Consumers lose, big time. The cable-ization of the internet just hit an inflection curve.

Now where are all those fools who were complaining about Julius "Caesar" Genachowski?

God forbid your user should download something to watch later, to prevent having to redownload every time you watch it.

And then during peak Netflix hours, I just can't use the internet reliably.

If anyone knows any source for Libre video works, that I can download and watch with complete freedom, please let me know. I'd pay for it.

Think of the wasted traffic has thousands of people watch a live stream in unison. Or the millions watching viral youtube videos only a few seconds apart.

Oh, wait, we already have that technology. Too bad we have people who have worked for twenty years to kill it.

I don't give a damn about NBC shows.

Netflix's annual revenue is 4.3 BN (i.e. over 10x higher), and the company is worth 21bn. (https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ANFLX)

Why? Sure, a relatively few people will use Tivo, but many more won't. Empirically, the convenience / lack of planning necessary to watch streaming video is worth approximately 10x more.

This illustrates the importance of using data rather than anecdotes to draw conclusions. As a HN poster, our personal experience tends to be heavily biased towards our self-selected associations with more technically oriented people rather than "normal," average people.

I expect the number of people who use DVRs is close to that of premium television subscribers. People who don't are cord-cutters or only receive a low-cost basic package.

Parent was not using an anecdote to illustrate that streaming is better/worse than downloading.

Parent was using an anecdote to prove the fact that UIs exist that allow people to store media, rather than constantly streaming it.

Consumers might not want to have to deal with HDD storage, but I would bet you dollars to donuts that they want 4K without buffering issues.

EDIT: Also, I just wanted to mention that maybe our companies should be inventing new ways of storing things (like TiVo did with remarkable success), instead of spending all of their resources aquiring the rights to hit movies and extorting each other.

It's really more for the providers and cintent owners: keeps customers tethered and paying for the privilege of suckling from server teats whenever they consume content.

Because, really, storage could be made just as easy for consumers as streaming if providers had the will.

Instead, it's "put everything in the cloud, then pay us over and over again to access it".

Comcast is arguing that Netflix is trying to get Comcast to build its infrastructure. Netflix is arguing that Comcast is extorting them for their infrastructure.

Both arguments assume that everything must be streamed, and the only reason for that is the DMCA and our copyright culture.

What's easier to fix DMCA or the Net Neutred?

But still, I have it.

Its defeatist at best, and actively promotes/degrades the status quo at worst.

You aren't making an insightful or interesting post by doing this, you are simply being dismissive and shutting down discussion.

And I understand that Australia is a HUGE country with a tiny population/sqmi so at least for the next few years they kinda have to "steal" from you to make it profitable in the long run (same thing happened/is happening with our wireless services here) but still it's not really a fair rate to charge you and you should be always lobbying for less.

A 100 mbps connection to the ISP isn't much help if the ISP only has 1000 Mbps upstream to share amongst 20,000 subscribers.

I have Cox in Tulsa, OK. It's $99.99 / month.

http://vodo.net

https://archive.org/details/movies

http://www.publicdomaintorrents.info

Since they redesigned their site, it is very difficult to figure out what stuff they have released in the past, but Wikipedia and the Internet Archive can help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VODO

https://web.archive.org/web/20130129195347/http://vodo.net/f...

Streaming (as a means of protection) is as useless as DRM except they're too stupid to not do that dance for their legal departments. It hurts legal consumers and doesn't punish non-legit consumers. It prevents you from using content you've paid for & used previously when your internet goes down. Not to mention the enormous waste of electricity/bandwidth/environment/people's lifespan. It costs us all.

Imagine if the RIAA made a law that CDs could only be played sequentially, and you had to turn the disc over to get to the second half.

The real reason for streaming is that most people don't know in advance what they want to watch, and with TV/movies, generally only watch something once.

I don't know if this is really true. How do you find out about something you want to watch? You see a commercial for it, or somebody tells you about it, etc. If all you had to do was pull your phone out of your pocket and click a button that says "download this when it becomes available" and then be presented with a list of such stuff the next time you want to watch something, you would pretty easily end up with more stuff to watch than time to watch it.

I'd like access to current creative commons works,though, not just public domain items. I'm trying to fight the copyright regieme, which prevents me from accessing the culture around me.

Going back in time to the 40s doesn't exactly do that for me. Don't get me wrong, IA is amazing, and I use it all the time. But I'd like something like Netflix that was exclusively for CC works. vodo seems like a good contender.

What was the point of this? Is your reading comprehension so poor that you didn't understand "download" to mean "download in full before playback" in this context? Or are you just trying to score pedant points?

Nice personal attacks though. I was only responding to what you wrote, which contributed nothing to the conversation btw. So that was probably a dumb idea on my part.

And lets not forget that Netflix's whole business model is binge watching, which means you could easily preload future episodes of House of Cards.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/technology/appeals-court-r...

2. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/business/fcc-to-propose-ne...

1) immediately remove all regulations that might block new competition from coming into the market, and competing locally with the big local monopolies

2) call them common carriers, and then they'd be able to regulate them however they want, and that's what the judge basically said, too.

I'd prefer 1) over 2), but at this point either one would be better. But right now FCC/US gov is doing neither of them and that should scare the hell out of everyone. This needs to be protested big time.

(Actually, my cynical side does understand; but I have been hoping against hope that for once reasonableness would win out over cynicism.)

Today, Michael Powell is the President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.[1]

Of course, today's FCC could walk that Title II ruling back, and reclassify ISPs from Title I to Title II, but that would be met with lawsuits for years.

1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Powell_(politician)

"But, but, if the FCC isn't there to slow down unlicensed spectrum tech, all our exurban and rural customers will just sign on with their local WISP, and we won't be able to charge them lots of money for crappy service anymore! Then after that tech is in use for a couple of years, pretty soon it will be good enough even for densely-packed suburbs, and there goes that captive market! What would be left for us, running fiber to the inner city? What have we been paying you people for?!"

I'm asking out of curiousity.

If their board of commissioners wanted to, they could reclassify all ISPs tomorrow and assert their authority. If however, their reclassification was overturned, it would significantly weaken their stance on all other regulatory matters. I half wonder if the reason they haven't reclassified yet is to hold that threat over the telecoms to make them play nice.

https://twitter.com/fmanjoo/status/459154485793656832

Hilarious. In Wheeler's view, consistency means every large, wealthy corporation has an equal opportunity to pay extra for faster access to customers.

A response is quoted in the NYT article, but not the published refutation that was discussed upthread, which is now available: http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-i...

It sounds like the intent is to hew closely to the original order but to adapt it exactly and only as much as necessary to conform to what the FCC perceives to be the parameters of the D.C. Circuit decision.

If Snowden's revelations weren't enough to ensure the rest of the world got busy on routing traffic around America, legislation like this will.

This move isn't just going to screw American consumers & startups. It's going to remove America from its status as the hub of the Internet.

And all thanks to a few profit-obsessed monopolists.

Yay capitalism.

[1] http://gigaom.com/2014/04/03/european-parliament-passes-stro...

Willing? I'm fairly sure it's going to end up being a "mandatory" fee in order to compete with similar online services.

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20554

To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail

Chairman Tom Wheeler: [email protected] <<<<<<<<<

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: [email protected]

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel:

[email protected]

Commissioner Ajit Pai: [email protected]

Commissioner Michael O’Rielly: Mike.O'[email protected]

Complaints: File a Complaint

Freedom of Information Act requests: [email protected]

Elections & political candidate matters: [email protected]

1-866-418-0232 FAX: toll-free

1-202-418-1440 Elections & political candidate matters

The FCC Chair has already stated [1] that he is against the kind of rule that the NY Times story described:

[1] http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-i...

Anyone want to start a mesh network startup?

Actually, this idea of an "alternate" network is a fairly old one but it just never materialized. I think thats because the "normal" network worked fine and wasn't too damaged for most of the people. However, this new ruling may be enough to get people (i.e. us, the technorati) to act.

chris_mahan has proposed one solution in a sibling thread. Are there others? I had a thought to use a cell phone as the mesh connector. Its something we all have in our pockets anyway and wouldn't require any new hardware. What about a company that provides the hardware for free but charges for the service? This is very similar to how the cable companies started out and it seems to have worked for them. :)

But if they are, it will be kind of funny to read in a few years the comments from ISPs re: anti-neutrality policies stifling 'new' streaming services:

"Our research shows there is weak to no consumer demand for alternative services"

It might not be before they are adopted, but it is before they are proposed and, particularly, before the news stories based on inside leaks are even consistent about what the rules are in the area of concern.

EDIT: Not sure why the downvotes, but as I point out in another comment on the thread (with links to sourcs), there are at least three conflicting characterizations of what the new rules that the FCC chair is about to begin circulating and that the FCC might then propose with a public comment period will do on the point in question:

1. (NY Times): Allow ISPs to (apparently, with no signficant restrictions) negotiate per-content-provider rates for enhanced access to the ISPs users.

2. (WS Journal): Allow ISPs to offer enhanced access if the terms are commercially reasonable and open to all content providers.

3. (Reuters): Not address ISP-to-content-provider agreements at all.

My point is that its premature to react to the details of the rules when there isn't any consistent picture of what those details are likely to be.

FWIW, here's what the FCC has actually published so far:

http://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-chairman-tom-wheel...

Unfortunately it doesn't actually say much.

A user went haywire and downvoted a whole bunch of comments. We've corrected the damage, although users had already corrected much of it.

All: when you notice substantive, civil comments that are unfairly faded out, please give them a corrective upvote. This is a longstanding community practice. It usually only takes one or two corrective votes to get a good comment back to par, so every user can make a significant difference.

Physics won't stop Moore's law. Industry consolidation, slowing innovation, and a lack of demand will. I would not be terribly surprised if we never see computers more than 2X as fast/powerful as today's, since without corresponding software and networking innovation to drive demand why would they be built? That's a tad shy if what would be required for strong AI, "mind uploading," or any of that stuff.

There is still a higher end driver in the server space, though, as virtualization progresses... How many virtual machines can you fit into one box?

Then again, this Reuters piece [2] says it won't address these types of agreements at all: "However, the rules are not expected to address the issue of interconnection, or agreements in which content companies pay network providers for faster access to their sites or services."

Maybe we should wait until the rules are actually released for public comment before freaking out over the specific details (about which there are many conflicting stories.)

[1] http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304...

[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/23/us-usa-fcc-interne...

Edit: Normally, I'm an arbiter of the 'wait and see' variety, but this is such a horrible, unethical, undemocratic, un-American idea that it cannot possibly for a moment be considered.

I'm just saying it will be more effective to react to the actual proposal when it is actually proposed and we know what it actually is. We have at least three conflicting news stories from anonymous sources supposedly close to the process, which suggests that at least two are mistaken (if not outright lies).

Something actually will be posted with concrete terms for public comment, and that's the time to respond to the specific content -- now, its probably better to talk about what should be in any new Open Internet order, rather than flying off the handle at rumors of what will be in the next Open Internet order.

Especially since one of the reasons extreme versions often get leaked ahead of actual proposals is to get activists to blow their top about something worse than the actual proposal, so that they aren't taken seriously when the actual proposal (bad in many of the same ways, but substantively different from what the activists have spent some period of time complaining about on the basis that it was the forthcoming proposal) is released.

It's not as if that "fast lane" will be gigabit speed. It'll be the same "up to" speed the customer was paying for in the first place.

Not a bribe; just coincidence.

"Tom Wheeler is the current Chairman of the FCC.[1] Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry."

Wow. This looks especially bad for consumers.

Looking at what he's been involved in since then [2], it's all over the place. There's stuff in cable, stuff in wireless, stuff in phone, co-founder of a company that repairs aerospace components, PBS director, and a bunch of other things. I'm kind of at a loss to comprehend how someone can have held so many positions.

[1] It's not all clear that lobbyist is even accurate. He was the head of the largest cable industry trade association. Lobbying was one of the things they did. Calling their executives "lobbyists" would be kind of like calling the head of the American Medical Association a lobbyist.

[2] http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/pe...

The AMA is a c6 because: lobbying

The organizational definitions in IRC §§ 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) do not contain any explicit limitations on lobbying. The organizations described in these three sections may participate in an unrestricted amount of lobbying so long as the lobbying is related to the organization's exempt purpose. In fact, organizations whose sole activity is lobbying may be recognized under these sections...{etc}

Citation> Tax-Exempt Organizations: Political Activity Restrictions and Disclosure Requirements, Order Code RL33377

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd

Not that I'm all for regulatory capture or anything.

No and that's exactly what we have right now.

Would that be worse? Say 50% of the time they get the policy right where the corrupt policy maker gets it deliberately wrong all of the time.

One of the reasons that people are pulled from industry to fill these roles is because there is a view that they will understand the issues at play. This is true. We don't want people making policy decisions on issues that they barely understand. At the same time, it becomes the incestuous relationship that we have (aka Regulatory Capture) where there is incentive to make policy decisions that are pro-business while being anti-consumer.

There is some sort of a middle-ground to be had, but saying things like "people should not be allowed to hold office if unless they've been out of the industry for at least 5 years" seems a bit naive.

It's not helpful to characterize alternatives as naive, ignorant, or Ludditic. The question is not one of naivety, but of actual policy, which is the stuff that affects all of us. How would the work of an outsider (or statutory redshirt) differ from a revolving-door candidate, one whose foundation is sell side? Seeing that we have a documented public history of the output of people in this role, what conclusions can we draw? Should the incestuous relationship merely be noted, as you do, before dispensing with alternatives?

My thought is that saying someone can't work in the industry for 5 years prior might help with breaking up regulatory capture to a certain extent, but could have consequences on the people filling the role actually understanding the issues at hand.

Your view seems to be closer to, "things are bad now, so we certainly can't do any worse." My view is that if we're going to make the effort to fix things, let's think things through rather than throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.

I disagree that the revolving-door is equal to regulatory capture. While it may be a precursor, we do already know that supply-side policies like putting a time-lock on the door is a remedy. Note also that the door would be locked for industry to hire from the government agencies.

Revolving door people are no better apprised of "the issues at hand" than someone with a (e.g.) buy-side foundation. That's one of the places where you filter out alternatives, by assuming that the revolving door candidates are the ones who "actually understand the issues."

You also continue to perpetuate the dichotomy you said you weren't making by refraining from even acknowledging a middle ground, so maybe this is just a case of mauvaise foi on your part and poo on me for engaging.

CEOs rotate into of different industries all the time without knowledge of that domain.

The top-job isn't about making policy, it's about representing the organization's interests and setting strategy.

- apparent when there isn't (false positive - mistaken)

- apparent when there is (obvious)

- not apparent when there is (false negative - not obvious)

I'd define corruption as a pattern of putting profit/loss considerations ahead of public interests. Other than personal ethics, this is a really hard thing to control for because it goes to why people want to be public servants and what are their interests/relationships.

I could be wrong, but I don't think federal judges and Supreme Court Justices participate in the revolving door. Supreme Court Justices are deeply political, but they're not sell-outs like Chris Dodd.

Corruption can be stopped when voters & consumers have more power than the politicians or their backers. No one can force you to vote a certain way or buy a certain product. You punish "public" "servants" by restricting their power, i.e. voting them out if they break the law or not enforcing the law equally.

There are 100 senators. 34 or so come up for election every two years. Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. The most expensive campaigns spend about $20M; the tenth most expensive campaign spends about $5M. The margin between D and R in the Senate is 8. Form a SuperPAC and fund it with about $75M.

Ensure the election of a crop of senators who know what the key issues are for their big contributors... and that if they step out of line, they won't be getting those contributions next year.

Still not going to solve the revolving door, but might make thing a bit more fair.

Source? Tell that to Meg Whitman.

The biggest problem I have with the argument about limiting the amount of money that can be spent in elections is that it essentially implies that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. So shouldn't the solution be a more informed (however you want to do accomplish that) electorate?

This is true in somewhat the same way that the solution to teenage pregnancy is just to get all the teens to practice abstinence. Where that view falls down is that not all problems are equally tractable. Attacking a tractable problem generally gets better results even if attacking an intractable one seems more noble.

Further, in your analogy, I'd argue that the equivalent to teaching abstinence is the idea that we can somehow legislate political contributions and then large political contributions will disappear from the surface of the earth.

Care to elaborate? On what criteria would you limit the electorate?

Here are quite a few numbers that back his claim. There are of course exceptions, but for the most part the candidate with the most money wins.

There's plenty of cases were elections where for one reason or another the money tips the opposite direction of those advantages -- and the money loses, while the structural advantages win.

Money is nice, but there's plenty of reason to think that it is more likely to be the product of structural electoral advantage than the source of it.

The argument basically just implies that advertising has some influence. Which is true - even for an educated and informed audience. Nothing you do to the electorate can make them immune to advertising. So money will always be a motivation for politicians. Especially since extra campaign money can always be spent on all kinds of fun expenses, and giving well paying jobs to friends and family.

Also, bear in mind that even the most well informed educated electorate has a very limited feedback mechanism. Many people care so strongly about particular issues that they will never change their vote. Which means people in the middle ground only really get to choose between the two main political parties. In practise, it works out a bit like a price fixing cartel. Basically both parties take turns screwing everyone over. Candidates only have to make the appearance of being better than the last guy during election time. During their last term they can do whatever they want, which sets the bar really low for the next guy. It's a race to the bottom.

As long as the influence of money is present, politicians will behave as corruptly as they can get away with. Improving the education level of the electorate reduces the amount politicians can get away with, but because of the two party system, they'll always be able to get away with a lot.

There are many cases where they have in the past given laws a time limit, and most of those either

- get up/down extended, at which point why bother with the limit, or - mire congress for weeks because someone decided to pick a fight over a normally non-controversial law.

I'm not sure that would improve the system or help us move more power back from czars and appointed directors toward our elected representatives.

However, at the moment it has to be contractual because constitutionally it's quite hard to restrain people from taking whatever job they want, and also because many voters want elected representatives to 'bring home the bacon' by getting government subsidies for business that will lead to more job creation. I don't think this should be the role of representatives or senators, but a lot of people do. Even people who argue for smaller government and campaign against 'pork' seem quite happy when government largesse lands in their own community.

I don't think that's proper, obviously, but easy explanations rarely capture the complexity from which corruption arises.

Remember in 2000 when Ralph Nader was prevented (by both parties) from attending debates? How many third parties get any visibility from the corporate-funded media?

What incentives can be applied to promote appointing the competent and unbiassed?

Money helps you run a campaign, just like it helps you run a business. But sometimes the scrappy, bootstrapped startup still beats the big entrenched enterprise. That's why we're on HN, right?

But, that didn't happen, and for reasons very similar to the subject: entrenched interests use their money to continue advancing their own agenda through the media, other corporate gatekeepers, and regulatory capture.

It will soon take $1B to run for the presidency, and about as much to pay ISPs in order to launch a competitive streaming company.

So, you might just have it backwards: the current rules have to change in order to allow for a viable bootstrapped candidate. This, instead of such a candidate miraculously making her way to success, then changing the rules.

Why don't you ask Linda McMahon how much it costs to buy a Senate seat? Not only did she spend tens of millions, she lost to a guy who is still paying back his student loans.

There's nothing stopping a candidate today from using the Net to spread their political message and, as odious as the alleged FCC changes are, they won't really change that.

You may be confusing personal wealth with campaign wealth.

Obama raised nearly a quarter billion during the primaries and 3/4 billion overall in 2008. Sure, he used the Net to raise a significant amount, but the extent to which small donors fueled his fundraising was greatly exaggerated [0].

In any case, Obama was certainly rich as a candidate, and wildly so.

>Not only did she spend tens of millions, she lost to a guy who is still paying back his student loans.

Certainly, no one is saying that the candidate who raises the most money always wins. On average, however, money matters--big time, and has an outsized impact on our electoral process. This is why so many incumbents confess that they spend an inordinate amount of their time on fundraising.

>There's nothing stopping a candidate today from using the Net to spread their political message

Well, there's nothing stopping them from trying any moreso than a startup can try to market online without a budget. In practice, it is insanely difficult to be heard and/or gain momentum in the political world without a ton of cash to spend on exposure. And, rulings like Citizens United exacerbate that problem.

Yes, there will be outlier underdogs who miraculously scratch out a win from time to time. But, the Net is nowhere near the democratizing force it could be. It is trumped handily by plain ol' cash. And, it shouldn't take a miracle for an otherwise better-qualified candidate to win an election simply because of a financial disadvantage.

>as odious as the alleged FCC changes are, they won't really change that.

Apologies for the miscommunication. I am not saying that the FCC changes will prevent candidates from trying to use the Net. I was simply noting that both our political process and the FCC have been co-opted by entrenched interests.

[0] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/study-obamas-s...

Not really. It's a chicken-and-egg problem, not causality. This is a problem that predates the concept of America. Monarchies addressed it by having a three-way tug-of-war between the monarch, the entrenched interests, and the masses, and American politics have tried very hard to ape that with a very powerful central executive.

With, you know. Predictable results.

Changing the rules won't actually make a difference, much respect as I have for Lessig's Rootstrikers' efforts. That is, as Colbert put it, rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenberg. The fundamental problem isn't that no one gets elected without spending oodles of cash; the fundamental problem is that oodles of cash have to be spent at all.

We live in an age where democracy requires marketing. That's the rule you need to change.

Not coincidentally, that's also the rule that makes free markets impossible.

At a time when our political process is broken, full of cronyism, regulatory capture, and co-opting by moneyed interests, we get this new position from the FCC. The position itself is about giving those with money (e.g. Netflix) advantages on the Net. The Net, of all things, which was supposed to be a democratizing, equalizing force.

So, what did the GP say in response? "Hey, money doesn't matter. Scrappy bootstrapped campaigns can overcome!"

This, even while the very topic of this thread is moneyed interests' de-democratization of the single greatest potential tool for making scrappy, bootstrapped campaigns an actual possibility.

I mean, at what point do we consider that democracy is losing and money is winning?

>Changing the rules won't actually make a difference

>We live in an age where democracy requires marketing. That's the rule you need to change.

You're not going to change the need for candidates to communicate with the electorate, nor should we want that. Instead, you change the rules such that candidates simply do not have the money to spend, then you watch as the media, parties, candidates, and entire political process re-structure themselves to allow for viable candidates to be identified and subsequently engaged with the electorate.

Here's where the Net can truly be a democratizing force, and even moreso when combined with other media. There's no need for candidates to spend money on marketing. They are the story, and the media clamors endlessly to get their messages out.

No, it wasn't. You were made promises, not by politicians, but by a powerless counterculture who spoke loudly and had no clout. There is nothing democratizing or equalizing about the Internet.

> I mean, at what point do we consider that democracy is losing and money is winning?

Well, I would have put it somewhere in the 19th century, but that's just me.

> You're not going to change the need for candidates to communicate with the electorate

Why not? Why does this need exist? We have the Internet now. There is no such need anymore.

Let me ask you a different question: why do we need to have any candidates whatsoever? What are they for? Or the more important question: what is a public office for? What is the purpose of that concept?

> Instead, you change the rules such that candidates simply do not have the money to spend, then you watch as the media, parties, candidates, and entire political process re-structure themselves to allow for viable candidates to be identified and subsequently engaged with the electorate.

If you don't subscribe to Rootstrikers, you are seriously out of touch. Unlike you, Lessig has actually been doing things along this line, and unlike you, he has some notion of how to build political capital.

No. The promises were made by the technology and its potential. But, you're reading my statement out of context anyway.

>We have the Internet now. There is no such need anymore.

Wait. So, you're now a representative of the powerless counterculture? You just said "there is nothing democratizing about the Internet. Now, you're hailing it as the solution to what is arguably the single biggest threat to democracy in U.S. politics today: money.

Make up your mind, man.

>what is a public office for?

Direct democracy has its place, but you're not seriously suggesting rule by referendum, right? I mean, I'm having trouble seeing any implied alternatives in your question that don't lead to utter silliness, so please feel free to make your point.

>If you don't subscribe to Rootstrikers, you are seriously out of touch

Says who? But, hey, color me seriously out of touch. If you put any stock in third party traffic analysis, I'm in good company (unfortunately). But, thanks for the pointer.

>Unlike you, Lessig has actually been doing things along this line, and unlike you, he has some notion of how to build political capital.

Awesome that you know me so well. I feel like we're old pals from way back. But, of course, your opinions of my capabilities in this area--even if accurate--have nothing to do with the merit of the statements to which you are responding. In fact, I'm trying to name all of the fallacies there: Appeal to authority? Red herring? False dilemma? Am I missing any?

Still bullshit. By this measure, the machine gun and the IED are also democratizing and equalizing forces. An armed society is a polite society, yeah? Technology amplifies. A pen makes it possible to communicate with someone you cannot be face-to-face with, but it still comes down to the way you formulate and express your ideas. A sword makes it possible to cut and stab in ways that your hand can't, but it's still your hand being raised against another.

If you want to invoke technology, then all technology is a "democratizing and equalizing force". And, while we're at it, all technology becomes a tool for elitism and oppression when it fails to be equally distributed. And is it ever, really equally distributed to begin with? You have to pay people a profit to receive internet. There is no possibility of equality there while wealth and income inequality remain significant.

> So, you're now a representative of the powerless counterculture?

"Representative" is going too far. How about we stick to calling me powerless, rather than give me credit for participating in an actual culture?

> Now, you're hailing it as the solution to what is arguably the single biggest threat to democracy in U.S. politics today: money.

Hahaha. No. But it's funny that you can't read. I'd certainly take advantage of the Internet as part of the solution, but I would also take advantage of the fact that we have bookbinding technology.

And money is not the biggest threat. Democracy? Doesn't exist in America. Not really. The media is right: we are a country ruled by elites. Those elites might be liberal or conservative, but they're not us. There is no government by the people, because the people don't give a shit. That's why Dubya went up and thought that getting some elections happening in Iraq would make democracy happen.

I repeat: The fundamental problem isn't that no one gets elected without spending oodles of cash; the fundamental problem is that oodles of cash have to be spent at all.

> Direct democracy has its place, but you're not seriously suggesting rule by referendum, right? I mean, I'm having trouble seeing any implied alternatives in your question that don't lead to utter silliness, so please feel free to make your point.

No, if you can't answer the question one way or another, then I have no point worth making. My ideas aren't coherent enough for people who don't already have the solid grounding in what democracy actually is. Which you demonstrably don't, because you keep saying that the Net will save democracy or something. Indeed, you can't seem to get your mind off it.

> But, of course, your opinions of my capabilities in this area--even if accurate--have nothing to do with the merit of the statements to which you are responding.

It's pretty convenient, then, that I wasn't responding to any of the statements you were making there, right? It's almost as if I was responding specifically to the section I quoted. I mean, it's great that you feel we're in high school debate club or something, but I graduated from high school a while back. I assume you did, too?

Here's a fallacy you missed: the fallacy fallacy.

Really? Because immediately after you dismissed hopes that the Internet might be a force for democratization, you said the following in reference to candidates' corrupting (and incompatible with democracy) need for money:

"We have the Internet now. There is no such need anymore."

Were you thinking of something more democratizing than that?

The rest of that paragraph and the next are ridiculous strawmen.

>If you want to invoke technology, then all technology is a "democratizing and equalizing force".

That argument is just plain stupid. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Trolling? Or are you really that prone to committing such gaping logical fallacies?

FWIW, I didn't just "invoke technology". I referenced the Net.

>And money is not the biggest threat. Democracy? Doesn't exist in America. Not really. The media is right: we are a country ruled by elites

And who are the elites? The poor?

You know, this is pointless. Your entire comment is void of any introspection and is not even internally consistent. It just argues with itself. Worse, you sincerely can't seem to follow a thread. It's so bad that I really do hope that you are just trolling. But, in any case, I'll leave you to your "self-stimulation".

Actually, google outperforms all other search engines. It seems some people prefer duckduckgo (as search engine i mean, not just for the other features), but most i heard people couldn't get the same results (including myself).

Secondly, Google is much more than search nowadays. 100% of their income isn't gone just like that.

And they have the means to make a stance against paying extra by informing the public. Not to mention Google Fiber.

And yeah, not 100% of revenue, but it's like 95%

Try https://startpage.com/ instead, then.

I think you missed that part of GP's comment.

I would argue that the cable industry is pretty much the perfect example of an industry that should be held at arms' length by its regulators; the entire industry has a history of significant and intentional corruption of the political process, particularly at the local level. It's instructive, if you have the time, to check out the story of Cablevision's efforts to get the cable franchise in Queens in the early 1980s: it's essentially a blueprint for how the industry acts across the board.

Please feel free to reach out to Tom Wheeler on twitter https://twitter.com/TomWheelerFCC

It's a tremendous problem, and not just of government (principle-agent problems in management and business are also rampant). Recommended reading:

http://edge.org/response-detail/23674

And the answer isn't "don't regulate". It's "regulate appropriately and effectively". Just realize that this is an eternal challenge.

NB: Sadly the formatting of the questions and responses is horrible. In particular, navigating the full list by title is all but impossible. I've highlighted the specific essay in question.

Let's take the history of telco monopolies off the table for a minute. Let's say these are purely privately funded networks with no government sanctioned subsidies. Is net neutrality still a good idea? Does't artificially take away an advantage big companies inherently have?

Furthermore, ISPs seem to me to be a far cry from the "free market" (I have very few options for my ISP), so I don't believe simply reducing regulation will lead to the best outcome.

In this scenario I think regulation would be unfair and wrong, but it would be still be a good idea considering the public benefit. Although, were this to be the reality then I suspect we wouldn't have an Internet at all.

This system is bull shit.

You can always NOT pay the HBO "tax" and pirate it like the rest of us.

This isn't an endorsement of the status quo for consumers, but I do think that publishers such as HBO have the right to sell their content in whatever way makes them the most money - they're running a business after all.

A lot of people seem to assume that HBO and similar publishers either have no interest in or no understanding of new technology, but the fact is that they're as eager to exploit it as anyone else, hence the availability of HBO Go to Amazon customers later this year. That won't have the latest and greatest shows on it, though; not because HBO is trying to make your life worse, but because they have signed multi-year contracs to provide their product exclusively to cable companies for a minimum period. Cable companies want to be able to offer their customers something that they can't get anywhere else in order to retain them as subscribers. Exclusivity or first-refusal deals are the norm in the publishing world, because it's hard to run a business without them.

Again, why do you assume you have the right to be served entertainment through the channel of your choice? You wouldn't call up your local pizzeria and demand they deliver a Big Mac and fries, would you?

Because the marginal cost of a Big Mac and fries is huge compared to the marginal cost of one more person watching Game of Thrones.

Not saying that's a good reason, but that's probably the reason for that assumption. People often fail to consider fixed costs when deciding how high should a "fair" price be.

There is no reason we should sit around worrying about HBO. HBO pays people lots of money to figure out how to monetize their entertainment. Let them figure out how to monetize BitTorrent and similar P2P systems. If they choose instead to ignore those technologies, well, they can suffer the consequences when someone else figures it out. The rest of us should not have to worry -- we do not worry when we turn on the radio or use a VCR, so why should we be so concerned here?

Are they really double dipping with their customers? Which ISP does _not_ do this? I'm moving to Boston. I want to pay an ISP $X and download at X speed - they shouldn't care what I use it for.

That is all.

TCP/IP works by gradually increasing transmit speed until packets are lost. Making traffic 'faster' for one set of connections is accomplished by dropping packets on others.

All: when you notice substantive and civil comments that are unfairly faded out, please give them a corrective upvote. This is a longstanding community practice. It usually only takes one or two corrective votes to get back to par, so every user can make a significant difference.

At the highest bit rate, 1 hour of Netflix video is about 3.1 GB. Now add in the fact that there is only one internet connection per household so you will have multiple people watching Netflix video and doing everything else on the internet they do and it is just terrible. A digitally downloaded game, which is not just done on PC anymore but also will be huge on the new consoles can be around 30 GB or larger.

Even then, ComcastWarnerXfinity will find ways to jack up prices.

Who will enjoy the benefits of the increase? If you are only getting 9.6kbaud unless you pay millions of dollars in fees to every ISP between you and your peers, then all that bandwidth is useless to you.

"In a decade is it unreasonable to expect that "really fast" home internet is 1 gigbit?"

One gigabit to Youtube, unless you are on a Comcast connection in which case it is 1 megabit for Youtube and a gigabit to NBC's streaming service, and 256 kilobits for anything else.

"Does this make it harder for Netflix"

Oh you wanted to have access to Netflix? Well that will be $300/per gigabyte for a business line that has real Internet access. For a mere $20/month, you can have unlimited access to the best of Comcast, now partnered with Microsoft!!!

People argued that Detroit would cease to exist if the government did x, y or z, but I think technology and competition had more to do with its downfall.

As content + routes become mainstream (the top 1-2% of bandwidth), the price of hosting them approaches the dedicated bandwidth price. This is because the usage pattern variability is arbitraged upstream of the ISP.

Preferential QoS based on content source is a predictable consequence of this, since the ISP begins to have no opportunity for bandwidth arbitrage and must rely on some other revenue stream to avoid having to charge dedicated bandwidth prices.

While this sounds good, it is fairly arbitrary. Why should my connection be asymmetric 20/1 with mediocre latency? What if I prefer 10/10 with less latency? The status quo QoS benefits some types of content providers and harms others.

Not controversial in my book. Commence the down votes!!!

I'd appreciate a simpler explanation of your point, for mere mortals like myself!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7288864

Why can't I tell my provider that I want to minimize the latency when playing a first-person shooter, and I'm willing to pay for it?

You certainly can. Why can't Disney tell your provider it wants to maximize bandwidth for Disney content, and offer to pay for it on your behalf?