Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering & Internet Price Controls

The quote was:

“More importantly, if Comcast is concerned that the collective set of users running P2P applications are affecting quality of service for other users on a cable loop… they could also charge by usage.” (p. 29)

This quote just says IF Comcast was concerned about quality of service THEN they could charge by usage. It was said to disprove Comcast's assertion that they were attacking bittorrent to stop the degradation of service. The quote is silent on whether or not charging for usage is in fact a good or a bad thing.

So for example, if I say:

IF Adam wanted to get high, he should eat a mushroom.

That does not mean that I in fact think that eating a mushroom is a good idea. (although it might be, but there is nothing in that statement that says whether or not that is a good idea)

Another example:

So, IF Adam wants to take logic 101, he could make a cogent argument for the libertarian ideas he apparently espouses.

Talking of hypocrisy, the “Help Desk” has a series of cartoon panels illustrating the flippant shifting positions taken the those in the computer industry. The first panel is here.

Also, what is the basis for even implying that the Free Press should have a “united” front and that the lack of a “united” front implies hypocrisy? If a concept is being publicly debated between individuals (and even corporations), there will be divergent viewpoints.

What I also found interest from the Washington Post article, is that “But the company did not disclose its practices until public interest groups and the video-sharing site complained to the FCC, alleging that the company had set itself up to be a secret gatekeeper of content, picking and choosing which applications to favor.” Anecdotally, I wonder if the opposition to network neutrality is really about allowing companies to be opaque in their business practices so that companies are unhindered by oversight in employing abusive business practices.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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?

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.

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”.