The End Of Net Neutrality As We Know It

Comments (Archived):

1. if it is the end of net neutrality (as we know it) then perhaps the campaign needs to have a think about how it can reposition itself in the public mind space with new and more impactful branding. I get the principles behind ‘neutrality’, but the word itself lacks punch as a battle cry. the Swiss have never been to war over neutrality.

2. In NYC we have very limited options.I know of no alternative to Spectrum for my neighborhood.

   1. A classic from two years ago: https://www.youtube.com/wat…

   2. Agree….and that’s a real shame in the land of “the free market”.

      1. new tech like mesh is the answer in the future as no one can dig up the streets of ny to lay cable.till then net neutrality has made life possible.gonna get ugly before it gets better for many,

         1. Have you been to Gowanus or Park Slope recently? Nearly every road is being dug up to lay new sewer line. Was an absolute, now missed opp, to lay new fibre. With creative thinking in NYC, new line can be run as after a matter of time nearly every street in NYC gets ripped up for one reason or another.

            1. true–huge lost opportunity.true–there is technology/process to run fiber through the sewers.not as true on digging up the streets. some yes, many never going to happen.true–i love this town, sing its praises and there are many. but some stuff like connectivity and the subways are really a freakin mess and no easy solution.

            2. How about the fact that when we rewire the schools for “too hot to learn” we’re not going to also do the rewiring for LAN upgrades. We’re going to open the school walls twice in 1,300 buildings over the next 5 years, once for for AC, another for network cabling.

            3. smart.sounds like a passion point for you.go make it so!

            4. Not following. Open the walls twice is a bad thing.

      2. We don’t have free markets in any industry anymore. It’s an ideal. Commodity markets are closest, or the market for investment capital

3. Just got some code written, dirt simple code for a system management issue. Still, it’s nice, fun code! Ah, what is it about writing code all night! Once get started, it’s fun just to keep going! The effect is sometimes called “in the zone” or have all the parts and pieces loaded between the ears and easy to work with!On net neutrality, maybe the issue is just throwing the hot potato from the FCC to the FTC which may be where it belongs.OT:This just in! Athttps://www.cnbc.com/2017/1…poor, poor Eric Schmidt can’t write code to say what content has the meaning of Fact A versus that with the meaning of contradictory Fact B.Poor, poor, poor Eric!In grad school, he studied, what, computer science or some such?No wonder he can’t make progress with meaning!He calls ‘meaning’ a “Holy Grail” problem. Well, in computing there has been syntax, semantics, and meaning; the first can do okay with Backus-Naur form (BNF), basically just a different way to write some set theory (they don’t tell you that in computer science!), and, for a start, in one of J. Ullman’s books, DeRemer’s LALR parsing (what we used in a project I was on); the second is harder but there is progress; the third is regarded as impossible before general AI.Long ago, Google didn’t like me on their phone call: I didn’t emphasize their magic word — C++.So, right, Eric, all you need is just the right object-oriented inheritance graph to solve the representational issues, and then the solution will all just happen! Keep working on that object inheritance graph; don’t give up; and good luck!Ah, poor computer science! They didn’t take the right courses in grad school and can’t do some crucial research!Eric, keep typing in that C++ code! Maybe with another 100 cases of Jolt soda and in another 1000 KLOC you will have something!

   1. You have a grudge!

      1. No, I’m just thrilled to see this evidence here and now (there’s lots more such evidence) that for my project all along I’ve been correct in seeing the problem and the solution I’ve found. So, Eric is seeing some of the problem but is already giving up on finding a solution.

4. Breaking the somber mood today:Here’s our own @WilliamMougayar speaking on stage right now in Zug! https://uploads.disquscdn.c…

   1. rock star lighting.

   2. Follow-up: fantastic presentation, “Designing Token-based Economies”.Tons of nuggets and super practical takeaways that I will start quoting!

   3. I may see him in SF next month at Token Summit. They have a great line up!

   4. Thanks Ken!!

5. This is just part of some major assault on the US consumer. Health, taxes, net . Strange and not comforting times in the USA

6. What legal construct gives the telecos monopoly/duopoly status? Is it just a matter of local rights of way to install the connection along utility lines (in the case of wireline)? Is there supra-municipal legislation? Or is the monopoly/duopoly a de facto result of the necessary capital investment to build the network?

   1. Rights of way are a big part of the last-mile challenge. The original AT&T monopoly was granted on the basis that *all* landline comms were natural monopolies anyway. That was broken up when it became obvious that long-distance calling could be a competitive market, but the local operators survived. The cable business began as a freemarket innovation (running a wire from a hilltop antenna down to a valley town that couldn’t get decent broadcast TV reception) but only entered cities after negotiating for monopoly rights, typically in return for some kind of public-access arrangement (which, in NYC at least, gave rise to all kinds of weird programming and some earnest, mostly unwatchable municipal material).Fred is right that, in the medium to long run, technology will circumvent the monopoly, similar to how Uber and its competitors make the yellow-cab monopoly obsolete; but that won’t happen overnight and, given rising levels of concentration of corporate power, will happen slower than we’d like it to; hence the need to keep the regulations we have, which have worked well so far.

      1. OK, but what is the alternative? What did other countries do so that they didn’t end up with a duopoly? Is there a path for us to become more like that? i.e. we used to grant legal monopolies, we don’t anymore, but given the lack of competition you’d think we still do. Is there a regulatory change we can enact that will further remove protection of the entrenched providers, result in more competitors offering broadband?

      2. I think, on the contrary, that it would expedite the process of technological circumvention if the telecom companies did all of the things that we’re all so afraid they’ll do if net neutrality is repealed. The worse they behave, the quicker they will be destroyed. If they don’t behave badly, what are we concerned about?

   2. Monopoly/oligopoly tendencies can and do arise at any horizontal layer and vertical boundary point of the informational stack (PAN/LAN/MAN/WAN). The strong oligopolies of Google, FB, Amazon, MSFT are derived from the core and their dominance of some aspect of the top (search bar or FB page). But these only came about because of the real monopolies towards the bottom and edge of the informational stack.Back in 1998 I wrote a piece that if one wanted to break the Wintel OS/Application/Chip near monopoly (layers 2-7 at the edge and core) then one should break the last mile access monopolies. http://bit.ly/1idYapM While it didn’t exactly work out that way, broadband competition that paved the way for video and the iPhone accomplished what the regulators effectively couldn’t over 10 years.Sharing facilities in the last mile can easily be done and should be mandated. But things like address sharing, address portability, etc… are all critical elements for choice. Hence the need for a neutral monitor. Once those issues are agreed on (and yes, it is win/win), then there’s the matter of pricing and settlements. BTW, RoW encompass attachments and stringing along and to poles and towers (layer 1) for both wired and wireless, as well as private frequencies with proprietary modulation techniques (layers 1-2) for wireless. Given the pareto rule and network effects, a provider who serves the top 20% of the market wins the entire market inevitably; but then refuses to build out entirely to the remaining 80%. Remember universal service?The internet is a settlement free model. What everyone once thought as free is anything but and is contributing to wealth and digital divides; not lessening them. The internet is nothing but disconnected, insecure silos and cannot ensure universal service.I am highly critical of NN, calling it a contrivance and farce, principally because it only deals with one layer and boundary point. It was never meant to address the monopoly issue in the last mile (nor disturb the FAANG oligopolies). Those who support it are as equally misguided as those against it. Read here for more: http://bit.ly/2A0TzGv

7. For long time readers, I think most would classify me on the “conservative” side of things (although I don’t like the conservative/liberal badges you can be a bit of both)I cannot for the life of me understand why “conservatives” support this. Get rid of regulation I guess, but when you have companies that have been granted right of ways by the government, and are essentially a sanctioned Duopoly or in my case Monopoly there have to be some controls on abuse.I just don’t get it. I know Fred’s fear is probably the same as mine. Getting some big cable company calling or showing up and saying: “pay me $X (equal to any profit) or your site is going to get mighty slow”This IS the role of Government. No different than controlling Garbage collection etc. You might as well anoint the heads of the cable companies Godfathers.

   1. yup–in cities until mesh is available we are literally slaves to the big providers.They can and do charge what they want.That is why connectivity is so expensive and honestly so sucky here.No control it will get worse until alternative tech changes the game. Like overthetop did for cable and voice.

   2. This isn’t about conservative in terms of the traditional way you’re thinking about it, which is based on economics and the role of regulation.Everything now is just a giant culture war. It’s not about public policy.Net neutrality helps startups. Startup “culture” is associated with places like San Francisco and New York. Many startups embrace inclusivity and immigrants. Hence startups are “libtards.”The people who control the GOP’s only motivation right now is “to own the libtards.” So if they can “own the libtards” and help people who live in more “normal” places like, say, Dallas or Virginia or even New Jersey, were telecom execs live, work, and play golf, all the better.It’s about “owning the libtards”. That’s all. It’s just raw id at this point. You’re a smart, logical, reasonable person. This isn’t that.

      1. I don’t know I think the yelling on both sides and the hyperbole on both sides needs to go away or we get what we have now.I don’t think this targets the people in SF or NY. I think it is a totally misguided attempt to get rid of government regulation which we have way too much of, but this is a poster child for why you need regulation.. And how the Verizon guy was approved is crazy.Frankly this hurts people outside of those cities. Those cities and others have a high enough density and a high enough income base to overcome it even if it happened.For us out here that only have one broadband provider, we’re screwed. And somebody is going to put in well you can get others…..no you can’t the economics don’t support it.But all of this hyperbole has conservatives rallying behind it because liberals are so against it. That I agree, that is why we need less yelling.For conservatives that tell me they support it I say….well you Netflix is either going away or getting a ton more expensive, and your Brietbart and Drudge well you don’t pay for them so just be ready to have them slow down a bunch.

         1. Respectfully I disagree. Again, I think you’re approaching this with logic and reason. That this hurts people in smaller cities is beyond anyone involved’s consideration.The GOP is the party of “own the libtards.” The Dems are “Dump Trump.” The GOP brand is winning and hence net neutrality will die. It’s all Id now.

            1. The only other thing I will say is “Net Neutrality” is a dumb tag line. (or maybe too smart)It should be something like “Internet Freedom””This will control where you go. Yes Netflix is a “bandwidth” hog. Why? Because you the consumer decide to go there. Do you want a Time Warner CEO who makes $32.6mm a year to control where you go? How about a Verizon Exec that got a 16% raise to go to $20mm”

            2. Yes. @jasonpwright:disqus makes a similar point.Unfortunately net neutrality has now been associated with the left (which, as you imply, does not necessarily hold using classical definitions of conservative, liberal, choice, competition, etc.), and the American left can’t brand, message, or market its way out of paper bag.For God knows what reason why, the left has decided to let linger around the likes of Robbie Mook, Jennifer Palmieri, and the rest of the clown car who are guilty of massive scale political and communication incompetence. These folks should have started their lifetime ban and exile from politics (likely in the form of some $700k a year job at Google to be “evangelists” or some other equally nauseating title that involves doing lots of Ted Talks) the day after the election. Instead they remain the face of the left and its communications strategy.As is the case in our country now, accountability is inversely proportional to salary and responsibility. Want to work in fast food? Be ready to submit to a drug test, criminal background check, and a host of other screening protocols. Show up late? You’re fired. Need to take a day off because the baby sitter didn’t show. You’re fired. Recently heard of a barista asked to sign a non compete.But when you get to the level of Mook and Palmieri, there is no accountability. You can totally screw up what on paper should have been a lay up win, and perhaps set the nation back decades in the process, and you’ll still be invited to the best cocktail parties, and given the A block on Maddow. Accountability nowadays in the US is just for working class stiffs apparently. Did anyone visit the HRC campaign HQ in Brooklyn? I did 3 times. It felt like the HQ of a top tier consultancy — lots of very bright, very talented young people who want to make a lot of money and/or make a big name for themselves. That’s fine in a for-profit consultancy, but in a campaign you need at least some people who can kinda, sorta pretend to actually have ever met someone outside their bubbles of academic and economic privilege, and may actually care about the issues facing the people outside that privilege bubble.This is also, btw, one reason that if the left will ever rise again in this country it has to be an authentic movement of the working class, not the wannabe socialists who make $400k a year in neighborhoods like Park Slope and the UWS, but have absolutely no ability to grasp the economic fear that is mobilizing much of the electorate, because they’ve never known a day in their life when they’ve truly been scared of not being able to pay the rent. The face of the Democratic Party, as SNL nailed in a skit a couple weeks ago, is now largely white people in their 70s and 80s who have never once known what’s its like to wonder if you can make ends meet, if you’ll be able to feed your kids this month.Sorry to go on a tangent but I’m, as you can probably tell, worked up today about this and a host of other issues around which the left and/or sane in this country appear completely unable to mobilize (other than endlessly retweeting stuff. We’ve nailed that one). Thankfully on net neutrality at least, it’s not only in the hands of the legacy HRC campaign team and DNC.https://www.youtube.com/wat…

            3. Could not agree more. Very well said. You’ve seen pictures of my 2001 Pickup Truck. I love working with the trades, as much as I do with the superstar tech people that I work with. But I find so many people that have no clue, none about what it is like to be working in the trades. Why because it is “beneath them”. So they compensate by “feeling compassionate” to cleanse their guilt.

            4. I have been listening and watching a lot of Camille Paglia and Jordan Peterson . The very act of listening, reading, or viewing either of these two academics – or even mentioning their name – at this point is probably considered in of itself a form of microaggression that could get me permanently exiled from Park Slope, but I think it’s important to listen to different points of view.Anyway, somewhere is the following video, which I’ve referenced below here, Paglia talks about the work and labor of people (especially men in this context, as it’s a conversation about gender) who do the hard physical labor of keeping up and building out our infrastructure (plumbing, electrical, telecom, etc.). I can’t find the exact point in the video, but the point stuck with me.As I’ve also mentioned here before there is a lot of sewer work going on in Park Slope and Gowanus Brooklyn, which is associated with the SuperFund work to clean up the Gowanus canal. While the affluent liberals here in Park Slope (this is where Chuck Schumer lives as context) have long lobbied to get the canal cleaned up (and there are now new $1M condos next to the canal anticipating that happening), it’s incredible the visible disdain that my neighbors show to the construction workers. It’s shocking really — the cold hatred by affluent “progressives” not just for the minor inconveniences that come from laying new sewer pipe but also for the works themselves — both who they are and the work they do.And this is why the Democrats, as I reference in my previous comment have failed. It’s not a party of the working class in any authentic way, but rather a party controlled by the affluent who have taken it upon themselves to know better what the working class needs and wants, in a very patronizing way. Again, until the Democrats go back to their roots of being the party OF labor, not just rich “progressives” in urban centers on behalf of labor, the party will continue to fail.To his credit our current President seems to understand and be more relatable to those who work in construction, trades, etc. perhaps because he grew up in and around construction sites.I’ve been trying to reflect on my own attitudes and (lack of) gratitude — hence first part of http://avc.com/2017/11/than…https://www.youtube.com/wat…

            5. There’s a new way around Internet bandwidth limitations for sending movies: Have the viewer download the whole movie at once. That’s what I do to watch Hannity — just download the whole 700 MB or some such. So, I get an MP4 file. Microsoft doesn’t want people playing MP4 files, but the open source VLC does that fine.Then I play the MP4 file.The download goes shockingly fast, and the VLC playback is MUCH better than streaming the content directly.Thing is, the Internet doesn’t work well for streaming. It’s not really a real bandwidth issue; it’s more like trying to make an Indy race car drive in Manhattan traffic.

            6. How does it hurt people in small cities Rob?

            7. I was reiterating and implicitly agreeing with @philipsugar:disqus, in which in which he said in the comment to which I was responding, “Frankly this hurts people outside of those cities (SF and NYC”. Those cities and others have a high enough density and a high enough income base to overcome it even if it happened.”

         2. For us out here that only have one broadband provider, we’re screwed.At the office I have one broadband provider. At home I have two broadband providers.Explain to me why someone is screwed if they only have one broadband provider. Are you saying that if Netflix has to pay for speedy access they will deliver a slow product to ISP’s rather than paying the vig? I don’t think that will happen. They will absorb the cost and will pass it along to all users if they have to. If people aren’t happy with the Netflix product they won’t pay for it. Netflix will pay what they have to pay.And I am saying this as the person who often argues that Wawa [1] has to sell cigarettes in order to be able to price their hoagies attractively and have their business model operate at full machine speed. I know how sensitive pricing can be.[1] A 5 star 711 for those not in our area.

            1. I used to be friends with bill McGowan. Founder of mci in 1968. I used to takes notes during his meetings at Mitsubishi as we took on the might NTT by funding DDII could tolerate his chain smoking and scotch drinking kind of like herb Kellner of SouthwestTelcos have always been jealous that someone uses their services to make money. Same for cable companies. Given they can jam it to you they will because if they overbill you what is your recourse???? None

            2. IMHO, communications is so full of lawyers and lobbying because communications used to be mostly just Bell and they were a regulated monopoly so had to use lawyers and regulations as a main part of their business. They still do their work with lawyers talking to politicians trying to get favorable regulations. I’ve long been just sick at the high end lawyering of the Bells.

         3. Your sales ability is showing.

   3. In most of the country, getting rights of way is relatively easy. If the argument is that “we gave you the rights of way, now you must do our bidding” then I would say the answer would be to streamline a process for obtaining rights of way where they are currently difficult to obtain.If you treat HSD connections like a regulated utility, we’ll always have decent enough infrastructure at an annoyingly high cost with zero customer service. I think if, instead, you force the companies that are hogging most of the bandwidth to adjust their business models accordingly, it will cause a great deal more capital formation in the pursuit of creating alternative means of connecting. It might also expedite the process of de-centralizing the infrastructure of the Internet much in the same way that everything atop that infrastructure might de-centralize with blockchains. What would incentivize users to seek their own solution better than high prices for HSD connections, gatekeepers asserting control over the pricing of bits from different nodes and perpetually worst-of-its-kind customer service?

      1. 1. Have you ever gotten one? I have worked for a company that did.2. It is up to the consumer to decide what bandwidth to use. Not Verizon3. This is well understood. Should my water get slowed down if I am filling my pool “hogging” up water? How about my electric? My wife’s hairdryer “hogs” electricity.4. It is economically not feasible to have tons of providers, that is why they are a monopoly that is why they are awarded franchisesThis will not improve service one bit. Ed Whitacre famously said at a conference with other big Telco execs, why should Google make money!! We should be making the money!!It is the dream of every utility exec to be able to charge for value not just be a “dumb pipe” (famous Bell Labs Paper) But that is what you need to run.Frankly the only way service gets better is through competition where Verizon puts in Fiber Comcast gets better. But guess what? It’s not economically feasible in smaller towns and they have cherry picked all they want, they won’t put in new service, my town begged.

         1. I just think the issue is a bit more nuanced than the tech community makes it out to be. To your first point, no I haven’t; doesn’t this mean that figuring out a framework at the local level to enable easier access is an approach worth pursuing? “It’s really hard” shouldn’t be an excuse here. To your point 3, you DO pay more for water and electricity if you use more. To your point 4, I agree that it would be administratively burdensome to have any Tom, Dick and Harry digging up the road to lay fiber, but this presupposes that there aren’t alternative delivery methods that could be implemented if the economic incentive were there. My point is that allowing the telecos to do what everyone seems to fear they will do absent net neutrality would create that incentive. Like most other technologies, a replacement would be incredibly expensive at first but then it would become cheaper as it scaled.

            1. The key is I do pay more. Yes but does the hairdryer maker? Or the pool maker? If you want to argue how they charge me we can discuss, but that’s a non-starter isn’t it.

            2. You’re correct, it’s not a perfect analog. But would you be in favor of treating the telecom companies as regulated utilities who are able to charge at a formulaic cost per bit that is based on their operating and capital costs (ie, the way other utilities are regulated)?

            3. I am on record. If you want to charge the person that is running a bit torrent server in their basement? No problem. I pay more for data in my seven datacenters depending on speed and usage.That’s ok. But you let the cat out of the bag and customers don’t like it (see cell phone plans where there are several providers)But how I the consumer decide to use my bandwidth is my decision regardless of how you charge. If I am working on some super secret trading algorithm or putting up Christmas lights I pay the same per kWH. It is not up to the electric company to monitor what I use it for….the fact is they can’t, but ISP’s can.If you can charge companies that I am using their bandwidth or slowing them down, you are trying to decide how I use my bandwidth.I do not want a telcom company coming to shake down internet companies. I am small, people say…..oh it won’t affect you.This coming from the companies that go to rinky dink bars twice a year to count the number of seats and check the screens to make sure they get their money. That 25 Seat Bar? $1,500 per NFL Sunday Ticket.

            4. Persuasive. Yet I still think that I’d rather live in a world in which the global connectivity network is not centralized and owned. That might be a pipe dream, but if it is possible I think it would be pulled forward by allowing these companies to abuse their monopoly status for a time.

            5. Other than the fact that the government absolutely sucks at running anything, I’d agree.In the utopian case we would have each house wired with government owned fiber and mesh networks connected back to a central hub with major fiber.However this argument is akin to arguing who would win in a fight Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

            6. The hairdryer maker doesn’t pay more because there is a legacy system in place to make the user of more electricity pay more. That would be the monthly electric bill. With the case of internet usage (and bandwidth) you can’t put that genie back in the bottle. People (with the exception of cell phone data) don’t pay for the amount they use since the days of AOL. Right? So the only other option is to charge the hairdryer manufacturer.

            7. Not the hairdryer manufacturer problem

            8. Whose fault is that exactly?

            9. They’ve been trying to figure it out since the early 1900s and haven’t gotten it right.

      2. “getting rights of way is relatively easy”This statement is not really true. It is a long and very political process that takes a ton of local political knowledge to pull off. Having lived the “overbuild” wars of the 1990s I saw just how hard it was.

      3. “In most of the country, getting rights of way is relatively easy.”Which country? Which history book are you reading this in?

         1. In most of the country as in the very thinly populated majority of the country. Granted, it clearly does little good for the population centers.

            1. Network economics are governed by density, so your statement still doesn’t make sense. If 80% of your potential customers are in places where it is hard to get fair, reasonable and low cost RoW or interconnection then one has no business model.

            2. They are not easy to get in the country. And BTW, 80% of the population does not live in the big cities. That’s what Hillary didn’t understand.And you are right it is the economics that make it hard in the country. Usually in order to make it feasible the Broadband provider negotiated a period of exclusivity. Otherwise they would not go to the expense because they couldn’t recoup their investment.Once that ends a competitor is faced with trying to displace an entrenched competitor. And the economics of that don’t work.In the cities as you state it’s just as tough, because everything is the same except for distance.I don’t think most people understand.As a provider of something on the web you pay to connect to the web, and generally if you are doing that in your own rack you pay by the speed of the connection and peak usage usually for the top 2% of the time.As a consumer you pay (usually) for the speed of your connection, but the cat is out of the bag on usage, because the consumer really didn’t like that. (I don’t want my bill to go out of the roof if my son has friends over). Now what people don’t understand is that the ISP does not guarantee that speed. If tons of people have kids over on your block your speed will go down.People say that if we let ISP’s do this they will make more investments. Bullshit.You already pay the ISP’s as a provider, because your data center or cloud provider, pays (dearly) for a direct connection into Verizon, Time Warner, etc. It’s what you look for when you buy a rack into a datacenter, and if you are using a cloud provider like AWS you trust that they are doing that.I’d love more competition, but frankly the only place that happens is in places like where my office is in Newark, DE.25k students, each that you can charge a turn on fee, easy to wire and even we only have three providers.Yes JLM argues Austin, but see the comment of another Austin commentor that lives on the wrong (poorer) side of town.I for the life of my cannot understand why people are going so highbrow on this. Say look here is what this means: The fat cat executives that charge you $100+ a month want to make even more money, and what that means is your Facebook, Netflix, and Amazon are going to slow down. They might pay the tithe for the rich neighborhoods but your poor ass is going to get slowed down.

            3. Philip, your statements are mostly correct. I’m not entirely sure how you interpreted my responses to Matt S, nor what else I’ve written here, but maybe this helps you understand my comments/position.The internet and ISP (edge access provider) models are both flawed. What those in the NN debate don’t understand is that both sides need each other to be sustainable and generative. The ISPs have their monopolies from regulatory legacy and capture, while the core providers (FAANGs) derive theirs from lack of inherent settlements in the IP stack and building their virtual silos.The result of lack of inherent settlements in the IP stack is the monopoly/oligopoly model you see everywhere in the stack (edge and core). The answer is to mandate interconnection as far out to edge and down to the bottom of the informational stack as is realistically possible and to foster market driven settlements between actors as a quid pro quo. Neither side is particularly keen on this “balanced approach.”I can demonstrate nearly everywhere that such interconnection (sharing) is beneficial for incumbents and new entrants.Without settlements, there are no price signals which a) provide incentives and disincentives, and b) a way for the value that is inevitably captured at the core and top of the network or ecosystems of networks with the costs that are mostly borne at the edge and bottom. I call this equilibrism. http://bit.ly/2iLAHlGIn the end, settlements are what allow supply and demand to clear (at the margin) north-south between upper and lower layers (app to infrastructure) and east-west between actors or networks.Lastly, all policy, if applied, should be applied symmetrically; across all layers and boundaries of the infostack. That’s been the biggest failure of regulators aside from believing they could set interconnection rates. They’ve been failing at both since the 1920s.Net Neutrality, as written, fails or is incomplete on most of these issues.

      4. Hot off the press. Google’s problems in Nashville: http://bit.ly/2jtTXTY

         1. Agree this whole situation is a mess.What we need is what the NBN proposed in Australia, single wholesale network provider and everyone got fed off a MTU, that way one duct, one fiber to every home and then you “sublet” out retail access.(of course don’t get me wrong with the change of govt to LNP’s the whole NBN become a mixed network debacle they are still digging themselves out of….but the original idea was pure).

         2. Along similar lines…. had Verizon door knock me here on Henry St (corner Clark) last weekend in that they are wanting to run a fiber for FIOS along the fence line (between Henry and Monroe).On one hand its good for our building as faster and cheaper internet is a good thing…on the other hand…why they heck cant they do it right and run it in ducts along the street and bury it so that both Verizon and Spectrum can be run in our neighborhood without visual blight of stringing ugly cables.Is there any rights we have in this area? I’m likely to swap my ISP from Spectrum to Fios (for the speed increase) but not sure I really want to be looking out my window at yet more cables poorly managed like they are with TWC.Anyone had this installed in your block? Any photos of the lines/installation they implement?Also does anyone know if Fios block any ports as I run quite a few servers here at home that would be a deal breaker if they disallow.Thoughts? I figure the wisdom of crowds here will have had some experience with Fios here in NYC based on what I’ve read so far.

         3. Okay, how about this… forget that I said that rights of way are easy to obtain in most of the country. That comment is only true in a narrow sense that bears little relevance to this discussion. Point granted.This doesn’t change the conclusion that less regulation is probably better at fostering innovation. If the cable companies become regulated behemoth utilities, their political power will be concentrated on protecting the monopoly; and with an eventual rate-base formula for pricing, the cost to consumer probably increases at a much faster rate than the value of the service.If telecoms merely continue to do what they’ve been doing for the past couple of decades, we’ll be in the same boat as we are today. If they change their behaviour all of a sudden and bring about all of the evils that the echo chamber is fearing, they will either be regulated in more specific ways or they’ll be competed out of business. Aren’t we, after all, only a few years away from mobile broadband providing faster speeds and lower latencies than the fastest wirelines today? Doesn’t that mean that consumers will have an alternative service provider in pretty much all of the country?

            1. Matt,Wireline will always be faster than wireless.The question you wanted to ask is….aren’t we only years away from having wireless connection fast enough for everything we need.The answer is probably not.Because the speed required is always a moving target, whilst wireless 500mb up/500mb down is achievable today and probably good enough…..with the move to iot/on demand content/voip/uhd video……it is quickly not fast enough.

            2. Less regulation, yes.Right regulation, key.Mandate interconnection as far out to edge and bottom as possible.And foster market driven settlements that ensure universal service.The former is universally easy with today’s technology. But what about patents on technology standards?They haven’t gotten the latter right (settlements) in 100 years, and aren’t about to as they’ve moved to a settlement free (bill and keep) model.No real work has been done on interactor/internetwork settlements that are generative and sustainable. I have a couple of models.Lastly, you need a framework to monitor all the layers and boundaries of the informational stack for monopoly tendencies.

   4. Fred’s fear is probably the same as mine. Getting some big cable company calling or showing up and saying: “pay me $X (equal to any profit) or your site is going to get mighty slow”Fred’s fear is most likely that this will increase costs and therefore decrease runway for his investments. Future or current.But to your comment ‘or your site is going to get mighty slow’ [1] I look at it a bit differently. And I would like concrete evidence that ‘sites will be slowed’. Speeding up heavy data use sites does not mean slowing sites of people that don’t pay the fee to me. And sites are already slowed if you aren’t the type of company that can afford all of the best practices as far as content distribution and 100 other factors. Ever see a wordpress site running on a commodity host? That’s slow. That is something that people can do something about but they don’t.I see this more as companies that use a great deal of resources (Netflix etc.) having to pay more for that bandwidth and as a result passing that along to their customers. To me that seems fair. Why should someone not pay for what they use and pass along the cost? I say that as big Netflix user at the bargain price of $10 per month (or whatever it is).No different than controlling Garbage collectionGarbage collection is metered though. If you are residential you can’t put out an unlimited amount of garbage and expect it to be picked up in many if not most places. There is a limit for the fixed fee that is paid (included in your taxes). If you are a commercial business you pay for pickup (the dumpster) and you most certainly will pay more if you overfill the dumpster or you need more pickups. And the garbage collector obviously pays for the amount they dump. If you drive a truck most roads are free. But certain roads there is a toll. And the toll is more for a truck than it is for a car (regardless of whether the truck is personal or business). And there is a good reason for that.[1] The mafia shakedown.

      1. Who is paying for the bandwidth. Who is choosing were to go? The consumer. Netflix pays for the bandwidth in their server farms

         1. When you pay for bandwidth in a server farm you are not paying for the last mile and for that to get into someone’s home (or the network that gets it near that point let’s say). You are paying to get it out of the data center and to a connection point or exchange etc not for anything related to the people who actually are using the content or how much of it they are using.

            1. Yes you are right. And I as the consumer pay for the last mile. Therefore, I get to control the last mile.If the world was ruled by me, I would charge cable and Telco companies 10 times the monthly amount for a “billing error”Anybody here every get a billing error in their favor??? An error should be 50-50.5 months to the customer, 5 months to pay for the regulator.People think you just string up lines at will. No.I don’t cut your lines because you are granted a right of way.

            2. Therefore, I get to control the last mile.Isn’t this a bit like saying ‘and I pay for the airline seat therefore…’.If you pay you are still subject to the contract terms which are laid out by the company providing the service and that you are paying.For the billing error solution that you are proposing that would end up creating a situation where people would game and exploit that possibly. For example when your luggage is lost on an airline you get paid some reasonable amount for the error. You don’t win the lottery in any way. That balance is what protects you could say from the person making the mistake being taken to much advantage of.And don’t get me started at all on ‘5 months to the regulator’. This sounds like a speed trap whereby the state is incentivized to make things work such that they collect more revenue that they can spend. (And you know that’s the case, right?)

            3. I’ll take your analogy. It’s like the airline saying you are going to SFO to go visit Silicon Valley we charge you more. Yes they charge you more last minute, depending on competition at the airport, etc, etc, but not on what you are doing.I pay literally 10 times as much per Mbs at my house than I do at the office. That is because at the office I have Verizon and Comcast competing and at home I only have Atlantic BroadbandI am ok with that, well not really but I live with it.I have 10 cell phones on my plan, I have three high speed internet accounts. Every year EVERY year I find a billing error on at least one.And EVERY time it is not in my favor. An “error” should be in my favor 50% of the time otherwise it’s fraudIf a consumer can prove you committed a fraud then you pay.’I don’t mind a speed trap as long as it’s a warranted one. Yes I have a huge problem with a speed trap on Paper Mill Road in Newark. Talked to the chief of police about that one, told him we put in the directions to our office (old one)But Main Street where there are thousands of students? No.

            4. I pay literally 10 times as much per Mbs at my house than I do at the office. That is because at the office I have Verizon and Comcast competing and at home I only have Atlantic BroadbandWell on my theory of why ‘we pay full load for drugs while Canada is cheaper’ I could also argue that you are paying more where you are because Atlantic Broadband is subsidizing lower prices where they do have competition. Make sense? (Or in my case I have Fios/Comcast at home but only Comcast at the office).In other words the following simple arbitrary example:- I am a company and I can charge $100 with no competition but only $50 with competition.- In cases where I have strong competition I have a loss and so does my competition (theoretically once again).- In cases where I have no competition I make a profit and also am able to offset my loss. To the victor goes the spoils.So what seems like an overcharge to you is just a way for the operator (me) to make up for a loss elsewhere.You know how I always say I love to negotiate at car dealership (that’s a bit exagerated I guess but I am making a point). Well what happens is I get a better deal because the other guy is being ripped off. So there is money left for me to take. Fixed pricing is bad for me but good for the other guy.The other day my wife was at BMW and was pissed off about something. I gave her the play by play to get them to give her something for free; a discount on service. She simply didn’t want to do it. Not for fun wouldn’t even go there. Not her thing. She bent over and greased up. So people like her is why when I complain I can get an easy freebie. They have money from people that are not me to pay for my problem. It’s almost a joke. Make a small complaint at Brio twice and the manager called all apologetic and sent me two $25 gift cards (on two separate occasions). Obviously if everyone was me that would not have happened. I am getting it because other people aren’t. Make sense? [1][1] Important note ‘law of large numbers’. As the number of customers and complainers to a business increases the chance of me gaining an advantage decreases. Why? Because they are well oiled machines of not giving people things as a result of the number of complaints and a way to deal with them. Also super small business where owner’s pocket is involved typically no blood from stone – it’s their money.

      2. C’mon on the they won’t slow other sites down. You’ve been around the block enough to know they will. Where will that “extra” bandwidth come from?”They are going invest to put in additional infrastructure!!!” Riiiiight. If you believe that you believe in Easter Bunny.They would do at the minimum exactly what I would do. Set their routers to prioritize traffic. We do at the office, the VOIP port gets top priority. We do at the data center, real time requests get top priority.That’s best case their history shows it won’t be the case. They will throttle to the point of pain. (So you have to upgrade) and set priority.Anybody remember putting something on the phone before the iPhone?And the argument that some people run slow sites? What does that have to do with anything? Some don’t.I have no problem with you get what you pay for.Yup Fred doesn’t pay a ton for this site, ok, if it gets swamped it does.But I can just hear the conversation with Etsy on this Black Friday weekend: “welllll you know your site is going to be mighty slow if you don’t pay us, that is going to cost you sales…”But that is as much money as I make godfather……fuck you pay me.

         1. Agree it would hurt ETSY or any large site if they don’t pay the VIG.But there is a very very long tail of sites that it wouldn’t hurt. The default speed I will bet will be acceptable.Hence the sites it would hurt are the ones that probably can and should be paying more. Not the proverbial site like this one (that I sent you the other day):http://www.scythesupply.com

8. Yes, on all of the above. I’m hopeful that the young engineers in Brooklyn who develop and maintain the mesh network for as part of the Red Hook Initiative will be the ones to create the breakthrough that disrupts the entrenched incumbents once for all.I have another, broader question, though?What’s it going to take for us as a US society, those from the far left to middle of the road Rockefeller Republicans, going to create a coalition of the sane and mobilize to save our democracy and nation?Forgive the hyperbole and drama but if you’re don’t think our country is facing as grave a threat as the one that spurned my two grandfathers to 1) break Engima codes in Europe and 2) navigate bombing runs in Burma respectively, than you’re not paying attention.The mid-terms are 11 months away and the Democratic party has zero vision, zero message, zero energy. It’s letting movements like the Women’s March, Mom’s Demand, and Indivisible take the lead but there are some things only a political party can do. Assuming because of the results two weeks ago that next November is a foregone conclusion is inane but assuming foregone conclusions is the only thing the Democratic Party is good at.Who are the people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s that the Democrats intend to put forward as the face of the party for the next 20 years? Who are our candidates?Meanwhile, while we get a vote of conscious here or there from Susan Collins or John McCain, the Republican party seems to be powerless to stop an accused pedophile from ascending to the Senate. Over the next two weeks we face the face real possibility Al Franken being forced to resign just as Roy Moore takes his seat in Senate. What Al Franken did is unacceptable but what Roy Moore stands plausibly accused of is objectively much worse. Maybe Ben Sasse can do another funny tweet about smoking joints with Chuck Schumer to show how hip and cool he is, to virtue signal his Gen X snark, but it’s not leadership.Whether it’s gun control, climate change, or this – net neutrality, there’s a lot of regression and moving backwards going on. Any one remember the Las Vegas shooting? All the thoughts and prayers? The church in Texas? How about the hurricanes? Remember those? How is Puerto Rico recovering?The financial bailout to created not one, but two, political movements: the Tea Party (which, in fairness also pulled some energy from the 2009 health care debates), and Occupy Wall Street. There were people sitting in the middle of a cold part on Lower Manhattan for months because they were angry about bailouts to investment banks. The aggregate threats to our country now make all that look minuscule in comparison.Have you seen the President’s twitter feed this AM? Lavar Ball! That’s what he’s tweeting about. Lavar Ball and the NFL. This the day after he doubled down on this support of Roy Moore.So while the Democrats are going to virtue signal their way into oblivion by re-prosecuting the Clinton years and even Chappaquiddick (!!) to show how reasonable and balanced they are, we’re going to lose net neutrality on top of everything else we’ve already lost this year, especially the last shreds of civic discourse and political moderation. Again, the GOP is going with Roy Moore, accused pedophile, in order to get tax cuts. That’s where we are.

   1. I’ve said it since the start of the last presidential primaries…we are *living* the Animal Farm story right now.

      1. There a large numbers of evangelicals in Alabama who, according to polling, when given the choice of a plausibly accused pedophile and a prosecutor are choosing the former over the latter because in part they see the latter as being soft on crime.If you’re an evangelical and you’re making that choice, I can’t consider you either a fellow Christian or a fellow American.

         1. i disagree with your analysis. the pro-moore crowd are not choosing him because they think pedophilia is less worthy of condemnation than prosecutorial laxness. rather, they simply don’t believe moore is a pedophile. the distinction is vital and illustrates the role of one’s media consumption in these political disagreements.

            1. You may be right. Either analysis is incredibly frightening.

            2. Notwithstanding whatever the truth actually is, I don’t get a country where you can be ‘accused’ of something (that happened 40 years ago no less) and all the sudden that’s enough to knock you out of a race for office and/or allow a reporter (as was done with Trump yesterday) ask a question like ‘so you will support an accused…’.Imagine how easy it is then to knock anyone out of the race. Or have them fired from their job. And let’s say you are going up for a business contract or employment against another person or company. Just get someone to provide what appears to be a credible claim and all the sudden the prize is yours. No questions asked. A claim was made, it seems true so it is true. No court no investigation nothing. We just take people at face value now.This is all driven by the media. They want to breath life into any story to suit their business model. Expecting answer every day to things that happen (plane crashes) as if we ‘the public’ really need to know right away why something happened. It’s a complete mess.You know what? This entire sex abuse thing is not going to impact me and what I do and won’t impact you. We are nobodies and nobody will come out of the woodwork against us. However if I was a person in power or anywhere near newsworthy I’d be super worried about this trend where a claim can be made and all the sudden your life is ended.(Not taking away anything from actual claims or assault, just stating where I think things are going).

            3. Generally I agree with you. But when there are more than half a dozen, independent, accusations of very similar questionable behavior, with dozens of contemporaneous witnesses the equation changes a bit.

            4. If you or a loved one were on trial you’d want someone who thinks like me to be either judge or on the jury. You wouldn’t want the standard to be accusations as reported in the press and what you read secondhand. Even if similar. Even if it was claimed someone else was told at the time that it happened. Even if there were 20 of them. The exact details typically matter. That is why court cases take as long as they do. At least one of the reasons. Even when there is actual video we still have a trial and discovery etc.I heard one person interviewed who described that Moore would hang around at the mall and that ‘he looked creepy’. And that was presented in a news story as supporting evidence. Imagine if someone interviewed offered an opinion of the boat you sailed across the ocean as ‘not looking seaworthy’. I don’t think I would accept that on face value from someone who also sailed (without questioning) and certainly not from a random person as far as what someone ‘looks’ like. To me that is against everything we are supposed to do to make sure the right thing happens in this country. Or the standard for a speeding ticket is ‘he looked like he was driving fast’ (and 20 people said the same thing). (Exaggerated point obviously facts here are much different).Separately someone supporting Moore in Alabama, even if he is guilty of these crimes, makes perfect sense. They are picking the lesser of evils for what they want from government. They might not care about what he did (or even what he continues to do for all we know) only what is good for them in terms of their agenda. This is what people do.

            5. Apples and Oranges. No one is talking about denying Moore his freedom. Entirely different standards and levels of proof apply. Much of what Moore is accused of isn’t even illegal. But it does speak to his character.He admits to thinking it was appropriate for a DA in his 30s to be dating high school girls (with the permission of their parents). That is not illegal. It shows terrible judgement and character.

            6. > But it does speak to his character.No.Dating high school girls. Okay, scream, scandal, up on hind legs!!!!!!!Nope: Grow up. Or, in simple terms, he was still young enough, and she was already old enough, and that was enough.Commonly she wants a wise leader and security, both emotional and financial, and he wants a sweet, young, healthy, loving, smiling girl to share his life and let them build a good family with home, big times at Thanksgiving and Christmas, birthdays, holidays, etc.And, BELIEVE ME, if she is over 16, then nearly always Mother Nature has arranged that she is plenty old enough to do her part. PLENTY. If you don’t believe that, then you have bought into some twisted, perverted, guilt-ridden total nonsense about humans, love, and marriage.If you want an example, Lady Di had seen Prince Charles off and on for some years and decided that she could and would marry him. She made this decision when she was 15. She got married when she was 20. Prince Charles was about 13 years older than Lady Di.So, Lady Di decided to marry Prince Charles when she was 15 and he about 28. Scandal! Screaming! Sex! Sin! Nope.Lucky for Lady Di.The only problem was that Lady Di’s parents didn’t make totally clear that Prince Charles was a weakling between the ears, wanted not a wife but a mother to supply the one he never had, so got what’s her name.I can 100% rock solidly assure you that a college professor of 43 can get unlimited come hither looks from college undergraduate females.Ah, when I was a student at Rhodes College in Memphis, the females all understood very thoroughly that I was too young for them. But, when I was 31 and back in Memphis and at FedEx, one day I wanted to use an academic library so drove over to Rhodes in my new high end Camaro. I parked on the lane leading up to the library. As soon as I got out of the car, I saw for the first time on that campus, where I’d gotten Honors in Math an undergraduate female, pretty, good figure, nice hair, about 50 yards away giving me the classic come hither look. I could have asked her for directions, offered to take her for a cup of coffee, escalated that to a movie, escalated that to dinner and a movie, etc. No doubt. But I was married and totally faithful.When I’d been an ugrad there, once I asked a coed for a date. She had nice smile, kept her hair nice, blond, but had an awful figure. I wasn’t trying to get her into marriage or bed; I just wanted to talk to an intelligent smiling face. Intelligent? The admission standards at Rhodes, especially for women, were way up there. The girls were bright, especially in the humanities. I got in due to my (way up there) Math SAT scores! So, right away she smiled and invited me to her house. At the appointed time, I drove over. Nice neighborhood. Nice house. Nice furnishings. Two full sized orchestra style harps in the foyer. I was escorted to met the girl’s mother. We’re talking polished, stylish, very nicely dressed, perfect, high end social posture, expressions, smiles, social graces, etc., sure, trophy wife and way beyond! So, I got an interview! All very courteous! But darned serious. By the end of the interview, the mother had both my net worth and lifetime expected value accurate to half a penny! Then the interview was over. The girl chatted alone with her mother for less than 30 seconds and then came out, with a nice smile, and gave me the news, the decision. Right, you guessed it, “No”.If I’d been 35 with a good business, nice house, new MB, 40′ boat, well known at Memphis Country Club and Second Presbyterian or Holy Communion church, etc., likely the decision would have been different!Way of the world!That’s just what the situation is.Of COURSE “teenage” females, say, 16 or older really SHOULD date men in their 30s, who have a job, own a good house, have a late model car paid for, and can easily afford a gynecologist, obstetrician, family practice physician, dentist, in case of illness three shifts 24 x 7 nurses and two shifts of house keepers, a crib, bassinet, playpen, stroller, car seats, diapers, baby clothes and shoes, expertise on baby care and child development, washing machines, clothes dryers, dish washer, refrigerators, good HVAC, good kitchen, good tap water (from reverse osmosis or better), good hot water, insurance against risk, etc.Remember why it use to be that June brides were so popular? Because so many females graduated from high school in May and got married ASAP in June. It was the standard thing.And what are country clubs and yacht clubs for? Hint, what were the Newport mansions and summer parties for? Matchmaking! That is, finding suitable, that is, nice and with money, husbands for the daughters. No way could the daughters meet such in school since the males were too darned young to be husbands.Welcome to some of the politically incorrect facts of life.Then there’s the politically correct screaming about how horrible it is to have, sit down for this, “teenage pregnancy”!!!!!!!!!!Damn: Of COURSE there is teenage pregnancy. At least hopefully there is, and a lot of it. That’s essentially the best kind! A healthy human female of 18 or 19 from good social development from a good family is perfectly ready to be a good mommy. If she is in a good marriage and the money is available, then there’s no good reason to wait.There are a lot of powerful people and institutions leading people around by the nose on a lot of guilt trips, especially about sex. We need to wise up and grow up.

            7. I agree, that is plain creepy.

            8. .I don’t care about Moore.However, it is interesting to see what people are willing to consider or reject.A woman who worked at the restaurant in question during the relevant period said she never met the accuser waitress. Said she knew everybody who worked there.She further said she knew Roy Moore and had never seen hIm in the restaurant. Not his kind of place. He was a “suit.”She said most of the restaurant clientele worked at a manufacturing plant next door.She contradicted the accuser on several different points.Another woman in the accuser’s class said they received their yearbooks two days before graduation which makes it impossible for Moore to have signed it at the supposed date.These are structural issues, not opinions.Sounds a little fishy, the whole thing.Do we act on accusations? Do we consider evidence?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

            9. …and of course all sixteen women are lying about Trump (but the Clinton, Franken, and Weinstein accusers are all spot on).

            10. .Haha, silly goose. I never said anybody was lying about anything. That’s on you.In the case of Moore, the voters will decide.I admit to being swayed by evidence like the picture of Franken, the Presidential sperm on the blue dress, and the Billy Bush video/audio.I would shed no tears if everyone who is convicted by EVIDENCE of bad acts in office is removed from office.I don’t think Franken should resign for something he did 2 years before being elected to the Senate.My view is and has been perfectly consistent. Do bad stuff in office. Suffer the consequences. Regardless of who you are.There has to be evidence and due process.JLM http://www.themusingsofthebigredca...

            11. Try to be a tad less pompous.It is not an issue of a crime or due process. It is an issue of judgement and character. I think the Senate will have a really hard time expelling Moore. I suspect the democrats won’t help because having a high profile hypocritical sleazeball in the GOP caucus helps them in 2018.

            12. > Billy Bush video/audio.No. HELL no. Not a chance.IIRC, at no time, not once, in that video did Trump ever claim or admit to doing anything at all wrong or improper. He merely stated what is true: From powerful men, some women will permit such behavior.To know this, all one need do is consider the case of JFK and 19 year old, NJ debutante, from Miss Porter’s School (where Jackie went), White House intern Mimi Alford. In the White House, JFK did EXACTLY the grabbing Trump described. Later the two were in a White House bathtub together playing with floating, toy rubber ducks. It’s all in an NBC interview and published Alford book.So, all Trump said in that video was what had long been known from the Alford case. In principle, Trump could have gotten the information just from Alford’s book.All, ALL, young men need to know such things. So, maybe Trump was giving mentoring to the younger Bush. Fine. At one point, Dad gave me some such mentoring; I wish he’d given me more such; I had to learn more about such stuff on my own later.For the Franken picture, it is not at all clear that he is actually touching the woman. And the Franken picture happened before he was elected; so, he was vote in. So, no way should he be pushed out. If he did something wrong while in office, maybe okay.We are now in a nationwide, sex pissing match: WaPo put out the Moore claims just as partisan politics mud slinging. Then the Republicans, e.g., Hannity and Ingraham, are hitting the ball back across the net, with a good smash, against Franken, Clinton, Ted, etc.Trump has been smart enough to step aside as the media throws mud pies at him.The whole thing is pre-election, political mud slinging total BS. We should just ignore it.This whole sex scandal stuff, the whole politically correct stuff, nearly all of the feminism stuff, and more look like brilliant, hysterical, paranoid neurotic sabotage of the US by maybe the Russians.

            13. .You misinterpret my comment. I am saying they are evidence as opposed to being unfounded allegations.What one does with the evidence is another subject.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

            14. I don’t regard the Bush tape as evidence of anything Trump did wrong.Sure, the Democrat newsies want us to leap to conclude that Trump was speaking from his own, first hand knowledge and experience, that he had done a lot of that grabbing behavior. I just can’t take that video as any evidence that Trump ever did any such thing.Or, apparently we’re supposed to guess that “man about town” Trump, long “often seen with beautiful women” and rich was aggressive in grabbing women by the hands, feet, shoulders, and intimately. Then on the Bush tape we are supposed to use it BOTH as evidence that Trump is aggressive with women and, since he is aggressive with women, did what he described on the tape. That’s circular and confirmation bias. That’s not even evidence that Trump was outside of marriage even sexually active.Of course, the newsies can suggest that being sexuality active is evidence of being aggressive. Such are the newsies.Better evidence of being sexually active is a Mayor Bloomberg comment that he was “a single, straight billionaire in NYC, a wet dream”.The US is, in a word, hung up on sex.I’m willing just to say that Trump was being a good mentor to the younger Bush.

            15. “A bit”. No. Can get such evidence just by manufacturing it. A big pile of BS is not more credible than a small one.

            16. A big pile of BS is vastly more difficult to manufacture and keep the conspiracy quiet than a single turd.

            17. The newsies are big on keeping the manufacturing quiet. Remember, it’s nearly all about just the newsies.

            18. …and NASA faked the moon landing, 9/11 was an inside job, the CIA killed Kennedy, and Obama was born in Kenya.

            19. “Going”? The news on paper can’t compete with Charmin. The news on the Internet is useless for wrapping dead fish heads or starting winter fireplace fires.News: Toxic sewage.Solution: Ignore it.

         2. Clearly the plan here is to elect him and then kick him out and have another interim appointment. If the GOP endorses a write in then the vote splits and Jones will win easily. Jones may well win anyways.But if Moore is elected and then the GOP boots him they will have proven they are everything that Bannon accuses them of.They are pretty much screwed no matter what the outcome.

            1. If Moore is duly elected by the voters of Alabama, no way will he be kicked out. All suggestions that he could or would be kicked out are just newsies grabbing people for eyeballs for ad revenue and totally incompetent understanding of our government.

   2. > stop an accused pedophile from ascending to the Senate.BS. 100% total, meaningless nonsense BS. Made up, cooked up, faked up, get people up on their hind legs total BS.Remember? Do you remember? “Innocent until proven guilty”. Here’s another one: “Due process”. There are good, solid reasons for these two.Bluntly, right away, we have at least three solid points:(1) If a female over, say, the age of 10, is seriously abused, then she should bite, scratch, kick, scream, gouge eyes, draw blood, stab with a knife if she has one (good reason for NYS to let people, at least females, carry switchblade knives).(2) She should report the incident right away.(3) She should be following what females are told starting in about kindergarten: Never be alone with a male not fully trusted for good reason.Well, the accusations fail on all three of these points.In particular Obozo’s disgusting, degenerate, despicable, depraved ideas about restrooms were deliberately cooked up to sabotage US culture by fostering rape degrading females (saying that their privacy is meaningless) and should, like most of Obozo’s sabotage, be dropped like the depravity it is. Obama was elected out of profound blindness of white guilt but deeply, profoundly, bitterly hated and despised the US and did all he could to sabotage the US and it’s allies, especially England and Israel, and give aid and comfort to the US adversaries, especially Islamic terrorists.You have been taken in, led around by your nose, fooled, exploited by the newsies. They want to grab you by the heart, the gut, and below the belt, always below the shoulders, never between the ears, and know that if you are so grabbed then your eyeballs are sure to follow and, then, they can get their ad revenue.You’ve been had, fooled, exploited, taken advantage of.You’ve paid way too much attention to the nasty newsies.The newsies occasionally do some good, important work. But each day they need lots of content so do cough up what they have. E.g., they don’t put up a screen saying “No important news today. Have a great day!”.The problem with the newsies goes way back, e.g., to Jefferson’shttp://press-pubs.uchicago….There is an old Andy Hardy movie from the 1930s with Andy claiming that the news is nonsense: The audiences were prepared to accept that point then. The news is still 99 44/100% nonsense.The newsies have no pride, shame, standards, principles, conscience, ethics, credibility, self-esteem, self-respect, etc. They are no more thoughtful than a hungry reptile going after raw meat. The newsies have a horrible track record and are irresponsible but not very dangerous if we just ignore them.But the newsies can be bought, and the NYT, WaPo, LAT, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, Politico, and much of the rest have been bought and are now just Goebbels style (“Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it. Eventually even you will believe it.” — IIRC) propaganda for the Hillary-Democrat power grab.E.g., the newsies flatly refuse to follow even standard high school term paper writing standards. So, the newsies are weak on references, careful quoting, good evidence, and, instead, just shovel out stuff to grab people below the neck. Why? Clearly enough, such standards would block 80+% of all their content.The newsies have long known “sex sells” and that there is little better to grab people, especially below the belt, than a sex scandal. So, now the newsies are giving us lots of sex scandals. It’s a fad, a pile-on. E.g., I’ve tweeted to Ingraham that I’m skipping all her stuff and Hannity’s stuff on sex scandals.We have Dumb Ding Dung Dong Rocket Boy in Ping Pong Yang playing with plutonium, lithium deuteride, and long range rockets, and the newsies are onto sex scandals — no way could the newsies deserve more contempt.Flatly, bluntly, for nearly all the accusations now in the news, we just don’t have good evidence. The newsies know that, and that fact is a pillar of their current grabbing below the belt.More generally, the newsies don’t want to give solid information: By giving junk, they can keep up the uncertainty and get more stories, and solid information would settle the issue and end the stream of stories.I naturally feel very protective of all human females so am sad, outraged at the nasty newsies: No doubt the stories of some females that really were abused are getting diluted by the many stories that look like just made-up, dug-up, put-up, faked-up, ginned-up, gang-up, pile on, attention getting and partisan political mud throwing.But, US politics can be nasty, as nasty as people will put up with and as the newsies can get away with. So, in our politics and the news, people will throw anything and everything they can cook up.The solution is, ignore the newsies, at least ignore all but their rare, very best. So, I flatly refuse to pay any attention at all to the NYT, WaPo, or LAT with essentially just two exceptions — when they print a piece by someone I can take seriously not in the news or when they print an exact transcript. Otherwise, I refuse to look. If there is a link at Drudge Report, Hacker News, etc. to the NYT, etc., as soon as I discover the source, I leave. I flatly refuse to pay any attention at all to anything at all ever from NYT, WaPo, …, Politico, etc. From me they get zip, zilch, and zero. As I wrote the publisher of the NYT, they are “dead to me”. I’m fully serious. I refuse to pay them any attention at all to any of their content.What they say about Judge Moore or anyone else, I just have to ignore.In particular for> stop an accused pedophile from ascending to the Senate.this is just total BS. There’s no meaningful evidence for that statement at all. All we can do is just ignore such newsies stuff and wait for the NYT, WaPo, …, Politico to go out of business.I have lots of solid sources: E.g., for anything Trump says, I have sources with exact text and/or video. For a nice list of all of Trump’s more important speeches, I have a transcript and/or full video.More generally, there are plenty of Web sites with relatively solid information.Sadly, maybe Judge Moore really is nasty to women and girls, but there’s essentially no way we can know in any responsible way from the newsies. We have to ignore the newsies. So, on Judge Moore, from the newsies, we’ve learned nothing, zip, zilch, and zero. Similarly for “global warming”. Similarly for 99 44/100% of everything from the newsies.Just regard the newsies as some perverse version of a social disaster.The Internet should help: There is a significant audience for serious news, and in time there should be some Internet sources.

9. There is a sinister overlap between this assault on net neutrality and the attacks on free speech and press freedom that this Administration carries out. A public square that’s given over to a handful of giant companies making monopoly profits is hardly “public” at all — in fact, it looks more like today’s Russia or Turkey — two countries repeatedly praised by this president.

   1. See my comment below. When is enough? When do we all get off of social media and our blogs and start to fight?

      1. Fair question. December 7th — Pearl Harbor Day — is a day of coordinated protests against this sneak attack on our country and its values, focused on Verizon stores because Ajit Pai went from Verizon to the FCC (so much for “draining the swamp”). The protest in New York will be outside the Verizon store near Bryant Park, I’ll certainly be there — 5PM on December 7th. https://act.demandprogress….

         1. Something else I noticed — the order of Fight For First actions is 1) Retweet, 2) call, 3), show up. How do we convince the powers to be to start reversing that? We need people to SHOW UP first, then call, and then, if they still have “time”, retweet. People need to SHOW UP, in person. F*ck slacktivism.We need to resist the impetus that we can do all “this” via social media. Yes many of us have fond memories of social media’s early days, both authentic organic viralness, and what happened in the mid east. But those days are gone. Viralness and social media movements are constructions of agencies, whether they be Russian bot farms or digital agencies for CPG brands. We can’t tweet our way out of this mess. We’ll win not because of Twitter and Facebook, but despite them.I loved Twitter in its early days as much as anyone and recognize our host is a big investor — but all this “with this retweet I shall save the world” slacktvism energy needs desperately to be redirected.

            1. I worry too about the slacktivism problem — the feeling you’ve “done something” by using social media. But I also think there’s a funnel effect: for every 1000 retweeters, maybe 10 will write their Congresscritter, and 1 will show up somewhere in person (obviously I’m making these numbers up). The question is whether social media improves those numbers at all, or whether the number of people who really show up actually goes down, because social “engagement” has siphoned off their time and energy. I don’t know in a quantitative sense, at all, but my own exposure to the next generation (the under-30s) gives me some hope.

            2. I think it’s the latter. I think people only have a limited amount of time and they exhaust that time and energy on social media. It gives them the feeling they did something but in objective terms little to nothing is accomplished.The younger generation, especially those under 20 give me hope. My 13 year old and his friends who go to school in the East Village think social media is “dumb” and other than Reddit and YouTube dong use it (including Instagram and Snapchat here which are also “dumb”). Yesterday he and his friend decided after school to take the subway to the Brooklyn public library to get books out on philosophy. They know the whole grand vision and dream of social media as this great vehicle of democratization and free speech was either fatally flawed from inception or irrevocably corrupted (pick one) and in turn has brutally failed.

         2. .Ajit Pai was appointed by Pres Obama in 2012. FCC members are approved by the Senate. He was approved unanimously.In 2017, he was re-appointed to the FCC and appointed as Chairman. Again, he was approved by the Senate.In his legal career, he has worked at the DOJ, for a Senate commission, the FCC’s Office of General Counsel. Only then did he work for Verizon in their legal shop where he was in M & A work.Sounds like exquisite prep for the job.You make the guy sound like a Trump political hack when, in fact, he was an Obama appointee (at the time he was celebrated as an Indian), was unanimously approved by the Senate, and was a government lawyer for most of his career.This is what the left is often accused of doing – demonizing the messenger with untruths.Fight fair. Be accurate.JLM http://www.themusingsofthebigredca...

            1. Ajit Pai is not the “messenger” here, he’s the architect of a bad policy that is entirely in line with the anti-free expression, anti-competition, pro-monopoly business bias of this administration. Nor am I surprised he was approved unanimously — this isn’t, as I see it, a left/right or Republican/Democratic issue, those are obsolete categories, and senators of both legacy parties are susceptible to the blandishments of highly profitable corporations.This is a closed-vs-open issue. A closed society resists diversity and meritocracy, rewards insiders over outsiders, stifles debate and retards innovation. An open society embraces meritocracy and competition, limits the leverage of insiders, encourages debate and rewards innovation.Pai’s stated rationale is not to “micro-manage the internet.” The internet runs on rules (or not at all), and an essential rule is that all packets are treated equally. Obviously the providers of pipes hate that rule, it un-stacks the deck, as Fred has often said.I suppose it’s a disappointment that an Obama appointee is doing this, but so what? That doesn’t make it a good policy and I very much doubt an Obama administration would have allowed this to go forward.

            2. .Total nonsense.Pai is rolling back the “change” which was jammed through by his predecessor at the end of his term. He is returning the FCC policy to what it was for 7.5 years of Obama’s 8 years.The Internet did fine for those 7.5 years, no?You tried to connect the subject to Trump in an amateurish political slur when it is and has nothing to do with the new admin.Pai has been on the FCC for years. The change he is rolling back is less than a year old. The subject has been debated for a decade. Pres Trump has nothing to do with it.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

            3. My problem is when he leaves he will go back again into a super well paid job in the industry he was in charge of regulating.To be fair and balanced, he was in charge of competition and regulation at Verizon:Pai left his Department of Justice post in February 2001 to serve as Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc., where he handled competition matters, regulatory issues, and counseling of business units on broadband initiativesAnd yes he was a member not the Chairman. As a Chairman I’m sure you agree the roles are a bit different? NoIn 2011, Pai was then nominated for a Republican Party position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Minority leader Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012, and was sworn in on May 14, 2012, for a term that concluded on June 30, 2016.[1] Then Pai was designated chairman of the FCC by President Donald Trump in January 2017 for a five-year term.

            4. .During his confirmation hearings it was noted that he handled the legal work on two failed Verizon mergers. I guess that could fall under the description you noted.He was an ASSOCIATE General Counsel, not a very high position at Verizon.I am certainly sympathetic to the “revolving door” implications, but the challenge is to find people who are competent in the industry.The Treasury is a subdivision of Goldman.JLM http://www.themusingsofyhebigredca...

            5. I was at a bat mitzvah table a few weeks ago seated with a ‘senior VP and senior deputy general counsel’ for a very well known company that we are all talking about here today. My wife told me he would be at our table and I had spoken to him before a bit at the last affair we both attended. I told my wife I had no interest in talking to him (again) and that my prior conversation was confirmation that both a) he worked for a major billion dollar corporation and b) was an attorney. So there is no way he would say anything of interest (being a very guarded individual and having to worry about what he said) and that I’d rather not waste my time. Normally I am all ears in wanting to extract any information and value I can in this type of situation but honestly with that type of person (a&b) I felt it was a waste of time. Compare that with if you or I were sitting at the same table by comparison. Not to mention the fact that I suspect if he had any drive and ambition he wouldn’t be working in this particular position at his age.

            6. Thanks for the chuckle, LE.

            7. People are giving him a job for what he can do and who he knows, and what he knows, not as a reward for doing something that was good for them.Anyone in business can tell stories about how they hired attorneys that beat them in a legal case defending the other side. If you are impressed by someone’s work you are impressed by their work even if they went against you and are an adversary. The way I see it at least.

            8. It’s socially unacceptable and unfair to use the Internet, especially Google, before posting!!!!!By far the worst possible content that can be posted is math!

            9. The FCC is required to be balanced 3-2. Obama HAD to nominate a republican.

            10. .Actually that is not correct. The statute says no more than three members may be from the same party.The practical reality is that to win Senate approval, the candidate will likely be from the other party, but it could be an independent or a third party.When Pai was nominated, he had not voted in a Republican primary or formally affiliated with a party.There was some talk he was a stealth candidate. This was not unreasonable as he worked in DOJ and for a Senate committee.JLM http://www.themusingsofthebigredca...

            11. YOU are the one not being fair! YOU are the one using the dirty tricks of facts, details, actual information!!!!! Internet socially unacceptable behavior!!!

         3. With all due respects Tom, you lost me at ‘because Ajit Pai went from Verizon to the FCC’. It’s unclear to me why that matters at all. [1] It doesn’t to me regardless of my feeling on the issue.Attorneys often take the side of the party they are representing. People in jobs often take the side of their employer while they are employed. Right? The idea that anyone (attorney or otherwise) has a job at a point in time and can’t do anything (even after leaving that job) that goes against what they did previously? That is the type of thinking that appeals only to the stupidest people in our country or the press who is looking to stir up advertising revenue.[1] And that is before reading JLM’s comment as far as his history.

            1. The revolving-door challenge is a huge one for any democracy, especially when we have an executive branch that by design re-staffs every four or eight years — which I think is a good feature, on balance, it just has this downside, that the obvious place to recruit regulators for a new administration is often the industry that’s being regulated.In this case, though, the fact that the regulator’s former employer is a huge beneficiary of the proposed rule change seems relevant to me. It also seems relevant to the stock market: the S&P500 is slightly down today, but Verizon is up 1.5% (prices as of 11:45 AM ET).As JLM said, Pai was brought on board by the Obama Administration, which suggests that he probably had to address direct conflicts of interest (unlike the waivers that festoon the current administration). So that tells me he is less likely to profit directly. None of which makes me like this policy any more.

            2. that the regulator’s former employer is a huge beneficiary of the proposed rule change seems relevant to meYou haven’t stated why someone would care about a company that they previously worked for that they don’t work for anymore. And honestly unless they happen to own a boatload of the stock that will go up in value (possible of course) I am not seeing once again why that matters.Do you think that Fred fights for his exited investments or his investments that are still active? Do you think these are the type of people that have barbecues with people still employed there and that they are simply looking to please those friends? I know I wouldn’t give a shit and I suspect there are more people like me out there that do a good job for who they are working for not someone that they used to work for (employed or otherwise).I saw something stupid that Indeed was doing [1] My first thought was to tell Fred because, well, it was an investment of his. Then I checked and saw that he exited the investment. So no point in doing that and I didn’t say anything.[1] Sending me postal notices (as mentioned the other day) to people that didn’t work at the business. In fact I got 10 or 15 of them. All wrongly addressed. Then it happened again.

            3. Agree with you on revolving door challenge. Term limits, bans on lobbying and taxes would change it. Also shrinking the size, scope and power of govt. Look at any industry. Highly centralized.

            4. But, but, but, LE, you don’t understand!!!!! The total truth is that the whole world is corrupt and the only possible solution is from the traditions of Marx, Lenin, Governor Moonbeam in CA, Senator Sanders, etc. and out with all wealthy people, all educated people, all successful people, all competent people and, instead, depend on the bare feet, down in the dirt, honest people!!!!! Yes, led by Hillary!!!!!!!! Send you money to the CGI!!!

   2. Thiel advocates building market monopolies. identify the potential of a new market, build the product, scale it, and monopolise. he thinks that competition consumes resources inefficiently, and cites the US airline industry as his supporting example. I don’t know what influence he is having on the WH and its web policies. Odd that he seems to regard Google and Amazon as a threat to openness. a bit of a contradiction.

      1. Well, that’s the purpose of a patent, right? To grant a temporary monopoly as a reward for, and incentive for, innovation. As far as competition goes, his own company PayPal is a great counter-example. Their (now-eroded) monopoly of online payments and payment processing led to higher prices, poorer service, and a complete lack of innovation. PayPal did its thing in the 1990s, then sat on their position for ten years or more until finally some real competition emerged. Yes, competition may waste some resources (why are hospitals advertising?) but fat-and-happy monopolists, with no competition, waste a lot more.Economic illiteracy and self-dealing go hand-in-hand in this administration.

      2. That’s different than public policy which should encourage competition.

         1. it informs the appointment decision. not sure if modal verbs are Donald’s strong point.

   3. The fact that google announced yesterday they are going to de-index RT and that Twitter (which I think Union Square still owns…..)are also deciding to edit/delete accounts/posts means no one posting here has clean hands.

   4. .Nonsense. We are at an all time high in free speech and press freedom.Even the fights are out in the open.This is decidedly different than prior administrations which used the shadows – talking about the IRS stifling conservative voices – to silence dissent.Is there some POV that you cannot find or add your voice to?Total nonsense.It was the current admin which revealed that Turkey was funding Hezbollah to the tune of $300MM and which has supported Turkish Kurds.JLM http://www.themusingsofthebigredca...

      1. This president hates a free press and readily threatens to use executive powers to take press freedom away: https://twitter.com/realDon…

         1. Sadly he is too ignorant to know that networks do not need FCC licenses.

            1. His ignorance and incompetence are our best defense, in this instance.

            2. If we’re lucky he will spend a few weeks trying to figure out how to revoke cable licenses.

            3. .Yeah the part time amateur politician who ran the table against the GOPe, the DEMe, the Bushes, the Clintons – that dummie?JLM http://www.themusingsofthebigredca...

            4. And the MSM!Ran the table; I like that! In high school I used to play pool, right, including straight pool, the careful break that didn’t break anything, some bank shots, etc.!

            5. In all fairness. Trump says plenty of things that sound stupid. No question about that.But in truth he does have a great deal of defacto power in this area. Even if the threat is just sabre rattling and he is talking out of his ass.Why? Because the networks need their affiliates to have licenses. If this was not the case NBC shows like SNL would not have to worry about the 7 words that you can’t say on TV, right? And we’d have nudity and kid unfriend content prior to 10pm which could be distributed by the networks. Sure the networks would not lose a license they do not have but they could and would be impacted. But the content would not be shown and if it was the affiliate would lose their license.Trumps point is merely that he wields both defacto and dejure power and would be glad to use it if he can. That is the message that he is using twitter to send very often.

            6. There are hundreds of networks. Only four of them have any significant OTA affiliate network. For the moment at least, the networks are only allowed to own local affiliates that reach less than 39% of the population. Most of the US (especially outside of big cities) affiliates are not O&Os, they are independently owned and have zero control over the network content.OTA video broadcast will be gone soon and then the FCC will have no say over TV (the generic use of the word).

            7. Only four of them have any significant OTA affiliate networkThose are the ones that he is complaining about. I don’t thing his stupid comment was directed to CNN.Separately politicians have often dolled out favors to networks or news organization in various ways and have all sorts of side shit going on. If this was not the case you wouldn’t see exclusive interviews and similar access on those platforms. Why are they always bragging about exclusivity in reporting and stories? The reason is it is a lightly implied quid pro quo. This has been around forever. The person granting the access gets to decide what they think is fair or not. That is the way it rolls.

            8. I read it as a CNN/MSNBC comment. Do the OTA networks even have serious news shows anymore (tongue in cheek)?I agree about the favors. Trump donates millions of dollars in free promotion to Fox and Friends for their positive coverage.

         2. .Haha, your evidence that there have been “attacks” on free speech is a Presidential tweet?Isn’t that simply an exercise of the 1st amendment?There have been no attacks on free speech or a free press.This is different than the Obama weaponization of tax status by the IRS thereby muffling political opposition.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

            1. I don’t know why you keep bringing up the Obama administration in this thread…Anyway, Old Bone-Spur attacks the press pretty much every day, as do his lackeys. On the level of character, his whining is merely pathetic — it’s clearly about his bloated vanity, which can never be satisfied with anything besides witless grovelling. But as a political matter, he is, to our country’s regret and shame, the chief executive, and his words do matter and set the tone for the rest of the administration, and a subset of his party. I’d like to take him as un-seriously as some people do, but, even though he exercises his powers incompetently, he does have those powers and seems to want to use them to weaken constitutional protections.

            2. .Allow me to assist you. You made unsubstantiated claims that the President had attacked free speech.I gave you an example of a real example wherein free speech was stifled. Thought you might recognize it.The fact that it was promulgated by the Obama administration is really secondary.Hope that helps.JLM http://www.themusingsofthebigredca...

            3. Do you just listen to MSNBC and NBC or do you also write for them?How much does that Goebbels style propaganda pay?

            4. I have a real problem with people saying he is our country’s regret and shame.I don’t like him. I did not like Obama or W, but give him the respect of office or leave.I want to know how many people that said they would leave the U.S. actually did. Almost none. Certainly none that publicly said they would.I travel the world 250k miles a year. He was duly elected and people need to take note of that.

      2. Yes, our press is so free that they publish any garbage from anywhere.First reaction — ignore the newsies.But there is an upside: We can all be sure that if there actually were anything wrong with Trump, then we would be hearing about it in plain terms daily.Instead, for all the 2+ years of newsies nosing around looking for dirt, the worst they have found was something about two scoops of ice cream.So, the newsies are giving Trump very high praise from totally incompetent damnation!

   5. From the tone of your trolling-like post, I’d say you need to stop watching CNN and MSNBC and do some actual reading and thinking for yourself for a change. The fact of the matter is, it takes huge companies to build and manage the gigantic infrastructure that is the last mile Internet. Some little startup can’t do it. And whining about the fact that these companies built this huge infrastructure and now want to price it to make money isn’t a good enough reason to change the entire regulatory environment. We don’t need something as heavyweight as the telecom act to keep these companies from doing “bad things” with their pricing. The remainder of your post is just rehashed boring pseudo political drivel.

      1. The now-sunsetting regime had its flaws (discussed elsewhere in these comments), but lack of money-making opportunity wasn’t one of them. Verizon had $125 billion in revenue last year, $13 billion net. Their stock is up over 2% today on this news, so clearly the market thinks their opportunity just got that much better: and what explanation could there be for that, other than an increase in their pricing power? There’s no new customers, no new products, just a much-friendlier regulatory environment for them to exploit their position.(Full disclosure: I’m an investor in VZ stock, I think they are a good company; but in the long run my success, as well as the health of the internet and the dynamism of the public sphere, depend on keeping monopoly and oligopoly providers from insulating themselves against competition.)Making money is a very good thing, but not when it means exploiting a monopoly position. You wrote “it takes huge companies to build and manage the gigantic infrastructure that is the last mile internet.” You are exactly right — but I think you left something out: it also requires a monopoly or near-monopoly on the market for those last-mile services.Their investment was made recognizing the special regulations that monopolies should work under. The ISPs entered those markets under those terms and did very well. Last-mile service pretty much means, given today’s tech, a monopoly; the regulations should reflect that.

         1. Old stock market advice: Buy on the rumor and sell on the solid information. The stocks commonly fluctuate, “both up and down,” on even trivial nonsense.

         2. I’ve had VZ for quite awhile, great dividend.

10. Can someone explain how the Administration can argue that the ATT-TW deal is anti-competitive and ending net neutrality is not?

    1. .No dog in this fight but the government’s objection to the ATT-TW merger is based on “concentration of content” thereby creating undue market power.This objection was contemplated by both parties before they exchanged rings. This is why they had a year + engagement period.It will be shed by jettisoning a couple of divisions. This will end up the same.AT&T is rolling the dice.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

    2. Then throw in the relaxing of station ownership rules? Even more cognitive dissonance.

11. HOW can you use an “ISP that commits to net neutrality”……here in the USA with cable monopolies it is IMPOSSIBLE to choose a different high speed ISP.I have a choice of Spectrum 300mb…..or Verizon 2mb dsl….that is it.The real question Fred is when will YOU be funding an alternative ISP channel for us to sign up to high speed broadband here in NYC?

12. Note that EFF made it easy to express your views to Congress: https://act.eff.org/action/…

13. Nobody is fighting anybody for Net Neutrality. Everybody on all sides of the argument wants Net Neutrality. The only argument is how, or if, to regulate it.People of good faith who support Net Neutrality can and do believe that Wheeler’s / Obama’s Title II regulation is the wrong way to do it.The Title II regulation has had no impact on Net Neutrality. Netflix’s peering disputes with cable operators are not covered by that regulation. Cell Phone operators zero rating content is not covered by that regulation. The FCC has taken zero enforcement actions. I can’t distinguish one single benefit of the new rules.On the flipside the FTC can no longer intervene in broadband services because they are classified as common carrier. The rules have pushed the regulation from the FTC who actually can enforce actions to the FCC who don’t and have no teeth.I know that nuanced argument doesn’t work well on the internet but this whole issue would be well served if folks would put down their pitchforks.

    1. .I agree more with you than you do with yourself.JLM http://www.themusingsofthebigredca...

       1. The rules of engagement were written when there was one telephone company in 1933. There has been some modification, notably when Bill Clinton was President. Clinton did a good job given the tech of the time and what we knew back then. We can do better, and should really rethink what competition and the scope of competition is. Why do we have an oligopoly in service and in providers when it comes to broadband and cell? A lot of it is poorly structured public policy.

    2. “People of good faith who support Net Neutrality can and do believe that Wheeler’s / Obama’s Title II regulation is the wrong way to do it.”Exactly. A bad idea that was a non-solution to a mis-described problem.Innovation, markets and consumer revolts can solve BigCorp misbehavior a lot more effectively than an FCC that is prone to either ‘regulatory capture’ or the error of writing 1975 regulation rules in a 2020 world.

14. .What everybody is calling “net neutrality” is a recent change in which the Internet is being regulated as a utility. This is neither market driven nor customer centric.It has the further problem of jerking enforcement from the FTC (which has a regulatory army) and puts it squarely under the FCC which has no regulatory soldiers.I have more confidence in the market than the government.In Austin Tx I have 7 choices of 1 gig service. That is competition.JLM http://www.themusingsofthebigredca...

    1. Ugh.. man i wish that was true this end of town. I live in Great Hills (behind Arboretum and Trader Joe’s) and I have one choice – Spectrum (formerly TWC).. really wish I had more choices and if nothing else, wish Grande server my area :-/

15. .http://reason.com/blog/2017…This is a great article and interview with Chairman Pai. It debunks much of what is bandied about here.JLM http://www.themusingsofthebigredca...

16. “we also should be investing heavily in efforts to reduce our society’s reliance on the big cable and telcos for our broadband internet. That’s the core problem here.”-agree big time. We disagree about govt regulation and how heavy handed it should be. But, we agree on the end game. Lots of competition and choice. That will drive down prices, and drive up service levels.

17. Nothing will improve in the U.S. while the impostor in the WH continues to be allowed to go on throwing his and everyone’s toys out of the pram. This applies to Net Neutrality and all other policies designed to maintain some order against the ravages of big corp.

18. The common thread in all of the posts from this vulture capitalist blogger is ‘whatever hurts my pocketbook is evil and unconscionable’. What a joke that he is against net-neutrality because it is pro “big business” but he is also against patents, where he shares the same view as Google, Rackspace and Facebook and pretty much every Big-Tech company. The author of this blog really doesn’t give a rip about anything other than his own pocketbook, but he pretends to be some purist for truth and justice.

19. The blog and comments reveal extreme naivete with respect to the issues, history, etc… that predate TA96 and TA34 and go back to the question of how to achieve sustainable “inter-networked” competition and which was incorrectly answered at the beginning of the 20th century.Professor Nicholas Economides presciently wrote in 1995 wrt to network competition (and the internet): “One interesting question that remains virtually unanswered is how to decentralize the welfare maximizing solution in the presence of network externalities.” http://bit.ly/2uzTPXHOver the summer I asked him if there had been progress in answering the question over 22 years. His reply: “Not much progress because the issue is hard. You need an incentive-compatible (so people and companies do not misrepresent themselves) price discrimination schedule that takes into account network effects. Also network effects can be global (me adding myself to Facebook affects positively all others) or local (me adding myself to Facebook affects few people), so there can be many variations to the problem.”The reality is that that Net Neutrality is a contrived notion in which both sides of the debate are right and wrong. It was never meant to be the answer to the above question about sustainable competition. Read here for more thoughts on a possible answer: http://bit.ly/2iLAHlGBTW: Tucows/Ting is a closed, vertically integrated network. Doesn’t care about universal service or promoting broadbased competition. Totally winner takes all; as are most USV investments.PS, Anyone building a blockchain based network (or any networked biz model based on the blockchain) should read Prof Economides response several times over.

20. Net Neutrality is based on century old communications laws. Why is that good?Net Neutrality benefits the big Corporatists by stifling competition.Small, nimble businesses will be able to create new services that will help drive innovation.

21. Net Neutrality Hurts InnovationInnovation and Free enterprise will benefit the doers of America.Net Neutrality sounds good on the surface but it benefits the BIG corporations.