Comments on: Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering & Internet Price Controls

By: Digital Society » Blog Archive » A meaningful debate on the Google-Verizon Net Neutrality compromise

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:58:20 +0000

[...] on the present Internet and it avoids having to defend the merits of the banning them. Like the hypocrisy on capped or metered Internet service where Net Neutrality proponents actually promoted the idea but later expressed outrage once a [...]

By: Digital Society » Blog Archive » Mobile networks aren’t for Video on Demand

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:23:15 +0000

[...] }); }It was ironic that the same groups like Free Press that were clamoring for usage based Internet service instead [...]

By: Digital Society » Blog Archive » Tiered Pricing & the Free Press

Digital Society » Blog Archive » Tiered Pricing & the Free Press — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:36:31 +0000

[...] (09:23 a.m.): My colleagures remind me of Adam Thierer’s post a year ago on Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering & Internet Price Controls: Indeed, if you look back at what Free Press and their chairman have said about the matter over [...]

By: The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog

The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:03:30 +0000

Why Congestion Pricing for the iPhone & Broadband Makes Sense...

Interesting piece here from Slate's Farhad Manjoo on why AT&T should dump unlimited data plans and end what he calls the "iPhone all-you-can-eat buffet." He notes that: "The typical smartphone customer consumes about 40 to 80 megabytes of wirel...

By: The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog

The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:48:19 +0000

Jenkins on Net Neutrality & Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering...

Holman Jenkins has a stinging editorial in today's Wall Street Journal entitled, "Neutering the 'Net," which borrows a term that my friend Randy May coined long ago to describe what net neutrality regulation will ultimately accomplish. What I like ...

By: The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog

The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:04:22 +0000

The Fiction of Forced Access “Competition” Revisited …

In a past life — that is, from roughly 1994-2004 — I spent an enormous amount of time countering the proponents of “open access” regulation for communications and high-tech networks. My work in that field culminated in the publication of……

By: The Fiction of Forced Access “Competition” Revisited — Technology Liberation Front

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:24:35 +0000

[...] government control over broadband networks by regulating terms of service or even price (see 1, 2, 3, 4). I’ve become quite convinced that we’ll always have these forced access fights [...]

By: George Ou Sets the Record Straight on Bandwidth Usage Caps

George Ou Sets the Record Straight on Bandwidth Usage Caps — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:25:18 +0000

[...] Make sure to read George Ou’s two recent articles over at the Digital Society blog setting the record straight about broadband usage caps: “Putting American Bandwidth Caps into Context” and “We Need to be Reasonable about Broadband Usage Caps.” George is one sharp cookie. I particularly like the way he takes apart Free Press for their hypocrisy on this issue, something I have commented on here before after George brought it to my attention. See: [...]

By: George Ou

George Ou — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:37:40 +0000

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

By: Robb Topolski

Robb Topolski — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:25:44 +0000

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

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

By: George Ou

George Ou — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:41:35 +0000

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

By: George Ou

George Ou — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:37:40 +0000

By: Robb Topolski

Robb Topolski — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:25:44 +0000

By: George Ou

George Ou — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:41:35 +0000

By: George Ou

George Ou — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:37:40 +0000

By: Robb Topolski

Robb Topolski — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:25:44 +0000

By: George Ou

George Ou — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:41:35 +0000

By: Robb Topolski

Robb Topolski — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:41:01 +0000

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

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

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

By: Ryan Radia

Ryan Radia — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:27:44 +0000

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

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:26:43 +0000

Nice deflection, EF, but I don't see how it applies to Chairman Wu's comment: “I don’t quite see [metering] as an outrage, and in fact is probably the fairest system going — though of course the psychology of knowing that you’re paying for bandwidth may change behavior.”

Can you stuff that in a logic burrito and deep-fry it too?

By: Robb Topolski

Robb Topolski — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:32:29 +0000

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

By: Filby

Filby — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:59:14 +0000

You changed "could" to "should". Is it because doing so supported your contortional thinking better?

So think that Free Press was saying something on the order of: "If Comcast wants to (further?) screw people, they could meter usage."? Does anything support your position that this interpretation, contrary to FP's intent in every other position they hold, was what was intended? Does precedence and reason not suggest otherwise?

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:46:26 +0000

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.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:14:40 +0000

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:17:15 +0000

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.