"The lack of control over the content by content companies and authentication processes has reduced the demand for video because you don’t have to pay for it,” Mr. Rutledge said on the earnings call. “That’s going on in the college market."
If I was on the board at Charter and my CEO showed such a lack of understanding of basic supply and demand, I would fire him before the earnings call was over. Yes, sure, people demand less of things they get for free. That's definitely how it works.
Also, it's funny how much this sounds like hysterics over P2P a few years ago and how that was destroying the industry because college kids now had free internet.
It's not making it more so, it's failing to make it less so. I don't mean to be splitting hairs - I think there's a real difference there.
Any time you apply any regulation to a market, it's going to distort the market. Sometimes the benefit to society at large will outweigh the cost to those involved in the market, and sometimes not.
At the end of the day, we don't really care about net neutrality for its own sake, right? We care that we can all get an internet connection that functions as we expect it to. Making a bunch of rules about what ISPs can and can't do is one way to work towards that goal, but I'm really not convinced it's the best way.
It's two different metrics, but at the same time, those who use a lot over time are more likely to be using it at any given moment, so the two are definitely related. And bandwidth isn't infinite, so I wouldn't call it artificial scarcity. It may only be scarce because of ISP's unwillingness to invest enough in infrastructure, but that's still actual scarcity.
Startups, nonprofits, and small ventures are always at a disadvantage in terms of marketing and other treatment. They have less to offer in terms of money or name-recognition or any number of things, so they have less bargaining power and won't be able to get deals like the big players can.
While I don't like the effect this could have on the VC market, I don't think that banning zero rating deals is the right way to deal with it.
Sure, but aren't heavy users of nearly every service that isn't billed per unit subsidized by lighter users? It's cheaper for both partners to do it this way rather than discount the service. So, while I don't get warm-and-fuzzies from the idea, either, I have a hard time faulting the companies for doing the deal this way.
But aren't the rules in place now explicit about not degrading service?
I don't really love the idea of zero rating, though as others have mentioned, I'd like to see the caps go away and make this moot rather than forbid zero rating. But I don't really understand why you think it's slimy?
How is zero rating really different from, for example, my ISP offering me discounted subscriptions to Hulu+ or HBO's streaming service? In both instances, the ISP is telling me, "If you use our service and the service of our preferred partner, you get a discount".
And of course this gives an advantage to the bigger partners because they're the ones that people want to sign up with. But it's always going to be easier when you're the big, successful company. We aren't trying to take away the advantages of being successful.
I'm not saying to let them do whatever they want, because clearly there is a line where a business partnership becomes collusion. I don't know where that line is, but I think a simple zero rating deal falls well into the business partnership side.
I know, and now that I know there won't be cam movies, I am totally going to rush right out and see the latest blockbuster prequel to a reboot of a two year old movie "based" on a comic book. I can almost taste the $17 stale popcorn right now!
Jim Graham is my councilmember and he's already lost the primary, so he's on his way out. This is not the first time he has seemed to be a bit fuzzy on ethical issues, but nothing concrete has ever been found.
And while I have no excuse for Marion Barry - it's a huge embarrassment to many DC residents that he's still holding elected office - I have to mention that a lot of DC politics is at the mercy of the federal government, where we have no meaningful representation.
Finally, the real solution here is not more regulation for Uber and Lyft, but LESS for the incumbent cabs who don't want to compete. The DC Taxi Commission is the real problem. For example, they forced all cabs to take credit cards, which is a benefit for riders, but limited it to a small number of card processors, many of who didn't pay the drivers in a reasonable amount of time (if at all).
Once a patent is ruled invalid, it's not really a patent anymore, so you shouldn't be able to infringe. However, until that point, even if you're really really really sure it's going to be invalidated, you have to take it as valid.
As I was graduating college, I was planning to go into defense contracting after hearing stories of riches heaped on older classmates by Raytheon and Lockheed. My girlfriend at the time was going to work at the NSA. After her first orientation, she freaked out that I could no longer take her out to dinner or anything because it would be a conflict of interest.
We were entry-level new college grads who in no way could influence any sort of contract award or anything like that, and she was told this wasn't appropriate. To think that the former head of the agency employing the current CTO would be "manageable" shows, once again, that the NSA is completely divorced from reality.
In college around 1999 I worked for my friend's dad doing exactly this, primarily at motorcycle races. This was before it was feasible for the average person to it on a computer, but it's been established you can't take something obvious and add "on a computer" and get a patent. I have no idea when he started the business, but he'd been doing it a while before I started.