A couple of weeks ago, Yves Smith’s link roundup included a McClatchy piece about consumers dropping cable TV. She remarked: “Trust me, when you seem more consumers ditching cable, you’ll see the pipeline providers start charging based on how much you download a month.” Caps really aren’t necessary, though; connections are already capped by speed. You can’t download any more than the connection will allow. Consumers should be able to buy a connection at a set price, and the ISP should charge for it based on how much data it could transmit. Charge more for faster speeds, less for slower ones.
|By: David Dayen Thursday August 30, 2012 6:00 am|
To the extent that there’s been any news, Obama said that there will be an Internet freedom plank in the Democratic platform. Republicans actually included a similar plank in THEIR platform, so presumably that’s something that can actually get done legislatively.
|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 Friday November 11, 2011 4:05 pm|
In effect, Wyden would put a hold on the legislation, forcing a series of time-consuming votes to get Protect IP passed. Republicans do this routinely. But with so much on the calendar and not much time to get it all done, this could at least block the bill for the rest of the year.
|By: David Dayen Friday October 28, 2011 5:20 pm|
Why does Bieber even know who Amy Klobuchar is, let alone this animosity? It’s about S.978, the so-called “Protect IP Act,” and the House version, known as the “Stop Online Piracy Act.” Among other things, these bills would make Web streaming of copyrighted work a felony, with a 5-year jail sentence. Because the Beebs got his start by posting his renditions of other people’s songs on YouTube, activists have used him as a rallying point, creating the site FreeBieber.org. Bieber’s lawyers have filed a cease and desist order against the site, incidentally, so Bieber isn’t ALL that committed to Internet freedom.
|By: Teddy Partridge Friday June 24, 2011 4:14 pm|
Having slithered off the GLAAD board of directors amidst other departures announced in that organization’s long-awaited statement, Troup Coronado, Esq., — the AT&T handmaiden who’s the source of all this travail in LBGT organizations that took “stands” on the T-Mobile merger and net neutrality — has left the Equality California Institute Board of Directors as well.
|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: emptywheel Friday January 28, 2011 3:15 pm|
In a press briefing on the situation in Egypt (and probably his last briefing ever), Robert Gibbs made a stunning, but important statement:
We believe in the basket of individual freedoms includes the freedom to access the Internet and the freedom to use social networking sites.
Gibbs did not say (and none of the reporters asked) whether this includes access to the Wikileaks site. Or whether it includes access to the Internet at broadband speeds.
|By: Rashad Robinson Wednesday January 26, 2011 7:15 pm|
No member of Congress is beyond reproach. Every member of Congress should be open scrutiny of their record, and every member should be judged by his or her record. It’s critical to an effective democracy.
Last week, Congressman Bobby Rush’s record of carrying water for big telecom corporations — at the expense of the communities he represents — came back to haunt him when he lost his bid to become Ranking Member of the subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. Rep. Rush had been almost certain to get the position until more than 16,000 ColorOfChange.org members opposed his candidacy because of his record of advocating against net neutrality.
|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.