Typical behaviour from a company that tried to hire washington insiders, pays off state legislators left and right, and is currently in a big campaign to purge headcount.
A group claiming to represent the interests of California's tech startups has argued that the US state should allow so-called zero rating services, despite the negative impact it would have on tech startups. Last week, CALinnovates provided Sacramento lawmakers, who are discussing proposed legislation to bring net neutrality …
This is California where the tail wags the dog. Of course CA state officials already know the report came from CALinnovates. As a matter of fact, it's more likely the state officials asked CALinnovates to submit the report to justify something they already want to do with AT&T. That's very common in state governments.
Well, AT&T's well-known nickname is "the Death Star Company", due to the resemblance it's logo has to a certain non-moon sized entity with the power to destroy a planet. (although it's insignificant to the power of the Dark Side of a crazy old religion...)
*runs away before the warrbarristers with mouse ears on their helmets show up*
Here is a small test to answer the question - does this group really represent XXXXXXX start-up firms (XXXXXXX -> insert industrial sector as appropriate (tech, agriculture, energy,etc)).
1) Is the budget for talking to people about the start up groups interests more than the cost of a night at the pub?
If the answer is Yes, then the group does not represent start up firms. If No, the group MAY represent start up firms.
Start up firms by the very definition do not have cash to splash around on lobbying. Nor do they have time to work on policy documentation. They're too busy trying to get their products off the ground. Lobbying is the domain of the established players who have budgets to waste.
The best you can hope for from a real start-up is a night at the pub in the name of "networking".
"[The low-income and minority Californians] also wont be much able to choose what to watch..." if zero-rating is allowed.
That assumes implicitly that without the zero-rating they can watch at most one thing. Adding zero-rated content would appear to increase their choice range, along with that of everyone else, or reduce their cost, again along with that of everyone else. The hurt, if any, will fall upon those who might attempt to compete with the zero-rated services.
The habit of automatically assuming that funding research guarantees that the product (s) is tailored to benefit the contributor and (b) presents false results is pernicious. Either may be correct or not, and the question should be evaluated, but the only valid criticism of a report must rely on the facts and analysis it presents. As a general matter, there often is plenty to criticize without touching the matter of funding.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019