1094 posts • joined 6 Sep 2006
A lot of the 3m+ were from a petition that opposes Government regulation.
Fewer than 1,000 of the 3m+ are actually substantive.
You can see all this for yourself.
Re: I'll play the game with you Andrew
No, my job isn't to "incite emotion". I'll leave that to people who claim the internet has broken, or who compare regulation to Obamacare :-)
That's a long post - I am not sure what you are trying to say? The burden of proof for new regulation, or regulatory reform, is always on the people who want to introduce it. In this case, they're struggling to agree on basic definitions ("net neutrality") and coming up with assertions that don't map onto reality ("any packet discrimination is bad") and metaphors that are plainly absurd ("outlaw fast lanes"). Nor is the precautionary principle (eg, "if we don't do X something really bad might happen") particularly convincing: biofuels and the invasion of Iraq were both advanced using this.
My point is that if you want better broadband and a more competitive broadband market, you might want to think hard about how the market works. Structural reform of the wholesale market and enforcing strong business competition and consumer legislation may almost certainly be part of this. This is not the first time I have pointed out that people are lazy and prefer bumper stickers to engaging in real grassroots citizen activism, or thinking about the market.
And yours is...?
Re: Calm, rational argument
"It doesn't make sense for a Senator to be opposed to the idea of net neutrality, only certain aspects of its implementation."
Not if he has been informed, by "the fathers of the internet", that the internet has never been neutral.
You're making a fairly transparent attempt to move the debate on from "do you Unicorns exist?" to "are Unicorns vegetarian?"
Personally I think Cruz may have overbaked his pudding: either way, we're talking about a regulated market. The degrees and nature of the regulation differ. But the red herring of neutrality causes far confusion than it brings clarity; "discrimination" and "fast lanes" are slogans for the technically illiterate.
I don't understand. Where's the evil, exactly?
Re: Re: Providers pay too
"Re: "direct peering arrangement" == That's simply another way of saying: "We'll throttle traffic on your current transit provider unless you pony up for a 'direct peering arrangement'" -- and that's _exactly_ what happens."
Nobody is throttling. A modern packet switched network is a contested resource in which the greediest application wins.
... "it is always contested even when it is not congested"
... "other internet users are not neutral to you. Every packet is pollution to someone else and the polluter doesn't pay. So really it's a war, a battle for resources, in which the greediest application over the biggest pipe triumphs. The strongest will always win"
You don't understand how the internet works. When you do, we may then agree or disagree about what regulation it needs. (And in that article I raise genuine competition issues they're just not the ones people talk about very much).
"You can manage the packets by type all you want. Doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality."
So "net neutrality" was never about packet discrimination or service discrimination, as everyone thinks. Including the person who coined the phrase "net neutrality". And the people who wrote the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Order. ("blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices") Or the EU's neutrality consultation aka "traffic management investigation".
It was always about regulating peering arrangements?
@noominy.noom: "He's redefining terms in sneaky ways"
It isn't me who's redefining terms in sneaky ways. Neutrality means whatever neutrality activists want to mean, and that depends on whatever they want to regulate this year. I wonder what "net neutrality" will be about next year? It's anyone's guess.
(And remember: we have always been at War with Eurasia.)
But who's whining? Netflix spent two years "whining" that it couldn't do direct peering with ISPs (or if you prefer, arguing that its CDN is super-duper and good enough). It produced a shit list that was very misleading, to help it.
This year direct peering is fine, Netflix signed direct peering deals with major ISPs.
Remember: we have always been at war with Eurasia.
"Telenor wants to offer "TelenorFlix"
Do you mean like BT spending billions buying football rights and bunding it with their network?Please explain why that is evil.
Re: Re: Providers pay too
"What the ISPs want is to get paid yet again to deliver the packets they already get paid to deliver."
Er, no. ISPs aren't asking to get paid twice, because they haven't been paid once. It's simply a row about how two businesses divvy up the costs.
Re: Re: Providers pay too
"No one else does"
But they do, everyone who needs to move large amounts of video reliably does it. They either use L3 or (better) a direct peering arrangement, or build their own private network (Google). Video traffic is not like email. Conventional reciprocal pubic peering doesn't cut it.
Re: Global Phenomenon?
The personal value judgment argument ("I don't like X so I don't think it is worth very much") is fine - but not the point here. It's whether money follows popularity, as it does everywhere else. Sell a lot of cars, you get a lot of money. Sell a lot of insurance policies, you get a lot of money.
1 in 4 people on the planet can sing Gangnam Style. And he didn't even pocket enough to buy a decent yacht.
Re: Confused by your uncertainty?
Try rearranging them, Tiles in folders obey different rules to Tiles at "root level".
Re: The event sounds awful...
Accurate simulators have been helping people learn for a long time. Flying instruction has used these since the 1960s. I would put a medical simulator in the same category.
Gamification means something completely different.
Re: Akamai Technologies, Inc. et al vice 'Net Neutrality'
Good post Jeffy - but nothing will happen unless the congestion problem is cracked. I went from 20mbit/s to 120mbit/s here in London and I can't tell the difference. The network is still a scarce resource.
All good, but p.29 (The "investment cycle of doom") describes why Comcast, Verrizon and Google should keep their money in their pockets until this can be fixed.
Title II means you get Comcast forever - a nice little collusion between regulator and regulated. I doubt that's what you really want.
IPR is there to encourage the free market - without it, we can see what happens. Without the temporary exclusivity, everyone profits from that invention or creation except the inventor or creator.
Personally I'm looking forward to an African or an Indian kid making a brilliant invention that I can 3D print at home - and getting millions in tiny payments for it from around the world.
Justice Arnold discussed the whack-a-mole question - the whole thing is well worth a read.
"Am I alone in thinking that it's time goods whose only intrinsic value is their branding and not their materials should not be defended by the state?"
Design is protected and brands are protected by IP. Whether you like the brand/poem/song/manbag in question is good or bad is irrelevant - protection means that things you don't like get protected along with things you do like. The idea being that you will get the same protection if you ever invent something that needs protection.
And I'm sure you can find another idiot - it's the internet.
Re: Care.data opy out
Ahem, Ewan: I think it would be fair to declare your interests in this subject with the readers. Over to you.
All true, but who sets "the standard" when 90 per cent of phones will have a soft SIM?
Doesn't matter who's on the GSMA board then. And it doesn't matter what they want Apple/Android to do.
Re: Newsnight Andrew?
I don't have a hot line but David Grossman is excellent, will flag it.
Re: Sure he's a freetard
No m'dear, DHS does economic crime too:
Re: Swings and something else
Multicast would help.
Brandon was experimenting with this at the BBC in the 1990s: http://www.savetz.com/mbone/
And operators are experimenting with multicast now:
Really, there's no reason broadcasts have to travel over the transport/backhaul part of an operator's network at all.
Re: Re: Broadcast vs. Mobile network.
Yes, multicast http://www.sanog.org/resources/sanog7/eubanks-multicast-tutorial.pdf
" A little published fact is that killing it was a hard requirement that came out of the microsoft deal. "
It's not a fact, it's an assertion - and a ludicrous one.
At the Feb 11th (2011) event Nokia said it expected to sell 150m Symbian devices as WP rolled out. It was depending heavily on S60 being viable for a while. Of course sales went off a cliff that year. Perhaps if Elop had stressed a "multiplatform strategy" it might not have looked Osborned, but he needed to refocus the company around the new platform as quickly as possible, and took the gamble.
" I hadn't read anywhere that killing S60 was part of the Microsoft deal."
He made it up.
Re: Um, no...
No, smartphone market share had fallen from over 60 per cent to 35 per cent by the time Elop was appointed. Nokia's revenue had fallen for three consecutive years. This is why the board got a new CEO.
Conspiracy theorists have it all figured out, though.
Re: Enterprise? Not yet...
While Exchange Tasks support is poor and Notes non existent, WP 8.1 searches Exchange server email folders and does so very well.
Can you clarify?
Re: Twitter notifications
You need to turn on the alerts manually. And they won't show up in 'Notification Center', because Twitter doesn't work with it yet.
Re: Re: The difference is not traffic priority....
"As Andrew showed with the RFCs, the internet is already built to allow traffic to be prioritized based on need. What the ISPs want to do is to change it to allow traffic to be prioritized based on greed."
Paranoia strikes again.
Sadly people are not willing to exercise their power and switch - making life very easy for ISPs. They would rather whinge, or support Net Neutrality's goal of utility-style regulation - would enshrine Comcast forever.
Third rate internet is good news for Europe and Asia, but bad news for Americans.
Re: Re: Samsung's Business model
Samsung's margin is enough to see it stay in the game for now.
Re: An unsually poor comment
"The idea that only Samsung and Apple make money from smartphones is wrong."
Huawei et al make money from smartphones - and if you had read the article, you would know this. But in mature markets, the numbers don't lie. Ask Sony, HTC.
Basically, you're rejecting all the evidence you do not like - so you can reject the arguments that follow. This is not the strongest position from which to construct an argument.
I've been hearing "Silver is scrapped" since the Silver details first emerged in the Spring. Not surprisingly.
Re: Once some players drop out then....
"Slice of the pie" doesn't butter any parsnips - or direct capital. Profit does.
"Man discovers his Net wasn't Neutered"
"their marketing seemed to be aimed at the more erm... chav infested end of the market"
"Are you a Top Gear Tiger or an iPod Babe?"
Or a Flashing Blade?
Or a Bingo Boiler?
What you call "manufacture" - in this case writing a book - isn't "free".
Re: Think you overestimate goverments' fear of the beeb.
Hardball on funding? That's as hard as it got.
Hardball on political pressure: yes, an unelected official on behalf of the ruling party succeeding in forcing out the DG and Chairman. So much for independence, when push comes to shove.
Re: Re: Independence?
Rotherham has probably rendered that defence irrelevant.
PC public sector institutions find it difficult to hold other PC public sector institutions accountable. It was Andrew Norfolk (at a hated 'Murdoch paper') that pursued the story.
@Ole "In any case, from my, and many people's perspective, the only way to create a fast lane is to add a slower one. I guess that makes me a cretin. There's a lot of us."
Yes it does, in the same way as thinking the Earth is flat makes you a cretin. If "many people" believe the Earth is flat, that still doesn't make it an accurate description of physical reality.
Getty made 35m images free to embed back in May to bloggers, etc.
One-click licensing should be here in the UK by the end of the year.
Then there's "free shit" people can legally license.
Microsoft has little excuse for not keeping up with the news.
>> I do not recognise it in the description as a "bureaucratic, centralised scheme".<<
Neither do I. You're putting 2+2 together and getting 94, there.
We'll have a centralised scheme working in a few days in England and Wales, taught with reluctance, by exhausted non-experts. Any guesses how it'll turn out?
Re: I'm puzzled by this article
It leaves the impression that Slater has rights to the monkey selfie.
Oh dear. RTFA?
"No, but it does seem to put the monkey's image in the public domain."
I suggest you read what the USCO actually says, not what you wished it said.
This doesn't put Slater's image "in the public domain" at all.
Re: Good article.
@Levente: "UNLESS it's claimed by someone it is public domain BY DEFAULT."
Well, that explains a lot. You don't understand how copyright works.
The first Berne Convention in 1886 specified copyright is automatic. You don't need to register, fill out any paperwork, or draw a symbol. You don't need to re-apply to retain your rights. Almost every country is a Berne signatory today.
I don't have one.
Maybe his photos weren't very good?
I expect working photographers, who are still eking out a living, might have something to say about that.
Re: Re: [no payment was supplied]’
@ Tom 38
"We've all paid for Sherlock".
He's in the USA, and so he hasn't "paid for Sherlock". I'm pointing out he can watch them all, for a few cents per episode - and he says that's too much to pay. Do try and keep up.
Re: Re: [no payment was supplied]’
"A single short season of a modern show, such as Sherlock, will set me back $30."
"even if I'm lucky enough that it's one of the tiny handful that's actually available at all"
The first two Sherlock seasons are on Netflix, to watch as many times as you like. Season 3 streamed a month ago.
"I just go without these cultural treats. "
Because you didn't want to pay $4.99?
That is pretty fucking tragic.
- Leaked screenshots show next Windows kernel to be a perfect 10
- Amazon warming up 'cheapo web vid' cannon to SINK Netflix
- Windows Phone will snatch biz No 2 spot from Android – analyst
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? I need a password to BRAKE? What? No! STOP! Aaaargh!
- Episode 13 BOFH: WHERE did this 'fax-enabled' printer UPGRADE come from?