Derek Kerton 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2649) comment rss

  • On the post: Canadian Muslim Who Sends Text Urging His Employees To 'Blow Away' The Competition Arrested As A 'Terror' Suspect

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 09 Feb, 2012 @ 02:56pm

    Re: Re:

    Alternatively, you could develop a sense of humor. er. humour.

  • On the post: Congress Trying To Regulate Certain Wireless Spectrum Issues… In A Payroll Tax Bill?

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2012 @ 10:45am

    Re: CTIA Ad Ties Spectrum Sale to Payroll Tax Cut Funding

    Didn't see the banner, but here's what's going on.

    The wireless carriers, and thus the CTIA, want (and arguably need) more spectrum to serve the growing demand for mobile data.

    Any spectrum, if auctioned, does often deliver billions of dollars to the US treasury, paid by the carriers. The last such auction was in 2007 and yielded not just $19billion to the treasury, but it also offers the general consumer benefit of access to some pretty awesome LTE wireless networks.

    Now, so far, I sound like a mouthpiece for the carriers, and I do believe the points above...but here comes the opposing argument:

    So given that the LTE spectrum auction raised $19B, that is great, but a true economic argument can't just say "Look, we raised money for the citizens with this auction, therefore the auction was good. The end." No, instead we must consider the opportunity cost - that is, what could the country have done with the spectrum OTHER than auction it off to carriers. One of the best suggestions for an alternate way of using the spectrum would be to leave it "open", just as we do with the 2.4GHz band that Wi-Fi and many other consumer electronics products use.

    The thing is, the 2.4GHz band has seen a revolution of innovation, new products, new value creation, job creation, efficiency creation, and has generally be very good for the world. And this was with a "garbage" band of spectrum that was pretty much left unused just because nobody wanted to pay for it, because it is a resonating frequency of water (it gets absorbed very quickly by water, which is a fairly common molecule on earth.)

    So, the real question is, if the FCC clears up more spectrum, what is the BEST use of that spectrum. If an auction delivers $19B of value, how much value does open spectrum create - including that which is not deposited directly into the treasury.

    Anybody who tries to just tell you about the billions in revenue, and neglects the opportunity cost, is probably trying to bias the discussion in one direction.

  • On the post: Congress Trying To Regulate Certain Wireless Spectrum Issues… In A Payroll Tax Bill?

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2012 @ 09:51am

    Re: check the constitution...

    Scott.

    I was going to reply as to why your points are wrong, but then I figured I'd Google you're name to see if you are a lobbyist or something like it. Yep, you seem to be.

    You have a reputation as being for hire by anti-Google forces, pro telecom, pro microsoft.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2012/01/24/the-real-reasons-google-killed-sopapipa/

    Allegedly, you are an astroturf specialist.

    http://techrights.org/2010/09/16/lobby-vs-google-and-msft-rand/

    So, instead of replying, I feel your credibility doesn't warrant my effort.

  • On the post: Congress Trying To Regulate Certain Wireless Spectrum Issues… In A Payroll Tax Bill?

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2012 @ 08:45am

    Wag The Dog

    This is such BS. Government has a lot of foibles, but among my peeves is when one set of regulators puts in rules for the express purpose of tying the hands of another set of regulators.

    In this case, we have the FCC, charged with the task of understanding and regulating radio waves and telecommunication, being hamstrung by Congress, Marsha Blackburn (& her special interest lobbyists). The sad thing is that the FCC actually *does* understand these issues, and often rules in favor of (what it believes is) the public interest -- unlike congress, which is stupider, and more easily misled by lobbyists.

    So we have:
    i) our dumber government officials
    ii) spending our resources in order to pass laws
    iii) to deliberately prevent our relatively informed government officials from doing their job.

    Keep up the good work, DC.

  • On the post: Discussing SOPA/PIPA Over At On The Media

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 26 Jan, 2012 @ 12:20pm

    Hypocrite

    Steve Tepp:

    "And yet, folks are moving the goalpost and saying, nope, still not good enough. So I don't know what the concern is. To me if I get what I ask for, I stop complaining."

    Steve. Newsflash. New copyright enhancement legislation has been passed 15 times in the past 30 years. You lie. If you get what you ask for, you do not stop complaining.

  • On the post: TSA Critic, Senator Rand Paul, Prevented By TSA From Getting On His Flight To DC

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 23 Jan, 2012 @ 02:25pm

    Re: Re: Congressmen Should Get Groped As Much As The Rest of Us

    Well...my 4th amendment rights don't seem to apply when I pass through security. I'm not happy about that.

    As a priority, I'll spend a lot more energy fighting for the general public's rights at TSA than I would ever spend defending a Congressperson's special privilege (Constitutional or not.)

    I can pick my battles, this wouldn't be the first one.

  • On the post: TSA Critic, Senator Rand Paul, Prevented By TSA From Getting On His Flight To DC

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 23 Jan, 2012 @ 02:04pm

    Congressmen Should Get Groped As Much As The Rest of Us

    I see your constitutional quote, but wish it weren't true. Goose, Gander, etc.

    But, seriously, how does the average TSA goon know that he is looking at a Senator on his way to Congress? If there is ID or documentation, are they trained to recognize it and validate it? Could it be fake? Could this be a terrorist impersonating a politician?

    In a country where nobody knows the politicians:
    http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/
    ...should we expect the TSA agents to know better?

  • On the post: Crowd Cheers Loudly As All Four GOP Candidates Say No To SOPA/PIPA

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2012 @ 09:54am

    Re: Re:

    True. While I think Gingrich nailed it, I feel like I'm more grading performances than actually getting any truth.

    The primaries and debates are more like Dancing With The Stars than any sensible political process. They just lack the brutally honest and funny element of a guy like Simon Cowell.

  • On the post: Crowd Cheers Loudly As All Four GOP Candidates Say No To SOPA/PIPA

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2012 @ 09:45am

    Re:

    BTW, you are categorically wrong. I am a long way from a Gingrich campaign manager, but you say that "G spouted politically popular generalities" but you must have not paid much attention.

    Gingrich, in a display rare for the debates, demonstrated knowledge of the bill and detailed specific downsides of the Bills: less freedom, protectionism to Hollywood, the fact that the tech savvy are against, it may mess up the Net, poorly written Bill, unacceptable censorship, we have sufficient patents and copyright law already, don't want preemptive government censorship for specific corporate interests.

    That's a long way from popular generalities. The 9-9-9 guy would have given us that. Of the four, there were no more pointless generalities than those offered by Santorum.

    So, in brief, what you think...just think the opposite.

  • On the post: Crowd Cheers Loudly As All Four GOP Candidates Say No To SOPA/PIPA

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2012 @ 11:31pm

    Who Was That?

    Wow. Who was the guy in the Newt Gingrich suit? For 60 seconds, I actually LIKED Gingrich!! Was that you, Masnick?

    Newt not only fell on the right side of the debate, he took the riskier position of saying so first. Further, he detailed the true downsides of the Bills: less freedom, protectionism to Hollywood, the fact that the tech savvy are against, it may mess up the Net, poorly written Bill, unacceptable censorship, we have sufficient patents and copyright law already, don't want preemptive government censorship for specific corporate interests.

    And equally important, what he DID NOT say: no mention of the common but false assertion that piracy is a massive problem, no mention of the common but false notion that we need some new laws to handle it.

    Newt clearly did not get a check from Hollywood!

    Kudos to Ron Paul, too. Pointing out that this is not a D/R debate.

  • On the post: Crowd Cheers Loudly As All Four GOP Candidates Say No To SOPA/PIPA

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2012 @ 11:19pm

    Re:

    You find it risky to sit on the fence? Santorum said he didn't like the bill as written (riding the popular sentiment, and after hearing the applause offered Newt and Mitt), yet still managed to kiss the ass of the Intellectual Property maximalists. How is that not weak?

    Sadly, his weak response was pretty much identical to Victoria Espinel and the White House. Lame.

  • On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 18 Jan, 2012 @ 02:08pm

    Re: Money -> Mouth

    I like your intention, but your proposal is not logical.

    By assuming the possible legal bills for Wikipedia, Lamar would be exposing himself to risk SOPA or PIPA were used unfairly against wikipedia as we know it today. This is what you assumed, and why you want to challenge him as you do.

    However, he Lamar also exposes himself to the risk if wikipedia DID actually begin to engage directly in copyright violations, or the sale of counterfeit items. Since wikipedia could (but wouldn't) do that, and it is out of the control of Lamar, he should not assume the risk. It's not a fair corner to paint him in.

  • On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 17 Jan, 2012 @ 11:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So you think the main reason people don't murder is murder laws?

    Also, you think nobody commits murder because there are laws against it?

  • On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 17 Jan, 2012 @ 11:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Instead of asking us to do pointless work of finding precise language in a vague bill, why don't YOU point out to me the "exact language" of the earlier Pro-IP legislation that should "effect [sic]" the website Dajaz1.

    Dajaz1, for those who don't know, was seized for about a year by ICE under that legislation, also promoted by Lamar Smith.

    If there is no exact language you can find that would incriminate Dajaz1, then we can reasonably conclude that these vague laws are routinely and clumsily abused by vested interests and over-reaching government agencies to stifle freedom and shut down sites unfairly.

  • On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 17 Jan, 2012 @ 11:16pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yes, but the era of NBC and Rupert being the only communication channel people learn from is waning.

    Wikipedia and other sites are a powerful voice, too. Especially when united.

    In fact, this kind of activism is the only possible antidote to getting the sheeple masses to actually understand what is at stake, and how important it is.

    Are you suggesting Wikipedia not do it, and just leave that job to Rupert?

  • On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 17 Jan, 2012 @ 11:14pm

    Re: Re:

    Forget Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia for a sec...

    What we should really be asking if it would be irresponsible for, say, Lamar and the ITC or DOJ to black out a site for a day against the site owner's will? Say Dajaz1, just as an example.

    And what if they did it for about a year instead of a day?

    And what if they did it under false pretenses, a shield of secrecy, and with no explanation at all? And what if it were pretty much done just on the whim of the RIAA?

    And what if it turned out they were completely wrong, and had to reverse their actions? Would that qualify as irresponsible?

  • On the post: It's Official: Wikipedia To Go Dark On Wednesday

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 16 Jan, 2012 @ 01:52pm

    Wikipedia: You Win 2 Internets

    Hmmm. Time to make that donation to Wikipedia that I've thought they deserved for years.

  • On the post: Why Internet Companies And Content Companies Should Oppose Broadband Caps

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 06 Dec, 2011 @ 09:46am

    Re: Re: I Disagree With Mike - Pay To Play

    You're a bad debater, and have not refuted any of my points, though you are quite certain that you have. It's two years on, so I'll just refute two of your opening arguments:

    "Simple economics states that, in time, greater consumption prices will fall as competitors offer more for less"

    You weren't an econ major, like I was, were you? What you have written there is wrong (also grammatically). Sure, there are volume discounts often offered for higher rates of consumption. However, what you wrote above is the opposite of the fundamental law of economics: the law of supply and demand. I had written that using more resources means there should be more cost. That's what econ is: the sensible allocation of scarce resources.

    "View the latest "unlimited" data plans for $99/year by wireless providers, then see how even that is being challenged."

    Well, it's 2011 now. And "unlimited" has been reduced to just Sprint. I don't see "how even that is being challenged".

  • On the post: Sarkozy Worried About The Internet 'Stealing Audience Share' From 'Regulated' TV Services

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2011 @ 01:30pm

    Re: It's simple

    Further to Masnick's point, Museums in France have a history of offering free admission, one day a week, or on special occasions. The notion being that greater exposure will only increase overall interest, increase revenues on other days, and raise the value that the culture within can offer the country and humanity.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/04/us-france-museums-idUSL1841277820080104

  • On the post: For VPN Provider HideMyNet DMCA's ABC's Not As Easy As 123

    Derek Kerton ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2011 @ 02:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rule #1

    "It is possible to bring that smile back. I got a dog. If you treat a dog right, they are friendly, loyal, hard working, and willing to give of themselves for their clan.

    They're about the polar opposite of a politician."

    No Way!! Not polar opposites at all. Mostly the same.

    Just ask Jack Abramoff. If you treat a politician right (ie. support their re-election, offer a future job as a lobbyist, fund their SuperPAC), they are friendly, loyal, hard working (for you), and willing to give of themselves for their clan.

    Are you in their clan? It's easy to tell. If you've had two or fewer closed-door meetings with the pol, then no, you are surely not.

Next >>