DISQUS

Comcast did advertise unlimited. The word means what it means. If the network can't handle it, the users who have taken advantage of the service they have purchased are not at fault. To their credit, Comcast has dropped the "u word," but that doesn't change the situation for the customers who have signed up under the impression that they really were getting the service that was advertised.

It's good we both agree that the rules of broadband need to change. I think your point, and it's valid, is that Comcast's actions are reasonable from a technological point of view. I just don't think they are from a business point of view. The customers they have taken action against may be in the minority, but they are certainly influential as well as likely being technological early adopters. Just like Netflix caters to the movie buff in order that they tell their friends and bring in the masses, Comcast should be catering to heavy Internet and bandwidth users. They are currently taking action against those who could be their evangelists.

Furthermore, anything less than full disclosure of *exactly* how they manage their network takes away consumer's ability to make an informed choice between providers. Markets only function effectively when there is good information. It is never "reasonable" for them to engage in a practice that materially changes the product they offer, without disclosing that they are going to do so ahead of time-- and notices like "we reserve the right to manage our network," without more, just don't cut it.

Anyway, I enjoy your blog, and I appreciate how well you challenge many of my assumptions.

I think your article is right in its technical analysis, and EFF was unwise to enter into such a debate. I still think their fundamental point is right, however: Comcast has approached this issue in a hamhanded way.

In the context of unmetered broadband, it's odd to call people who are using a service they have paid for a "hog." If you pay for unlimited broadband, you're entitled to unlimited broadband. Fine print caveats like "unlimited reasonable use" are too weasly.

Who's paying for it? The ISP's customers, when they signed up for service.

If an ISP offers unlimited service, and then gets upset when protocols start to take advantage of it, they need to update their pricing plans.

All you can eat ISPs are just like all you can eat buffets. They try to get people in the door, and then want them to eat the cheapest food possible.

Comcast's behavior is just what you'd expect from the skewed economic incentives they're operating under. They should adopt a pricing model where they actually want people to use the service they offer.

Sorry for the double post. I guess I was messing with html too much.






Also: Your discussion of discovery was a bit off. (1) Coca Cola actually *was* once required to divulge a formula in discovery. It refused to comply. Famous case in lots of CivPro casebooks. (2) The usual result of not divulging information requested in discovery is that all inferences are drawn against you that could be reasonably drawn from the evidence. In this case, the inference would have to be that the code was flawed and threw off the election results. Or, they could simply do what happens routinely in such matters and work with the judge and opposing counsel to keep the discovered material private and so on. Their choice.

One point about Frontline. The reason many in the public interest community support them is their bit about wholesale.





Let's not forget that spectrum licenses are limited, government-backed monopolies. They are very anti-competitive, and by law even NONinterfering uses cannot use the spectrum controlled by the license holder.





A wholesale requirement on what is an artificial and largely unnecessary government grant of exclusivity does not offend my libertarian instincts. I have always found the analogy of spectrum to real property to be inexact, given the flexibility of spectrum, and think that a true free market would be unlicensed.






Wholesale requirements are a way to get the positive, pro-competitive effects of an unlicensed system while still hanging on to the licensing framework. I would either forbid the wholesaler from engaging in retail itself or require that it be conducted through a structurally separate affiliate (messy).






If you for whatever reason (addicted to the revenue, perhaps) *must* hold a government auction for a monopoly license, then isn't it better to require the monopoly holder to then put the spectrum on the market, rather than holding onto it itself? This allows small outfits to make use of the spectrum, when they would never be able to win a license. Our current scheme is too skewed to the organizations that can raise huge amounts of capital, up front.






Incumbents would like to buy up the spectrum and use it to improve their own existing networks. True, competitive wireless broadband of a kind that is a replacement for and not a supplement to existing services are unlikely to be deployed by incumbents.






Wholesale/open access requirements are the best way to approach what a true free market in spectrum would look like. Frontline is the closest we're going to get to true wholesale.






Apart from those arguments, I think they make a compelling public safety case, although I understand that community's desire to not get stuck with an undesirable partner.

One point about Frontline. The reason many in the public interest community support them is their bit about wholesale.





Let's not forget that spectrum licenses are limited, government-backed monopolies. They are very anti-competitive, and by law even NONinterfering uses cannot use the spectrum controlled by the license holder.





A wholesale requirement on what is an artificial and largely unnecessary government grant of exclusivity does not offend my libertarian instincts. I have always found the analogy of spectrum to real property to be inexact, given the flexibility of spectrum, and think that a true free market would be unlicensed.






Wholesale requirements are a way to get the positive, pro-competitive effects of an unlicensed system while still hanging on to the licensing framework. I would either forbid the wholesaler from engaging in retail itself or require that it be conducted through a structurally separate affiliate (messy).






If you for whatever reason (addicted to the revenue, perhaps) *must* hold a government auction for a monopoly license, then isn't it better to require the monopoly holder to then put the spectrum on the market, rather than holding onto it itself? This allows small outfits to make use of the spectrum, when they would never be able to win a license. Our current scheme is too skewed to the organizations that can raise huge amounts of capital, up front.






Incumbents would like to buy up the spectrum and use it to improve their own existing networks. True, competitive wireless broadband of a kind that is a replacement for and not a supplement to existing services are unlikely to be deployed by incumbents.






Wholesale/open access requirements are the best way to approach what a true free market in spectrum would look like. Frontline is the closest we're going to get to true wholesale.






Apart from those arguments, I think they make a compelling public safety case, although I understand that community's desire to not get stuck with an undesirable partner.