Where the pythons make fun of the childish way a man uses official paperwork and the Municipal bureaucracy for purposes clearly misunderstood and misaligned.
Basically it goes: - I want a license for my pet fish. - You can't have one, there are no licenses for fish. - Well, I bleeding well have one for my pet cat, Eric. - There are no cat licenses. - I bleeding got one, look! What's that then? - This is a dog license with the word 'dog' crossed out and 'cat' written in in crayon! - The man didn't have the right form. - How much did you pay for this? - Sixty quid, and eight for the fruit-bat.
"reinforce the silly idea that copyright law is a battle between "Silicon Valley" vs. "Hollywood""
But Mike, it IS. Well, let me dissect that.
1) It totally IS a battle, because the two sides feel differently about it, and have opposing views about what will be good for their businesses and the nation.
2) It should not be a battle, because the Hollywood side is (and has repeatedly been) dead wrong about what is good for themselves, and the nation. In fact, the opinions of the IP reduction side ARE in fact better for everyone, Hollywood included, and especially artists.
Yeah. Kinda arbitrary. But I put it there because of the "pushed other vendors forward in a way that benefits google."
Think about it. They've been doing that Self-driving car research for a long time. Any cars you can buy yet? No, so kinda a failed biz. OTOH, Tesla, Cadillac, Audi, Volvo have all done a lot of work to keep up with what Google has evangelized.
But to Google's benefit, Android Auto is successful. And that product basks in the halo effect of the self drive cars. Tesla has outsourced basemap data to Google, as well as voice recog. Google seems better positioned to sell their expertise than to sell a car, for now.
BTW, I rode in a Google Self-drive Lexus, and it was a let-down. I saw their 2012 video in which a blind man goes shopping in a car around town on urban streets. Their fleet of Lexii are nothing like that video. When I rode, in 2014, the car was ONLY capable of freeway driving, and ONLY could keep its lane. No lane changes, no collision avoidance to left/right. Only stop and go within a lane. Now, that's pretty cool, but a hell of a letdown after the blind guy video.
I have an auto pilot Tesla, and that's more impressive because it does basically the same thing as the Google Lexus, adds lane changing, AND it is commercially available. Tesla did not over-promise and under-deliver.
Google is now working on urban driving, which is far more complicated. I hope they do great things.
Hey, I didn't say "Don't use the Interwebs". I just corrected the analogy above.
AricTheRed used the ridiculous tactic of assuming you used your full capacity non-stop to illustrate how fast you hit your cap. That is unrealistic use, and any capacity planner in the world (telecom, roads, restaurants, schools, etc) knows that usage is not binary - full or nil.
The old, and quite stupid, trope of "If that's the cap, and my network speed is X, I would use it all in T!" Why is it stupid? Well, you've just given the ISPs a disincentive to offering you better speeds. Think about it, the faster the X speed they offer you, the more pissed off you get about how short T is.
So, I expressed his model not in terms of TIME in which the cap would be hit, but in terms of quantity of movies, at which point it looks a lot better.
You are free, of course, to do backups, uploads, or Spotify instead of the movies. You are not the first to point out that the Internet has more than one use.
"Claiming that most people don't actually use what they payed for does not make it ok to punish those that do."
The people of your town do not use the roads in town to your fullest right to use them. If you all did, you would "punish" yourselves for that rate of use, and hopefully realize that network planning is NEVER based on everybody using their full capacity at all times.
What I'm writing isn't popular. I know that. So you don't want to agree. But it's right.
"Stop pretending that these caps don't affect real people"
Can't see where I did that. Caps suck. I sure don't want one. But I see the economic realities that cause them. They are twofold: 1) not enough competition, so your ISP will take what they can 2) real requirements for CapEx to upgrade networks as users consume more data.
Not so. We don't have to wait years to prove that Hal Singer's predictions were BS. Here's why:
1) The doom-and-gloom predictions were that there would be an immediate and dramatic drop in investment. In fact, the lobbyists were saying, prior to Title II, that the mere threat of possible Title II was already stifling CapEx. Thus, it is already proven wrong.
2) Sure, we may have to wait 5 years or so to see the longer-term, and full effects of Title II. There may be some unintended negative consequences. But that's a more nuanced debate than the lobbyists ever made.
"These kinds of investments are planned years in advance"
BTW, Telco/MSO investments are NOT planned years in advance. They are very fluid year-by-year, based on new technologies, what competitors are offering, what happens to demand, the economy, price of K, the outcome of spectrum auctions, and yes, regulations.
"We need to be willing to spend a few dollars on a quality app, rather than for a few extra lives or other in-game purchases."
Now, unlike him, I know that the market does what the market wants to do, and you can't hold your breath until it changes for you. However, I also hate the fact that people are unwilling to pay a couple of bucks for a good game.
The reason is that because of the market's desire for free, devs went to the free to play, with in-game upsell model, or in-game ads.
The net result is a dearth of simple, good quality, pay-once gaming, and an explosion of nagging, prompting, interrupting, Notification-generating apps. By forcing the devs to be beggars, they have become excellent beggars.
Before in-app purchases were enabled in apps, and before in-app advertising, the number of biz model choices for developers was pretty small: charge for your app or don't. The need to eat meant that the majority DID charge for their app, it was a couple of bucks and you had the app until you upgraded your device or more. The apps that trickled to the top of the ratings were the good apps - not necessarily the cheap apps. The result was that, for a few wonderful years 2008-2010, you could buy an highly-rated app, it would be good, and it would not nag the shit outta you for another 99 cents for "dragon food" or whatevs.
The golden age of apps IS behind us. It was short. Because people hate to pay, the apps have responded by treating them like the cheapskates they are, and trying to trick or bait-and-switch them instead of selling quality for a price.
I feel the same way about economy airline travel. Why is the service so shitty, the food so bad, the seats so small, the entertainment so lame, the nickel-and-diming so prevalent? Because the mass market asked for it to be that way by shopping only on listed price of ticked. You want it cheap? They cut costs, then try to make extra money off you any legal way they can.
But what you are doing is relying on your skills as a pre-cog to pre-punish them for that pre-crime. That is not justice.
If regulators allow zero-rating, it is ONLY fair if the same price of transport is paid by ALL content companies. But in this manner, it IS fair. Do I trust the big ISPs not to take it one step further and choose winners? Heck, no. But the crime is in that second step, NOT the first.
There is ample precedent. Trans Canada Pipelines is in the news lately for Keystone XL - they operate pipes and charge other companies for transport of natural gas. But there was a company called Western Gas Marketing Limited, wholly owned by TCP that sold gas. The regulator said these two must operate separately, and (here's the connection) TCP could charge other gas companies for transport, but must charge Western Gas the same fees for transport. This de-coupling ensured that the monopoly of the pipe did not determine the winner in the natural gas sales market. So, IF network operators want to do zero-rating, there is a fair way: they must decouple their content biz from their transport biz, and charge the same prices to all comers. Neutrality is thus preserved.
This illustrates the beauty of Google's "Nexus" strategy. They have some decent ideas, some moonshots, and some leading initiatives, they invest in them, labeling it as "Beta".
1) If it fails completely, fine, lessons learned, move on. Examples: Dodgeball Grand Central (Google Voice) Plus Hangouts (messenger) Google Wallet (but spawned Android Pay) Picasa
2) If it fails as a business, but illustrates what can be done, then they've pushed the other vendors forward in ways that strategically benefit Google. Examples: Self-driving car early Nexus phone models Nexus tablets
3) If it turns out to be ROI positive from a cash perspective, Or a huge strategic win, they can scale it up at the pace they choose, and diversify while earning more total profit. Examples: Advertising on search results Chrome Browser A mobile OS called Android Maps Gmail recent Nexus phones models Google Fiber Voice recognition
4) Examples that haven't yet been classified as 1-3 Google Project Loon Google Fi MVNO home Wifi Hub in car Android Auto Android Pay Goggles, Cardboard
The key to the Nexus strategy is that even when you fail, you push others to match your offerings, you teach consumers what they could demand from other vendors, and you pull other companies to deliver faster, or come out of "stealth" mode.
"Research shows that zero-rated applications are far more attractive to users than those that are not."
Well, yeah. But is that such a bad thing?
I mean, here at Techdirt, we love disruptive technologies that use "free" to offer increased value to users. Google offers maps for free and kills off in-car GPS sales. Waze offers free better driving data, and eats into Google maps. All good, right? So why is "Free" so wrong when used by incumbents?
I want a Neutral Network, but neutrality, in the case of zero-rating, simply means that the zero-rating ability should be open to ALL content providers, not just the ones chosen by the ISP. Yeah, that may be tougher for startups than bigger players, but tough shit, right? Competition was never promised to be easy.
"This makes police work harder" is a bullshit reason to ignore the 5th Amendment. Data doesn't exist for the purpose of making their job easier. Tough. Similarly, "this makes it harder for startups" is a bullshit reason to say zero-rating is bad. Data pricing from incumbents doesn't exist to make it easier for new entrants.
Lower prices, free offers...these are all valid elements of competition. Economists see it this way, except when the low prices are just a short-term way to kill off competition, which we call "dumping". But zero-rating is NOT dumping (although it could be if it were restricted to the ISP's preferred partners.)
As long as zero rating is "open", as in all content providers have fair access to offer them, then I cannot see it as evil.
Think of rail transport. What if BNSF charged for rail cargo across the country. But Ford offered free delivery of it's cars, by paying BNSF. That would offer Ford a market advantage. Is that unfair? NO, so long as BNSF also offers the same option to GM, Honda, or upstart Tesla. Seller pays shipping is not a new idea, and is not unfair.
Karl, you're picking sides here. You are on the side of the upstart, the underdog. Frankly, so am I. But that doesn't mean that we have to argue that every move the incumbent makes which is advantageous to them is wrong. Some of their moves are just a good strategy. In this case, it increases consumer choices, offers something to consumers who may not want to pay for data at all, and offers content businesses the ability to innovate on some different business models.