data saver" or "bitrate reduction" (and then describe it accurately).
Of course the better way is for the phone to tell the server what video quality it wants (as configured on the phone). I assume IETF hasn't gotten to that yet, or this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
Thanks for running Techdirt - my favorite blog, or whatever it is - and for helping to make the world a better place.
You are right - despite all the bad news, the world is not going to hell in a handbasket and things really are getting better. All the time.
I'll turn 55 in 2016. I've been watching this stuff for 35+ years. (I joined EFF in 1990 during the Clipper chip fight; remember that?)
And I can tell you people are learning, the culture is getting better (not worse!), and we are winning.
Slowly, in fits and starts, with many setbacks along the way. But we're winning. And I think will continue to win, if we continue to fight.
Jefferson said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Techdirt is part of that vigilance. If we (with your help) keep paying attention, and keep fighting, we will keep and expand our liberty. Despite the very real forces opposing us.
In fairness to the employer, most "shrinkage" (theft) in retail is due to employees, not customers.
That said, if the working conditions are unreasonable, the responsible thing is to quit. If enough people do that, they'll have no choice but to improve them.
On the post: AT&T CEO Thinks You're A Forgetful Idiot, Hilariously Gives Apple Encryption Advice
How about letting citizens decide?
On the post: Hillary Clinton Continues To Say Ridiculous Things About Encryption... Without Ever Taking A Real Position
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thousand points of lies
I'm talking about the sort of thing we talk about Techdirt every day - copyright law, patent law, restrictions on competition, make-work bureaucracy, etc. etc.
Every one of these things are driven by some kind of special interest or other - people who think their industry, their job, their profession - are somehow more important than everyone else's and so deserve special rules that make life easier for them.
At the expense of everyone else.
And who can deliver these special rules?
Government. Because if anyone else what they're asking, it would be considered a crime.
When government doesn't it, nobody goes to jail, because no laws are broken. But it's still a crime.
And yes, I think about 70% of the population supports it.
On the post: Hillary Clinton Continues To Say Ridiculous Things About Encryption... Without Ever Taking A Real Position
Re: Bernie Sanders
Sanders is just as ignorant and wrong as the others. He's just more sincere than the others.
On the post: Hillary Clinton Continues To Say Ridiculous Things About Encryption... Without Ever Taking A Real Position
Re: Re: Re: Re: A thousand points of lies
70% or so want goodies from government, and for somebody else to pay for them.
This applies equally to both major parties (and many of the minor ones).
Somehow there's a moral elision going on...if government does the stealing, then it's legal. And if it's legal, it must be moral. So, please - go steal on my behalf.
On the post: Comcast-Funded Think Tank: Broadband Usage Caps Make Netflix Streaming Better. You're Welcome.
Re: Re: Re: Usage
Including bad ones that no reasonable buyer would want to buy. That's stupid (because the seller will go out of business), but it's not illegal. In a *free* market.
If the market is free, sellers have little practical choice except to offer things the buyers actually want. Because if they don't, somebody else will, and get the business.
So in a free market there's no need for net neutrality - anybody who offers a walled garden isn't going to get any customers.
But only if the market is free, meaning others can compete and make a better offer.
On the post: Comcast-Funded Think Tank: Broadband Usage Caps Make Netflix Streaming Better. You're Welcome.
Re: Usage
Because the market for telecoms isn't free - it's heavily regulated and rigged - just try to enter the business without greasing a ton of palms from the FCC down to your local city council.
If we had a competitive market in telecoms, I'd be against net neutrality. As long as we don't, we need limits on the abuses monopolists are permitted.
On the post: Comcast-Funded Think Tank: Broadband Usage Caps Make Netflix Streaming Better. You're Welcome.
Re: Never change, AEI. Never change.
People can disagree with you without being "corporate blowjob artists".
You'll make a lot more progress convincing people you're right if you argue the merits and facts rather than calling people names.
On the post: Comcast-Funded Think Tank: Broadband Usage Caps Make Netflix Streaming Better. You're Welcome.
Re: Re: Ad hominum attack
But that's the unusual case, and I don't think the case with AEI.
Instead, people with an agenda fund the think tank that happens to already agree with their position.
Which is not the same thing as hiring academics to make your case. You're supporting those who - honestly and from conviction - already agree with you.
As I said, I agree with you that AEI is wrong here, and on some (but not all) of the other things you listed.
That doesn't make them a shill. It just means there's a disagreement. We can disagree and argue the merits of the positions without accusing each other of bad faith.
On the post: Comcast-Funded Think Tank: Broadband Usage Caps Make Netflix Streaming Better. You're Welcome.
Ad hominum attack
AEI has taken positions you don't like on other things, therefore they must automatically be wrong on this.
I agree that they're wrong on this, as well as some (not all) of the other things you list.
But you have to attack their case based on the facts and what they actually said.
If you simply dismiss them because you don't like their positions on other things, you make yourself look like an equally unthinking partisan.
And that does nobody any good. We need to debate real issues, not paint each other as evil.
On the post: Latest Email Dump Shows Hillary Clinton Telling Aide To Send Classified Documents Over Unsecure Fax Line
Re: Must be nice...
As Mel Brooks said, "it's good to be the king".
On the post: Latest Email Dump Shows Hillary Clinton Telling Aide To Send Classified Documents Over Unsecure Fax Line
It's good to be the king. [eom]
On the post: As Its CEO Continues To Claim It Doesn't Throttle, T-Mobile Spokesperson Confirms Company Throttles
Re: Re: Re: It's another thing entirely for the head to be ignorant of what the hands are up to...
On the post: As Its CEO Continues To Claim It Doesn't Throttle, T-Mobile Spokesperson Confirms Company Throttles
Re: Re: Sad thing is, what T-Mobile is doing may be useful
On the post: As Its CEO Continues To Claim It Doesn't Throttle, T-Mobile Spokesperson Confirms Company Throttles
Re: It's another thing entirely for the head to be ignorant of what the hands are up to...
Management is hard.
On the post: As Its CEO Continues To Claim It Doesn't Throttle, T-Mobile Spokesperson Confirms Company Throttles
Re: Re: Sad thing is, what T-Mobile is doing may be useful
It should be a single setting in the phone (or more accurately, the web browser).
Since we don't have that, what T-Mobile is doing is useful.
To some people, some of the time.
But I agree - it should have been opt-in. And without the lying.
On the post: As Its CEO Continues To Claim It Doesn't Throttle, T-Mobile Spokesperson Confirms Company Throttles
Sad thing is, what T-Mobile is doing may be useful
The sad thing is, T-Mobile is correct that this can actually be useful.
I'm sure many of their customers prefer to use less data (that they pay for) and accept lower video quality in exchange. My (old) eyes can't tell the difference between HD and SD on a tiny phone screen, yet most video servers will push the maximum quality stream that'll fit on the channel.
The problem is just the lying and confusion about it.
They want to call it "optimizing" because that sounds way better than "throttling".
This is a marketing problem - they should have found an honest way to describe what they're doing that doesn't sound bad. (That, and make it trivial for customers to turn it off when they want.)
They could have called it a "data saver" or "bitrate reduction" (and then describe it accurately).
Of course the better way is for the phone to tell the server what video quality it wants (as configured on the phone). I assume IETF hasn't gotten to that yet, or this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
On the post: New Year's Message: Keep Moving Forward
THANK YOU, Mike!
You are right - despite all the bad news, the world is not going to hell in a handbasket and things really are getting better. All the time.
I'll turn 55 in 2016. I've been watching this stuff for 35+ years. (I joined EFF in 1990 during the Clipper chip fight; remember that?)
And I can tell you people are learning, the culture is getting better (not worse!), and we are winning.
Slowly, in fits and starts, with many setbacks along the way. But we're winning. And I think will continue to win, if we continue to fight.
Jefferson said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Techdirt is part of that vigilance. If we (with your help) keep paying attention, and keep fighting, we will keep and expand our liberty. Despite the very real forces opposing us.
Thank you, Mike, for all your work.
Happy New Year!!
On the post: Police Union Thinks Cops Should Receive Less Scrutiny Than Retail Workers
Re: REALLY??
That said, if the working conditions are unreasonable, the responsible thing is to quit. If enough people do that, they'll have no choice but to improve them.
Of course, everyone has to make a living.
But there are other jobs, and other employers.
On the post: Telekom Gets Smartwatch Maker To Change All Its Logos Because Magenta
Re: Right or wrong, rich or poor
It's an easy fix.
The only people who oppose it are those who win by intimidation.
On the post: Telekom Gets Smartwatch Maker To Change All Its Logos Because Magenta
Re: Re:
And changing 25,000 image files? Updating every place that used them?
This cost them at least 10x that amount. Maybe 50x.
Next >>