"These things are connected due to TD's perceived pro Hillary bias. It might not be a lot but it is definitely there."
I wrote this article, don't like Hillary, don't support a huge swath of her positions, and didn't vote for her.
So if somebody is detecting "pro hillary bias" coming from me just because I'm pointing out the awful choices Donald Trump is making (running in viciously-stark contrast to his pre-election promises), that's entirely cognitive dissonance occurring in their own head.
I think we do a pretty good job here of looking beyond partisan patty cake and calling a spade a spade, regardless of what color-coded jumpsuit the person in question is wearing.
After 16 years of writing about telecom I have a real nose for this bullshit, as it gives off a very specific odor. This sort of disinformation works incredibly well. These tactics have done real damage in terms of ISPs being able to pass state laws that hamstring towns and cities' ability to make their own local broadband infrastructure decisions.
I think you'll start seeing a push this direction. In large part because many telcos are giving up on residential DSL, meaning that the incumbent cable providers are only going to get stronger and have a broader monopoly.
They really like to light up already buried fiber in a single housing development, then insist the entire market has "launched." There's a few areas (North Carolina, Austin) where they're really working because they've been forced to, but by and large these deployments are just cherry picking a few small locations.
Depends. Fiber has faster top speeds upwards of 1 to 10 Gbps, much faster than cable or DSL. It's also cheaper to maintain and more reliable that coax or DSL. But it also depends on how much speed you need. For many, 25 to 100 Mbps is more than enough (for now).
I've followed this industry for most of my adult life and I can't remember EVER seeing an ISP actually lower your bill in exchange for having data collected and monetized. It just doesn't happen, there's no competitive incentive.
Basic privacy rules is not "strict regulation." As it stands, the FCC is simply asking for clear transparency on what's collected and working opt out tools. They're also looking to ban privacy as a luxury option. Until we get real broadband competition, regulatory meddling is part of the game. It comes down to what kind of regulation you want in telecom: regulation serving YOU, or regulation written by AT&T and Comcast that kicks your ass.
Please note that when someone criticizes Russia, it is not automatically an endorsement of anything the United States does. That's phony logic. One can easily believe both countries have a strong genetic disposition to bullying and jackassery.
I find this amusing as well. Even Comcast has realized that offering half-hearted excuses only makes things worse, so they've been expanding caps without giving any justification at all (because there aren't any).
"I was right, still right, and going to continue being right until we are all dead of old age, still begging for regulation, any regulation, and have faith that the very organization causing this problem will somehow solve it?"
Right, like when the FCC blocked AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile, resulting in a huge burst of new competition from the surviving T-Mobile, ultimately revolutionizing S.O.P. in the wireless sector.
Speaking of old age, "all regulation is automatically bad" is an overly-simplistic mantra that's grown long in the tooth. In the real world, people have to actually stop, think, learn, and consider the merits or drawbacks of each instance of regulation separately.
I know that's fatiguing for those looking for intellectual shortcuts, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Yes, and I think their proposal is really about rules that allow them to potentially eliminate cable boxes, while creating a future where you still have to pay your cable provider for cloud-based DVR services, or whatever other creative, broken out services they can concoct.
Re: Let this one go; focus on more strategic battles
I tend to vacillate on this point. I do tend to agree that it may make more sense to focus on broadband competition policies, and as such I think thinks like the FCC's fight against state level municipal bans are hugely more important.
But then, if the FCC can pass policies that turns your 20 year window into a 5 year window, wouldn't everybody benefit?
Then again, the FCC may be fighting the cable industry on this for years before real rules even get passed, when they could be spending those calories, again, on broadband competition.
On the post: Trump Appoints Third Anti-Net Neutrality Advisor To Telecom Transition Team
Re: Re:
On the post: Trump Appoints Third Anti-Net Neutrality Advisor To Telecom Transition Team
Re: Re: Re: Finally!
I wrote this article, don't like Hillary, don't support a huge swath of her positions, and didn't vote for her.
So if somebody is detecting "pro hillary bias" coming from me just because I'm pointing out the awful choices Donald Trump is making (running in viciously-stark contrast to his pre-election promises), that's entirely cognitive dissonance occurring in their own head.
I think we do a pretty good job here of looking beyond partisan patty cake and calling a spade a spade, regardless of what color-coded jumpsuit the person in question is wearing.
On the post: Florida Voters Vote Down Bill Aimed At Hamstringing Solar Competition
Re: as a floridian, couple points to add...
Glad Floridians took notice.
On the post: Florida Voters Vote Down Bill Aimed At Hamstringing Solar Competition
Re:
On the post: Too Little Too Late: FCC Finally Realizes AT&T's Zero Rating Is Anti-Competitive
Re: Re:
On the post: Colorado Voters Continue To Shoot Down Awful Comcast-Written Protectionist State Law
Re: Statewide Referendum
On the post: Gizmodo Completely Misses The Point Of Cord Cutting
Re: Re: Also missing
On the post: Hillary Clinton Thinks Real-World Military Responses To Hacking Attacks Are A Nifty Idea
Re: Re: Re:
I really like your cyber.
On the post: AT&T, Poster Child For Government Favoritism, Mocks Google Fiber For Government Favoritism
Re:
On the post: Broadband Industry Think Tank Claims Comcast Plan To Charge More For Privacy 'Pro Consumer'
Re: Protect piracy?
On the post: Broadband Industry Think Tank Claims Comcast Plan To Charge More For Privacy 'Pro Consumer'
Re: Broadband
On the post: Broadband Industry Think Tank Claims Comcast Plan To Charge More For Privacy 'Pro Consumer'
Re: Re:
On the post: Broadband Industry Think Tank Claims Comcast Plan To Charge More For Privacy 'Pro Consumer'
Re: Re:
On the post: Comcast: The Economics Of Offering Cheaper, Better Streaming TV Service 'Unproven'
Re: In other words...
On the post: Comcast: The Economics Of Offering Cheaper, Better Streaming TV Service 'Unproven'
Re: typo ?
On the post: Putin's Internet Trolls Are Stoking The Vitriolic Fire By Posing As Trump Supporters
Re:
On the post: CenturyLink Claims Broadband Caps Improve The 'Internet Experience' And Empower Consumers
Re: Why do they have to be insulting?
On the post: Study Finds That T-Mobile's Binge On Is Exploitable, Unreliable, And Still Violates Net Neutrality
Re: So....
Right, like when the FCC blocked AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile, resulting in a huge burst of new competition from the surviving T-Mobile, ultimately revolutionizing S.O.P. in the wireless sector.
Speaking of old age, "all regulation is automatically bad" is an overly-simplistic mantra that's grown long in the tooth. In the real world, people have to actually stop, think, learn, and consider the merits or drawbacks of each instance of regulation separately.
I know that's fatiguing for those looking for intellectual shortcuts, but that doesn't make it any less true.
On the post: Cable Industry: Our Shitty TV Apps Are Just As Good As Real Cable Box Competition, Right?
Re: What cable set top boxes REALLY are
On the post: Cable Industry: Our Shitty TV Apps Are Just As Good As Real Cable Box Competition, Right?
Re: Let this one go; focus on more strategic battles
But then, if the FCC can pass policies that turns your 20 year window into a 5 year window, wouldn't everybody benefit?
Then again, the FCC may be fighting the cable industry on this for years before real rules even get passed, when they could be spending those calories, again, on broadband competition.
Like I said, I vacillate here. :)
Next >>