"Unlike Karl, I actually write "nuanced" legal analysis, such as pointing out that the FCC actually won, while other libertarians claimed -- truly without "nuance" that the decision was a loss for the FCC"
Was that the same nuanced analysis where you claimed that the FCC, an agency with a history of significant, consistent deregulation and fear of making any truly bold regulatory moves was on the cusp of going regulation mad and destroying the Internet?
I agree there's theater with Google Fiber, but that was kind of their plan. The goal was to light a PR fire under existing providers by pretending that Google Fiber was a threat that could pop up in your town eventually, and create a discussion nationally about why speeds are slow and prices are high. In that regard it's quite successful.
Nearly every major policy effort at the FCC has, at its heart, an unyielding commitment NOT to upset the nation's biggest carriers. The FCC may occasionally LOOK like they're pushing hard regulations (like the original net neutrality rules that didn't do all that much), but people need to understand that about 90% of what comes out of their mouth is political theater.
For example, promising to bring wireless broadband to 99% of the population (when that was going to happen without the FCC's help) or insisting they're entirely dedicated to improving competition (yet they never ever talk about, or release data on, broadband price).
They're not going to madly start regulating the Internet. People worried about that should sleep much better than people worried about expensive broadband.
Feel free to talk with Sonic.net CEO Dane Jasper (which I have in my quest to understand it). He's a great guy. He'll explain to you that hosting these servers is painless and the cost is minimal. And hosting them benefits EVERYONE. complaining because of forty inches of shelf space seems like a stretch. They also can refuse to host them and now still get Super HD streams.
The article's core point was that some Netflix services were being "withheld," and that's not actually happening.
"OK, so AT&T proposed Sponsored Data before ESPN. I stand corrected. So what? Do you disagree that content owners may in fact have more market power, or that much of the market power often attributed to cable/broadband (for example, blaming them for higher cable bills) actually belongs to big programmers?"
"So what" that you were wrong? BROADCASTERS have significant market power, but that's not entirely what you were arguing. You were trying to pretend smaller video streaming operators have equal leverage with giant companies like Comcast, which simply isn't true. I don't buy this "two-sided" market argument, sorry. It pretends there's no such thing as incumbent telecom network gatekeepers with long, rich histories of anti-competitive behavior, and it tries to pretend video streaming operators are much more powerful than they actually are.
"Second, as for that "recent bout of painfully un-nuanced Wired editorials featuring Szoka seem more like Colbert-esque satire than honest discussion," which part of my piece with Geoff Manne explaining what the DC Circuit's Net Neutrality decision actually meant did you find un-nuanced?"
How about the part, like all of your editorials, where incumbent giant broadband companies are infallible and completely blameless? Or the part where you pretend the FCC, which really has largely deregulated industry for more than two decades while doing nothing about key consumer issues, is a diabolical agency secretly planning to "over regulate?"
"Or did you actually read both, set aside your fixation on the need for a particular kind of Net neutrality regulation, and think for just a moment about the dangers of Section 706?"
Actually I don't have any fixation on a need for a "particular kind" of neutrality regs, because I think the FCC should focus on improving competition first and foremost. Yes, 706 is legally untenable, but you needn't worry -- what you're going to see Wheeler do is a set of cross-industry voluntary guidelines instead of real regulation because he knows this. Why is it do you think that AT&T isn't worried about any of this if the FCC really was a serious threat to "over regulate"? They'd be howling if your argument were true.
"For the record, I didn't chose the title of either piece and was annoyed at both. On the January piece, it's not actually true that the FCC "Lost on Net Neutrality," just as it's not true that anyone has "Killed Net Neutrality." Net neutrality lives on via Section 706."
I never complained about the titles, I complained about the errors within the stories and the stories themselves. Mainly the conflations and omissions, most of which you still haven't discussed or defended (like you ignore how AT&T Sponsored Data could create an unlevel playing field for wealthier content creators).
"What kind of corporate shill for the cable industry would write, as I did in Wired last summer, that we should do everything we can to level the playing field so that companies like Google Fiber, CenturyLink, Sonic.Net and Verizon can build out competitive infrastructure? Did you actually read that piece? (I didn't choose that title either.)"
I don't believe I called you a "corporate shill," so I can't comment there. :) And the editorial you reference was effectively blaming the lack of broadband competition ENTIRELY on local governments, which as someone who has written about the industry for more than a decade, I can tell you is unfounded.
"On this point, I will reiterate my work at TechFreedom, and before that at PFF, has been supported by both ISPs and edge providers, currently including Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Google, Amazon, Facebook and Yahoo! I don't think any of them would continue to support our work if they found it "painfully un-nuanced."
I won't bother much with this unless you're willing to show us your books (you're not), but because you receive money from numerous industries doesn't mean much to me in terms of whether the money you DO get from broadband providers influences your editorials.
"Again, thanks for being so gracious and nuanced. You, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman."
This is all before you realize that former FCC boss Michael Powell now runs the top cable lobbyist organization the NCTA. Or that former FCC ommissioner Meredith Attwell Baker is also now a Comcast lobbyist. Or that DOJ Antitrust Division director William J. Baer also represented NBCUniversal during Comcast’s acquisition. Or that top Comcast policy man David Cohen is a huge Obama fund raiser, and he and CEO Brian Roberts are golfing friends.
I think pirates have had some recent luck with the Gateway flashcart, but it doesn't work on any of the newer firmware updates and I don't think it's as easy as some of the flashcarts were for the DSi. As such overall I think 3DS piracy is still lower that it was with previous incarnations. Sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm entirely on board when this is all available via either contacts, indistinguishably normal glasses frames, or a ten-second entirely pain-free implant process. Until then, no thanks. I want my cyborg aspirations to be my own business.
I'm fine with diverse opinion. I like many Libertarian arguments. But yeah, those pieces Wired has been running of late really go out of their way to forge arguments with completely extreme and absurd underpinnings.
Like the idea that broadband providers themselves are completely faultless in the lack of market competition: