In six months FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will be a VP at NBC Universal/Comcast. Not a bribe; just coincidence.
Google, Apple and Netflix just have to bribe harder
[deleted]
F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane
201–210 of 286 posts
Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane
#202People say: this could hurt startups. Which makes me think: so? Isn't it inherent to startups that they have a competitive disadvantage in areas where expensive infrastructure is required? Isn't it an inherent advantage big businesses have over startups? Let's take the history of telco monopolies off the table for a minute. Let's say these are purely privately funded networks with no government sanctioned subsidies.…
This would be pay for play(speed) though. Not efficiency for play(speed).
Efficiency should rightfully be encouraged, but pay for speed effectively means the first entrant is the winner for the rest of time no matter their improvements in efficiency (obviously depending on the nature and implementation of these rumoured policies).
Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
The colloquial term for this is "revolving door."
There's three kinds of corruption: - apparent when there isn't (false positive - mistaken) - apparent when there is (obvious) - not apparent when there is (false negative - not obvious) I'd define corruption as a pattern of putting profit/loss considerations ahead of public interests. Other than personal ethics, this is a really hard thing to control for because it goes to why people want to be public servants and wh…
There's something to be said for lifetime appointments: "we trust you enough to give you this job and pay you enough to be comfortable for the rest of your life. If you clearly violate that trust, we'll impeach you and you will never again be trusted."
I could be wrong, but I don't think federal judges and Supreme Court Justices participate in the revolving door. Supreme Court Justices are deeply political, but they're not sell-outs like Chris Dodd.
Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure. Google is very aware that 100% of their userbase (and revenue) are one click away from using another search engine. If this decision makes it more difficult for a start up to create a better way for people to search the internet, you can see why Google might not put up a fight..
> Google is very aware that 100% of their userbase (and revenue) are one click away from using another search engine. Actually, google outperforms all other search engines. It seems some people prefer duckduckgo (as search engine i mean, not just for the other features), but most i heard people couldn't get the same results (including myself). Secondly, Google is much more than search nowadays. 100% of their income i…
> It seems some people prefer duckduckgo (as search engine i mean, not just for the other features), but most i heard people couldn't get the same results (including myself).
Try https://startpage.com/ instead, then.
Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane
#205People say: this could hurt startups. Which makes me think: so? Isn't it inherent to startups that they have a competitive disadvantage in areas where expensive infrastructure is required? Isn't it an inherent advantage big businesses have over startups? Let's take the history of telco monopolies off the table for a minute. Let's say these are purely privately funded networks with no government sanctioned subsidies.…
The balance between advantages to existing firms and advantages to startups is very much set by political and regulatory choices (like this). Given how much other legislation and regulation there already is affecting the balance, this is only one variable in the mix, and I'm hesitant to believe it shifts the balance in the right direction (where "right" is what's best for society).
Furthermore, ISPs seem to me to be a far cry from the "free market" (I have very few options for my ISP), so I don't believe simply reducing regulation will lead to the best outcome.
Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here in Australia with the most mainstream ISP it costs $90/month for 200GB and a theoretical max speed of 24 Mbits/s via ADSL2 (I only get 10). By global standards you are not being robbed.
I down voted you, allow me to explain why. I personally find this style of "at least its not as bad as somewhere else" argument really infuriating. Because it attempts to shift the argument from "How can we do better? to "Be thankful its not worse!" Its defeatist at best, and actively promotes/degrades the status quo at worst. You aren't making an insightful or interesting post by doing this, you are simply being dis…
I'm not making an argument. I'm just providing another perspective. I entirely agree that both situations need improving.
Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bit Torrent doesn't produce anything, it's just a distribution channel. I fail to see why HBO should spend anything on accommodating people who have no inclination to pay for the product they produce.
Maybe HBO should embrace an innovative distribution model, instead of clinging to the obsolete premium-cable-channel model. HBO itself would have been impossible if the media establishment had been success at killing cable; why should I feel an iota of sympathy for HBO's unwillingness to embrace newer, better technologies? Why shouldn't I use better technology to access entertainment, regardless of whether or not HBO…
Because you don't have an automatic right to be entertained. I might want to watch Game of Thrones, but since I haven't seen fit to buy a HBO subscription I do without, and HBO is under no obligation to give it to me.
A lot of people seem to assume that HBO and similar publishers either have no interest in or no understanding of new technology, but the fact is that they're as eager to exploit it as anyone else, hence the availability of HBO Go to Amazon customers later this year. That won't have the latest and greatest shows on it, though; not because HBO is trying to make your life worse, but because they have signed multi-year contracs to provide their product exclusively to cable companies for a minimum period. Cable companies want to be able to offer their customers something that they can't get anywhere else in order to retain them as subscribers. Exclusivity or first-refusal deals are the norm in the publishing world, because it's hard to run a business without them.
Again, why do you assume you have the right to be served entertainment through the channel of your choice? You wouldn't call up your local pizzeria and demand they deliver a Big Mac and fries, would you?
Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
There should be laws against this sort of stuff. Like you can't work for a company in a related domain for 5 years before and after taking the government job. As it is, it just leads to too much corruption.
The flip side is that you won't want someone in said position that doesn't know anything about the industry. Do you want a luddite making technology policy, for example. Not that I'm all for regulatory capture or anything.
> Do you want a luddite making technology policy, for example.
Would that be worse? Say 50% of the time they get the policy right where the corrupt policy maker gets it deliberately wrong all of the time.
Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here in Australia with the most mainstream ISP it costs $90/month for 200GB and a theoretical max speed of 24 Mbits/s via ADSL2 (I only get 10). By global standards you are not being robbed.
throwaway2048 really hit the crux of the argument but let me be a little more specific: you too are being robbed. And I understand that Australia is a HUGE country with a tiny population/sqmi so at least for the next few years they kinda have to "steal" from you to make it profitable in the long run (same thing happened/is happening with our wireless services here) but still it's not really a fair rate to charge you…
I entirely agree that we are both being robbed and that everyone's rates can be a lot lower. I was trying to offer some perspective. The geography and population size means that telecommunication costs will always be higher in Australia.
Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
By "prior", they mean 30 years ago, at a time when the cable industry was the underdog fighting against the powerful broadcasters, and cable lobbyist [1] was a pro-consumer job. Looking at what he's been involved in since then [2], it's all over the place. There's stuff in cable, stuff in wireless, stuff in phone, co-founder of a company that repairs aerospace components, PBS director, and a bunch of other things. I'…
In fairness, the head of the AMA is probably reasonably described as a lobbyist.
In fairness to whom?