Doing it for network health and usability is perfectly ok. Giving some customers preferential treatment? No.
The practical problem is that those two different motivations can result in the same (perceived) results to the end user. And then they call the FCC and bitch. And then there's an investigation. And then the ISP sure better have created logs for every step taken "for network health and usability" (along with why they took each of those steps) to try to make sure the investigation only results in a time-sinking royal pain in the ass rather than a fine. And everyone's monthly rates go up (again) because of the extra layer of administrative bureaucracy that has to exist to manage all that.
With all the wailing in this thread about non-technical people in the FCC making technically-driven decisions, that's exactly what was happening on a daily basis on the enforcement side. And that's one of the many reasons why letting the government second-guess and micromanage ISPs' business and operational decisions is a fundamentally bad idea.
One more time: "This is common knowledge to anyone with the least shred of intellectual curiosity about the subject." You clearly have none.
This is not a matter of opinion. This dataset has been analyzed in depth by multiple parties that have specifically pointed out pervasive issues with duplicate email addresses, email addresses produced by fake generator websites, etc., and on top of that is publicly downloadable so you can verify for yourself. That is, if you had the smallest modicum of interest in understanding reality rather than tilting at windmills for the sake of fighting.
Bye, troll. Feel free to have the last word since that seems really important to you.
Actually, you (as usual) are the one who can't read, or are just choosing not to so you can keep the trolling alive. I said the 7.5 million were "auto-generated" and "duplicative submissions" -- 7.5 million individual people did not fortuitously type exactly the same set of keystrokes 7.5 million times and then magically select the same bogus email address as did hundreds of others. This is common knowledge to anyone with the least shred of intellectual curiosity about the subject, and Kao doesn't claim otherwise. Your gleeful attack of words you yourself substituted like "fake" and "bots" is purely a straw man tactic, and one you can take elsewhere.
When they hit a steep enough point, there will be a serious discussion of outlawing manual driving so that we can start saving money on all of the vehicle safety equipment such as seat belts, airbags, and bumpers and get rid of speed limits and tailgating laws that reduce drafting efficiency.
We can only hope the first big EMP comes before society makes that many short-sighted utopian decisions in a row so we'll only be partially screwed and will have a chance to recover.
Please show me ANYWHERE in it where it says 7.5 million.
I already told you exactly where it is. If you're really having trouble finding the only chart in the report I possibly could have been referring to, it's the top bar in the graph labeled "Top 20 Net Neutrality 'Campaigns'" (the bar itself labeled "I am in favor of strong"). The scale is on the bottom of the chart.
The 7.5 million is the first (and by far the largest) bar in the graph of duplicative submission "campaigns" in Kao's report. You clearly didn't read it.
I'm pretty if something does not change the numbers of ISPs before or after it's implementation for 2 WHOLE years, it had no real effect.
I have no thoughts one way or the other on your looks, but hopefully they exceed your capacity for critical thinking. Two years might be long enough to make directional judgments about production rates of cat videos or mobile apps, but it's almost certainly not long enough to determine trends for high-inertia businesses like ISPs. Have a good weekend, friend.
But someone sure went to a lot of effort to post over a million anti-Net Neutrality comments to the FCC using stolen identities a bot network.
And there were at least 7.5 million auto-generated pro-NN comments as well. Both sides were replete with folks with far more tech savvy than common sense who thought that the comment mechanism was a ballot box, which, ironically enough, made it significantly harder for the FCC to sort though the mess to find any comments actually providing meaningful information.
That's a pretty interesting shift of position. Netflix was one of the original proponents of NN back when it was still building critical mass and wanted to keep externalizing the bandwidth load it was creating on the internet/ISPs. Yes, whilst advocating, it did what it had to do to make sure it would keep appearing in people's living rooms at acceptable bandwidths. But if you think that Netflix wouldn't rather go back to that externalized model, backed by the full force of government and now having had the chance to bake access costs into its subscription price, I submit you're the delusional one.
Anti-net-neutrality bot comments are acceptable in any form however.
Please provide a source where anyone at the FCC said that anti-NN consumer comments in any form (much less ones from bots) drove their decision to any degree. Thanks.
Compared to the size of the population, isn't that a rounding error at best?
Sorta like a 0.1-0.2mm/month rise is a "rounding error at best" compared to the depth of the ocean, I suppose. Yet we still try to measure it and draw conclusions about the long-term aggregate effect.
These days it only takes about 100k/month to keep up with population growth, so a year at a rate like this and you'd end up with about 1.5 million net new jobs. That's not insignificant.
Saying that NN further entrenches monopolists by increasing barriers to entry can be true no matter how many other barriers to entry there already are. That seems pretty basic.
I read his argument as being that NN rules help entrench incumbents and prevent new entrants. So no, the fact that all new entrants were in place before the 2015 NN rules seems perfectly consistent with his argument. It doesn't really support his argument, either (hard to discern signal from noise in two years), but I guess I'm not seeing why you think it's a smoking gun in the other direction.
Economists don't need to "make sense" of it, they are perfectly familiar with asset bubbles
And their perfect familiarity brings with it perfect understanding that by definition asset bubbles don't "make sense." Sometimes wry humor just doesn't work in writing.
My point is more centered around the fact that doctors are trained to throw a perpetual and profitable treatment at ailments first and foremost.
There are a number of ailments where that point might be plausible. Type 2 diabetes is not one of them. If you have evidence* to the contrary, I'm happy to take a look.
* By "evidence" I mean something other than anecdotes, particularly from sources who also conveniently and selflessly sell books/supplements/etc. to save you from all the Evil Capitalist Pig Doctors and Drug Companies who are just out to get your money.
For years your retirement account earns interest, the government will seize that interest and give it to others. For years your retirement account loses value, that's on you.
You may want to consider the fact that advice is often given for no other reason other than to check a box in the legal liability category.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you really believe that the vast majority of doctors actually want their patients to remain fat and unhealthy. If the latter, that's a pretty twisted worldview.
Where have these "watershed" studies been hiding all these years?
They haven't been hiding. People who don't live their lives viewing the world through conspiracy goggles have been aware of them for a long time. For example, it took me about 38 seconds to pull up this study from 2008 that surveyed other studies from as far back as 1966. The take-home:
Results of these studies indicated that intentional weight loss reduces the risk of developing diabetes in the long term and those participants with T2DM often have reduced clinical symptoms and mortality risk.
Slashdot Mirror
Doing it for network health and usability is perfectly ok. Giving some customers preferential treatment? No.
The practical problem is that those two different motivations can result in the same (perceived) results to the end user. And then they call the FCC and bitch. And then there's an investigation. And then the ISP sure better have created logs for every step taken "for network health and usability" (along with why they took each of those steps) to try to make sure the investigation only results in a time-sinking royal pain in the ass rather than a fine. And everyone's monthly rates go up (again) because of the extra layer of administrative bureaucracy that has to exist to manage all that.
With all the wailing in this thread about non-technical people in the FCC making technically-driven decisions, that's exactly what was happening on a daily basis on the enforcement side. And that's one of the many reasons why letting the government second-guess and micromanage ISPs' business and operational decisions is a fundamentally bad idea.
One more time: "This is common knowledge to anyone with the least shred of intellectual curiosity about the subject." You clearly have none.
This is not a matter of opinion. This dataset has been analyzed in depth by multiple parties that have specifically pointed out pervasive issues with duplicate email addresses, email addresses produced by fake generator websites, etc., and on top of that is publicly downloadable so you can verify for yourself. That is, if you had the smallest modicum of interest in understanding reality rather than tilting at windmills for the sake of fighting.
Bye, troll. Feel free to have the last word since that seems really important to you.
Actually, you (as usual) are the one who can't read, or are just choosing not to so you can keep the trolling alive. I said the 7.5 million were "auto-generated" and "duplicative submissions" -- 7.5 million individual people did not fortuitously type exactly the same set of keystrokes 7.5 million times and then magically select the same bogus email address as did hundreds of others. This is common knowledge to anyone with the least shred of intellectual curiosity about the subject, and Kao doesn't claim otherwise. Your gleeful attack of words you yourself substituted like "fake" and "bots" is purely a straw man tactic, and one you can take elsewhere.
I was referring to the bit about Comcast selling absolute shit service for $200.
When they hit a steep enough point, there will be a serious discussion of outlawing manual driving so that we can start saving money on all of the vehicle safety equipment such as seat belts, airbags, and bumpers and get rid of speed limits and tailgating laws that reduce drafting efficiency.
We can only hope the first big EMP comes before society makes that many short-sighted utopian decisions in a row so we'll only be partially screwed and will have a chance to recover.
The working class isn't going to care about having absolute shit service from Comcast for $200 a month????
I hate to be the one to tell you, but that ship sailed a long time ago.
Please show me ANYWHERE in it where it says 7.5 million.
I already told you exactly where it is. If you're really having trouble finding the only chart in the report I possibly could have been referring to, it's the top bar in the graph labeled "Top 20 Net Neutrality 'Campaigns'" (the bar itself labeled "I am in favor of strong"). The scale is on the bottom of the chart.
The 7.5 million is the first (and by far the largest) bar in the graph of duplicative submission "campaigns" in Kao's report. You clearly didn't read it.
I'm pretty if something does not change the numbers of ISPs before or after it's implementation for 2 WHOLE years, it had no real effect.
I have no thoughts one way or the other on your looks, but hopefully they exceed your capacity for critical thinking. Two years might be long enough to make directional judgments about production rates of cat videos or mobile apps, but it's almost certainly not long enough to determine trends for high-inertia businesses like ISPs. Have a good weekend, friend.
But someone sure went to a lot of effort to post over a million anti-Net Neutrality comments to the FCC using stolen identities a bot network.
And there were at least 7.5 million auto-generated pro-NN comments as well. Both sides were replete with folks with far more tech savvy than common sense who thought that the comment mechanism was a ballot box, which, ironically enough, made it significantly harder for the FCC to sort though the mess to find any comments actually providing meaningful information.
That's a pretty interesting shift of position. Netflix was one of the original proponents of NN back when it was still building critical mass and wanted to keep externalizing the bandwidth load it was creating on the internet/ISPs. Yes, whilst advocating, it did what it had to do to make sure it would keep appearing in people's living rooms at acceptable bandwidths. But if you think that Netflix wouldn't rather go back to that externalized model, backed by the full force of government and now having had the chance to bake access costs into its subscription price, I submit you're the delusional one.
Net neutrality is good for Facebook and Google, and no one else.
You forgot the #1-by-a-mile beneficiary, Netflix.
Anti-net-neutrality bot comments are acceptable in any form however.
Please provide a source where anyone at the FCC said that anti-NN consumer comments in any form (much less ones from bots) drove their decision to any degree. Thanks.
Compared to the size of the population, isn't that a rounding error at best?
Sorta like a 0.1-0.2mm/month rise is a "rounding error at best" compared to the depth of the ocean, I suppose. Yet we still try to measure it and draw conclusions about the long-term aggregate effect.
These days it only takes about 100k/month to keep up with population growth, so a year at a rate like this and you'd end up with about 1.5 million net new jobs. That's not insignificant.
Saying that NN further entrenches monopolists by increasing barriers to entry can be true no matter how many other barriers to entry there already are. That seems pretty basic.
I read his argument as being that NN rules help entrench incumbents and prevent new entrants. So no, the fact that all new entrants were in place before the 2015 NN rules seems perfectly consistent with his argument. It doesn't really support his argument, either (hard to discern signal from noise in two years), but I guess I'm not seeing why you think it's a smoking gun in the other direction.
Economists don't need to "make sense" of it, they are perfectly familiar with asset bubbles
And their perfect familiarity brings with it perfect understanding that by definition asset bubbles don't "make sense." Sometimes wry humor just doesn't work in writing.
the latest tulip bulb variant. Good luck with that.
It is happening on purpose big money keeps buying on low trading volumes, the real trick now is keeping up values whilst they dump bitcoins.
Yeah, I wasn't aware of the low volumes -- that makes perfect sense. Just another confirmation that the downslope is in sight.
So before these rules, many telco networks were created?
All of them, actually.
I think it's beyond question that the irrationality has reached a fever pitch.
My point is more centered around the fact that doctors are trained to throw a perpetual and profitable treatment at ailments first and foremost.
There are a number of ailments where that point might be plausible. Type 2 diabetes is not one of them. If you have evidence* to the contrary, I'm happy to take a look.
* By "evidence" I mean something other than anecdotes, particularly from sources who also conveniently and selflessly sell books/supplements/etc. to save you from all the Evil Capitalist Pig Doctors and Drug Companies who are just out to get your money.
<eom>
For years your retirement account earns interest, the government will seize that interest and give it to others. For years your retirement account loses value, that's on you.
Who wants to play?
You may want to consider the fact that advice is often given for no other reason other than to check a box in the legal liability category.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you really believe that the vast majority of doctors actually want their patients to remain fat and unhealthy. If the latter, that's a pretty twisted worldview.
Where have these "watershed" studies been hiding all these years?
They haven't been hiding. People who don't live their lives viewing the world through conspiracy goggles have been aware of them for a long time. For example, it took me about 38 seconds to pull up this study from 2008 that surveyed other studies from as far back as 1966. The take-home:
Results of these studies indicated that intentional weight loss reduces the risk of developing diabetes in the long term and those participants with T2DM often have reduced clinical symptoms and mortality risk.