Richard Bennett 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (506) comment rss

  • On the post: Tone Deaf: Using COVID-19 As A Prop To Celebrate The Death Of Net Neutrality

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2020 @ 06:32pm

    Derangement zone

    This post is more deranged than the typical Bodey McBodeface post, quite an achievement.

    Nobody takes BroadbandNow seriously as a data source, of course.

  • On the post: AT&T Keeps Pretending It Wants Real Net Neutrality And Privacy Laws. It Doesn't.

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 27 Feb, 2020 @ 09:36am

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

    I stand by my statement, regardless of how many times you insist that I try again.

  • On the post: AT&T Keeps Pretending It Wants Real Net Neutrality And Privacy Laws. It Doesn't.

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 27 Feb, 2020 @ 09:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I will note that HTF does not accept anonymous comments.

  • On the post: AT&T Keeps Pretending It Wants Real Net Neutrality And Privacy Laws. It Doesn't.

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 27 Feb, 2020 @ 08:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This is not the appropriate venue for discussing any issues you or anyone else may have regarding other blogs. My invitation stands to discuss HTF on HTF.

  • On the post: AT&T Keeps Pretending It Wants Real Net Neutrality And Privacy Laws. It Doesn't.

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 27 Feb, 2020 @ 07:38am

    Re: Re:

    You're welcome to leave comments on my blog regarding any information you believe to be incorrect. I give such criticism due weight and routinely correct any errors I may make. My point is that Techdirt would do well to uphold the high standards of journalistic integrity we practice at High Tech Forum. Is that too much to ask?

  • On the post: The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time?

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 26 Feb, 2020 @ 12:16pm

    Hypocrisy

    I'd like to see The Dirt reject anonymous comments. This would set an example for the FCC to follow.

  • On the post: AT&T Keeps Pretending It Wants Real Net Neutrality And Privacy Laws. It Doesn't.

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 26 Feb, 2020 @ 12:12pm

    Where's the correction?

    When is The Dirt going to admit that Brode's claim that AT&T "played a starring role in killing both the FCC's 2010 and 2015 net neutrality rules" is false?

    Anyone can make a mistake, especially when they're expressing opinions on issues they don't understand. But it's cowardly not to admit to errors and correct them.

  • On the post: AT&T Keeps Pretending It Wants Real Net Neutrality And Privacy Laws. It Doesn't.

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 14 Feb, 2020 @ 04:00pm

    The concept of proof seems to escape this one...

    Let's rewind to the first principle of argument. When you make a claim, you're obligated to provide evidence that your claim is true. Simply repeating the claim and asserting "it's true because I say so" doesn't cut it. Repeating the claim several times without evidence doesn't cut it. Saying the truth of the claim is "is irrelevant [because switching]" also doesn't cut it The ISP's ultimate power is to cut you off. Short of that, any attempt by an ISP to redirect, modify, or shape your user experience is limited for several reasons:

    • Every interference can be circumvented through various kinds of encryption, up to and including VPNs.
    • Every interference can be circumvented through various alternate providers of DNS and other services.
    • Any such attempt is limited by the fact that no ISP can operate without paying customers.
    • Any such attempt is limited by the fact that our ultimate power is to refuse to use the Internet at home.
    • Any such attempt is limited by truth-in-adversing statutes enforced by the FTC, the DOJ, and state laws.
    The efficacy of these protections is proved by the fact that no ISP has ever redirected an Internet user to an alternate destination, an outcome you posit as realistic in the absence of Title II net neutrality. I see that you're not technical enough to appreciate the information I've shared with you, so let me offer an analysis that you should be able to understand: if ISPs can do the things you're worried about, why haven't they? If this were a serious discussion, you would be able to cite specific examples, and such examples would be fairly widespread. Free Press has tried to show examples of ISP misbehavior that includes Madison River and a number of things that either didn't happen or which had nothing to do with an ISP, such as Apple blocking certain dodgy apps from its app store or Netflix contracting with a transit provider that lacked the capacity to carry its traffic. That's all I've got for you, so feel free to go on saying "this is true because I say so" a dozen or more times. So I'll just sit back and giggle.

  • On the post: AT&T Keeps Pretending It Wants Real Net Neutrality And Privacy Laws. It Doesn't.

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 14 Feb, 2020 @ 01:41pm

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

    You made the claim that ISPs can do things to interfere with the user experience of the Internet that Google can't do. I've showed several things that Google can do that ISPs can't in search, browsers, applications, and operating systems. I've also shown that Google has the power to affect an audience three orders of magnitude larger than the audience of any one ISP. And many of the abuses you claim ISPs can commit are impossible on encrypted HTTPS and DoH streams. Rather than admitting that my claims are true, you resort to name-calling and goalpost shifting about the costs of switching to alternative service providers. This is quite rich given that the cost of switching from an Android phone to an iPhone is higher than switching from AT&T to Comcast or T-Mobile. TM will pay you to switch. Switching from a Mac to a PC is much more dear, yet people do it every day. But the key fact about ISP switching is that we all do it several times day: when we go to work, when we use our mobile devices, and when we connect in public spaces. Very, very few people are locked into one ISP all the time. Antitrust regulators are no longer impressed by the switching cost argument. Leaving Google search has severe consequences for users because the ability to provide search is governed in part by the number of users the search service has. Each user helps Google refine its algorithms by choosing which results they will follow and how much time they'll spend on them. Duck Duck Go can't overcome this advantage. The entire argument for NN is about what the service providers can do. Your mistaken suppositions about how users might react to these imaginary abuses don't conform to the observed behavior of real people interacting with genuinely biased services such as Google and Facebook. Bode needs to admit he made false claims in his post, and you should simply consider what I've shown you without trying to weasel your way out of your errors.

  • On the post: AT&T Keeps Pretending It Wants Real Net Neutrality And Privacy Laws. It Doesn't.

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 14 Feb, 2020 @ 11:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wow!

  • On the post: AT&T Keeps Pretending It Wants Real Net Neutrality And Privacy Laws. It Doesn't.

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 14 Feb, 2020 @ 10:36am

    Re:

    There's that good old-fashioned TechDirt charm.

  • On the post: AT&T Keeps Pretending It Wants Real Net Neutrality And Privacy Laws. It Doesn't.

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 14 Feb, 2020 @ 10:27am

    Re: Re:

    It wouldn't be The Dirt without a conspiracy theory. If the commenter is impersonating Jim Cicconi, he or she is doing a pretty good job. You can verify the accuracy of points the comment makes.

  • On the post: AT&T Keeps Pretending It Wants Real Net Neutrality And Privacy Laws. It Doesn't.

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 14 Feb, 2020 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're moving the goalposts. The question is how Google and Facebook could redirect users to sites other than the ones they want to visit, not whether they do redirect or if there are ways to circumvent such redirection. The NN argument has always been about what could happen. I showed that Google has the power, as a DNS provider, to redirect the 15% of the global Internet that use its DNS if it wants. The market share argument is a red herring, because AT&T's share of the wireline ISP market in the US is about 15%, which is 0.3% of the global market. And changing DNS providers is subject to the whims of the browser now that DoH is a thing. Google can also redirect website visits through its Chrome browser, which controls 70% of the global browser market, most of which is way beyond AT&T's reach. Browsers are the first link in the chain from the search/address bar and the web. Similarly, Google can redirect website visits through its Android operating system, reaching 85% of the global market. Android stands between TCP/IP and the Internet. Most importantly, Google controls 90% of the global market for search, the actual gateway to the web. If you can't find a site in search, you're probably not going to want to visit it. And guess which sites come up first? The ones that paid Google for an ad in the top spot. Can people switch? Sure; but do they? Nope. So here we are worrying about the potential anti-consumer conduct of a company that has never redirected a single Internet user and which has 0.3% of the worldwide Internet market while giving a free pass to a genuinely dominant firm that has a documented history of abusive behavior. So even if we switch the discussion from what could happen to what does happen, there's no rational reason for beating up on ISPs while giving Google and Facebook a pass. Unless, that is, you have no understanding of technology, technology markets, policy, politics, and facts in general.

  • On the post: AT&T Keeps Pretending It Wants Real Net Neutrality And Privacy Laws. It Doesn't.

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2020 @ 07:50pm

    Re: This blog

    Here's the YouTube of the testimony Jim Cicconi and others gave on H. J. Res. 37 on March 9, 2011. The resolution was an attempt by Republicans to vacate the 2010 Open Internet Order using the Congressional Review Act. Cicconi urged the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology to reject the resolution in order to keep the OIO intact. As you can see, he characterized the OIO a reasonable compromise. Ultimately, the House did pass the resolution but it died in the Senate without a hearing. TechDirt should correct the article as it has been proved to make a false claim.

  • On the post: AT&T Keeps Pretending It Wants Real Net Neutrality And Privacy Laws. It Doesn't.

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2020 @ 03:43pm

    Re: Re:

    Do tell exactly how Google (not counting GFiber) or Facebook, et. al could possibly dictate where you, as an individual do or do not go on the internet? Hm? Put another way, if you put www.starwars.com into your address bar, how can any of those "advertising-based businesses" stop your computer/browser from reaching that site and displaying it to you?
    Not exactly the most insightful comment you're ever going to see on The Dirt. AC has apparently never heard of that DNS thing. Or that CDN thing. Or Cloudflare, the company that threatened to throttle Chairman Pai for doing his job. The Dirt has some funny readers; a case study in mental disorders.

  • On the post: AT&T Keeps Pretending It Wants Real Net Neutrality And Privacy Laws. It Doesn't.

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2020 @ 01:23pm

    Re: Every Bode post has a lie in it...

    See Protocol for Bode's take on the NYC deal I mentioned; it doesn't allow comments.

  • On the post: AT&T Keeps Pretending It Wants Real Net Neutrality And Privacy Laws. It Doesn't.

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2020 @ 01:20pm

    Every Bode post has a lie in it...

    Bode claims AT&T "played a starring role in killing both the FCC's 2010 and 2015 net neutrality rules." This is untrue, as anyone who follows this issue knows well. With the exception of Verizon, the entire broadband industry was OK with the 2010 Open Internet Order. Verizon opposed it because some of its people believed the use of Section 706 for authority to regulate broadband markets would have bad consequences down the road. All of these people were fired within a couple of years of the lawsuit.

    Nearly all of the broadband companies are in fact just fine with clean net neutrality regulations because they've never been in the business of selling fast lanes. The problem the industry had with the 2015 order was the use of Title II, a provision of law that permits the FCC to impose price controls. I keep hoping Bode with write a post that doesn't depend on alternative facts, but so far I've been disappointed.

    As to the NYC plan: it's little more than pie in the sky, an empty political plan with no money behind it. Cities with spotty broadband coverage generally restrict access to RoW in unreasonable ways, so opening it up would be good. The real enemies of the open Internet are Silicon Valley advertising-based businesses and government entities.

  • On the post: Don't Panic, But Do Reflect: Lessons From The Iowa Democrat Debacle

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2020 @ 04:57pm

    Organizational failure

    This all comes down to the fact that many of the people who were supposed to use this app to report caucus night results didn't bother to download the app and learn how to use it until election night. That's an inexcusable organizational failure for which heads would roll in any business.

    It's really not hard to send three numbers from a phone to the a server somewhere. Trump does more complex things several times a day.

  • On the post: Lindsey Graham's Sneak Attack On Section 230 And Encryption: A Backdoor To A Backdoor?

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 31 Jan, 2020 @ 06:36pm

    Re: Re: Misses the point

    Yeah, I totally got a call from Putin today telling me to foment disruption in the American political process around Google. This Szoka character (former president of the Ayn Rand Fanboi Alliance) makes a perfect foil. Sorry, I've gotta leave now so I can post pro-witness comments on the Facebook pages of Repubican senators...

  • On the post: Lindsey Graham's Sneak Attack On Section 230 And Encryption: A Backdoor To A Backdoor?

    Richard Bennett ( profile ), 31 Jan, 2020 @ 03:41pm

    Misses the point

    Google's favorite right wing pressure group publishes a post about a discussion draft on Google's favorite blog. The post displays massive ignorance of law, economics, and technology but that's OK, it gets the piracy buffs fired up.

    The problem with this bill is that it unlawfully delegates too much of Congress's policy-making power to an executive branch agency acting in the guise of a regulator. In other words, it has the same problem that net neutrality regulations made at the FCC absent meaningful guidance from Congress has.

    But the post doesn't make this very important point because it would make the TD audience sad. So wade through this mess of illogic for a coherent point if you're having a hard time sleeping.

Next >>