Disqus - Latest Comments for funchords

Re: Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering & Internet Price Controls

George Ou — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:37:40 -0000

You just changed the subject Robb. You were comparing wired broadband to the monopoly of utilities and I pointed out you were wrong about that. Practically all consumers have a choice to switch from their cable provider to DSL, FTTN "U-verse", or FTTH "FiOS".

Re: Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering & Internet Price Controls

funchords — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:25:44 -0000

Wireless is an option, but it's comparable to the question, "Do I get there by plane or bus?" The number of wireless providers offering tiers greater than 10 GB/mo. is zero, all the ones I know about turn on the punishment pricing at 5 GB.

And sticking with that example for a moment, do two companies make a healthy market that efficiently sets the right bargain price (or however economists properly phrase that question)? How many airlines service your nearest major airport?

Re: Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering & Internet Price Controls

George Ou — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:41:35 -0000

Actually it does operate in a marketplace and close to 90% of the population can switch to their telecom provider if they don't like what Time Warner is offering. We don't have two sets of railroads or two sets of electric power coming into our homes but close to all of us have two wired broadband providers in addition to wireless broadband providers.

Re: Barbara Esbin: Exclusive Handset Deals Are Pro-Competitive

funchords — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:46:56 -0000

If history happened differently, say that every carrier could sell the iPhone, then this sentence also makes sense,

"As every wireless carrier was able to sell the iPhone when it was initially released, it seems predictable that other handset makers would develop competing products like the Google G1, RIM Blackberry Storm, Samsung Instinct or Palm Pre, thus broadening choice and lowering costs for all."

Re: Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering & Internet Price Controls

funchords — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:41:01 -0000

TWC doesn't operate in a marketplace. If it did, then the much better natural process that you mention would work.

This is not a new problem -- there are hundreds of years of history in trying to avoid unreasonable rates and terms in areas where vibrant marketplaces fail to exist. (Examples: railroads, utilities)

I suppose the fact that someone is willing to pay it probably can be brought as evidence that something is fair. On the contrary, the purpose of getting a public sign-off on such schemes is so that a lot of evidence can be brought in and considered.

Re: Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering & Internet Price Controls

ryanradia — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:27:44 -0000

Fair according to whom? If consumers are willing to pay for a service, then isn't it fair by definition, given the (reasonable) assumption that rational actors do not voluntarily engage in transactions that make themselves worse off? Of course, if I were a Time Warner subscriber I'd be pissed. I'm mad whenever a good or service I want is priced higher than I think it should be. But this is just a fact of life. In a marketplace, prices are set through a decentralized discovery process. Things can get a bit rough at times, but price discovery is the best way to ensure that resources are allocated as efficiently as possible. No lawmaker or regulatory body can determine what is and isn't a "fair" price.

Re: Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering & Internet Price Controls

funchords — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:32:29 -0000

Since the Massa bill prohibits imposing metering "rates, terms and conditions that are unreasonable or discriminatory," I don't see anything inconsistent in supporting metering that is fairly priced.

Re: Too bad there isn’t a campaign for FCC Chairman

funchords — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:50:43 -0000

It would be great if the next FCC chair was a ham and an Internet fan. It certainly would help to have more technically savvy folks in the big chairs than we do now. Too bad there isn’t a campaign for FCC Chairman, I'd vote for you! ;-)

Re: Market Forces At Work: The PR Backlash Against Google Chrome’s EULA

bszoka — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:36:20 -0000

Fair points all, Robb. I didn't mean to suggest that this argument would play out exactly the same way in every context or for every issue. Companies like Google are indeed probably more likely to cave to public pressure on their EULAs than would be an ISP. I think the same dynamic does play out for ISPs as well, but you're right that I'd have a harder argument to make there.

Re: Market Forces At Work: The PR Backlash Against Google Chrome’s EULA

funchords — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:34:16 -0000

Google's browser exists in a universe where there was zero friction -- it was a new entrant in a highly competitive market and it had exactly 0% of it. Of course the marketplace speaks in a situation like that.

Your first-sentence reference to Network Neutrality isn't exactly the same, is it? Most U.S. addresses have only one or two broadband choices. Customers don't have the same ability just to slide over to the any number of alternative broadband providers as they do to switch web browsers.

And lest we forget that this controversy was about an item in the Terms of Service that was available to be scrutinized. The broadband providers, so far, are not being very forthcoming as to the real terms and limits and privacy invasions within their services.

Robb Topolski

Re: Why I say I'm a blogger (Scripting News)

funchords — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:27:27 -0000

With respect, Dave, I somewhat disagree. Some of the best journalism has been the "undercover camera" type of interview with discloses actual behavior versus "on camera" behavior. Furthermore, one of the neat things that bloggers do is to blog about the outcome of a string of events that didn't start out intended as a blog entry, but ended up being one.

Robb Topolski

Re: A new reason to hate Comcast (Scripting News)

Internet TV — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:15:49 -0000

I'm noticing that ISPS are getting more strict about enforcing bandwidth limits. They want to play hardball with customers and hold them to the megabyte, and to some extent they're fully within the law to do so. The only problem of course is the way in which they do it and that they haven't been playing fairly to begin with (packet sniffing, throttling speeds, etc).

Re: A new reason to hate Comcast (Scripting News)

funchords — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:06:51 -0000

If anyone reading this is in the Bay Area tomorrow, I hope you drop by the FCC hearing at Stanford, noon-7pm with public comments starting at 4:30 p.m.. See www.fcc.gov for the location address and agenda.

You can watch it on VonTV tomorrow, too, or listen to the RealAudio feed from the FCC site.