Ha. Funny, and largely true. An example I often have used is that, while US celcos certainly competed pretty hard on the price for the "bucket of minutes" in the first decade of this century, and now compete on the price of a bucket of data, there has been almost NO competition on the price of international roaming for voice or data.
Basically, the industry has learned that when consumers shop for a phone, they can only juggle one or two factors on which to compare carriers. That removes any pressure to compete on other factors, which can still be used to gouge customers.
But as a point of order, to an economist, a competitive market is one in which the participants are "price takers" not "price makers".
If the sellers, as VZW is doing in this article, are able to choose their price at will for a commodity product, the market is not competitive.
" If all the customers decide to use that 1Gb at the same time the network will slow to a crawl."
Yeah, you're right. But you do understand you are talking in a total hypothetical, which bears no resemblance to the real world, right?
Meanwhile, the ISPs have perfect information on the real time loads of their networks over time, and you can easily view public versions of same. Look at the red graph half way down this article:
It's not a technical reason, beyond what you described above. It's about simplicity, and psychological reasons.
1 - Psych - As you noted, if people are capped, they will make some conscious decisions about their use, and reduce it. They will reduce constantly streaming apps, total video downloads per month, etc. That helps reduce aggregate demand a lot. Though, as you said, peaks are still peaks. But then, they are lower peaks, yes?
2 - Simplicity - I'm sure every ISP would love to tell customers:
"You can have X GB of data between the hours of 1am and 6am, X GB between 6am and 3pm, X between 3pm and 10pm, and x between 10pm and 1am. For mobile use, you can have unlimited when in non-congested cell sectors, but are limited to a slower bandwidth when in congested cells. Premium customers will have access to priority data in congested cells, and economy customers will have their traffic shaped based on real-time congestion issues. Thank you, please sign up now."
But how many people do you think really want to get into the sausage making when they shop ISPs? Truth is, most people can't even comprehend the concepts in the paragraph above, even though it's based on what you have identified as the actual technical facts, and real-time supply and demand. Nope. People want it simple. That's what cell carriers and long-distance carriers learned when they ditched complicated rate plans with time-of-day complexities and regional local-toll fees. People gravitated to "one rate" and "no roaming" and "unlimited" plans, because they could understand them, and not be surprised at month's end.
Here, read this, and tell me if you think the average american wants their services priced using this logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak-load_pricing The logic is sound, but 40% of Americans don't believe in evolution, so I've a feeling they're not down for this kind of complexity.
Perhaps in a more competitive market, with dozens of carriers, one would emerge as the geek-speak carrier with real-time demand-based data pricing. But the consumer market has indicated it wants certainty and clarity, not spot market pricing.
So, in conclusion, simple caps achieve an imperfect balance of two goals: - the carriers want you to use less data during peaks, and to extract as big profits as possible at all times - the majority of consumers want simplicity, a billing plan they can understand, and predictable & lower bills.
More competition in our market would most certainly lower the bills, but I wouldn't hold your breath for peak-load economics pricing, even if we increase competition.
We also talk about how an iPhone app ecosystem is too closed, and subject to the whims of Apple.
We also talk about how Blackberry is a shrinking ecosystem, and the CEO is nuts to say there should be a law to force developers to make apps for it.
Does that mean we must also steal iPhones and Blackberries?
Does talking about some business challenge forcibly mean you must steal that product? Then I'm gonna need a ski mask and a gun, cuz I'm woefully behind.
Hah. Funny. I just wrote a comment saying the opposite. I hate the massive payouts our country sees. I like $25k, although I'd prefer $100k as more appropriate for wasting 3 years of this guy's time.
So in response to your point that this money is paid by the taxpayers anyways, how would any higher amount deter them any more?
I'm with you, firing, demotions, and other such job action should also be part of the punishment. But the dollar amount is unrelated to this.
And I think this judgement precisely contributes to "creating an environment where it's unacceptable to detain people just because they want to learn another language".
I love this closure. It is about a learning moment for the TSA and the Philly Police, and a nominal payment for the victim.
Our country has too many multi-million dollar court-ordered payments. Like the xxAA cases, and hot coffee, and thousands more. If fines were equal to lost time + suffering x 2, our insurance rates would be better, and we would sue less, and we would seem fewer restrictions for fear of lawsuit, and greater freedom.
I wonder. Not living in LA, I can't say. But don't you suppose that, in the film industry and among its workers, there would be the common knowledge that:
"If you leak a film, the studio and the full weight of their legal team will come the fuck down on you like a ton of bricks."
My bet is that the DO let that out, they DO make that threat known among the industry, because it is true, and because it behooves them. The thing is, neither of us is in that microcosm, nor reads Variety mag on a regular basis.
There's no point in publicizing that industry insider threat to the wider public, since they don't handle pre-release studio copies.
I'm disappointed you got "insightful" for this. Seems you are entirely wrong.
What evidence or reason do you have to believe that the MPAA and studios aren't ALSO trying to reduce the number of leaks at the source?
Here are some readily observable things indicating they are: - security and gates at the studios - they send movies to theaters under fake names, and use fake names in production
Here are some things one could easily imagine they also do: - protect final edits of films with great care, making sure only specially authorized personnel have access - pursue leakers to the full extent of the law - keep final edit copies in locked rooms / locked down computers, encrypted - tag, watermark, and ID existing copies to be able to trace leaks
Now, I'm not pro-MPAA, but you can't just make shit up, like "why don't they prevent movies hitting the net" and "there's no investigation into who leaked the screeners".
Even the sloppy Sony Pictures had the movies password protected, and is seeking the source of its leaks!
Google's Crimes: - seems to be making revenue that everyone else thinks should be their revenues. - helps people find the things they want, sometimes bad guy stuff! Oh my!
Netflix's Crimes: - causes demand for the ISP's product, and thus forces them to invest in capacity upgrades.
100 pages saying "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."
Followed by a footnote in 8pt font saying the prior 100 pages were off by a bit, and "dull boy" should be replaced with "psychotic killer wielding an axe". Sorry Shelley Duvall and Scatman Crothers, but you were clearly warned.
That sounded great to me. I could be rid of my trusty Slingbox, and the added complexity. But every time I've tried to use the Tivo streaming functionality, I've found a DRM douchebaggy impediment. Here's a list of what I've found.
1 Did not work with my Android, only worked with Apple. OK, Android was added later.
2 Would not work on my wife's iPhone on AT&t, only over WiFi.
3 Would not work on my Android phone, because phone was previously rooted.
4 Does not work out of country. (OK, pretty common restriction, but that's over half of my use cases, and my Slingbox does it fine.)
In all, it fails in just about each of my family's usage scenarios. So, thus far, I am pretty much f@#$d, so I have only used it in my home over the LAN. Yay! TV content I bought in my very own home! I re-installed my Slingbox.
It seems like Tivo worked very hard to make sure I could not use the place shifting feature. And succeeded.
Now, tech is hard enough to get to work when everybody is trying to make it work. When certain switches and gates are put in, with the express purpose of making the tech NOT work, well, chances are the content will not flow, both from the gates working as planned, and also from random false positives or other glitches.
"The punishment for impeding someone's First Amendment rights should be at least as dire"
So true.
The harm of a first amendment infringement is far more serious than that of a copyright infringement.
One is an abrogation of basic human rights, as detailed in the 1st Amendment to the constitution and the damage is ALWAYS irreversible. When speech is impeded, that opportunity for speech is gone forever. Even if the ban is lifted later on, you can't restore the lost speech opportunity.
The other contravenes some mundane laws about commerce. It also is a problem for which there can be compensation, and there often is at ridiculously high amounts.
Yet the current system of control and enforcement is biased in entirely the wrong direction. Control and enforcement of copyright is AT ODDS with our laws and constitution.
I'm pretty sure Mr. Garrison, of Southpark, CO, already invented that.
" "IT" can go up to two hundred miles per hour, and gets three hundred miles to the gallon. The only problem is that "IT" is controlled by a quite painful and uncomfortable method; using four "flexi-grip handles" that somewhat resemble erect penises; two held in the hands, one in the mouth, and a fourth handle which is inserted into the anus."
Not for me, at all. The features listed by AC would be worth a premium price to me:
"no region restrictions, no release windows depending on where you live, and no previews to clutter it up. Fast forward will not be disabled."
I stopped buying DVDs because most of those features are contrary to what a DVD offers. If Hollywood DVDs had those ease-of-use features, I'd still be buying DVDs at $15 each.
You're only talking about one movie, and one for which their was a North Korean "Fatwah" on theaters that showed it.
Mike is taking more about the Motion Picture industry's ongoing track record.
And, in fact, the one movie that you are talking about kind of proves many points Techdirt has made over the years. By offering easier legit access, more people will buy. There will still be piracy, but there will also be more legit online sales.
"so its worth as much as the paper its printed on."
No, far less than that.
That particular piece of paper is quite the collector's item, and I'm sure has a very high monetary value. It's stored securely under glass at the National Archives.
On the post: Verizon Shows Just How Competitive The Wireless Industry Really Is By Simply Refusing To Compete On Price
Re: competition is more than one seller
Basically, the industry has learned that when consumers shop for a phone, they can only juggle one or two factors on which to compare carriers. That removes any pressure to compete on other factors, which can still be used to gouge customers.
But as a point of order, to an economist, a competitive market is one in which the participants are "price takers" not "price makers".
If the sellers, as VZW is doing in this article, are able to choose their price at will for a commodity product, the market is not competitive.
On the post: Verizon Shows Just How Competitive The Wireless Industry Really Is By Simply Refusing To Compete On Price
Re: Re:
Yeah, you're right. But you do understand you are talking in a total hypothetical, which bears no resemblance to the real world, right?
Meanwhile, the ISPs have perfect information on the real time loads of their networks over time, and you can easily view public versions of same. Look at the red graph half way down this article:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/are-bandwidth-caps-about-easing-congestion-or-protect ing-television/
So, why use your unrealistic hypothetical? You'll go much farther if you start from known reality, and argue from there.
BTW, I hope you guys also note that the peaks aren't as dramatic as you might have thought. It's the 5AM trough that stands out the most.
On the post: Verizon Shows Just How Competitive The Wireless Industry Really Is By Simply Refusing To Compete On Price
Re: Re: Re:
1 - Psych - As you noted, if people are capped, they will make some conscious decisions about their use, and reduce it. They will reduce constantly streaming apps, total video downloads per month, etc. That helps reduce aggregate demand a lot. Though, as you said, peaks are still peaks. But then, they are lower peaks, yes?
2 - Simplicity - I'm sure every ISP would love to tell customers:
"You can have X GB of data between the hours of 1am and 6am, X GB between 6am and 3pm, X between 3pm and 10pm, and x between 10pm and 1am. For mobile use, you can have unlimited when in non-congested cell sectors, but are limited to a slower bandwidth when in congested cells. Premium customers will have access to priority data in congested cells, and economy customers will have their traffic shaped based on real-time congestion issues. Thank you, please sign up now."
But how many people do you think really want to get into the sausage making when they shop ISPs? Truth is, most people can't even comprehend the concepts in the paragraph above, even though it's based on what you have identified as the actual technical facts, and real-time supply and demand. Nope. People want it simple. That's what cell carriers and long-distance carriers learned when they ditched complicated rate plans with time-of-day complexities and regional local-toll fees. People gravitated to "one rate" and "no roaming" and "unlimited" plans, because they could understand them, and not be surprised at month's end.
Here, read this, and tell me if you think the average american wants their services priced using this logic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak-load_pricing
The logic is sound, but 40% of Americans don't believe in evolution, so I've a feeling they're not down for this kind of complexity.
Perhaps in a more competitive market, with dozens of carriers, one would emerge as the geek-speak carrier with real-time demand-based data pricing. But the consumer market has indicated it wants certainty and clarity, not spot market pricing.
So, in conclusion, simple caps achieve an imperfect balance of two goals:
- the carriers want you to use less data during peaks, and to extract as big profits as possible at all times
- the majority of consumers want simplicity, a billing plan they can understand, and predictable & lower bills.
More competition in our market would most certainly lower the bills, but I wouldn't hold your breath for peak-load economics pricing, even if we increase competition.
On the post: Analysis Of Pirated Oscar Movies Shows They're Almost All Available... In HD (And Not From Screeners)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We also talk about how Blackberry is a shrinking ecosystem, and the CEO is nuts to say there should be a law to force developers to make apps for it.
Does that mean we must also steal iPhones and Blackberries?
Does talking about some business challenge forcibly mean you must steal that product? Then I'm gonna need a ski mask and a gun, cuz I'm woefully behind.
On the post: Government Pays Up To Settle With Traveler Who Was Detained By TSA For Trying To Learn Arabic
Re: Punishments should be a deterrent
So in response to your point that this money is paid by the taxpayers anyways, how would any higher amount deter them any more?
I'm with you, firing, demotions, and other such job action should also be part of the punishment. But the dollar amount is unrelated to this.
And I think this judgement precisely contributes to "creating an environment where it's unacceptable to detain people just because they want to learn another language".
On the post: Government Pays Up To Settle With Traveler Who Was Detained By TSA For Trying To Learn Arabic
Finally, A Good Settlement
Our country has too many multi-million dollar court-ordered payments. Like the xxAA cases, and hot coffee, and thousands more. If fines were equal to lost time + suffering x 2, our insurance rates would be better, and we would sue less, and we would seem fewer restrictions for fear of lawsuit, and greater freedom.
On the post: Analysis Of Pirated Oscar Movies Shows They're Almost All Available... In HD (And Not From Screeners)
Re: Re: Re:
"If you leak a film, the studio and the full weight of their legal team will come the fuck down on you like a ton of bricks."
My bet is that the DO let that out, they DO make that threat known among the industry, because it is true, and because it behooves them. The thing is, neither of us is in that microcosm, nor reads Variety mag on a regular basis.
There's no point in publicizing that industry insider threat to the wider public, since they don't handle pre-release studio copies.
On the post: Analysis Of Pirated Oscar Movies Shows They're Almost All Available... In HD (And Not From Screeners)
Re:
What evidence or reason do you have to believe that the MPAA and studios aren't ALSO trying to reduce the number of leaks at the source?
Here are some readily observable things indicating they are:
- security and gates at the studios
- they send movies to theaters under fake names, and use fake names in production
Here are some things one could easily imagine they also do:
- protect final edits of films with great care, making sure only specially authorized personnel have access
- pursue leakers to the full extent of the law
- keep final edit copies in locked rooms / locked down computers, encrypted
- tag, watermark, and ID existing copies to be able to trace leaks
Now, I'm not pro-MPAA, but you can't just make shit up, like "why don't they prevent movies hitting the net" and "there's no investigation into who leaked the screeners".
Even the sloppy Sony Pictures had the movies password protected, and is seeking the source of its leaks!
On the post: FCC Commissioner Pai Continues His Strange, Somewhat Incoherent Assault On Netflix
Re:
Google's Crimes:
- seems to be making revenue that everyone else thinks should be their revenues.
- helps people find the things they want, sometimes bad guy stuff! Oh my!
Netflix's Crimes:
- causes demand for the ISP's product, and thus forces them to invest in capacity upgrades.
On the post: FCC Commissioner Pai Continues His Strange, Somewhat Incoherent Assault On Netflix
wait
"Netflix....is really the one to blame for most of the Internet's Service Provider's market demand."
There. Fixed that for him. Essentially, Netflix isn't stealing anyone's slice, it's just growing the Pai. I'd estimate by a factor of about 3.14.
On the post: That Study In Every Paper Claiming Title II Will Result In $15 Billion In New Taxes? Yeah, That's Total Bunk
Hiding the Lede
Followed by a footnote in 8pt font saying the prior 100 pages were off by a bit, and "dull boy" should be replaced with "psychotic killer wielding an axe". Sorry Shelley Duvall and Scatman Crothers, but you were clearly warned.
On the post: Broadcasters Working Hard To Cripple Dish's Consumer Friendly Sling TV
My Tivo's Placeshifting Gotchas
http://pr.tivo.com/press-releases/roam-free-baby-nasdaq-tivo-1062178
That sounded great to me. I could be rid of my trusty Slingbox, and the added complexity. But every time I've tried to use the Tivo streaming functionality, I've found a DRM douchebaggy impediment. Here's a list of what I've found.
1 Did not work with my Android, only worked with Apple. OK, Android was added later.
2 Would not work on my wife's iPhone on AT&t, only over WiFi.
3 Would not work on my Android phone, because phone was previously rooted.
4 Does not work out of country. (OK, pretty common restriction, but that's over half of my use cases, and my Slingbox does it fine.)
In all, it fails in just about each of my family's usage scenarios. So, thus far, I am pretty much f@#$d, so I have only used it in my home over the LAN. Yay! TV content I bought in my very own home! I re-installed my Slingbox.
It seems like Tivo worked very hard to make sure I could not use the place shifting feature. And succeeded.
Now, tech is hard enough to get to work when everybody is trying to make it work. When certain switches and gates are put in, with the express purpose of making the tech NOT work, well, chances are the content will not flow, both from the gates working as planned, and also from random false positives or other glitches.
On the post: Schrodinger's Carrier: AT&T Is/Is Not A Common Carrier Depending On Who's Looking For What Reason
Re:
On the post: Prominent YouTube Personality Locked Out Of His Account After A Bogus Copyright Claim
Re: Re: Small but direly needed fixes
So true.
The harm of a first amendment infringement is far more serious than that of a copyright infringement.
One is an abrogation of basic human rights, as detailed in the 1st Amendment to the constitution and the damage is ALWAYS irreversible. When speech is impeded, that opportunity for speech is gone forever. Even if the ban is lifted later on, you can't restore the lost speech opportunity.
The other contravenes some mundane laws about commerce. It also is a problem for which there can be compensation, and there often is at ridiculously high amounts.
Yet the current system of control and enforcement is biased in entirely the wrong direction. Control and enforcement of copyright is AT ODDS with our laws and constitution.
On the post: DailyDirt: Getting Around On Tiny Wheels
Re: Not yet
" "IT" can go up to two hundred miles per hour, and gets three hundred miles to the gallon. The only problem is that "IT" is controlled by a quite painful and uncomfortable method; using four "flexi-grip handles" that somewhat resemble erect penises; two held in the hands, one in the mouth, and a fourth handle which is inserted into the anus."
Patent Pegging, I mean pending.
On the post: Search For Free Downloads Of 'The Interview' Shows How Pointless The MPAA's Anti-Google Strategy Really Is
Re: Re:
Not for me, at all. The features listed by AC would be worth a premium price to me:
"no region restrictions, no release windows depending on where you live, and no previews to clutter it up. Fast forward will not be disabled."
I stopped buying DVDs because most of those features are contrary to what a DVD offers. If Hollywood DVDs had those ease-of-use features, I'd still be buying DVDs at $15 each.
On the post: Search For Free Downloads Of 'The Interview' Shows How Pointless The MPAA's Anti-Google Strategy Really Is
Re:
Mike is taking more about the Motion Picture industry's ongoing track record.
And, in fact, the one movie that you are talking about kind of proves many points Techdirt has made over the years. By offering easier legit access, more people will buy. There will still be piracy, but there will also be more legit online sales.
On the post: FBI Says It Has A Warrant Requirement For Stingray Use; Has Exception Broad Enough To Ensure It Never Needs A Warrant
Re:
Geez. This is as complicated as Bob Dylan:
"The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind."
or was it
"The answer, my friend, is 'blowing in the wind.'"
On the post: FBI Says It Has A Warrant Requirement For Stingray Use; Has Exception Broad Enough To Ensure It Never Needs A Warrant
Re: Re: WTF
No, far less than that.
That particular piece of paper is quite the collector's item, and I'm sure has a very high monetary value. It's stored securely under glass at the National Archives.
Your 4th rights, OTOH, ain't worth squat.
On the post: Air Canada Blocks Access To Any Google Hosted RSS Feed (Including Techdirt) For No Good Reason
Re: Trchcrunch too
Not an embryo discussion.
Next >>