My article about the postal service got an unusually robust amount of play among the blogosphere, so I thought I’d respond to some of the comments.
|By: David Dayen Friday August 3, 2012 10:13 am|
|By: David Dayen Wednesday August 1, 2012 12:40 pm|
The US Postal Service will default on a $5.5 billion prepaid retiree health benefit payment today, and this will surely lead to calls for privatization or mass jobs cuts. But the default concerns the unusual way in which the USPS, unlike virtually any other company in the world, pre-pays its health benefits many years out, and today’s terrible Congress, bent on destroying the government’spostal service, refuses to fix the problem.
|By: David Dayen Tuesday June 26, 2012 3:41 pm|
Throughout the broadband era, the question has been whether the model should look like television, where you negotiate a flat rate and consumption doesn’t matter, or phone service, with its pay-as-you-go model. It looks like something closer to cell phone service, where you pay for a certain amount of coverage, and then must pay more if you go over it, will end up as the ultimate model. But the potential for monopoly pricing and content discrimination is very high.
|By: David Dayen Thursday March 17, 2011 7:12 pm|
It is is a pretty large cap, but it’s clearly designed to profit from high-bandwidth users. There’s nothing inherently wrong with charging bandwidth hogs for their capacity; plenty of businesses charge on such a consumption model. The issue comes when this directly affects the ability of video-streaming sites like Netflix to carry out their business model, because of the cost-prohibitive nature of the service for individual users. Just three hours of HD video on Netflix would wipe out the entire 150GB monthly limit, for example.
|By: David Dayen Friday January 21, 2011 12:35 pm|
You can say that the entire goal of Julius Genachowski’s pretend plan for net neutrality was to devise something that the telecoms could live with, while allowing him to make a defense that the Obama Administration fulfilled its campaign promise of Internet freedom. If they didn’t care about being taken to court over their plans, they would have written something far more air-tight. So instead, they came up with this heavily compromised approach. And Verizon sued them anyway.
|By: David Dayen Tuesday December 21, 2010 3:25 pm|
The FCC officially approved rules that reportedly provide net neutrality protections to wireline Internet but not wireless services, and which include a host of loopholes for both types of service.
|By: David Dayen Wednesday December 1, 2010 1:20 pm|
As if there weren’t enough things going to pot today, the FCC has decided to come out with a proposal to pretend to institute net neutrality regulations.
|By: David Dayen Wednesday September 29, 2010 4:15 pm|
Henry Waxman, the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, just released a statement announcing that he would drop controversial net neutrality legislation, and call on the FCC to use their authority to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service. This is a major victory for net neutrality advocates and a loss for the telecoms.
|By: David Dayen Monday September 27, 2010 3:30 pm|
Rep. Henry Waxman has been trying to enshrine the terrible compromise promulgated by Google and Verizon into law, by pushing a truly terrible bill on broadband that strips the FCC of rulemaking and classification ability, and gives wireless Internet providers carte blanche to discriminate in favor of their products.
|By: David Dayen Friday September 24, 2010 2:10 pm|
Of course, now that we have the next generation of wireless technologies, Google and the telecoms will do their best to control and monetize them. Not only have they persuaded gullible tea partiers to join the cause, taking advantage of baseless fears about government takeovers of the Internet (strike government and replace with corporate and you’re on to something), but they’re getting help from prominent Democrats as well.