Patterico's Pontifications

11/20/2014

“Net Communism” — A “Net Neutrality” Rant

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:41 am

It seems to me that the Net Neutrality proponents are trying to repeal the laws of supply and demand through legislation. Such efforts always end badly. We should re-label the effort “Net Communism.” Let me explain.

The Internet promotes this illusion of a Shangri-La world of unlimited access to unlimited data for free. Of course, we all realize (if we think about it) that this isn’t quite the case. You have to pay at both ends of Al Gore’s information superhighway.

On the receiving end, whether you access the Internet through your phone or your computer, you typically have to pay an ISP for access. You could go to a Starbucks and grab their free WiFi, but somebody has to pay for that access (hint: it’s Starbucks). They pay for it, and provide it to you for free, to lure you there and sell you overpriced coffee-style drinks and pastries. But someone has to pay.

On the serving end, you must pay as well. As you have probably noticed (since you’re here) I have a Web site. I pay to maintain the URL, and I pay hosting fees to a company that hosts the site on a server. Because I don’t pay thousands of dollars every month, the server capacity I can purchase is limited. I share a server with several other sites that also typically do not need a dedicated, gold-plated server. This arrangement typically suits my needs, but the site is not necessarily able to sustain a link from Matt Drudge. (I have found this out before.)

If I am dissatisfied with this state of affairs, and wish to have a site that can easily withstand a Drudge link, I will have to pay more. There is good reason for this: bandwidth, like most resources, is scarce. If a Drudge link hits my site while my site is on a shared server, it slows down traffic for all the other sites. If I pay more money to the hosting company, they can now afford to invest in capital (a new server) that can help them better satisfy my needs. If I don’t pay them more money, they are typically going to choke off some of my traffic, to ensure that all the other sites don’t go down.

But what if I could somehow convince the government to order the ISP to treat my Web site “equally” — even though I don’t pay more? Then, instead of having an incentive to increase capacity (you pay us more and we’ll give you more bandwidth), the hosting company would have no choice but to allow that Drudge link to pound the shared server, melting every site on it.

That’s because the government’s order to the hosting company would be a price control. In effect, the government would be ordering the hosting company to provide $10,000 a month worth of access for $80.

And what happens when price controls are instituted? If you answered: “shortages” you get the gold star.

Without the ability to charge higher hosting fees, our hosting company has no incentive to produce more bandwidth, and the Internet will slow to a crawl for any company (or other Web site) on that server.

Then, if history holds, all the Web sites on that server harmed by the government’s actions would . . . complain to the government, which would announce New Regulations to Solve the Problem.

My understanding of Net Neutrality, and you can correct me if I am wrong, is that ISPs would be disabled from doing exactly what the hosting companies are doing in my example. You have these companies like Google (which owns YouTube) or Netflix, which are cramming the tubes of the Internet with their bandwidth-hogging video content. But they don’t want to pay the ISPs the necessary fees to make sure their massive amounts of content get delivered. They want to have the government regulate the tubes, and tell the ISPs “you have to treat us equally, even though we are overwhelming your bandwidth.”

If Google and Netflix had to pay the ISPs fees that correspond to the degree that they are flooding the tubes with their high-bandwidth content, that would provide an incentive to the ISPs to provide more bandwidth. If these companies don’t pay extra . . .

. . . well, someone is still going to have to pay. Either this situation is going to result in 1) higher fees by users to access the Internet, or 2) less bandwidth, and slower service to everybody. If we’re lucky, maybe both!

And then, we will need to complain to the government, which will then announce a new round of regulations to address the problem.

And, if history holds, you’re gonna love those regulations. Mr. Glenn Reynolds, we have determined your Web site is too popular. In the interest of fairness, we need to make sure that these statist leftist bloggers over here will have the same “access” to the Internet that your site does — meaning we are going to order the ISPs to open up the pipes for those lefties, or subsidize their content, all in the interest of “fairness.”

The world has tried a system where government claimed to make everyone equal, and removed all market incentives in the process. It was called “communism,” and it failed. Communism created a political elite that was better off than the rabble, and a miserable rabble that suffered from socialism’s basic inability to calculate profit and loss and thus properly allocate resources. Black markets sprang up everywhere, but it wasn’t enough to alleviate the suffering, and the system collapsed — but not before millions died in the name of dictators like Stalin who claimed to pursue “equality.”

TANSTAAFL. (Google it, while you still can.)

To me, “Net Neutrality” is really “Net Communism.” I plan to start using that term to describe it, and I encourage readers to do the same.

87 Responses to ““Net Communism” — A “Net Neutrality” Rant”

  1. You nailed it in easy to understand terms. Well done.

    Loren (1e34f2)

  2. Good analogy and the terms define the argument for most people. Others should link to this post. I hope it doesn’t melt your server.

    Mike K (d85405)

  3. God bless.

    Had to say that before the net communists took over.

    Steve Malynn (ef1d0a)

  4. Your explanation is lacking a little bit.
    Some of the ISPs (“downstream”) want to get paid by companies that use another ISP (“upstream”), because the upstream companies are sending a lot of data to people on the downstream ISPs.
    Net Neutrality means the government prohibits the downstream ISPs from charging non-customers for the traffic they cause.

    Feel free to expand on the issues in question.

    Ibidem (5a8ca4)

  5. Well, from my point of view, if it ain’t broken don’t fix it. So far the net ain’t broken. If it does break I’m sure the people/companies most adversely affected by the break will do everything in their power to fix it as they make money off it. Why would any rational person encourage or invite the long arm of government into an area where we seem to get good service at a reasonable price? Are they just looking for trouble or does the mere fact something runs a la capitalistic without government force bother the hell out of them? Perry, put your damn hand down!

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  6. ‘Communism’ more precisely termed ‘totalitarianism’.

    DNF (3b2963)

  7. Netflix and Google are paying ATT to allow me to pay ATT to access their sites? I got lost somewhere there, Patterico. I thought you paid your server to have so many Pattericos on its shelf. And I paid ATT to bring me one when I wanted it. When ATT cannot because Drudge readers already got them all, it’s because you did not rent “enough” shelves at a store with enough shelves. Not because ATT’s delivery trucks broke down. ?

    nk (dbc370)

  8. the explanation is lacking a bit, especially the peerage part, but i suppose close enough.
    The limited resource is at the service level , not on the transportation level.
    One can see this for themselves. Set up 2 computers. Copy a very large file from one computer to the other and at the same time play a video that is at least 3 minutes long and 1280×760

    I am offended that there are those who think getting HD videos delivered over the Internet
    is an inalienable right.

    There will be complaints that the monopoly position of the content deliverers
    is being ignored. They really mean the cable provider operations.
    #1, they are no longer monopolies there are always options.
    #2, to increase options so that anyone can understand their are options, remove the single
    cable provider rules.

    One additional thing to note: a ‘net communism’ rule would prohibit the NetFlix,Hulu,YouTubes
    from paying more to get their content delivered in a more customer friendly manner.

    seeRpea (09793f)

  9. 8. “I am offendedsive”

    There, FIFY.

    DNF (3b2963)

  10. re #7: internet as a highway (or public access road) is a flawed analogy. well, not so much
    flawed as incomplete. for instance, the highway is based on collision prevention not on collision detection. but if you want to persist:
    whose fault is it when a truck moving a house is on the highway during rush hour, thus slowing everyone way down – so much so that some just don’t make their destination on time?

    seeRpea (09793f)

  11. Wait. Which is Net Neutrality?
    1. I pay ATT (my ISP) to always have enough delivery boys bring me a YouTube video and YouTube pays whomever to always have them in stock; or
    2. ATT wants a kickback from YouTube for sending so many delivery boys there, not being satisfied with what I pay it?

    I like #1. I think #2 is bogus. So which is Net Neutrality?

    nk (dbc370)

  12. Greetings:

    With an almost sincere apology to Mr. George Orwell, “All net users are equal. Some net users are more equal. And the Government is the most equal of all.”

    11B40 (844d04)

  13. re #10. Are you telling me there’s a third party? The one who build the road? Well, of course he should be paid too. I thought my ISP took care of all that, and my fees included the necessary rad tolls to get to YouTube’s store? Which side is Net Neutrality on, on this issue. My ISP pays the tolls or YouTube pays the tolls?

    nk (dbc370)

  14. Excellent.

    Taking your Netflix argument a little further, they would also have no incentive to reduce their bandwidth (by, say, installing local distribution caches in cable company head-ends) rather than pay some giant fee.

    I note that Time-Warner has just bumped up my downstream bandwidth to 300Mbps from 100M, at no additional charge, and done similar things for other plans. I imagine that this increase in bandwidth comes from fees paid by those nethogs who are so desirous of sending me content.

    Net capitalism is a good thing, it seems.

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  15. nk,

    Consider that the fees paid by Netflix might result in your connection getting upgraded in bandwidth. Mine has gone up from 20Mbps to 300Mbps in the last 3 years at no increase in rates (other than the normal annual nudge). I doubt Time-Warner is doing this for free.

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  16. COMCAST HAS NO COMPETITION therefore it is right and just to let government step in and pick winners and losers. What could go wrong?

    JD (86a5eb)

  17. Suppose a lot of companies simply cannot function in the environment net neutrality regs would create. They would quickly be replaced by the companies that are effectively on both ends of many of these connections. They would obviously be able to charge more money, likely in unison as we see from cell phone providers. They would also be able to refuse to do business with many, for example those that the government does not wish them to do business with. In an environment such as ours, where the IRS, EPA, and other agencies have been used to stifle dissent, with no apparent consequence, I think it’s fair to be concerned that the internet, a source of information and political commentary, would be excessively controlled by thin skinned bureaucrats.

    What problem do they think is so bad that it justifies this kind of massive expansion in power? That people have to pay the amount the market says they should pay? Really?

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  18. I’m curious what the problem is that net neutrality is required to solve. Where is the outraged call for action? I don’t know exactly what the express intent of the law is trying to correct.

    Also, I don’t understand how the system of having the server owner pay for making content available, and the user paying for access is a problem. Patterico pays to host the file, or pays for the infrastructure to host the file, we pay our ISP for the internet access. If an ISP is upset over people watching lots of videos from a site, they should consider capping bandwidth. If they are restricting speed to certain sites, this should be VERY prominently displayed, so that you can comparison shop.

    This only becomes a problem if the ISP is a local monopoly, in which case they have no damn right to complain about government interference – monopoly status is asking for regulation.

    OmegaPaladin (a0e77e)

  19. JD,

    Comcast has lots of competition, and will get more. Verizon and/or AT&T is everywhere, Google and smaller fiber companies are overbuilding in places, and many people have only cell.

    Bandwidth is rapidly increasing, in part because without it you cannot charge Netflix for anything.

    And … oh, wait. Was that sarcasm?

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  20. Ok, so Net Neutrality, as proposed, means

    1. Patterico has to pay only for his shelf-space (the bandwidth he buys from his “server”), and getting his product is my problem? I pay for the delivery boy(s) and the roads, through my ISP (ATT), to get to the store where Patterico is kept (the bandwidth I utilize)?
    OR
    2. Patterico also has to pay for my delivery boy and the roads by kicking some money to my ISP (ATT)?

    Which, please?

    nk (dbc370)

  21. @nk: OK, let’s use the highway analogy a little. We have Netflyx Delivery Company off UT&T Expressway, which connects to Concast Highway, which serves your little housing community as well as other businesses (including other delivery companies), and Concast Highway is connected to Vorizon Tollroads, which serves other little residential communities and businesses.

    Now, normally, as Netflyx trucks move from UT&T onto Concast and then onto Vorizon, you would expect that they pay separate tolls to each operating company. What’s happened is that the toll operators have a gentleman’s agreement; whatever traffic flows *from* one *to* the other is netted out by traffic flowing the other way, and at the end of the month or whatever period, they tote up the flows and pay the balance.

    Now what happens is that Netflyx Delivery Company is really, really popular, so much so that Concast’s network is saturated handling the traffic. Worse, it’s so saturated that its *own* communities and businesses (that is, those linked directly to it) can’t get out and experience general slowdown.

    Here’s the problem. Netflyx isn’t Concast’s direct customer; it’s UT&T’s. Netflyx isn’t paying Concast *anything* extra, even though it’s causing the traffic jams. And Netflyx traffic is made up of trucks, and lots of them, so there’s a lot more wear-and-tear on the roads, whereas the gentleman’s agreement is based on an average type of traffic (maybe a mix of cars, trucks and buses, but mostly cars).

    The current gentleman’s agreement is also based on roughly equal flows of traffic, so that the impact on everyone’s road networks is approximately the same… and therefore, the pricing is based on that model. Suddenly, that model is no longer valid. When a business model changes, pricing has to change as well.

    Net communism turns that concept on its head and forbids pricing differentiation based on the type of traffic as well as the bandwidth required to carry it. Remember that Web surfing doesn’t typically require high priority (and file downloads don’t either; P2P can be the lowest priority traffic and still work), but video streaming requires real-time priority and a significant amount of bandwidth.

    In the real world, motorcycles might not be charged any toll, cars a standard amount, vans more, trucks and buses the most – different types of traffic cause different levels of wear-and-tear and use up more space and so forth. Amongst other things, Net communism would force tolls to be absolutely identical across all classes of traffic. This… is kinda dumb.

    @OmegaPaladin: The basic issue that Net communism is supposed to tackle is the idea that the ISPs want to discriminate between different types of traffic and charge accordingly. Between ISPs and businesses, that is, not to the average home user. In theory, it’s also supposed to require that ISPs *not* discriminate on any other grounds (and block access to certain sites or certain types of traffic like P2P, I would imagine, or video streaming that directly competes with their preferred offerings).

    The problem few people realise is this: What the government giveth, the government can taketh away. If you allow ISPs to be regulated by *forbidding* them to do certain things *now*, you’ve opened the doorway to the government *forbidding* them to do *other* things later.

    Gregory Kong (9b8f50)

  22. Thank you, Gregory. Then I’m against it. Net Neutrality, that is.

    This should be a matter to be worked out by the various providers. If ATT thinks I’m hogging the line by being on Patterico all the time and keeping my neighbor from enjoying “Surfing Samurai Transsexuals” on YouPorn, it should be a matter between the four of us. The FCC should just stick to checking the wattage on our wireless modems so we don’t step on each others’ signals.

    nk (dbc370)

  23. Some people get a lot of bandwidth, others can’t afford it. This just isn’t fair. I have devised a system to correct this, called Obamanet. In this new system, all bandwidth will be the same and will include the same basic services (ie: everyone gets 10,000 email boxes), only the price will differ based on your ability to pay. But if you like your ISP, you will be able to keep your ISP, and if you like plan, you will be able to keep your plan. In order to pay for this system, a small tax on all internet enabled devices (except Obamaphones) will be collected. Any provider of wifi in public places will also have to pay a tax. This is not a tax on the wifi you use, but on the provider of the wifi. For example, we will tax Starbucks and McDonald’s, not their customers, which is very politically attractive move, according to our adviser Jonathan Gruber. Unlike Obamacare, we will not be providing subsidies to users, but will require all homes, businesses, and landlords to provide wifi for their occupants.

    Denver Todd (07fc6b)

  24. Gregory Kong’s analogy is very good. I would like to emphasize that all movement of “stuff” among “nodes” has historically developed differentiated classes of rates and services. Want a burlap bag of spice to move from China to Italy — okay, do you want it this year by mule train or next year by sailing ship? On the mule train itself — the spice is literally “paying the freight” but there are also messages, a few silks, and maybe other small, lightweight, items that cost the teamsters nothing more to deliver, but have customers willing to pay, and mulespace available to carry. Ditto passengers on ships, heavy cargo on railroads, voice communications on long-distance cables, next-day versus same-week service on UPS and FedEx … Also the “premium services” bundles the video cable companies themselves charge more for — the cable and the electricity are all the same, and “basic service” is one rate, but there are customers willing to pay for the porn or history or puppy channel, and so a higher paying customer gets a broader assortment of services. Sort of light first class passengers on the same airliner as business class or tourist class passengers pay more and get more frills — I dunno, myself, whether almonds are that much better than peanuts or wine better than Orange Juice, but the first class passengers are paying so why not?

    The idea of net neutrality is to force everybody into steerage, snail-mail, and basic plans and and allow nobody to offer or provide first class, express, or luxury services.

    This is not political distrust of the current government, or of any government. This objection to net neutrality arises from actual trust in the lessons of personal experience, history and economics. One size NEVER fits all.

    Pouncer (415203)

  25. here ya go, nk:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v3etuIw-aM

    Thanks for those working on the explanation,
    except for Denver Todd, who needs to be tarred and horsefeathered if we ever find him.
    [ 😉 actually, that was funny]

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  26. MD, I’m shocked, shocked to find out that you’re a Marxist, too.

    nk (dbc370)

  27. Just not Karl, nk.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  28. Additionally, net neutrality means bigger government along with associated additional bureaucrats and drones getting gov’t jobs and pensions +higher taxes

    Angelo (cdad90)

  29. @nk: You’re welcome.

    I should also add that people don’t necessarily think straight when it comes to all of this. What is the possibly worst thing should Net communism fail in its totality?

    Well, actually, I think the worst thing is that you would face a situation where ISPs both discriminated based on class of traffic (and charged everyone on every side), as well as felt free to block or censor content they don’t approve of.

    OK. And if you had a fully competitive market, you’d march right on down the street to the *next* ISP who offered you the full package for less *and* didn’t censor the ‘Net, because the vast majority of Americans expect that kind of service. Or, they would use technological means to defeat ISP badness. Or, they would have a class action suit on some ground or another. The free market will usually find a way around the problem. The only reason people clamour for Net communism right now is because the existing market is *heavily* regulated – and so they don’t see any way that the market can correct. For which the answer is, well, to *de*regulate.

    Gregory Kong (9b8f50)

  30. Perhaps govt imposed “net communism” is a necessary corollary of the govt provided “net monopoly” that many ISP’s enjoy.
    My local cable TV co, like the telecoms have been awarded all sorts of easements that are not available to others.
    Free up that end of the market first.

    Bill Jones (2c5dda)

  31. Mr. Kong,

    I can see your point, but the bandwidth throttling needs to be transparent. I trust Comcast as much as the government – not much. The last thing I want is companies using bandwidth control or other shenanigans to lock out competition, with the only notice being a minuscule change on page 347 of the terms and conditions.

    OmegaPaladin (a0e77e)

  32. 4. …Feel free to expand on the issues in question.

    Ibidem (5a8ca4) — 11/20/2014 @ 8:06 am

    Freedom through regulation! Defend free markets by lobbying for centralized bureaucratic direction and control of the means of supply of information!

    No, Pat’s explanation wasn’t lacking.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  33. Great write up on Net Neutrality.

    I like how net neutrality supporters used porn stars to argue for their cause.

    Last I checked, no one had issues accessing porn online. They’re creating a hypothetical problem to tackle.

    (Gee, that doesn’t sound familiar)

    Dejectedhead (393701)

  34. Seriously, if ISPs can charge non-customers that would have to be an artifact of already existing regulation. More regulation isn’t the solution. But then despite the fact that we haven’t had free markets in anything for over a century, people are still blaming the “free markets” (which don’t exist) for failures that can and are only be produced by government intervention.

    We’re seeing the same process in action in the health care markets. Government regulations create distortions. Consumers (like Ibidem) blames the providers. So the consumers lobby the government for more distortions. Which in the end, in the case of the health care market, leads to single payer.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  35. COMCAST is advertising the fact they are net neutral.

    Davod (b656c4)

  36. If shortages will be the result then I’m betting that’s why they want to do this.

    When has a Democrat promoted free speech that criticizes them?

    They’re still trying to shut down Rush Limbaugh after 25 years.

    jakee308 (d409c2)

  37. I forget which British pol said it but to paraphrase: Britain is an island of coal surrounded by an ocean full of fish. Only a socialist could produce a shortage of both.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  38. @Bill: Precisely and exactly. We don’t want Net communism. And let’s get rid of Net fascism while we’re at it.

    @OmegaPaladin: Actually, you *should* prefer Comcast being overbearing more than the government being overbearing. You can vote with your wallet when it comes to businesses – it’s a helluva harder thing to do with government. The problem right now is that Big Business is in bed with Big Government – and who can blame them? As with any other person, an organisation is out to achieve maximum (or at least optimum) economic profit for itself.

    @Steve57: Yes, as far as conservatives and libertarians are concerned, the explanation is complete. But to the regular guy who’s afraid his Internet charges (or Netflix charges) are going up because of greedy ISPs, you have to explain a little bit more about it.

    As it turns out, the peering agreements allow the ISP whose network was being overloaded to collect the excess bandwidth charges. But the charges do not take into account the fact that the ISP’s *own* customers can’t use the bandwidth *they* paid for because of (in this example) Netflix slowing everyone else down. What Net communism would do is destroy the ISP’s ability to provide a flexible pricing structure and charge everyone one rate (which would obviously have to be a higher rate).

    #4’s explanation is slightly ingenuous – but entirely accurate. If you are using my facilities – and you clearly are if your traffic is crossing into *my* network boundaries – and you are not paying me for it, it is most certainly true that you are not my customer. It is equally true that what you are is either a tresspasser, or a freeloader. In this instance, Comcast would like to charge Netflix’s ISP a higher rate for the type of bandwidth Netflix uses (real-time priority), and obviously Netflix’s ISP will pass the charges on to Netflix, and Netflix either sucks it up, makes a deal with Comcast, charges their customers more… or pay some lobbyists to get a law written up that says Comcast *can’t* charge them (via their ISP) extra.

    But you are correct – there are significant market distortions because of existing regulations.

    Gregory Kong (9b8f50)

  39. “This island is almost made of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organizing genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish in Great Britain at the same time.”
    – Aneunin Bevan – British Labour Politician. Speech May 18, 1945.

    Let’s give the organizing geniuses more control over the internet while we’re giving them more control of my health care.

    I’m sure this time they won’t create shortages in both markets. Like they’ve managed to do every other time.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  40. I don’t know very much about all of this.
    What I remember is that when Ma Bell had a monopoly, we had good service. (But I was a kid, what did I know.)

    Now we get telephone and DSL service through one company that uses the lines of another company. We have a recurrent problem when it rains of our lines going dead.
    Our company says it is the line of the big company.
    The big company says it is inside our house.
    But it’s not.
    The big company wants us to switch to their new fiber optic system.
    I don’t want to reward them for giving me bad service by paying for something else from them.

    And Ma Bell people would sometimes win Nobel prizes in Physics for doing groundbreaking work,
    I haven’t hear about that from Comcast, Verizon, the new ATT, etc.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  41. I think I’ll just go with the opposite of whatever Obama wants as being the better choice.

    Yujin (284134)

  42. That’s a safe bet, Yujin, and it shows great common sense.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  43. 40. I don’t know very much about all of this…

    Neither do the politicians debating “net neutrality.” Which is why you don’t need to know much about the technical details of whatever portion of the economy they’re seeking to regulate. You simply need to know about the nature of government.

    It’s similar to people’s ability to be of two minds about the LHMFM. When people read an article about a topic they know about, they know why the reporter is getting it all wrong. They see all the flaws (why military and cops, for instance, can’t sit through a movie about their current or former professions). But when they read an article about a subject that isn’t in their area of expertise they tend to believe what they read.

    There is absolutely no reason to believe the reporters who get it wrong in the first case are getting it right in the second case. The same goes with politicians and bureaucrats.

    And Ma Bell people would sometimes win Nobel prizes in Physics for doing groundbreaking work,
    I haven’t hear about that from Comcast, Verizon, the new ATT, etc.
    MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/20/2014 @ 11:35 am

    Probably because it was all the really groundbreaking work that made all the latter companies possible.

    http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi435.htm

    Today, we peel away a mask of beauty and find what’s under it. The University of Houston’s College of Engineering presents this series about the machines that make our civilization run, and the people whose ingenuity created them.

    …Take the case of Hedy Lamarr: No star was more beautiful than she. She outran even the beauty factory of 1940 Hollywood.

    … In 1940 Lamarr met composer George Antheil at a dinner party…A peculiar chemistry had risen between two remarkable minds. They talked far into that night.

    Between them, they had an idea. Allied subs, it seems, were wasting torpedoes… Lamarr, just 26, had been only a girl when she’d listened to her husband talking about torpedoes. She might have looked like pretty wallpaper, but she’d been a quick pupil. And Antheil had done ingenious early work with the technology of modern music.

    …So they cooked up something called “frequency-hopping.” The trick was to set up a sequencer that would rapidly jump both the control signal and its receiver through 88 random frequencies. They patented the system and gave it to the Navy.

    http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/cscie129/nu_lectures/lecture7/hedy/lemarr.htm

    The birth of spread spectrum

    How “The Bad Boy Of Music” And “The Most Beautiful
    Girl In The World” Catalyzed A Wireless Revolution–In 1941

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  44. – Aneunin Bevan – British Labour Politician. Speech May 18, 1945.

    Yes, it would be a Labour politician who ignored the fact that the miners and the fishermen were all fighting the Germans and the Japanese at the time.

    nk (dbc370)

  45. MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/20/2014 @ 11:35 am

    Now we get telephone and DSL service through one company that uses the lines of another company. We have a recurrent problem when it rains of our lines going dead.
    Our company says it is the line of the big company.
    The big company says it is inside our house.
    But it’s not.
    The big company wants us to switch to their new fiber optic system.
    I don’t want to reward them for giving me bad service by paying for something else from them.

    In my case, apparently it actually really was the modem. (but maybe only because the quality of the signal was lower.)

    Earthlink (which I should really replace, somehow) finally sent me a free modem and AC/DC power cord even without a contract. Technically, they charged and refunded the money before they charged it.

    It didn’t seem to work at first, but…

    1) I needed to use the AC/DC cable they sent me.

    2) I needed to educate the new modem as to my log-in info.

    Sammy Finkelman (8f1991)

  46. R.I.P. Mike Nichols, acclaimed director of stage & film
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    (He was also a left-wing loon, married to Diane Sawyer; but he WAS a very good director.)

    Icy (b87b25)

  47. MD @45

    And Ma Bell people would sometimes win Nobel prizes in Physics for doing groundbreaking work.

    I read some article about Ma Bell and net neutrality in the Wall street Journal. It did a lot – the phones lasted – they started changing later, in the 1970s. And it is now possible to wreck a phone now but preserve the cord.

    It was good, but it also did not change technology.

    Here is a link to something that quotes it:

    http://www.illinoismirror.com/the-wsj-on-net-neutrality

    But the Internet cannot function as a public utility. First, public utilities don’t serve the public; they serve themselves, usually by maneuvering through Byzantine regulations that they helped craft. Utilities are about tariffs, rate bases, price caps and other chokeholds that kill real price discovery and almost guarantee the misallocation of resources. I would know; I used to work for AT&T in the early 1980s when it was a phone utility. Its past may offer a glimpse of the broadband future. Innovation gets strangled.

    Bell Laboratories—owned by AT&T—invented the transistor in 1947, the basic building block of today’s telecommunications and computing. But AT&T was one of the last businesses to use the innovation. Why? Because the company had a 10-year supply of the old technology—vacuum tubes—and waited until they ran out before converting to using AT&T’s own invention.

    his is the link to the article itself if you can get it:

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/andy-kessler-the-department-of-the-internet-1415665771

    The article also continues:

    It was much the same with touch-tone dialing, which was invented in 1941 but not rolled out until the 1970s. Though touch-tone was easier to use than rotary-dial phones, and cheaper, AT&T charged $10 a month extra for the service—because the company could. Bell Labs funded a study to decide the size, color and coding of the touch-tone buttons. The study’s director received a report with hundreds of ideas but didn’t like any of them. Instead, he insisted on gray buttons, and just 12 of them.

    More utility follies? The first cellphone call was made in St. Louis in 1946 with AT&T’s Mobile Telephone Service, but the company let the innovation wither. It took until 1983 for Motorola to introduce the now comically unwieldy DynaTAC, a cellphone that weighed more than 2 pounds—but that private-sector effort is what ultimately led to today’s 4-ounce iPhone.

    Oh, and data. I worked in a group at Bell Labs that developed the early 300 and 1200 bit-per-second modems. We wanted to test them by sending data from our Western Electric factory in Illinois to our site in New Jersey. But no luck, because Illinois Bell hadn’t set tariffs for data. We had the technology, but regulators lagged far behind. [!!]

    A boss at Bell Labs in those days explained what he called the Big Lie, using water utilities as an example. Delivering water involves mostly fixed costs. So every decade or so, water companies engineer a shortage. Less water over the same infrastructure meant that they needed to raise rates per gallon to generate returns. When the shortage ends, they spend the extra money coming in on fancy facilities, thus locking in the higher rates for another decade.

    If the Internet is reclassified as a utility, online innovation will slow to the same glacial pace that beset AT&T and other utilities, with all the same bad incentives. Research will focus on ways to bill you—as wireless companies do with calling and data plans—rather than new services. Imagine if Uber had to petition the FCC to ask for your location.

    Sammy Finkelman (8f1991)

  48. The Left always get their way when naming things to make their position more palatable to the general citizenry.

    “Net Neutrality”? Sure, that seems fair
    “Pro Choice”? Who is the evil monster against choice?
    “Undocumented Immigrants”? Of course, these poor travelers just left their papers at home, let’s give them a pass.

    They have the media to get out their phrases and make them stick. Too bad conservatives do not have the same clout to do the same. Otherwise, the media might still be forced to use the term “pro-life” instead of “anti-abortion”.

    Amazed_476 (78a5e8)

  49. If the government has a role, shouldn’t it be in the development of broadband competition? Another place government might make sense is creating regional wifi, primarily in dense cities. Otherwise, they’ll distort the market without any guarantee of producing a positive outcome.

    East Bay Jay (a5dac7)

  50. The big company wants us to switch to their new fiber optic system.
    I don’t want to reward them for giving me bad service by paying for something else from them.

    Well, I don’t want to pay for supporting endless repairs to obsolete copper wires that crap out every time it rains. Bit of an impasse.

    Maybe you ought to go with the cable company instead. That way you don’t reward the telephone company AND you give up your death grip on the century-old copper wire technology.

    Kevin M (56aae1)

  51. “This island is almost made of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organizing genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish in Great Britain at the same time.”
    – Aneunin Bevan – British Labour Politician. Speech May 18, 1945.

    Interesting that a Labour (Democrat) politician said this. Probably because conservative Churchill was in charge of a coalition government. Mind you, because of the war, and the need to make maximum use of all available resources, the country, and its shortages of coal and fish, might be seen as an example of Labour’s most favoured form of governing – central planning.

    Davod (b656c4)

  52. here, Sammy, just for you. Read it and learn something… http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/about/backgrounder.html

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  53. Well, Kevin M., they seemed to have no problem keeping the copper working until they had a new pricey alternative.
    If they wanted to just come out and say, “We are no longer going to maintain our old antiquated copper system”, I’d be fine with that.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  54. This is what russia and the chicoms have been doing for years.
    Without a doubt net communism.

    mg (31009b)

  55. If the government has a role, shouldn’t it be in the development of broadband competition?

    Well, they could lay 5 fiber cables everywhere under their streets, then auction them off. But this implies that 1) they have some idea of what they are doing; 2) they can do this more efficiently than, say, Comcast; and 3) that people want fiber.

    I have a better idea: let them fix the damn potholes and sidewalks and the things they are supposed to do, but don’t.

    Kevin M (56aae1)

  56. “One additional thing to note: a ‘net communism’ rule would prohibit the NetFlix,Hulu,YouTubes
    from paying more to get their content delivered in a more customer friendly manner.”

    I wonder why people think the free market will not solve this. I don’t watch much TV. I do like NetFlix and watch a movie maybe once a month, maybe every two weeks. I used to use their DVD service.

    Central planning does not work. Somebody please explain this to my leftist children.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  57. Hmmmm. To give another analogy, a company wants to set up a hot dog stand at the municipal park. This was at first looked at as a convience to the park goers, and would create a better atmosphere at the park, attracting more support. The city agreed to their proposal. Eventually the hot dog stand became quite popular with people, and parking became problematic, what with all the people stopping in to buy hot dogs. Now people who want to use the park, but don’t want a hot dog, are being inconvienced. There are several solutions to this problem. The hot dog could be removed, however, it is providing a usefull and popular service. The parking lot could be expanded, however, the Hot Dog stand doesn’t want to pay for this, even though they profit. If they did pay for it, they would have to pass along the cost to the Hot Dog consumers, which would reduce their traffic, and the need for the parking lot expansion in the first place. The Hot Dog stand prefers a different solution -charge ALL users of the park a small fee and use the money to expand the parking area. This means the cost incerase to their customers will be less.

    Charging more for Hot Dogs is the current way the system works.
    Charging an entry fee to the park is Net Nuetrality.

    This is a slightly better analogy than the trucking in that it captures the fact that initially bandwidth usage was looked at as a plus – netflix and what not was supposed to be the new businesses that the internet would spawn to our mutual benefit. The problem is that it has become wildely too popular and is overloading the system. This problem crops up all the time in business. It also better captures the desire of the Obama administration – they are anxious not to choke off a growing and profitable business. besdies they are the “you didn’t build it” crowd that believes in all sorts of silly corproate welfare schemes, and that users of services need not be payers.

    Tennhauser (8c487b)

  58. 44. – Aneunin Bevan – British Labour Politician. Speech May 18, 1945.

    Yes, it would be a Labour politician who ignored the fact that the miners and the fishermen were all fighting the Germans and the Japanese at the time.
    nk (dbc370) — 11/20/2014 @ 12:13 pm

    No, they weren’t. In fact many of the draftees called up for national service were sent to the coal mines instead of the military.

    http://www.infomine.com/library/videos/2903c0/british_mining_industry_in_ww2_%28part_4/4%29.aspx

    The British mining industry had been in decline following WW1 but suddenly huge amounts of coal were needed to keep war industries moving. This is the story of the miners in world war two – many of whom were conscripts – forced to go down the mine when many would have preferred to have been fighting.

    It may come as a surprise, but the Brits were no more willing to deprive war-critical industries of labor than the US was.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  59. Comcast apparently wants to become as hard to leave as the government. Just try unsubscribing from them. There’s a reason I’ll never use them.

    OmegaPaladin (a0e77e)

  60. Let me expand on #57: “charge ALL users of the park a small fee” Isn’t that what we customers pay our ISP’s already?

    Let me simplify a bit. Say Comcast is the hot dog stand and we pay a set fee each month to be able to walk up anytime we want and get a hot dog. Comcast has lots of customers so they move lots of hot dogs. Then Comcast turns to the hot dog company and says, “you’re flooding my stand with hot dogs! We’re going to have to start charging YOU for supplying us with all these hot dogs and giving our customers a reason to pay that monthly fee.” How does this make any sense?

    Based on Patterico’s explanation of two end points on a network, consumer end ISPs want to act like their own mini-internets and charge consumers for access AND providers for delivery…to consumers already paying for access…

    tsgsjeremy (9a0a3d)

  61. @tsgsjeremy: That is where you are wrong. Comcast (which really should be ISP X, because it really does stand in for any hypothetical ISP) is *not* the hot dog stand. Because if it was, it won’t have a problem. If you want the hot dogs supplier to be Netflix, then Comcast is actually a delivery truck company. In this analogy, the delivery company the hot dog supplier normally uses doesn’t cover the area where the hot dog stand is, so it has arrangements with *another* delivery company that does cover that area.

    That delivery company has its own customers, and the hot dog supplier is using up too many of its trucks for it to properly serve its suppliers. Isn’t it obvious that it would turn around and charge the original delivery company more?

    Gregory Kong (9b8f50)

  62. 62. …That delivery company has its own customers, and the hot dog supplier is using up too many of its trucks for it to properly serve its suppliers. Isn’t it obvious that it would turn around and charge the original delivery company more?
    Gregory Kong (9b8f50) — 11/20/2014 @ 7:27 pm

    No, it’s anything but obvious. The obvious solution is it buys or leases more trucks to serve all its customers.

    This is an example of what I was talking about. The free market just doesn’t work the way you describe. The scenario you describe could only happen if someone regulated us into the situation.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  63. @Steve57: Really? Now, think about it a little. Netflix is NOT Comcast’s customer in this analogy. Heck, the *delivery* company Netflix uses isn’t its customer either; they’re fellow delivery companies that help each other out on a /quid pro quo/ basis. In other words, Comcast gives its fellow delivery company better prices than it would to its customers – wholesale rather than retail, so to speak. (This is, indeed, a normal practice. When I was working in the media industry, printers gave us agencies better prices than they would their direct customers. Primarily because agencies meant steady cash flow, I presume.) Why should it buy extra trucks in order to satisfy the needs of *another* company’s customer? When demand goes up, in order for supply to remain in equilibrium, prices have to go up as well. That’s free market economics 101.

    And yes, in this singular instance, Comcast may also be a hot dog supplier, and so it wants to reserve its own trucking capacity for its own products. There are definite distortions in the market, sure, but a company increasing prices in the face of increased demand for its services is doing what companies do.

    Gregory Kong (9b8f50)

  64. Mr. Kong, I did think about it for a minute. It’s a very bad analogy. It has no relationship to reality and it proves you wrong.

    And yes, in this singular instance, Comcast may also be a hot dog supplier, and so it wants to reserve its own trucking capacity for its own products. There are definite distortions in the market, sure, but a company increasing prices in the face of increased demand for its services is doing what companies do.

    Gregory Kong (9b8f50) — 11/20/2014 @ 8:06 pm

    Really? Then why did this happen?

    (This is, indeed, a normal practice. When I was working in the media industry, printers gave us agencies better prices than they would their direct customers. Primarily because agencies meant steady cash flow, I presume.)

    Did you lose track of the point you were arguing? That companies charge more “in the face of increased demand for its services?”

    Yes, I can see printers giving media agencies better prices.

    What does that have to do with printers making some sort of arrangement with other printers? This just doesn’t happen.

    they’re fellow delivery companies that help each other out on a /quid pro quo/ basis.

    Again. This does not happen. And your real world example of what you experienced when you worked for a media agency dealing with printers is an example of it not happening. You try to prove that delivery companies give fellow delivery companies breaks on a quid pro quo basis by observing that printing companies gave your media agency which wasn’t in the printing business a volume discount?

    According to your analogy the printer that gave you a break on prices to get your business turned around and tried to charge your regular printer for the “increased cost” of having to take your media company on as a customer.

    No, in the real world it gave you a price break.

    Again, are you married to this analogy? Because your real world example destroys it.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  65. Steve, what point are you making?

    nk (dbc370)

  66. I thought net neutrality was just the government requiring ISPs to live up to their contracts with users. If I pay Comcast $100 per month for unlimited internet access and then they go to Netflix and say, “Hey, this Cugel guy wants to download your content, but we are going to restrict it and give him a bad user experience unless you pay us money. And he’s going to blame you for it because he assumes that we are living up to our obligations”, that sounds like a racket to me.

    Cugel (786224)

  67. The same point I’ve been making all along, nk. That we don’t need more regulation to fix problems with free markets that were created by regulation and not by free markets.

    In the real world free markets mean companies compete for more business by lowering prices, not increasing them.

    64. …When demand goes up, in order for supply to remain in equilibrium, prices have to go up as well. That’s free market economics 101.

    Gregory Kong (9b8f50) — 11/20/2014 @ 8:06 pm

    Again. Let me think about it for a minute.

    Ok. Done. No, that isn’t “free market economics 101.” That’s centrally directed non-free market economics 101.

    In a free market if a supplier increases prices due to increased demand that creates an incentive for more suppliers to enter the market and undercut them.

    Only government regulation can prevent that from happening.

    32. …Freedom through regulation! Defend free markets by lobbying for centralized bureaucratic direction and control of the means of supply of information!

    No, Pat’s explanation wasn’t lacking.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3) — 11/20/2014 @ 11:03 am

    39. Let’s give the organizing geniuses more control over the internet while we’re giving them more control of my health care.

    I’m sure this time they won’t create shortages in both markets. Like they’ve managed to do every other time.
    Steve57 (c4b0b3) — 11/20/2014 @ 11:32 am

    63. …This is an example of what I was talking about. The free market just doesn’t work the way you describe. The scenario you describe could only happen if someone regulated us into the situation.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3) — 11/20/2014 @ 7:35 pm

    I’ve been vindicated by Mr. Kong’s example of how, in the real world, his own experience was of a supplier giving his media agency a volume discount. That’s free market economics 101.

    Which is why Pat’s terminology, “Net Communism,” is entirely appropriate. You can’t regulate a formerly free market out of a problem it was regulated into.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  68. Once more for emphasis. Mr. Kong says this.

    64. …(This is, indeed, a normal practice. When I was working in the media industry, printers gave us agencies better prices than they would their direct customers. Primarily because agencies meant steady cash flow, I presume.) …When demand goes up, in order for supply to remain in equilibrium, prices have to go up as well. That’s free market economics 101.

    There are definite distortions in the market, sure, but a company increasing prices in the face of increased demand for its services is doing what companies do.

    Gregory Kong (9b8f50) — 11/20/2014 @ 8:06 pm

    Am I the only one who sees the blatant contradiction between his real world example and his economic theory?

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  69. I agree. And I believe Gregory does too. You’re getting stuck on the analogies.

    As for Cugel’s point, just because I have a contract with both Comcast and Netflix does not mean they have a contract with each other. One or the other is going to lose my business, that’s all. If they both want to keep me as a customer, they’ll play nice with each other. That happens all the time. Not every store has everything you want. If Comcast is the only ISP for me, for whatever reason, it’s up to Netflix to decide if it wants my business or not. If Netflix is the only internet site for me, for any reason, it’s up to Comcast to decide whether it wants my business or not.

    And, no, wifi is not a human right.

    nk (dbc370)

  70. Took too long to type that last comment. I agree no Net Neutrality.

    nk (dbc370)

  71. 70. I agree. And I believe Gregory does too. You’re getting stuck on the analogies.

    nk (dbc370) — 11/20/2014 @ 9:32 pm

    I think you’re right on both counts. But still it’s an analogy you could drive a hot dog delivery truck through. Which is why I get stuck on it.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  72. Both real world examples have government distortions at several levels. I think Kong’s description comes closest to describing the actual problem. I have absolutely no faith in government or cable providers being able to “cure” a problem they are a primary creator of — the issuing of exclusive licenses to distribute high-bandwidth (ultra-high bandwidth) service.

    Part of the problem that’s not being openly addressed (usually) is that there is rarely only a source and a sink for the dataflow; it can be throttled many ways by many of those passing the dataflow along.

    Another part of the problem is that the old cable-tv profit scheme has been broken, and the cable companies are trying to find a new way to suck money from my pocket, sorry, generate new and improved income streams.

    htom (9b625a)

  73. 73. …I have absolutely no faith in government or cable providers being able to “cure” a problem they are a primary creator of — the issuing of exclusive licenses to distribute high-bandwidth (ultra-high bandwidth) service.

    htom (9b625a) — 11/20/2014 @ 9:42 pm

    No one hates capitalism like a capitalist. The reason businesses lobby governments to license businesses is to eliminate the competition.

    Then, yes, companies can charge more when demand goes up. Because no potential competitors can enter the market to increase supply.

    It’s why a cab license can sell for $1 mil in NYC. There are only so many licenses, so cabbies are guaranteed that they can make that insane price back because competition is limited by government regulation.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  74. @Steve57: In the media industry, agencies aren’t retail clients – that is, clients that walk up to the printers and directly want to print stuff from them. We get ‘insider’ prices, not volume discounts (our volumes can be low, but generally predictable), because we’re part of the same *media* industry. This is all I’m saying; that it is not uncommon that companies have a form of ‘insider’ price structure that has to do with predictable cash flows.

    What happens if we suddenly dumped a HUGE job that required them to run their presses overnight, on weekends, or farm out to other printers they have agreements with and so on? Once or twice, they’d likely accommodate. But if we did this to them on a regular and frequent basis, they’d charge us more.

    I agree in a completely free market, as companies increase their prices in the face of increased demand, more suppliers will come in and meet the demand. But here are two things. Firstly, the prices go UP first, THEN they go back down as newer suppliers break in. Secondly, these new suppliers WILL NOT undercut below the marginal cost of supply for any lengthy period of time (and it is undeniably true that different types of Internet traffic have different costs of supply). And so, the end result is INCREASED supply in the face of INCREASED demand, just not with the same number of suppliers as before.

    “Companies earn just enough profit to stay in business and no more, because if they were to earn excess profits, other companies would enter the market and drive profits back down to the bare minimum.” (Investopedia)

    “Under perfect competition, firms can make super-normal profits or losses. However, in the long run firms are attracted into the industry if the incumbent firms are making super-normal profits.” (Economics Online UK)

    So even in a perfectly competitive market (which is what I mean when I use the term free market), companies will price upwards FIRST. The higher prices then act as a signal that there is producer surplus to be made, and suppliers then move in until there is no more surplus, bringing the prices back down. It is not that in a free market economy, companies won’t increase prices when demand increases. Yes, they will. At least at first. This is the rational thing to do, as just about every economist in the world will tell you. Unless I am completely misreading you, in which case my apologies for my obtuseness.

    Right now, this ‘completely free’ market does not exist in Internet service provision, especially for last-mile access. You are right. Prior regulations have made this the case. There needs to be deregulation. I have not changed my tune on this. I completely agree with the points you are making. But you were saying that Patterico’s explanations were sufficient; and to us, they are. But to the people who are afraid of seeing ISPs increase prices or censor the Internet, you need to do more than point out the stupidity of trying to use government regulation to ensure freedom. You need to tell them that the free market has correcting mechanisms as well, so there is no need to rely on government. You need to point out that there are inefficiencies in the current model, which a free[r] market, being able to use prices to send signals, will correct in due time. And hope that they can take the hint and see the logical conclusion…

    Gregory Kong (dfcef0)

  75. How fugging hard is this schit??? Libtards want to SHUT YOU and ME…..up.
    So these fukkkkktards suggest that YOU are the hinderance to FAIRNESS, LOVE and PROSPERITY.
    The CONCEPT of NET NEURTRALITY is BEYOND FUKKKKING ABSURD.

    Gus (7cc192)

  76. Look, Gregory, nk is right. This is a tempest in a teapot. I don’t think we disagree in principal. I was pointing out flaws in your analogy, which I still think are valid but I won’t repeat them.

    Regarding your last paragraph, I suppose further explanation is necessary. It shouldn’t be, though. That was one of the striking things about Gruber’s comments. While he was expounding on the stupidity of the American voter, one of the things he gloated about was the fact that the ACA was written to take advantage of the average American’s economic ignorance.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/politics/gruber-obamacare-third-video/index.html

    In this one, Gruber was discussing how then-Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, pushed forward a way to add a tax on expensive health insurance plans, or “Cadillac Plans,” that would purportedly tax the insurance companies though Gruber suggests everyone knew the companies would just pass on the additional cost to customers.

    “It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” Gruber said at the Honors Colloquium 2012 at the University of Rhode Island.

    Which is of course by design. There is something viciously ironic about an educator, a professor of economics, gloating about taking advantage of the fact that other members of his profession have deliberately disinformed the average American about the very basics of his chosen subject.

    I suppose I should caveat my statement that Pat’s explanation is sufficient if you’re not one of the people who have been or remain deceived. It would be sufficient, had not the Jonathon Grubers of the left so completely effed up people’s understanding of economics just so they could later exploit their ignorance of it. Because it’s just so “clever” of them.

    75. …And hope that they can take the hint and see the logical conclusion…

    Gregory Kong (dfcef0) — 11/20/2014 @ 10:33 pm

    In other words, hope the Gruberesque sabotage can be undone.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  77. Your analogy is fine as far as it goes. But we aren’t dealing with analogies and metaphors, but with money and bandwidth.

    It seems odd to have to explain that those who use more of a product or service pay more for it. Now, they may qualify for a volume discount, depending on the industry and commodity, but you will always pay more to buy 100 hamburgers than to buy one.

    There is absolutely nothing that is made more efficient by the federal government regulating it. Or cheaper, or ‘fairer’ – whatever the hell that means.

    Net neutrality is basically telling the owners of a private bridge they have to charge the same for bicycles to cross it as for loaded tractor-trailers.

    Estragon (ada867)

  78. @Steve57: Yeah, we’re probably violently agreeing with each other. And yeah, you’re right, it’s a travesty that the education systems in the West have been so thoroughly gutted. Let’s not get started on Gruber here – at least he was upfront about his lying, cheating, scumbag ways. And that of liberal Democrats (what a redundant phrase) in general. Not that it’s saying much.

    Gregory Kong (dfcef0)

  79. Nobody is going to read this far down but maybe I can turn this into something on my own website.

    The problem “net neutrality” seeks to solve is as follows:

    An internet user (User) seeks to pull a file (Data) from a server (Server) through their ISP (Provider). Right now, User pulls Data from Server without any problems from Provider, regardless of what server it is.

    The theoretical problem is when User tries to retrieve Data from a Server, and the Provider says no. Provider says no because Server hasn’t paid for access to User. Now, it would come out rather quickly that Providers were preventing Users from accessing Servers on an extortion model.

    And that’s where the problem falls apart. Competitive pressures already address this issue – many high-volume Servers *are* paying or collaborating with Providers for faster access, but no one is intentionally blocking or crippling traffic on the other side, because it would come out in the media and cost the Provider customers. In localities where the Provider has been granted a monopoly there may be regulatory backlash (though the backlash should be against the monopoly)

    People aren’t going to pay for a service that is dependent on someone *else* paying as well.

    JWB (c1c08f)

  80. Yes, JWB, we all get it. If ATT won’t give me Patterico because Patterico is not greasing its palm, I’ll switch to Comcast. If Comcast is the same, I’ll buy a NetZero hotspot. If NetZero is the same, I’ll increase my data plan with Verizon. If Verizon also “blocks” Patterico, then maybe I’ll ask Patterico which ISPs carry him, which I should have done in the first place.

    What I won’t do is ask Obama to help me out. He will, but at the same time will make me pay for wifi for three of his illegals and/or foodstampers when I pay for my wifi. Just like he f***ing did with my f***ing health insurance.

    nk (dbc370)

  81. I spend 20 years in the Nav defending this country, and what the he33 do you people do with it?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/more-veterans-press-va-to-recognize-medical-marijuana-as-treatment-option/2014/11/15/51666986-6a7b-11e4-b053-65cea7903f2e_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

    Every morning, former Air Force senior airman Amy Rising makes breakfast for her second-grader, drives him to school and returns home to prepare what she calls her medicine.

    She suffers from severe anxiety after four years working in the frenetic global command center at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, providing logistical and support services for bombings and other missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    There she was, deep in the s***. Nobody knows the horrors of war like former Air Force senior airman Amy Rising who was traumatized by her service in Illinois.

    (elissa, are you going to get on my case because about my admitted lack of experience with Illinois again which is limited to when I risked my life to do some riverboat gambling in E. St. Loiuis?)

    Rising says she has found a treatment that helps her cope. But her local Veterans Affairs hospital does not provide it — because her medicine is a joint.

    Why can’t she take the traditional route and do the honorable thing and crawl into a bottle? Better yet move to National City in SoCal just outside the 32nd Street Naval Station and become a bar hog so the Sailors will buy her drinks all day long. Problem solved, no expense to the tax payer.

    Well, other then ships not being able to get underway because of the drug resistant STDs. But that would have to be weighed agianst the public service she’d be performing by short stopping the Sailors who’d otherwise have ended up in Tijuana only to get snot slinging drunk with no memory, when they found their way back to the border with no memory of who beat the crap out of them and stole all their money, their ID, and their shoes.

    All I can say is that Amy Rising is a walking advertisement for putting women in direct combat roles. And I say that as a member of the gender that can dehumanize the other gender with a single glance. Or, in the case of the Euro guy space agency guy, with a Hawaiian shirt. Ntthing says women and men are equal then a feminist shirtstorm over a guy’s wardrobe with the feminists concluding that they can’t go into the STEM fields because those guys don’t dress themselves sensitively enough.

    Yeah, women in combat! All you lady parts must be proud. More regulation. More fairness.

    Seriously, what the he33?

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  82. Like she doesn’t represent at least half of the low hanging fruit which go into the military as an alternative to welfare. The Roman legions’ magic weapon was the Roman legionary. Our enemies’ secret weapon is the “quality” of our recruits. At least she’s not asking for a sex change.

    nk (dbc370)

  83. nk, I swear to gawd I’m not picking a fight.

    But there was no “secret” to legion success. They trained harder and fought harder.

    OK. That’s the secret. Now you know.

    By the way, we’re closing in on the 72nd Anniversary of Tassaforonga. It wasn’t a good day for the USN. Frankly, we could have used Raizo Tanaka not on the enemy’s side.

    Russel Sydnor Crenshaw Jr. wrote a book about it.

    http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Tassafaronga-Russell-Sydnor-Crenshaw/dp/159114146X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416589320&sr=1-1&keywords=tassafaronga

    He wrote the book as in textbook.

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0870214748/?tag=mh0b-20&hvadid=3485228338&ref=pd_sl_aqvfr1h3p_p

    His South Pacific Destroyer lives on my nightstand along with my Bible.

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/1591141435/?tag=mh0b-20&hvadid=3524705484&ref=pd_sl_3enh5gnpgt_p

    Which makes me just better than you. Give it up.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  84. NN is more about PRIORITIZATION not capacity or bandwidth. You have always been able to buy as much as you wanted…NN it to keep the ISP from giving someone elses bits priority over your bits traveling down same cable. Sort of like what if Ford owned the road to your house and Fords can all go 100 mph, but chevies can only go 50. And since ford owns the street they can all go first at the stop light. Its about ISP forcing you to pay extra to get to the head of the line. hats what Comcast has been doing to Netflix, intentionally slowing NF bits down to cause jittery movies to force NF to pay extra. Never was a capacity issue. :They now moved NF bits to the front of the line. The same thing will happen to all if we lose NN. Your email will be held back, or your kids movie will be slowed down unless you pay up.

    mrbill (b8b5d0)

  85. @mrbill: If I paid Ford to maintain the road to my house (and presumably my neighbourhood), and Chevy owners did *not*, then yeah, you bet I would expect bloody Ford to give me more priority than to some crappy Daewoo Nubira or Lacetti driver *in an area I pay to upkeep*. And Chevy owners could reciprocally expect to get better priority on *their* roads than some lousy Festiva.

    And think about what you’re saying. Email is not a time-sensitive medium (if you’re using it as such, you’re doing it wrong) – it matters not if I get it 5 seconds after the sender’s SMTP server starts sending it out, or 5 minutes later (although, granted, if it was consistently 5 hours later, I’d get very annoyed). This is assuming that ISPs would resort to that in the first place.

    Which they won’t, because email is low-volume (~4% of all Internet traffic, even though ~90% of it is spam). *Google* causes more traffic than all emails put together, and can you imagine what would happen if any ISP throttled Google? They won’t do it; not to email, not to Google, not to any Internet service that currently fits their business model. There is no operational or commercial reason to do so. Consider how much traffic could possibly originate from any single ISP’s network, no matter how large. Do you think any ISP in a free market could long survive if they intentionally throttled EVERY OTHER ISP’s traffic?

    So ISPs respond to market pressure and to the realities (technical or otherwise) of the business in which they operate, just like every other commercial entity. An ISP has no incentive to throttle any traffic just for the heck of it. If they did, people would shuffle off to the next ISP down the street.

    At some point, everyone (or a significant enough number of people) will start using the last-mile connection all the time, both uploads and downloads. At this stage, ISPs will have to seriously start thinking about how the new reality is reflected in their pricing structure.

    Gregory Kong (eccdfe)

  86. I’m coming to this party late and I’m only a lurker here, so I hope you all don’t take too much offense when I disagree with you.

    TANSTAAFL only means that someone has to pay for lunch. It does not dictate who pays, or how much. It does not dictate what you are allowed to order. It does not dictate what restaurant thatyou eat at.

    Net Neutrality means that nobody can hock a loogey in your sandwich.

    Soothsayer (fb474d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7691 secs.