Another thing to think about is good cops with good intentions who have valid reasons to live elsewhere. I know a cop who lived in the city where she worked. She chose to move to a nearby suburb not because of contempt for those in the district where she worked, but because it was increasingly problematic for her to run into people she had arrested when she was off duty.
In no way do I mean to justify what this cop did - it sounds like a bad cop is getting what he deserves. But forcing cops to live where they work has consequences that we can't ignore.
I trust Facebook more than I trust the NSA. Not that I trust Facebook at all, but at least I can sever ties with them, so they have to at least pretend to sort of care about my privacy.
Even more, I don't know what consumers really get out of this. What happens if, for example, Facebook agrees to this and then doesn't comply? Do I get anything? Am I part of some class action where eight years from now they send me a check for $2.38?
The thing I don't get is why we're all piling on Matt Lauer? As mentioned above, calling him a journalist is a stretch. And this is how all the media has been handling Trump. Just this week we've seen articles from both the NY Times and the Washington Post about how the media coverage of Trump is failing. This is nearly unfathomable since the Times and the Post are two of the largest media outlets in the country.
There's no question that Lauer did a terrible job, but I don't know how this was a surprise to anyone.
"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.