"we've argued against calling fair use a "limitation and exception" to copyright, because that's misleading."
Yeah! It is copyright ITSELF that is a "limitation and exception" to our freedom to repeat things we've seen or heard - a right which humans had for some 400,000 years as homo sapiens. A legally enforced monopoly is, by definition, a limitation and exception.
I am not entirely against this limitation and exception, but only where it incentivizes more useful knowledge and art.
"So please, just leave, and never post here again."
You gotta be kidding! If you can't handle a different opinion and some debate, then I would suggest that it is YOU that would be best served by finding the exit.
I DO and I WILL defend usage caps. You are apparently driving "the bandwagon to ban all usage caps everywhere". OK, then. When will I see you also demanding unlimited consumption for one price at: - theme parks - the butcher - the gas station - your gas, water, or electric utility - your yoga or fitness class - your college or university - or just about ANY of the other businesses you work with in the world.
I know the arguments that: i) Once the infrastructure is installed, ii) it is essentially free to offer bandwidth.
However, I think that argument is wrong.
The evidence shows that the demand for bandwidth is constantly growing, requiring ongoing investment in infrastructure. AT&T alone invests as much as $20 Billion a year. Even if they lie and exaggerate, you'll agree that this is non-trivial.
I believe that the people that use more of the current and the future capacity should pay more for that capacity, and that those that use less should pay less.
Also, I know that at quiet times, there is lots of spare capacity, but at peak times, the network is constrained. A constrained network means that bandwidth is scarce, which means economics applies. The ISPs need to find a way to manage demand during peak times. A cap requires consumers to think about their data consumption - that is a good thing.
I've seen the mobile Internet start with an "unlimited model" of data until around 2010. What we got was users who treated bandwidth as if it cost zero, which was not correct. In turn, developers wrote apps that treated bandwidth as if it cost zero. These apps were chatty, used waaaay more data than they needed to in order to accomplish their goals. You see, when a resource is priced at zero, the math means that strange things happen. The "free" resource is used to fix all problems. The result was congested mobile networks, scarce resources being used but used in an often wasteful manner. That makes baby Adam Smith cry.
I, personally, don't "like" caps. They limit me. But I can rise above my personal wants, and apply economics theory to the problem. I mean, I also want "unlimited gasoline" when I go to the gas station for a flat rate of $50, but I don't get that either.
Now, here is one colossally stupid statement:
"Again, all ISPs / Cellular carriers should be mandated, by law, to have sufficient infrastructure and bandwidth to provide for 125% of their customers paid for bandwidth being utilized 24 hours a day, 365.25 days a year."
If you got your wish above, your ISP bill would be North of $300/month. Businesses pay for such connections with guaranteed throughput. But they don't get it for the same price you pay, do they? You are paying for "Best effort" service, they are paying for
The stupid claim you made could also be shown to be ridiculous for road capacity, like:
"Again, all states should be mandated, by law, to build sufficient infrastructure and lanes to handle 125% of the citizen's cars, being utilized 24 hours a day, 365.25 days a year."
Infrastructure planners have long pondered the extreme positions of building nothing, or building everything. Thankfully, they have landed in the middle, with capacity planning and estimation. You just advocated to pave everything so we can all drive at the same time.
Yes - we need more competition to keep the ISPs honest No - caps are not, themselves, evil Yes - ISPs are often dicks, and generally over-promise. But we should get angry about the over-promising, not the economic reality that capacity costs money.
Year after year, as these stories build up, they create a body of work that throws shade at the excuse of:
"A few bad apples" when some police activity is finally found "wrong".
More and more, it seems that the nations various police forces are actually more the case of "a few good apples" in an mostly spoiled batch. And the worst is that (a la Serpico) it must not be much fun to be a good apple in that batch, which would push them out of the force.
We know that the "thin blue line" means that they do the opposite of pushing out the spoiled apples, so if they are welcome to remain on the force, we should be concerned about (and measure) the exit rate for the good apples.
Karl. This just isn't a "Comcast is bad story". I mean, god knows, Comcast stories usually are, but this one isn't.
The fact is, in some places, they had caps of 300GB, and now those are raised to 1TB. That is good.
Good, good, good. Good. It's really good.
Now, I know you hate caps, but then you should hate this higher cap significantly less, which, to get redundant, makes it good.
You and Mike have long held the position that caps like 300GB were bad because, while 95% of users don't hit those caps TODAY, as Internet use grows, they are likely to hit those caps in the future. But what if the caps also grow in the future, as they have done today? Then, the ISPs' claims that "the caps are simply to make the heaviest of users pay their share" are much more credible.
As much as we hate them for their lobby efforts, their sham lobbyist, their bundling of channels, their terrible customer service, their abuse of the franchises we have given them, their failed promises, and their anti-competitive behavior (damn, that's a long list)...
...Comcast has steadily increased speeds, invested in the network, upgraded their DOCSIS versions, and now raised the cap.
I'm down with most of your articles, but raising the cap puts holes in your prediction that the 300GB cap would end up punishing far more people than the heavy users.
Yeah, I'd prefer "unlimited". But I'd also like my every meal to be an all-you-can-eat buffet, and my trips to the gas station to be pay-one-price. I can't always get what I want.
And we agree that until there is some valid competition, we'll never know what the right market outcome actually is.
Clearly that sentence was about Netflix's vision on the matter. How clear? It actually includes the words "Netflix's long-term vision may be..." Meanwhile, the entire Techdirt article is about how that is a wrong-headed position.
If you want Karl's clearly stated viewpoint, it is also in the article:
"Netflix's crackdown on VPNs still managed to erode user privacy and security, since obviously there are countless people using VPNs for reasons other than engaging in global Netflix tourism."
Um...did Judge Pepper just USE Edward Snowden as a justification for allowing additional government snooping?
That woman's got balls. It takes a special kind of moxy to cite the hero of personal privacy and the 4th as the reason "we're all informed that we're being watched, so now we know, so we're all good, right?"
Netflix cannot "throttle" using a precise definition of that word. Throttling occurs at the throat -- in the middle. If Netflix is reducing the encoding rate of their content, that is a "bitrate product decision", not any kind of throttling.
Don't use the language of the O'Rielly. It's like arguing copyright violations using the term "theft". Their language is deliberately a tautology.