Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

• This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
   

  

  Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 12:44am

  
  

  According to a market research study by Tier1 Research, the Internet infrastructure industry generated and estimated direct and indirect $46 billion in annual revenue in 2010 with expected 20% growth by 2013, and a trade flow to the United States of $9.2 billion. New jobs more often than not require a reliable infrastructure for the Internet, and the industry drives innovation at every level.
  
  Mike, why don't you call them out on their made up numbers and slippery "direct and indirect" logic?
  
  Oh wait, you support them, so you won't question them.
  
  Carry on!

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 12:54am

  
  

  Re:

  How about you provide substance to support your argument?
  
  Oh, wait, that would require work and critical thinking!
  
  Carry on!

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
   

  

  Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 1:07am

  
  

  Re: Re:

  Huh? I am only using Mike's logic. As soon as they blabber about "indirect" Mike usually has kittens. Not for this fine upstanding group, they can shovel all the shit they want together and Mike will give it the old Techdirt thumbs up.
  
  You don't care about one sided stuff? You don't feel like perhaps you are being a little mislead around here?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  The eejit (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 1:33am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re:

  I suspect that where you'rew having the fail is that, in the US, most of the infrastructure was paid for by tax breaks and subsidies, at remarkably little costto the telcos.
  
  In the UK, for example, British Telecom is the sole provider of backbone infrastructure: however, as part of the funding of the expansion, it will be made to allow others on for the cost of providing the backbone plus pennies on the Gigabyte.
  
  And for what it's worth, I also heavily disagree on using indirect contributions to the economy.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Ninja (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 5:28am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  He's completely missing the point. But I also agree with the direct/indirect thing. What they seem to be calling indirect here is the huge world of Internet based businesses that rely on what these infrastructure players provide. The troll above refers to the criticism that Mike directed towards the MAFIAA in previous articles when they include flower shop jobs in their "indirectly supported jobs" list. But there's one main difference here, in my point of view, is that if the MAFIAA goes down these players will still stay afloat with other sources of revenue (indie producers and non movie related consumers) while if the basic Internet infrastructure players suffer the ones dependent on them will have nowhere to run.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 6:40pm

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  "He's completely missing the point"
  
  No, I am not missing the point. Rather, I am doing exactly what Mike does when "the other side" puts out a report, makes statements, or forms a group like this. I am ignoring the valid points and information, and I am going right to the place where there puff up their importance and pointing at it.
  
  In Mike's world, this is more than enough to discredit the entire organization and it's goals, because clearly if they cannot figure out their own worth in the economy in a manner that passes Mike's personal test, then they are clearly full of it.
  
  See, it really, really sucks ass when Mike's standards are applied evenly. Suddenly both sides of the discussion appear to be full of shit.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Ninja (profile), Sep 19th, 2012 @ 6:18am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Yes you are missing the point entirely... And your precious MAFIAA has done far more than what's enough to be discredited. Present some biased studies with bogus statistics from this group and we can start talking.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Judah Johns, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 5:09am

  
  

  Re:

  I think you are missing the point. Though some of the backbone of the Internet was government subsidized, the majority of the infrastructure of the Internet is run by small to medium sized business. Even some of the biggest things now, like the latest undersea cables being put into the ocean are privately funded.
  
  But Mike was talking about the jobs that the Internet creates. Think of how many jobs would be affected if you just killed off Softlayer, UK2, RackSpace and ServInt... that number would be hard to calculate, but it would be ridiculously high if what affected them affected all hosted service providers, which is what this coalition aims to work against--laws and policies that are damaging to the Internet's SMBs.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 7:22am

  
  

  Re:

  Because that was the point of Mike's post, to lavish praise on their numbers and statistics.
  ...
  Oh wait! It wasn't!

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment