Not a good enough analogy. In your story, the water is being consumed, and is not there for anybody else to use. In the case of TV signals, aereo used up none of a finite resource. They merely helped the broadcasters reach a wider audience by extending the range of the signals on a public airwave.
Instead, for an analogy, try: running a performance venue, and having a large sculpture water fountain in front of it for art. Then saying "anybody who drives down the public street must pay me if they look at my water fountain".
It's not impossible to dance around the truth, speak in nebulous terms, and obfuscate the issue. That's what he's paid to do, but instead his article is just the idiot's version of NN Cliff's Notes.
How bout this, if he were more shrewd:
"Network Neutrality, as enacted by the government, would just be a further regulatory extension and Washington power grab. It would be subject to the biases and bungling of beltway politicians, and set up our country with concrete regulations that are unable to flex and change at the speed of Internet innovation. That would cripple our country's ability to stay nimble, and provide the worlds most important tech advances. What's more, we run the risk of moneyed interests gaining too much influence at the regulatory level, and biasing the rules against the citizens of this great nation."
Then he should probably add the following for good measure,
"Thus, we must fight against NN. At least to protect the children. USA #1. Obama sux."
That pile of BS would give him enough cover to vote what his funders want, and have some confusing cover. Nobody would be talking about it.
This is too bad. As a guy who works with and advises many telcos, one of the key threats to their business these days is, obviously, Over The Top services.
One of the key defenses we advise them they have is...trust. Yes, trust. It turns out many people dislike their carrier, but still trust them. Doubt me? Consider this: How many people give telcos their credit card for their monthly bills? So this is demonstrated proof of a certain level of trust.
As Apple has shown with the iTunes store, then the App Store; Or has Amazon has shown with OneClick: A credit card on file, plus some trust can pay off in lower friction sales, and more revenue.
But here they are, eroding consumer trust at every opportunity. It saddens me, both because we are being ripped off, but also because I see companies frittering away one of their few remaining competitive advantages.
If continued, the trust they enjoy will only be at the level of "the devil you know"...which is just a notch above Nigerian 419 scammers.
You should have included just one pointer to the best article you have seen on Gamergate.
That way, if anyone was drawn here by that link-bait aspect, you could promptly send them to where they need to go.
Like me. I don't have a fn clue what you're not talking about. So I gotta go Google it now. I'll have to read a couple of shitty link-bait articles before I find out why I should not care about Gamergate. And I'm serious about the above. Ugh. Off I go.
According to federal law and FCC regs, it is illegal to deliberately jam wifi in the unlicensed bands. But it is unlikely the Hyatt was doing this, because it would also interfere with their own $1000 wifi.
More likely, the Hyatt was jamming the cellular signal to people's phones and Mifis, which is a big federal no-no, cuz big biz interests like Verizon and ATT lose their sheet when that happens.
If the Hyatt were jamming instead the cellular signals that powered the Mifis, then it is absolutely illegal to even transmit any unauthorized signal on spectrum licensed to some wireless carrier, let alone use a jammer.
"Should ISPs be required to obtain, maintain, and pay for significantly more interconnection to support certain business models?"
As a consumer who uses Netflix, I am not advocating for what you wrote above at all. Instead, I am advocating that my ISP delivers to me, their customer, what they said they would deliver:
fast, unfettered access to the Internet, anywhere I want to go, and at the speed and caps to which I agreed.
If that means the ISP needs to spend more money interconnecting with Netflix, why should the subscriber care so long as I stay below my caps? And what's more, it's immaterial to the ISP: Would it be less of a burden to them if, instead, I generated an equal amount of traffic spread over 100 different sites?
When I go to an "all you can eat" buffet with pasta and salad, should the restaurant try to stop me if I choose to eat all salad? No. That's kinda part of the buffet, isn't it.
Seems the ISPs sold me a buffet, and are now angry that they have to deliver it. Yet they are still on TV and radio pushing ads to sell more of the same to others. Seems schizophrenic. Do they want to sell their ISP services or not?
You are correct. Mike is wrong when he writes that we're being asked to "pay twice". He's very wrong. But then, so are you. We're being asked to pay thrice.
1. Consumer pays for connection to Internet services.
2. Google (Youtube, or Netflix) pays for their bandwidth...as well as buying up their own fiber, running their own networks, and peering. They pay for CDNs, edge storage, redundancy, etc. So do many other fat content providers. I'm not sure how anyone thinks AT&T pays Google's Internet bills??!
3. Whitacre et al want Youtube to pay yet again to connect 'reliably' all the way to the ISPs subscriber.
Seems pretty clear that the big ISPs want to be paid three times. I see getting paid twice as fair, but thrice as a shakedown.
Adding to your argument, Kris Rinne, the network exec at AT&T, said that some music streaming apps use 10x the data traffic what other optimized streaming apps use, with no perceptible gain in quality or performance.
Whether you trust an AT&T exec or not is up to you, but it is not unreasonable to guess that some music services are more efficient than others.
Given that, would it not be true that if AT&T partners with one of the efficient ones, and they work together to further refine the efficiency, the end result will be optimized for minimal data traffic? And then, would it not make sense for AT&T to offer THAT service for free, since it could actually REDUCE the total load on their network, by pulling customers away from less efficient streams.
In this argument, I'm not saying it's right or wrong for AT&T to pick the winners. But I am saying that you guys are wrong to say "It makes no difference, a streaming service is a streaming service."
"I don't see the where efficiency has been prioritized by developers at all."
First, I didn't say "prioritized", I said "far more concerned". Obviously, most devs prioritize a good looking app that does something of value to users, spreads virally, and makes them $$.
Where is there evidence of my claim? I can help you with that. For example, in 2012 AT&T produced a dev tool called the ARO (resource optimizer), with the obvious intention of helping developers reduce the load on their network and customer's batteries.
The ARO was immediately used by devs, in fact worldwide, to evaluate their apps and see where they are causing unnecessary battery or data burdens. In the 2012 article linked below, you'll hear from Pandora who was an early adopter. Pandora's Tom Conrad has said that "Pandora is now able to use your data to much greater effect and with much less damaging effect on your monthly bills. "
That's just a sample of the overwhelming evidence that devs are more concerned about data than before. They've essentially gone from giving 0 shits, to giving a shit. The same can be said of users. But even if users all use their apps at peak times, they'll be using more efficient apps.
"People still use most of their data during the same peak hours."
Sure. But they are increasingly conscious of it as they do, and thus moderate their consumption. In an unbounded plan, people would behave less discriminately.
Furthermore, there are powerful secondary effects to bandwidth caps, specifically, developers are far more concerned today with building data-efficient apps then they were four years ago.
A developer who builds a "chatty" app that consumes far more data than it is worth will summarily be uninstalled and one-star rated as "uses all your data". This is not speculation or theory, this is what happened ONLY after caps were implemented. Remember how the original iPhone affected the AT&T network. Crappy network in that era, sure, but no developer had ANY economic incentive to build a data-traffic-efficient app.
Skip to today; app developers of bandwidth-intensive apps like streaming music and video continue to pursue better ways of saving data. Some good ideas, some not, but examples include:
- better codecs - Pandora randomly stops and asks you "are you still listening?" - Apps cache as much as possible of the visual templates in the original install download, so as to reduce mobile bandwidth - YouTube now doesn't pre-load the whole video, but waits until you watch some before downloading the next chunk - video resolutions are optimized to suit the device, so that we don't send 1080p to a 720p screen - Samsung's notion that video stops playing when you look away from the screen
Thus, even during peak hours, the positive impact of bandwidth caps is something I appreciate every day. If I pay more, I can get more, and I won't be crowded out by the tragedy of the commons.
At Techdirt, we often talk about "chilling effects". I LIKE the chilling effect of incentivizing developers into thinking of data traffic as something of value > 0.
The problem here is the same as the misunderstanding about the East Anglia University emails the climate change scientist sent using the term "a neat trick". The word "trick" is picked up by people outside of science in the "tricky Dick" sense, not the "solution to a math problem" sense.
Similarly, MAC spoofing is something that sounds nefarious, because of the word "spoof", but is really just a way to get some privacy, or to get services on a second device that were provisioned for your first device.
Some people just don't understand the use of jargon inside of a trade or community. These same people would think card players are cheating at Gin when they win a "trick", or that they are The Donald when they play a "Trump" card.