Derek Kerton 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2649) comment rss

  • On the post: Bad Reporting, Grandstanding Congressmen, Tweeting President Combine For Clusterfuck About Twitter

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2018 @ 08:36am

    So, um, now republicans WANT the Fairness Doctrine

    This is so hypocritical. Republicans were staunchly against the fairness Doctrine.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

    It is because there is no longer a fairness doctrine that they can have their highly biased news sites like Fox News, or Breitbart.

    So somehow, they can hold that view, but also the view that sites like Twitter should fairly balance exposure of views from the left and the right, you know, a sort of fairness Doctrine, if you will.

  • On the post: Copyright Industries Reveal Their Ultimate Goal: An Internet Where Everything Online Requires A License From Them

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 03 Jul, 2018 @ 02:32pm

    You Had Me At Hello

    I couldn't get past this:

    "The primary focus of this legislation is concerned with whether or not the internet functions as a fair and efficient marketplace"

    Is that really what the people of Europe want from their Internet? A "fair and efficient marketplace". People want the Internet to give them communications, information, access to infinite sites and information, and also to entertain them. No citizens would mention "Fair and efficient marketplace" on their wishlist, only profiteers and businesses would.

    There's nothing wrong with businesses wanting a "fair and efficient marketplace" of the Internet, but it's not right for their needs to over-rule and dominate what the citizenry actually wants.

  • On the post: Marsha Blackburn Wants ISPs To Sell 'Fast Lanes' Like 'TSA Pre-Check'

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 29 May, 2018 @ 03:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I hate this cunt

    Fair enough.

  • On the post: Marsha Blackburn Wants ISPs To Sell 'Fast Lanes' Like 'TSA Pre-Check'

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2018 @ 12:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: I hate this cunt

    "True, but in a truly free market (one without cronyism,) there is nothing stopping a competitor from starting up and beating the monopoly with cheaper rates."

    Yeah, there TOTALLY is. Monopolists can also use the following tricks:

    - economies of scale which lowers cost
    - cheaper access to capital
    - locking down needed suppliers to shut out others
    - setting technical standards, de facto or other, to their preferred technology
    - patents and IP on those standard technologies
    - organizing fake grassroots campaigns against newcomers
    - paid R&D or thinktanks that come out with favorable studies, which trick policymakers (not cronyism, but deceit)
    - you said "one without cronyism". But why? Does cronyism not exist???
    - price dumping (reducing their prices to below profitability in regions where competitors are trying to start, killing their biz model)
    - focusing their improvements and better infrastructure in specific areas where new entrants are launching
    - better brand recognition
    - better amortization of advertising across more customers or addressable market

    Whew, dude! I'm just getting started. I could riff a list three times this big off the top of my head.

    Are those dirty tricks, or just business for monopolists? Both!

    You argue that someone will come along and "knock the monopolist with cheaper rates". This is almost impossible. The monopolist holds all the cards, and the price control, and the ability to "knock competitors out with cheaper rates" is almost always the monopolists tool, not the new entrant!!!

    A startup would need a revolutionary (very unusual) discovery that totally turned the market on its head in order to have a market advantage. This does happen in some industries, and monopolists do get beaten, and someday will. But the telco incumbents have been incumbent for about a hundred years...so don't expect a disruption every autumn.

    "Monopolies have to play nice"
    No. No they don't. Not at all.
    The word "monopoly" effectively means "has market control and so doesn't have to play nice".

  • On the post: Marsha Blackburn Wants ISPs To Sell 'Fast Lanes' Like 'TSA Pre-Check'

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2018 @ 11:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I hate this cunt

    "I thought the term "natural monopoly" also referred to things that would be really silly to implement via many competing sources of some commodity."

    And you are right.

    "Natural Monopoly" is that, and a number of other situations, MOST DEFINITELY including telecoms. Telecoms and utility companies are pretty much the textbook definition of Natural Monopoly.

  • On the post: The CIA Made A Card Game… And We're Releasing It

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 23 Apr, 2018 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: Really? Physical CARDS that I can't steal like a computer game?

    Is the typo on porpoise?

    Bored games?

  • On the post: The CIA Made A Card Game… And We're Releasing It

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 23 Apr, 2018 @ 10:43am

    Re: Really? Physical CARDS that I can't steal like a computer game?

    First Point: Cards

    It's true. Every time I go to Vegas, I observe the oddity of people playing "card games" on the screens of computers, with virtual dealers. You're so right. Computers CAN simulate a card game.

    Of course, those are the nickel games. Walk a few steps over, and -- surprise -- you'll see the people actually gambling money in increments above $10 are all actually playing with real cards. So both virtual and actual cards games can co-exist in the market.

    But given the house takes a steady %, and the physical card tables have higher minimums, not only do people still choose to play with real cards, they pay substantially more to do so, which is what economists call a "revealed preference".

    So, you are so very wrong.

    Second point: Making Money

    You joke that Techdirt should, instead, make their money by "writing more free content". I guess you missed the part of the Techdirt business model, which has been oft repeated, and demonstrated here. It's "Connect with Fans (CwF) + Reason to Buy (RtB) = The Business Model"

    or CwF + RtB. You can see it here

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090719/2246525598.shtml

    It strikes me that this card game is an incredibly on-point example of that model.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 18 Apr, 2018 @ 04:29pm

    Re: Excellent week

    I wrote one of those, and agree with others: experience writing helps a lot. And even if somebody is naturally gifted, experience would also help them be better.

    That said, from the two comments you've written here, it looks like you're fully capable of expressing yourself clearly. There are many percentiles of people below you who are not. So, you're in a place where it's probably worth your while to try.

    For the process, everyone is a little different. But if I'm going to write a good article or comment, I need to actually FEEL something or think something. I can write a piece that I don't feel strongly about (for ex: if I were paid to), but it won't be as good. Martin Luther King could be so eloquent and convincing in his speeches, because he was highly motivated and truly believed in his mission. The good thing for you is that you can be choosy: if it's not your job, it's easy to only write when you feel strongly.

    Next, I try to imagine what I want to say. If I can come up with any examples or analogies that would fit well, I mentally note them - they are EXTREMELY useful because people can relate to the story. Like the MLK reference above. It can also put your point in a different context, which shakes people out of their fixed opinion. It can point out how they're not evaluating things consistently.

    Then, I just start hammering keys.

    Last, I look at what I wrote, and make a few changes to make it punchier or better. (The fucked thing is that this always introduces grammatical errors, as a lingering verb tense or plural no longer makes sense.)

    Then, realize that most of your words won't be as well-received as you'd hoped, but maybe some will.

  • On the post: If You're Pissed About Facebook's Privacy Abuses, You Should Be Four Times As Angry At The Broadband Industry

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2018 @ 10:20am

    Re: Re: There's a fix for that

    I'm going to correct myself.

    Now, after a couple of days, I'm going to agree with you. You were right that ditching the smartphone could improve your privacy.

    The reason I see is because, when we did stuff on the web via PC, say visit Facebook, what we did in facebook, and what they knew about us was limited mostly to that tab. Facebook was "siloed".

    But when we install the FB app in a smartphone, and give it Permissions during the install, it fully abuses those permissions, and goes to town sucking up all the data it can out of the phone. See this link for an example of how FB is watching EVERY PHONE CALL this guy makes: https://twitter.com/dylanmckaynz/status/976368845635035138

    It is our smartphones that are the nexus of companies leaking out of their silos. The permissions rubric is awful and broken. So, eschewing the smartphone would improve your privacy. But, maybe, you could use a smartphone, but just have fewer apps, and deny most permissions.

    Last note: you can go into your smartphone, apple or android, and reduce the permissions of your installed apps.

  • On the post: If You're Pissed About Facebook's Privacy Abuses, You Should Be Four Times As Angry At The Broadband Industry

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2018 @ 02:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: There's a fix for that

    Right. A systematic fix would be far better than an individual exodus.

  • On the post: Wherein Facebook Loses Recess For Everyone

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2018 @ 02:53pm

    Ironic

    Ironic that congress,
    so deeply manipulated by power and moneyed interests,
    now takes steps to chastise and limit the interwebs
    for the crime of
    being manipulated by power and moneyed interests.

  • On the post: If You're Pissed About Facebook's Privacy Abuses, You Should Be Four Times As Angry At The Broadband Industry

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2018 @ 02:03pm

    Re: There's a fix for that

    I'm not sure what you're proposing would make any difference, at least for me.

    I mean, assuming I ditch my smartphone, but keep a dumb phone, I still get my location tracked. That's fairly powerful surveillance and privacy intrusion data. I would have to carry NO phone, and then worry about license plates, facial recognition cams, etc. But no phone would help keep my location private.

    So if you use a dumb phone, and your location is now known, what else does it protect you from? Nothing.

    I assume that, at home, you're still using the interwebs to look up the things you're interested in, right? So basically, your content choices, postings, communications are all about as vulnerable as your smartphone actions would have been.

    Nope, assuming you have a dumb phone, and still use the internet at home and work, you're not making much of a dent in your privacy at all.

    The "FIX" would be cold turkey. No phone, no home computer, no ISP.

  • On the post: If You're Pissed About Facebook's Privacy Abuses, You Should Be Four Times As Angry At The Broadband Industry

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2018 @ 01:56pm

    Re: Mobile Networks and Privacy Rankings

    Dude, the invasion of privacy is NOT AT ALL what you seem to think it is.

    It's not about "What you put on Facebook". That's a big "duh". Of course anything you put up on the site is now out there. You can tweak the settings, but it's out there. Duh.

    It IS about "Everything you do, visit, read, dwell, mouse over, like, look at, and turn away from. It IS about how often you're looking, at what time. It IS about who you know, who you pay more attention to, or less. THIS is what Facebook and Cambridge Analytica are MOST interested in, not your fucking cat photos.

    The paragraph above is the stuff that tells them who you really are, what you're really into, and how to grab your attention - and manipulate it.

    As for mobile networks, yes. AT&T and Verizon, as former incumbents, have the longest histories of cooperating with gov't surveillance. Newer and smaller carriers, and MVNOs less so. But any cellular network, by default, collects lots of data about you by necessity, like your location. You could try a secure phone, like those from DarkMatter. At least the phone's Android OS has been tweaked to share as little data as possible.

  • On the post: If You're Pissed About Facebook's Privacy Abuses, You Should Be Four Times As Angry At The Broadband Industry

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2018 @ 01:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Plenty to be pissed about...

    WTF is a beta?

    I'm not sure either. Looks like another term cooked up by the way-right, Ann Coulter, or such. Like SJW.

    Really though, it's the same as "ginks, gooks, jerries, sand-n****s" etc. Take your pick.

    It's an effort from the propaganda wing of the alt-right to dehumanize people with different opinions, who should be considered as on the same team with different views. It helps drum up the divisions and fear of the "other", and it makes it easier to vilify and fight them.

    Small-minded people tend to accept, then use these shorthand terms as badges on their quasi-uniform.

  • On the post: If You're Pissed About Facebook's Privacy Abuses, You Should Be Four Times As Angry At The Broadband Industry

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2018 @ 02:05pm

    Nice

    "you're just trying to towel off in a rainstorm."

    Is that yours? Never heard it before.

  • On the post: Feds Finally Realize That AT&T Has Been Enabling Scammers To Abuse IP Fraud… Financed By Taxpayers

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 24 Jan, 2018 @ 10:55am

    Re:

    Aside from the other arguments people have made to rebut you, please note that:

    The gov't asking companies to take down pirated content, or other such stuff is NOT PAYING THEM one red cent to do so. It's a command to spend resources to protect the gov't-created monopolies that profit some OTHER company.

    The gov't asking AT&T to validate the calls in this article is a condition of the gov't paying the bill for all such validated calls. It's more like "We are paying YOU do provide a service in a contracted way, please provide it."

  • On the post: Dashcam Recording Instantly Undercuts Officers' Concocted Reason For A Traffic Stop

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 22 Jan, 2018 @ 12:48pm

    The Fix is In

    Tim, you wrote "The easiest fix is to perform your public servant duties in accordance to the law..."

    Come on. The take-away here for "law enforcement" officers is that the "easiest fix" is to lose, scrub, delete, or alter the video.

    Altering your character and your habits - that's hard. Deleting some video? We know this happens all the time.

  • On the post: MovieBeam Finally Dead For Real

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 22 Jan, 2018 @ 12:34pm

    Re: MovieBeam

    Hey, I know it's now 11 years later, so my comment isn't exactly "timely"...buuuut

    Both your comment and the one by KevinL above are saying "Nah, it's not so bad. I got a box for free (or $50 for him), and after that, it's a good deal."

    Sure, but what does that say about their business, if they have to give away the hardware to get anyone to adopt their service? At the time, those were high-end HD boxes. They had to give them away at a loss to win customers. So, for a number of months, until they buy enough movies that the margin wins back the cost of the equipment, every customer represents a loss.

  • On the post: Why I Changed My Mind On Net Neutrality

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 07 Dec, 2017 @ 05:21pm

    Re: "The more regulations we add, the more businesses seem to screw me."

    "The more regulations we add, the more businesses seem to screw me."

    Kinda like how regulations that say meat can't be tainted screw us out of our right to eat rotten meat, or mad cow meat.

    Methinks we have an extremist who refuses to see one side of the issue

  • On the post: Why I Changed My Mind On Net Neutrality

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 07 Dec, 2017 @ 05:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: "You just won't stop corruption"

    "Regulations GAVE them their Monopolies"

    In part. But the real reason we have telecom oligopolies is because this industry is a "natural monopoly".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

    It's not caused by regs. It's caused by naturally occurring:
    High CapEx to start
    Smaller Addressable market for new entrants
    Higher total costs of redundant infrastructures
    Economies of scale.

    John Stuart Mill first explored natural monopolies, concluding that these services should either be delivered by the government, or by a tightly regulated private monopoly. We tend to call these businesses "utilities".

    So, the market failure you say regs will cause is a real risk. The the market failure with no regs is a SURE THING. Given the choice of being thrown in a volcano (no regs, certain market failure), or flipping a coin - heads we throw you in the volcano, tails we don't (regs that may cause market failure)...you should prefer the coin toss.

Next >>