DISQUS

Alright, Tim Lee, knock it off.

"Most of the activists pushing for new government regulations don't seem to even have a solid understanding of how the Internet works right now."

You're better than this. Stop name calling. Stop dropping ad homs. (If pro-neutrality arguments are generally based on incorrect assumptions about the internet, by all means say so, and then justify that claim. THAT'S a debate.) We agree too much on other issues (e.g., Section 1201). Your name calling reduces both your credibility (surely Vint Cerf understands the internet) and our ability to cooperate later.

I respectfully disagree, of course.

I think you misread the bill and the history of regulation under examination. I also think you unfortunately trivialize important values, such as public interest programming. (Am I bitter toward Comcast that Philadelphia is easily the largest city in the US without a public access TV station? Not at all...) Further, your other post implying that we can whip up a frenzy whenever we want is, well, nonresponsive to my first response to Felten, and certainly nonresponsive to Jones and Baumgartner. Finally, I think you seriously overestimate the ability of new entrants to compete. In the broadband market, I think the first mover advantage and the economics of sunk costs are going to be insurmountable in nearly all US communities.

All the same, I've already spent entirely too much time blogging this issue, and I hereby bow out of the blog debate. But Tim, please do read this article: Opening Bottlenecks.

Final revisions are not due for almost a month, and your feedback would be very much appreciated.

I've posted a response on the Public Knowledge blog.

I've posted a response on the Public Knowledge blog.


Tim, you may want to read this version. I make that suggestion, and all it implies, in sincere respect.

Tim/deadzone,




Y2K is actually a great example of why we DO need pre-emptive net neutrality, but there are more. An ounce of prevention...





Everyone was freaked out about Y2K, so we dumped billions into the problem and stopped it in its tracks. Had we not done so much, many substantial problems would have occurred. Was the threat as big as the worst-case scenario? Maybe, and maybe not, but on-the-scene experts generally agree that a serious problem of some magnitude was certainly in the cards if we had not spent the effort to pre-empt them.





Read this Y2K story.





The last quote is telling:





"There is a certain sense of wry anticlimax out there," said Michael Granatt, a director of the British government's millennium center... But Mr. Granatt said it was important to acknowledge that the lack of truly disastrous computer failures was not a fluke. "Things don't go right by accident," he said. "They go right through proper planning."





Further, to allege that there's no threat because it's not happening yet is less than forthcoming. Broadband companies have only recently been explicitly exempted (DSL) or let off an implicit, potential hook (cable) from common carrier regs by the FCC. The fact that they're on their best behavior until they get what they want is, well, unsurprising. But many have explicitly stated that it's their business plan.





We arrested some guys in Florida merely for allegedly talking about being terrorists. They didn't have the means, and the problem definitely had not happened yet. Shouldn't they still be prosecuted? Shouldn't we be glad about foiling a diabolical plot, however unlikely? What's so bad about stopping evil pre-emptively? Does our distrust of government prevent us from celebrating this apparent success in law enforcement?





The claim, "there's at least some competition among broadband providers," is also less than forthcoming. About one quarter of the country has one broadband choice, and another quarter has none. Even much of NYC has just two. Look up the the Herfindahl-Hirschman index, which the DOJ uses as a measure of economic concentration in evaluating proposed mergers. See this HHI calculator.





Over 1000 is marginally competitive, over 1800 is very non-competitive. In over 95% of the country, the broadband HHI is around 5000 or higher. That's very, very non-competitive.





See more about net neutrality here: Opening Bottlenecks.

In all due respect, shouldn't you credit the source of this MP3? Namely, Public Knowledge. The original blog post, from June 28, is here: Senator Stevens Speaks on Network Neutrality.




You probably discovered it on 27B Stroke 6 (or on another blog that linked there), but Ryan has just updated that post, also crediting PK.





I can guarantee you took this MP3 from the PK server; why not at least include a link?

Hollaar's article is poorly reasoned and filled with factual inaccuracies. For a rebuttal perhaps as long as the article itself, see my extended response on ShoutingLoudly.

This is almost as much fun as the miserable failure googlebomb.