Disqus - Latest Comments for hhaney

Re: Surprises in the Open Internet NPRM

hhaney — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:40:06 -0000

Good catch, Jerry. But I agree with Mike. Theory and practice are not in alignment. A broadband provider knows that if it wants to do something which might rankle a competitor, the competitor will go to the FCC and the FCC will demand a full explanation from the broadband provider. This always happens, by the way, because Washington representatives are cost centers who are desperate to show they can contribute to the bottom line. A broadband provider further knows that the FCC will take most complaints seriously, and that it will ask the broadband provider to make the problem go away unless the broadband provider wants to battle it out in a formal proceeding. So, in most cases, the broadband provider has to buy off its competitors. This raises the cost of innovation and discourages some investment. Whether the broadband provider requests a declaratory ruling or not is a tactical question for the lawyers. A decision not to request a declaratory ruling in no way forecloses FCC intervention. I say there will generally have to be pre-approval not because the FCC cares one way or another, but because prudent managers will be desperate for assurance they are not heading into an ultimately worthless investment. It is no exaggeration to say that in the old days of the telephone monopoly, lawyers and lobbyists were the most important people in the company who had a shot at becoming CEO. Fortunately we have been seeing less and less of that. There's nothing wrong with a good, ethical lawyer, of course, but "Washington skills" shouldn't be a ticket to the top floor. That's where I fear we will be heading if the FCC regulates the Internet like it used to regulate the old telephone monopolies.

Re: Hijacking the Internet

hhaney — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:42:30 -0000

"this points to how corporations silently degrade their products. Shoppers beware: Products shrink but prices stay the same"

Steve- I agree that corporations silently degrade their products and I submit that it is unfortunately pervasive. They invest in their brand, develop a reputation for quality and reliability, acquire customer loyalty and then they silently harvest these assets. I used to be a fan of Sony products except the last Sony television and Sony laptop I purchased completely failed to live up to my expectations for reliability. I suspect some talentless managers somewhere pursued a deliberate strategy of cashing in my Sony loyalty. And although I will never spend another dollar on a Sony product as long as I live, I find that even when I now buy a vacuum cleaner it is on the same 3-year obsolescence cycle that we've grown to expect of computers. So there are some managers who think they can train us to view durables like computers.

I would like to learn a lot more about marketing, because my perception -- that it cynically seeks to exploit consumers' insecurities, lagging perceptions and whatnot -- may not be entirely accurate.

I would like to point out that sometimes silent degradation may have some pro-consumer value. For example, many years ago I was talking to a DSL product manager about connection speeds and I learned that, at least at that time, everyone who subscribed to the DSL product got the same connection speed and the customers who wanted to pay less for a slower speed had to be throttled so they would "get what they pay for." I was initially shocked, because it seemed to me that the customers who paid less actually got a product which cost more since the trottling was like an added feature, until I realized that this arrangement had one benefit: The premium customers could help subsidize the economy customers.

I came across this column a while back which articulates this far better than I can:

"As economists use the term, price discrimination means charging some buyers more than others for essentially the same product or service. Is it a bad thing? Buyers paying the higher prices understandably resent the practice. They might thus be surprised to learn that it often enables them to enjoy both lower prices and higher quality than would be possible if sellers charged the same price to everyone. Even more surprising, price discrimination often metes out rough justice among buyers, requiring those who are responsible for a greater share of sellers' costs to shoulder a greater share of the burden."

But I want to set this aside and agree that I hate silent degradation as much as anyone. But what are we going to do about it? As you point out, regulations can be circumvented. They also lead to unintended consequences such as inhibiting innovation.

To say that we have to regulate it because what is the alternative(?) is to apply what has been termed "politician's logic" (i.e., we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it).

I submit that we put far too much faith in regulation and overlook that ultimately consumers have to take some responsibility for educating themselves and carefully choosing whom to do business with.

Re: Network Neutrality Is Not About Price

hhaney — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:49:24 -0000

Tim - You make several excellent points, but the following statement,

"What network neutrality proposals are designed to do, rather, is to prevent ISPs from dealing with congestion using non-price, content-based routing policies"

unfortunately overlooks the essence of what NN regulation is really about as far as commercial entities are concerned, i.e., profitable online properties don't want to be asked or obliged to negotiate service agreements with network providers in which they agree to share some of their profits with network providers for the upkeep of the Internet and for the improvement of the overall online experience -- just like retailers in a shopping mall share a small percentage of their profits with the landlord.

NN regulation also fulfills a utopian vision, of course.

With respect, their is a role in this debate both for engineers and for social scientists.

Re: Tarring and Feathering Comcast

hhaney — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:44:40 -0000

"Comcast was stopping any uploading of data using bit-torrent no matter how small for several weeks"

That's not my understanding. Can you cite some evidence (if I am mistaken I would like to know)?

Meanwhile, Comcast says something different:

Comcast has explained that its current network management practices are triggered by certain threshold levels of P2P protocol use that could, if unchecked, lead to harmful network congestion. Specifically, Comcast’s current P2P management is triggered when the number of P2P uploads in a given area for a particular P2P protocol reaches a certain, pre-determined level, regardless of the level of overall network traffic at that time, and regardless of the time of day when the applicable P2P protocol threshold is reached.

The same comments from Comcast suggest that it isn't necessary for the company to block all P2P traffic and that half of all the upstream traffic on the Comcast network is P2P:

Data collected recently from the Comcast network demonstrate that Comcast’s network management practices are minimally intrusive. Comcast has never managed customers’ downloads, and the data show that, even with the current management of P2P uploads, P2P
traffic continues to comprise approximately half of upstream traffic transmitted on the Comcast network -- and, in some locations, P2P traffic is as much as two-thirds of total upstream bandwidth. The data also show that, on a typical day, an estimated 9 billion P2P TCP flows traverse Comcast’s network, and, even for the most heavily used P2P protocols, more than 90
percent of these flows are unaffected by Comcast’s network management. Given the vast amounts of P2P traffic carried on Comcast’s network, and the small percentage of total uploads that are delayed, it is clear that Comcast’s customers are able to (and do) use any application or service they choose, including those that utilize P2P protocols. [footnote omitted]

The data also suggest that, even in a cable system with heavy P2P usage, when a P2P upload from a particular computer was delayed by a reset packet, that same computer successfully initiated a P2P upload within one minute in 80 percent of the cases. In fact, most
Comcast customers using P2P protocols to upload never experienced any delay at all. Thus, even when a subscriber’s computer encounters a so-called “busy” signal when it attempts to upload a file, the busy condition generally causes only brief delays before that computer is able to effectuate its next upload. In other words, as Comcast has consistently maintained, this current network management technique delays a relatively small number of P2P uploads and only delays them temporarily.

Note: I revised this comment and apologize if this confuses anyone. In the first version of this comment I wrongly concluded that the high volume of P2P traffic on the Comcast network suggests that even if Comcast attempted to stop any uploading of data using BitTorrent, as the previous commenter says it did, they probably couldn’t have succeeded. I realize that conclusion does not necessarily follow. It goes to show I am not an engineer. I do think the volume of P2P on the Comcast network is nevertheless relevant because it infers that Comcast had no motive to block all BiTorrent uploads.

Re: “J. Edgar Google”

hhaney — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:22:07 -0000

Jim,

Do you think the problem here is Web services who collect data, which may be personally-identifiable, for legitimate purposes or prosecutors and litigants who think they have a right to the data because it will advance their causes? Congress could pass a law making this data inadmissable in a court of law for most if not all purposes. Of course, government would love to have a record of everything we say or do. If government can't tax us directly it would like to to tax us indirectly. Some say it exists for no other purpose than to tax us. I'm not sure we have a private sector problem here as much as we have a government problem.

Hance

Re: Trade War

hhaney — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:14:30 -0000

Well, here I am referring to the comment by Volker Lendecke of the Samba Users Group (“We are, in many fields, ten years behind Microsoft. And the lag is growing with every new step Microsoft takes.”).

I am not at all hostile to the open source movement as long as it seeks to compete on the merits and not in the halls of government. Politicians are fine people, but I used to be a lobbyist and I will assert that most politicians have zero understanding of software and are the last people we should entrust with the responsibility of handicapping software products.

Re: Trade War

hhaney — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:29:55 -0000

Don-The Gates Foundation funds a project at Discovery which I have nothing to do with. If you read the article you cite carefully, it says:

Greg Shaw, Pacific Northwest director [of the Gates Foundation], explains that the grant to Discovery underwrites the institute's "Cascadia Project," which strictly focuses on transportation in the Northwest. The Discovery Web site lists several program goals, including financing of high-speed passenger rail systems and reduction of automobile congestion in the Cascadia region, which encompasses Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. (The Gates Foundation, which is based in Seattle, gives a small slice of its money -- about $40 million in 2004 -- to groups that aim to improve life in the Pacific Northwest.) Poor transportation is a key problem for low-income families, Shaw says, and "when Cascadia came to the Foundation, there was a sense that there had not been a regional approach to studying transportation. Cascadia's plan to solve the transportation problem "was very much a bipartisan state, local and regional approach with a variety of states and counties and mayors."

My views on government interference in the market are pretty consistent across the board. Check out, for example, what I recently said on this site about the Google/Yahoo! arrangement.

If you want to discuss my post on a substantive level, be my guest.

Re: Media Metrics #7: An Uncertain Future for Newspapers

hhaney — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:02:25 -0000

Who cares about local newspapers?

Mainly politicians and political activists who like to read about themselves and accumulate power, right?

Eric's exactly right. Local newspaper circulation is declining because people aren't forced to read local newspapers anymore.

I love newspapers. I read several online, including some foreign publications such as the London Times and Le Monde. I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and the Economist. I even subscribe to the New York Times which I disagree with ideologically because the quality is so good. Although my local newspaper’s excessive left wing slant annoys me, the main reason I don’t subscribe to it is because the content is thin and I have better options.

Sure, people like Senator Dorgan and FreePress can limit how many media outlets a single Republican can own through media ownership rules. But that’s as far as they’re going to get. In our digital age, there’s no such thing as a captive audience – no one is going to force anyone to read anything.

If Dorgan and FreePress want to strengthen local newspapers, the obvious choice is to allow them to address the quality problem with more resources that would come from partnering with other media outlets.

If there is a better idea, a lot of people including myself are waiting to hear it.

Re: Eric Schmidt and Laurence Tribe on Common Carriage and Net Neutrality Regulation

hhaney — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:03:15 -0000

If Comcast signs a deal with Yahoo to bundle a browser with Live Search in its welcome CD, that doesn't in any way affect "the ability of any person to use a broadband service to access" Google's search engine.

That would be an example of blocking, which Snowe-Dorgan also prohbits, obviously. As long as Comcast doesn't prevent you from bypassing its affiliate, Comcast isn't guilty of blocking. But blocking and discriminating are different. If Comcast bundles a Yahoo browser in the installation CD it is discriminating in favor of its affiliate, Yahoo.

Black's Law Dictionary defines discrimination as follows:

With reference to common carriers, a breach of the carrier's duty to treat all shippers alike, and afford them equal opportunities to market their product...

When you present options to people, many choose the first one or whatever's at hand and that's a sigificant competitive advantage in the marketplace. For example, Google believes that built-in search boxes are the source of 30% to 50% of a user’s searches (see "New Microsoft Browser Raises Google's Hackles," by Steve Lohr, New York Times (May 1, 2006)). To use your example, Snowe-Dorgan would prevent Comcast from choosing Yahoo as the first choice its customers see. If Comcast were allowed to do so, that would deprive Yahoo's competitors of a marketing opportunity.

Re: Eric Schmidt and Laurence Tribe on Common Carriage and Net Neutrality Regulation

hhaney — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:41:28 -0000

It sounds like you are basically arguing that none of these examples are a big deal nor are they the type of practices you assume Snowe-Dorgan is meant to proscribe. But I am saying there is nothing in Snowe-Dorgan that would permit these things. The language is unequivocal. A broadband provider may not discriminate with respect to its broadband service in any way execept for some network management things (and some of the NN proposals would allow a broadband provider to offer a broadband service that blocks objectionable content for those who want it).

Re: Eric Schmidt and Laurence Tribe on Common Carriage and Net Neutrality Regulation

hhaney — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:13:39 -0000

Thanks, Michael, for that great example. I had forgotten about that.

But it sounds like you're just talking about what happens on Comcast's own website, which I don't think would be affected by any of the network neutrality proposals out there. If I'm wrong and there's something in Snowe-Dorgan on what can appear on an ISP's website, please correct me.

Tim – Snowe-Dorgan (S. 2917, 109th Cong.) provides, among other things, that:

“With respect to any broadband service offered to the public, each broadband service provider shall--(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use a broadband service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service made available via the Internet …”

Now compare this with § 202 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 202), applicable to telecommunications services:

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. (emphasis added)

The two provisions are nearly identical. Therefore, if Comcast makes its Comcast.net portal a default setting for its customers, for example, it is discriminating against competing services. Btw, here is another interesting article (“Pressuring Microsoft, PC Makers Team Up With Its Software Rivals,” by Robert A. Guth and Kevin J. Delaney, Wall Street Journal (Feb. 7, 2006)) which describes how computer makers prepackage software and how they seek to gain advantage simply by how they present set-up options to consumers:

It takes only about five minutes to set up a new personal computer by clicking through a series of introductory screens. In that time, however, many consumers choose software and services they will often use for the life of their machine. Historically, Microsoft Corp. held great sway over this "first-boot sequence" as well as other software preinstalled in the factory.

Now PC makers including Hewlett-Packard Co. and Dell Inc. are beginning to take more control over this crucial real estate. They increasingly are trying to sell this space to service providers and software makers, such as Google Inc. After a year of sometimes tense negotiations with Google and PC makers, Microsoft has ceded ground on some key technical details.

Like it or not, this is discriminatory and if Snowe-Dorgan applied to computer and software makers, they wouldn’t be able to do this.

Speaking of Dell, every time I misspell a URL, I get redirected to a Dell search page crammed with sponsored links. If broadband providers wanted to do this, they couldn’t under Snowe-Dorgan (I hate the redirect and Dell’s search page, but I do defend the company’s right to do this).

Re: Eric Schmidt and Laurence Tribe on Common Carriage and Net Neutrality Regulation

hhaney — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:49:23 -0000

I didn't invent the hypothetical. See "Comcast Signals Unhappiness With Google," by Peter Grant, Wall Street Journal (Mar. 17, 2007):

Comcast, the country's largest cable operator, also has been talking to Google about extending their relationship. Currently, Google provides search results when users of the Comcast.net portal enter queries into the search box on the site. But Comcast thinks it should get a larger share of the revenue generated by the arrangement. It also is unhappy about other terms of the deal, these people say....

Google has shared advertising revenue from searches generated on Comcast.net, with Comcast's cut expected to be about $70 million this year, people familiar with the matter say. But Comcast feels that its share should be at least $100 million, these people say. Comcast.net, which gets about 15 million visitors a month, is one of the biggest non-Google sources of search queries handled by Google.

Comcast also maintains that Google could do more to boost the number of searches from Comcast.net, for instance by making it possible for users viewing a particular news story to search easily for both text and video on that subject. Comcast executives also argue that Google has not provided sufficient information on how it uses data from Comcast.net users.

I would respectfully submit that it is the proponents of new regulation who have the responsibility to be precise in their scenarios so that regulation can be structured to minimize unintended consequences. We need to be concerned not only with how proposed regulation will impact that which already exists, but also how it will impact that which hasn't been thought of yet.

I think when you parse what Eric Schmidt is saying, it isn't at all clear what he is advocating.

Re: Will Procompetition Policy Work This Time?

hhaney — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:16:09 -0000

Thanks. The correct link has been added.

Re: Will Procompetition Policy Work This Time?

hhaney — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:14:38 -0000

Thanks. The correct has been added.

Re: Time to Deregulate Cable Navigation Devices

hhaney — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:46:35 -0000

I stand corrected: Comcast didn't file an amended waiver request; it is challenging the FCC's denial of its original request. I hope Comcast is successful.

Re: Competition In Broadband Is Thriving

hhaney — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:00:40 -0000

My point is that once a network provider has a point-of-presence -- even if it's in an adjacent zip code -- the declining marginal cost of adding additional users provides a powerful incentive to expand the network, particularly in the absence of regulatory uncertainty. Because the network is expanding rapidly, the locations of these points-of-presence is more important than the number of households served when these statistics were gathered.

The other technologies are admittedly not identical substitutes, but they don't have to be identical. These offerings are continually improving and are sufficient to constitute a strategic threat that will discipline the behavior of competitors.

I agree the FCC has painted a somewhat idyllic picture. The U.S. is way behind other countries in broadband deployment. But it would be a mistake to insist upon a commoditized, perfectly competitive marketplace with lots of small suppliers as a prerequisite for deregulation. A marketplace like that won't attract any investors. Aside from competition that is actually on the ground, I and others maintain that the threat of competitive entry also acts to discipline competitive behavior and provides a justification for not re-regulating DSL. Investment will beget more competition, net neutrality mandates will beget more regulation.