clemahieu 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (41) comment rss

  • On the post: What Net Neutrality? While The FCC Naps, AT&T Now Exempting DirecTV Content From Wireless Usage Caps

    clemahieu ( profile ), 07 Sep, 2016 @ 11:17am

    Bad plan to start with

    The same sequence happens every time we try to simulate free markets with government:

    1) law passes that sounds good
    2) people move on to next political topic
    3) industry comes in and modifies laws to suit their own needs
    4) people aren't paying attention and let it happen

    People have a limited political time budget and they **will not pay attention** after they move on to the next issue.

    Focusing on dismantling laws around industry restrictions I.e. Monopoly cable laying will yield far better results.

  • On the post: Comcast Continues To Claim It's 'Not Feasible' To Offer Its Programming To Third-Party Cable Boxes

    clemahieu ( profile ), 08 Jul, 2016 @ 06:53am

    Feasible or not, what's the point in persuing this? There are dozens of devices by multiple manufacturers that provide streaming services. I don't see customers being served by forcing access which no doubt will have horrid customer service and no response to issue requests.

    Another dumb idea in the string of dumb ideas of trying to simulate free markets through the FCC.

  • On the post: House Budget Bill Guts Net Neutrality, Kills FCC Authority — All Because The FCC Dared To Stand Up To Comcast & AT&T

    clemahieu ( profile ), 26 May, 2016 @ 09:50am

    Told you so?

    Look what we have here regulatory capture when people stop paying attention.

    Now we have a bunch of rules that benefit existing players and none of the promised protections.

    It would be sadder if it wasn't so predicable.

  • On the post: Comcast Thinks Having Basic Broadband Privacy Protections 'Irrational'

    clemahieu ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2016 @ 08:31am

    It seems likely that others are like myself in having a different definition of "basic broadband privacy protections" or think they're unnecessary altogether.

    I think it's incorrectly simplistic to apply the word "basic" to one opinion making it seemingly unquestionably correct.

  • On the post: Clarifying The Bullshit From John Legere: What T-Mobile Is Really Doing And Why It Violates Net Neutrality

    clemahieu ( profile ), 12 Jan, 2016 @ 12:13pm

    Fixing regulations with regulations

    Back when creating the net neutrality rules was being discussed, myself and others argued that while the concept of net neutrality was positive, realizing it through more regulations when existing regulations had failed was unlikely to succeed. We argued that in order of regulations to work, people need to be paying attention to the issue and when people stopped paying attention to it, the industry would come in and change the rules again.

    We argued the only long term solution was to find a way to naturally allow more competition in the market since that system can largely self regulate without constant maintenance. This is genuine market competition, not artificial divide-up-ma-bell competition.

    Now we have a case where net metrology rules were enacted, including rules that limit new players coming in to the market and favors companies with industry lawyers that understand the mountain of regulations, and the industry comes in and guts the neutrality regulations and leaves the cronie shell.

    Since the exact predicted scenario is playing itself out, just as it has before, I don't know how, in good faith, it can continue to be argued that net neutrality rules will work or were a good idea in the first place.

  • On the post: Presidential Hopeful Marco Rubio Defends AT&T's Right To Write Bad State Broadband Law

    clemahieu ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2015 @ 08:57am

    Sounds like we gave the government the reigns of broadband and now that people are on to the next issue, the industry establishment is sweeping in for regulatory capture.

    This is why many didn't want federal involvement in broadband, not because established industry does a good job, but because people don't pay attention and giving them more legal authority is worse.

  • On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 7: Terms Of Service Are The New Constitution: Do They Need A First Amendment?

    clemahieu ( profile ), 15 Jan, 2015 @ 05:55pm

    Re: Re:

    Personally I don't like ToS's at all and I think there should be a movement to reject them, that being said it lawyers could be adding stuff to them to keep themselves employed or there might actually be case-law where putting in your ToS "Can't use this service for illegal activity" saved them liability. Why does that line even need to exist? Busy work? Not sure.

    Despite having first amendment rights and the FCC being a government institution they've still been able to enact decency regulations over common carriers for the last 50 years, listening to complaints from various "family organizations" that spawn an incredibly disproportionate amount of complaints to the FCC and have generate billions in fines to broadcasters. I worry what'll happen when broadband is reclassified and the internet is now subject to decency regulations in the US.

  • On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 7: Terms Of Service Are The New Constitution: Do They Need A First Amendment?

    clemahieu ( profile ), 15 Jan, 2015 @ 01:52pm

    When it comes to speech limitations in ToS it seems to me like most of it stems legal liability or government censorship requirements.

    Large scale providers go to great lengths to avoid being in the business of censoring speech.

    This seems like blaming service providers for problems caused by the government in the first place.

  • On the post: Claiming To Represent 'Tech' Network Hardware Vendors Shockingly Support Their ISP Clients In Opposing Tough Net Neutrality Rules

    clemahieu ( profile ), 24 Dec, 2014 @ 07:21am

    Re: Re:

    " and such other classes as the Commission may
    decide to be just and reasonable" seems to indicate that new classes can be created at any time. A class for flash traffic that peaks and consumes 1/3 of all internet traffic each day http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/05/14/netflix-accounts-for-13-of-nightly-home-internet-traffic-apples-itunes-takes-2 seems a easy candidate for a new class.

    Again, let me know if anyone can find how Title II prevents class-based traffic charging because as far as I can see this is the biggest misconception about Title II reclassification out there.

  • On the post: Claiming To Represent 'Tech' Network Hardware Vendors Shockingly Support Their ISP Clients In Opposing Tough Net Neutrality Rules

    clemahieu ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2014 @ 08:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Even if investors flee...so what?

    People have brought lawsuits and they lost. The problem stems from government intervention in infrastructure.

  • On the post: Claiming To Represent 'Tech' Network Hardware Vendors Shockingly Support Their ISP Clients In Opposing Tough Net Neutrality Rules

    clemahieu ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2014 @ 08:05pm

    Re: Sales, sales, and more sales

    Throttled traffic means lower traffic which means fewer boxes.

  • On the post: Claiming To Represent 'Tech' Network Hardware Vendors Shockingly Support Their ISP Clients In Opposing Tough Net Neutrality Rules

    clemahieu ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2014 @ 08:05pm

    Re: Re: Sales, sales, and more sales

    I think it's more likely this is why hardware vendors don't want government intervention. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/photos-of-an-nsa-upgrade-factory-show-cisco-router-getting-implant/

  • On the post: Claiming To Represent 'Tech' Network Hardware Vendors Shockingly Support Their ISP Clients In Opposing Tough Net Neutrality Rules

    clemahieu ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2014 @ 08:00pm

    I'm reading the Title II and I see "different charges may be made for the different classes of comunications" can anyone explain how Title II reclassification prevents charging different rates for different classes of communication?

  • On the post: Hollywood's Secret War On Net Neutrality Is A Key Part Of Its Plan Stop You From Accessing Websites It Doesn't Like

    clemahieu ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2014 @ 04:23pm

    If you're talking Net Neutrality the concept you may have some points. If you're talking FCC title 2 reclassification I disagree. All entities under title 2 are compelled more strongly to comply with law enforcement. Any hope of having your ISP retain your anonyminity from a law enforcement agency that has not yet sought a court order will probably go away if reclassified.

  • On the post: Verizon Offers Encrypted Calling With NSA Backdoor At No Additional Charge

    clemahieu ( profile ), 15 Dec, 2014 @ 12:50pm

    Title 2 reclassification makes law enforcement assistance even worse.

    Unintended consequence of giving the FCC authority

  • On the post: Verizon Admits To Investors That Title II Won't Harm Broadband Investment At All

    clemahieu ( profile ), 13 Dec, 2014 @ 05:46pm

    From http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

    It seems like there's a fairly large barrier to expansion in SEC. 214. [47 U.S.C. 214] "No carrier shall undertake the construction of a new line or of an extension of any line, or shall acquire or operate any line, or extension thereof, or shall engage in transmission over or by means of such additional or extended line, unless and until there shall first have been obtained from the Commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require the construction"

    I see nothing in the way of protecting from charging different rates for different classes of internet traffic specifically after reading SEC. 201. [47 U.S.C. 201] b "different charges may be made for the different classes of comunications:"

    The act makes specific mention that common carries *must* turn over information for law enforcement SEC. 229. [47 U.S.C. 229] so any hope that your ISP might not not collect or log your traffic is gone.

    It seems that placing ISPs under Title 2 of the FCA is incredibly short-sighted and anti-privacy.

  • On the post: Only A Giant Telco Could Introduce Bandwidth Throttling And Spin It As 'Network Optimization'

    clemahieu ( profile ), 28 Jul, 2014 @ 07:36am

    With wireless CDMA systems there are three plain limits at work, the link capacity out of the cell tower, the link capacity of a single handset to the tower, and the maximum number of individual handsets that can be connected to the tower, an idle connection still takes a certain amount of resources to stay connected, this is how your handset gets found if there's an incoming call.

    It's quite easy to understand that the maximum link capacity of an individual handset times the number of people might exceed the tower's total link capacity.

    In fact the problem isn't even that easy, as with most wireless system like wifi etc. the maximum wireless link capacity isn't an on/off switch, it's a gradual increase of errors resulting in dropped packets or codec errors approaching a point where the quality degrades to unacceptable or the codec can no longer correct errors.

    'Throttling' in the vernacular implies slowing an individual handset's speed when the tower's link is not being reached.

    QoS is technical throttling when we're hitting hard limits of the hardware at hand.

  • On the post: Is IPv6 A Solution In Search Of A Problem?

    clemahieu ( profile ), 25 Jan, 2008 @ 02:53pm

    Give me IPV6 any day

    I'd be on IPV6 if *any* ISP would offer it.

    NAT is not a solution to address crowding.

    There are other reasons to use a larger address space besides address exhaustion, specifically easier routing tables.

    I check every couple months if any ISP in my area offers IPV6, most don't have a single mention of it on their sites.

  • On the post: Apple's New Laptops Not Intended For Use On Laps

    clemahieu ( profile ), 19 May, 2006 @ 02:04pm

    Ok...

    Call it whatever you want; laptops get hot and unless you want your sperm count to drop, you should probably put them on a desk to use them.

  • On the post: Just To Be Safe, UK Government To Confiscate Cryptographic Keys

    clemahieu ( profile ), 18 May, 2006 @ 05:14pm

    Citizens of the UK

    People living in the UK need to put their government on a leash. Far too long have they allowed their government to get out of control with their policing policies.

Next >>