amarv1n

how would you envision that working? that'd be interesting.

doesn't the blog post explain why? the tool doesn't aim for inbox zero (seen as unrealistic) and the decay-equation doesn't answer for zero because it's an exponential.

There's a lot I disagree with in Declan's comment.

We disagree on what Congress gave the FCC authority to do. The 1996 Telecom Act clearly classified DSL and dial-up as something called a "telecommunications service" which was subject to a host of rules including nondiscrimination rules. On the other hand, things like Yahoo.com would be "information services," not subject to all those rules.

The FCC, adhering to a deregulatory philosophy, decided not to regulate cable modem service by claiming it was an "information service" through some pretty silly technical analysis. After this decision, the FCC decided that DSL and wireless Internet were also "information services" not automatically subject to the rules set out by Congress. (This is sort of like a financial regulator deciding that mortgage-backed securities are not insurance, even though they look like insurance, just to make sure all the laws applicable to insurance don't apply.)

But... the FCC claimed it could impose net neutrality rules on ISPs even though they were "information services" like Yahoo (or Hacker New or Facebook). A court struck down that attempt and the FCC is on try number 2, and before the same court.

The FCC can properly classify ISP service as a "telecommunications service."

The argument about Congress failing to pass a new statute authorizing net neutrality in 2006 is flawed because courts draw no inference from failed legislation. That's well-known statutory interpretation. Any member could introduce any law and it likely won't get passed; that 1 member's view doesn't have a legal impact.

Finally, the argument that Ed Markey can act whenever there's a NN violation misses the point that the FCC is the enforcement agency that should act. By adopting a law, they are simply setting up that enforcement process for people to file complaints, and the FCC can act. Markey on his own can't enforce anything; he can call hearings, but that's not enforcing an order.

(Also, the commenter is Declan McCulloch of CNET, or his biggest fan, since he links to Declan's articles and is named Declan... I'm Marvin, the author of the Wired.com opinion article. Declan is also quite a "smart fellow" and we get along swell, even if we disagree sometimes and are on opposite coasts.)

property law is definitely a form of regulation. go to a country without regulation, like afghanistan, and you'll see no property law :) there's an entire semester in law school on the intricacies of property law, including fee simple, easements, etc., because property law doesn't come from heaven, it's made by men to regulate our affairs. beyond that, of course, there's regulation of restaurants, securities regulation, regulation of wireless spectrum regarding interference, regulation of satellite orbital slots, regulation of food safety, of drugs, of the legal profession, of the medical profession, etc. often for safety, often because of factors like information asymmetries or high transaction costs. Joseph Stiglitz's writings might interest you on the topic, the stuff he won a Nobel for.

From what I understand, ISPs might be able to win the cat and mouse game, and uncover at least the type of traffic, whether p2p, streaming video etc. Not sure where the cat and mouse are with today's technology.

yeah, we're still waiting for the ruling. the only other thing that happened is that the current FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler made a comment that suggested he opposed net neutrality--arguing that Netflix should be allowed to pay carriers for better service. This framing (assuming companies want to pay, not that telcos are angling to get paid) is the framing placed by telcos, etc. Wheeler was once the head lobbyist for the cable industry, then the wireless telco industry, so there's been some concerns, particularly with those comments. some fear he'll do nothing meaningful if/when we lose the court case. See this ars technica article: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/fcc-chair-isps-sh...

it's from nov.

We regulate car safety even though there is some competition among car companies. If competition did not lead to net neutrality, then we should still mandate it.

Also, it's true, as others have noted, that competition among ISPs won't be enough to ensure net neutrality because there can't be enough competition (either through regulatory capture or natural monopoly economics).

However, even if there were competition, competing ISPs have the economic incentive to discriminate. The economic modeling is available in the work of Barbara van Schewick (she wrote an amazing, and dense, book on net neutrality). So competition would not necessarily solve the issue, as it does not solve things like car safety (or safe housing). I'm a huge fan of free markets, but there are market failures requiring some government intervention in the form of contract law, property law and its exemptions, and regulation in specific situations.

The case centered on the question of whether those companies would have to pay twice--once to buy bandwidth from their own ISP and then again to get through a toll to the end user, paying originating ISP then the terminating one.

They all face the same problem: a captured FCC. I agree on opening up spectrum (spread the gospel!) and wish we could adopt policies against the duopoly like open access to the wires. Yochai Benkler has written on both if you're interested (you're probably aware)

Bhewes may be right--but ESPN is special. Most companies, including YC companies, would have to pay. Only the very very few could charge the carriers.