Net Neutrality

Mark Cuban on Net Neutrality: "The Government Will Fuck the Internet Up"

|

Entrepreneur, NBA team owner, and Shark Tank star Mark Cuban has this to say about Net Neutrality and the push to regulate the Internet under Title II of the Telecommunications Act:

"The government will fuck the the Internet up."

He also writes in an email exchange with Business Insider (all typos in originals):

"Since when have incumbent companies been the mainstays for multiple generations?" 

[Cuban] believes that startups blow up older companies despite an unregulated internet that allows internet providers to prioritize certain traffic streams. 

Overall, he thinks the current debate is too narrow and short sighted.

"There will be so much competition from all the enhancements to wireless that incumbent ISPs will have to spent their time fighting cord cutting," he said.

Read more.

A huge Twitter user, Cuban also recently tweeted the following (whole feed here):

The promise of the net is not content. Its high speed apps that chang healthcare, medicine, transportation, safety and more…

the best is yet to come on the net, and we cant hold it back because we want to make sure we can watch TV shows.We need fast lanes…

Blocking access is different animal. Where have you seen it happen?

In addition to a heavy dose of brio, Cuban brings a future orientation that is typically lacking in discussions of Net Neutrality, Title II reclassification, and related issues. It's an accident that cable companies morphed into ISPs (and it's no accident that they were once given monopolies by money-grubbing municipalities). There's no reason to believe that cable, much less fiber, will be the way the internet is delivered even in the near future, much less the medium future.

And I think Cuban, who made his big money from the sale of Broadcast.com about 10,000 years ago (in internet time) is right to emphasize that what we think of as central now (video streaming! Netflix vs. Comcast! torrenting!) will be trifling in the future.

The FCC specifically and governments generally have never been great at managing innovation. It works better when they stand aside and let it happen, as mostly happened with regard to the internet and web in the 1990s. Mostly, though not always: recall bipartisan attempts to place backdoors for easy spying in all sorts of telecom hardware and software, classifying encryption as munitions, and trying to regulate the internet in the name of protecting kids from child predators. The only thing that prevented that last bit from happening was a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling that extended toothsome First Amendment protections to the internet.

Net Neutrality and Title II reclassification are solutions to problems (blocking of sites! fast lanes that prevent new services from coming to market!) that don't yet exist. Each "solution" gives the same government that is godawful at respecting privacy rights more power over the most revolutionary means of communication since the printing press. Really not a good idea from just about any perspective.

In 2010, Reason TV asked, "Will Net Neutrality Save the Internet?"

NEXT: Deadline Today! Intern at Reason This Spring.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yes but what do fickle mammals who came of age at the turn of the century think?

    1. Free the internet, man!

    2. We should conduct a poll!

      1. I’m available

        1. As am I! Here’s the plan: we’ll each answer one or two questions with three poorly-clarified options, and then we’ll use the results to represent the opinions of all millennials.

          1. Sounds good. We just need Emily Ekins to get on board.

            1. You’d think that someone at Reason would have thought of this already.

              1. What are you suggesting about our comrades-in-liberty?

                1. You mean millennials, right?

                  1. No, the staff of Reason. They are your comrades-in-liberty as well.

                  2. NO! NOBODY cares what millenials think.

                    Or Reason Staffers either!

                    1. Well, Reason’s output now consists of opinion pieces by their staffers and polls of millenials. It must feel awful.

                    2. We don’t care, and yet we come here, read the articles, and read and respond to comments by millennials. Children.

          2. Here’s the plan: we’ll each answer one or two questions with three poorly-clarified options, and then we’ll use the results to represent the opinions of all millennials.

            Not enough Facebook.

            1. I killed my Facebook several months ago, so… you’re on your own with all that.

              1. I had Facebook for one month after grad school. Drove me nuts. It’s like a second job I wasn’t getting paid for.

                1. I just have a fake name account so I can look at other people’s stuff occasionally. But I almost never do because it mostly just makes me want to murder my friends.

              2. A fellow apostate from the Facebook hive!

                I found the thing useful in college when I was meeting a hell of a lot of people I wanted to be able to sorta keep track of, but when it transformed into a basic requirement for most social interaction I just shut it down and never looked back.

                This is apparently an unforgivable sin in some circles. My sister says if she was dating a guy who didn’t have a Facebook she’d break up with him–apparently it’s weird.

                1. Well, I’ve heard it’s not official until it’s “Facebook-official.”

                  My experience was similar–got it to help stay in touch with family and friends who didn’t live nearby. Then it turned into something pretty omnipresent: Find us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter!, etc. And I basically flipped it the double-bird and shut it down.

                  Also, I got divorced and didn’t want to deal with the ensuing fall-out and drama.

                  1. I was on Facebook for about a month when it was a college-only thing, and thought it was worthless.

                    So I used Facebook before it was cool and dropped it when it got corporate. My millennial cred is unimpeachable.

              3. Use reddit instead.

              4. Why would you do that? Now the NSA will have to work a little to know all there is to know about you.

    3. They think they should always have the max “up to” speed 24/7/365 regardless of what website or service they are using.

      Oh, and they think that they shouldn’t have to pay much for this level of service.

      And that the corporations who provide them this very valuable and near-essential service are evil.

      1. I don’t mind the variable max speed, what I would like is a minimum (non-zero) speed specified in my SLA and treated like a contract.

        But beyond adjudication of contract, I don’t want the government meddling in it.

        1. This.

          “Up to” is bullshit.

          1. Oh, I agree.

            Not sure how a “last mile” provider can guarantee a minimum speed to access every inch of the internet, though.

            1. Don’t guarantee anything beyond connectivity, then?

              1. Isn’t that what “up to” means?

          2. “Up to” is a simplification of the arrangement you have, which is only partly due to the laws.

            The physical reality of the Internet makes it impossible to deliver guaranteed speeds to any site at any time. The best they can hope to do is make specific arrangements with certain sites for certain speeds at certain times (or at least for a certain percentage of the time).

            Unfortunately, I think the franchise agreements (many of which have language that is decades old) limit the ability of the cable ISPs from delivering more specific promises. I can definitely see a market for “dedicated streaming plans” at e.g. 10, 20, or 30 Mbps for 1, 2, or 3 simultaneous devices, respectively. Full 1080p HD with surround sound can be streamed at around 6-8Mbps.

            However, to do that effectively would require the sort of arrangements between ISPs, infrastructure providers, and content providers that net neutrality advocates are trying to prevent. It is not just about the amount of bandwidth to your door, it’s also about the prioritization and management of traffic across the entire path.

            1. Yes. I could imagine someone paying an additional fee for guarenteed streaming video performance, but in order for that to happen, Comcast would have to not only prioritize video packets it would also have to have agreements with all of it’s partners to prioritize video packets, and that they would likewise establish agreements to prioritize video packets all the way through to the servers hosting the content. That’s exactyl what Net neutrality advocates are fighting.

              Many people seems to be supporting net neutrality thinking that it prevents Comcast from throttling Netflix. It might do that, but it also prevents Comcast from making Netflix, or any other streaming video service run reliably.

              Ironically, that actually IMPROVES Comcast’s market position relative to netflix, because Comcast’s content is delivered over traditional cable, not over TCP/IP. Comcast’s cable TV will always run smoothly, regardless of whether there are net neutrality agreements or not. Netflix won’t. It will always depend on when and where there are traffic bottlenecks. Thus Net Neutrality actually gives Comcast a market advantage.

        2. Agreed UnCivilServant.

      2. Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

    4. I want my intertubes like I like my women fair and proportionate./

      1. I want my intertubes like I like my women, cheap and easy.

  2. BUT sputter… sputter… COMCAST!

    /.

    1. Isn’t comcast just a subsidiary of local governments?

      1. I actually had someone the other day tell me that they are concerned about net neutrality because “Comcast donates so much money to right wing/tea party groups.”

        sigh.

        1. Do they? I’d think they would be left-leaning in their donations.

          1. @HeteroPatriarch

            lol.

            1. Check again. They gave $2.1M to the GOP and $2.3 to the Dems.

              Top candidates are Boehner, Markey, McConnell, and Pryor. Boehner got more than any other individual, though.

              There’s not a whiff of anything Tea Party scented in that summary. Quite the opposite.

              1. I read it. I was laughing at the fact that he would believe that an entity as large as Comcast would invest in political view that would lead to a dismantling in their competitive advantage.

                1. Ah.

        2. right wing/tea party groups.

          It’s only “fair” if proggies control the intertubes.

        3. What a macaroon. Comcast is a Obama supporter.

      2. NO DEY IS UNFETERRED LAZY FAIR CATPALISM

        1. Polutix akording 2 lulzcatz. We can has libertaryun now?

  3. In addition to a heavy dose of brio, Cuban brings

    Read this as “a heavy dose of bro.” Probably still true.

    1. The one true source of broscience

      1. That stuff is gold plated gold.

    2. I read it as “a heavy dose of brie”.

      *** gets lunch ***

  4. I so love seeing tech progtards righteously misunderstand the arguments against treating the internet as a public utility. Sometimes I pretend to be impressed by their economic prowess so that they feel they are doing well. It’s adorable.

    1. Then this is for you

      There is little difference between dial up and broadband internet access.
      They both require massive connections to other, unrelated networks – so uniformity in protocals.

      The both must also connect to human interfaces that are always made by a third party, so again, uniformity of protocals.

      They provide something that is in effect a commodity measured pretty much entirety by reliability and ‘size of the pipe’. You don’t get different flavors, etc.

      We are using it to get to places we want to get to, not for itself. Just like any other utility.

      Broadband is obviously a utility and should be treated as one.

      The attempt to charge people on both ends is an abuse of power. When I buy internet, I expect to get the full speed I contracted for, without regard to whomever I am connecting to at the other end.

      1. “The attempt to charge people on both ends is an abuse of power.”
        What “power”?

        “When I buy internet, I expect to get the full speed I contracted for, without regard to whomever I am connecting to at the other end.”
        Well, make sure you contract (and pay) for that service. Other than that, STFU.

        (not you, SN, the idjit who wrote that)

      2. IF you want to be taken seriously, don’t misspell repeatedly important concepts like “protocols”.

        They provide something that is in effect a commodity measured pretty much entirety by reliability and ‘size of the pipe’

        Reliability (up time from their servers to you) isn’t really an issue.

        Size of the pipe is only half the equation for speed of throughput. The other half is demand or volume. That’s what fast lanes, and prioritization etc. are managing for.

        As usual with proggies, they fail to understand that “equality” drives everything to the bottom, not the top. They have this bizarre idea that equality means everybody lives in a mansion, drives a Ferrari, and vacations in Vail (or, has a T3 line running to their house).

        In the real world, equality means everyone lives in mud huts and has a phone modem.

        1. In the real world, equality means everyone lives in mud huts and has a phone modem.

          Except for those who enforce the equality.

        2. I’ve yet to get any of them to acknowledge that they have even the slightest idea how ISPs connect to other ISPs.

          Talking about concepts like paid vs. unpaid peering and the responsibilities that the parties have, especially with the latter, gets a lot of comments about how I need to speak English.

          Analogies involving roads gets comments about obsessiveness or how it’s too long.

          They don’t understand that this whole debate has come up because of maybe a dozen content providers who originate/generate MASSIVE amounts of traffic and were content to buy access from less expensive providers and seriously abuse the equal traffic provisions of Settlement Free Interconnect (unpaid peering).

          In their mind, ISPs should in/voluntarily invest tons of money to expand the capacity of their intercarrier links almost solely to benefit the paying customer of ANOTHER ISP.

          1. In their mind, ISPs should in/voluntarily invest tons of money to expand the capacity of their intercarrier links almost solely to benefit the paying customer of ANOTHER ISP.

            Thank you.
            So it’s not just about Comcast customer’s watching Netflix and hogging bandwidth used by other netflix customers. it’s about Cox customers over in another state using Netflix and hogging bandwidth that has to pass through Comcast’s pipes. Thereby making the user experience worse for Comcast’s paying customers.

  5. your product fails to solve a problem that doesn’t even exist and you’ve consistently demonstrated the ability to make anything worse and for that reason, I’m out.

    1. Hey! Give ’em one more chance! Just one…

    2. When I was just a young lady (’cause I’m a spinster now), the most liberal person I’ve ever known tried to break down the two different parties to me as he saw them:

      Republicans: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

      Democrats: if it isn’t broke, how can we make it better?

      Man… I still hate that guy. He was such a smug shit.

      1. The most liberal person you’ve ever known actually liked the Democrats?

        1. Well, we were both

          1. Derp.

            We were both

            1. Goddammit. What the actual fuck?

              We were both younger than 18 and in high school. To be completely fair, I thought I liked the Republicans.

              1. I was a big neocon in high school. Of course my solution to peace in the Mideast was to tactically nuke the entire place.

                1. Sounds like we would have gotten along pretty well.

                2. Cytotoxic and a few other commenters still seem to believe this.

                3. Neutron bomb

                  1. Finally someone is talking some sense in this thread.

                4. So what’s the problem with that?

          2. Never met a Naderite or a Kucinich-type?

            1. My roommate loved Zucchini.

              1. best autocorrect ever.

                1. Zucchini is actually something I could get behind. Zucchini-Eggplant 2016! Vote Ratatouille because America needs a fresh start.

                  1. NO!

                    Eggplant is an abomination, and Zucchini is only good as bread!

                    1. Eggplant is an abomination

                      You need it properly parmed with Sunday gravy.

                    2. Yeah. I’ve never been a fan of eggplant, but I recently made some eggplant parmesan with an eggplant I grew (they look really cool even if you don’t like them) and it was really good.

                  2. The Zucchhini-Eggplant ticket will squash their opponents.

      2. Democrats: if it isn’t broke, how can we make it better?

        Answer: You can’t. Your toolbox consists entirely of sledgehammers. You can improve only things that would be improved by being hammered into rubble.

        1. good intentions + government = the road to hell

        2. Sometimes to create, one must first destroy.

          1. If one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic, narrow view of the Republicans.

            1. I stay away from that Sith shit.

              1. Jedi, Sith… neither of them have a philosophy I can really get behind.

                At least the Sith had principles when Darth Bane was running things–rule of two and all that.

                1. Through power, I gain victory.

                  Now that is something politicians could get behind!

        3. This is a terrific way to put it.

      3. Meh… that isn’t bad. In college I liked going to various political debate clubs and seeing if I could convince people of both stripes to be for forced sterilization. It quite eye opening

        1. Nice.

          I’m beginning to think I did college all wrong.

      4. Republicans: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

        Democrats: if it isn’t broke, how can we make it better?

        Well, could be a lot worse. I prefer PJ O’Rourke’s formulation:
        The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.

        1. Seems to me it’s the Democrats who’ve proved that government doesn’t work after promising that it will. Then Republicans are elected because what Democrats promised, wasn’t delivered. The Republicans can’t make government work either, but other than claiming they can build nations, what claims have Republicans made that government does work?

          You lack the knowledge that Harry Brown provides in his book “Why Government Doesn’t Work.”

          The way I see it, govenrment is nothing but the use of force against citizens. And given a monopoly on the use of force (including the ability to take much of people’s money from them), government doesn’t need to work, and so they’ve taken all they can get away with and will continue to do so until voters object.

    3. Sounds like we need Colonel Cargill to be put in charge of the internet.

      “Colonel Cargill was so awful a marketing executive that his services were much sought after by firms eager to establish losses for tax purposes. His prices were high, for failure often did not come easily. He had to start at the top and work his way down, and with sympathetic friends in Washington, losing money was no simple matter. It took months of hard work and careful misplanning. A person misplaced, disorganized, miscalculated, overlooked everything and open every loophole, and just when he thought he had it made, the government gave him a lake or a forest or an oilfield and spoiled everything. Even with such handicaps, Colonel Cargill could be relied on to run the most prosperous enterprise into the ground. He was a self-made man who owed his lack of success to nobody.”

      http://www.goodreads.com/quote…..e-that-his

  6. Designing an Internet with service that never degrades at peak times is like designing a highway system that never has traffic jams.

    1. Hey! If we used to put a man on the moon ….

    2. Designing an Internet with service that never degrades at peak times is like designing a highway system that never has traffic jams.

      The design can be done, it’s the implementation that is impossible. I mean, direct peer-to-peer links, or a dedicated backbone per user is a design that would work, but it is absurdly cost-prohibitive and downright stupid.

      1. And there isn’t the task of filling out all the 27B-6 forms.

      2. Even that wouldn’t work because there is never enough of anything to satisfy all the people who want it. If you increase the supply of something, demand will grow just as much. Even if you took this absurdly expensive approach you’d find that people would compensate in short order and still degrade service at times.

        The internet succumbs to market forces just like everything else.

      3. It’s more complicated than that. Even if you had direct links to the servers on the internet, multiple users of that server will slow down the rate at which you get your data even if everyone is using their own physical link. This is because that server will be busy handling all those other requests in addition to yours.

  7. OT: Just heard the airbaggers must testify to congress under oath.

    I trust they’re behind Hillary and GrubahHAHAHAHA! Sorry, couldn’t quite get it out.

    1. airbaggers?

      Link or further explanation requested.

  8. As a very left-wing libertarian borderline Progressive, I hate to say this, but I have to agree that the Government will totally FUCK UP the Internet.

    Not because the government is incapable of doing a decent job. But because the telecom companies and their stooges will do their best to sabotage any attempts at the government cutting them out. I learned this and witnessed this with the ACA.

    That said, I’d rather wait for a White Male President to apply the regulations. At least congress would somewhat cooperate.

    What i don’t want to see is my INTERNET BILL look like my Cable TV Bill where I’ll be nickle/dimed for YOUTUBE, etc.

    1. “Oh, *that*? It’s your “Middle East Kinetic Action Surcharge.”

    2. Not because the government is incapable of doing a decent job.

      “Everything government touches turns to crap.” – Ringo Starr

      But because the telecom companies and their stooges will do their best to sabotage any attempts at the government cutting them out. I learned this and witnessed this with the ACA.

      Really. So the problems with the UCA (Unaffordable Care Act) are all a result of the corporations and free markets. Mm hm. Sure. Whatever. Dumbass.

      1. Ringo Starr is certainly the person we want to quote on complex systems and human society. Thanks!

        1. Government doesn’t equal society retard.

          1. No, but for some people it’s their entire world.

          2. “Government doesn’t equal society retard”

            Please list the decent songs Ringo has written.

            1. Please list the relevant comments craiginmass has made.

              1. …?

        2. Ringo is more qualified than Obama and most of the representatives we have in government. Unlike most of them, he became rich by selling stuff to willing buyers in a free market where they weren’t forced to buy his product, and where government didn’t limit his competition.

          Our reps on the other hand, get rich by selling government favors that shouldn’t be sold as they are selling us out. Like the favor of forcing us to buy medical insurance from their 1% rich friends who own them, and who send them campaign cash and other favors like well paid seats on the board of directors for their relatives.

    3. You can always cancel your cable and Internet and make it real simple for you and leave the rest of us alone.

    4. Yes, the problem with the ACA is with the insurance companies, not with the people who wrote the bill.

      Whatever…moron.

    5. Re: Alice Bowie,

      […]I have to agree that the Government will totally FUCK UP the Internet.

      Not because the government is incapable of doing a decent job[…]

      I don’t understand. Do you mean you think the government is capable of doing a decent job of fucking up the internet or do you mean that the government is capable of doing a decent job of not fucking it up?

      I’m only following the order of your sentences to get to the logic behind them.

      because the telecom companies and their stooges will do their best to sabotage any attempts at the government cutting them out.

      That sounds too much like a Scooby-Doo excuse: “And it would’ve worked, too, if it weren’t for these meddling telecom companies!”

    6. You do realize that the ACA was fucked up by the retarded politicians who crafted and signed it right?

      1. No.

        That truism isn’t recognized because that would rewuire some self realization.

    7. As a very left-wing libertarian borderline Progressive

      Not because the government is incapable of doing a decent job.

      No, they are certainly incapable of doing a decent job. I would cite examples, but it wouldn’t matter to you.

      White Male President

      C’mon. The “race” card is SO 2012.

      nickle/dimed for YOUTUBE

      Youtube is free. And, as it currently works, you have a monthly bill for your internet connection. “Paying for services provided by a business in a voluntary transaction”: What do those words mean?

      1. I for one, would like examples of government doing a “good” job.

        Preferably an example where a government employee doesn’t harm others by taking their money to do it. But then, I don’t know of any government employee that isn’t being paid by the fruits of non-government workers’ labor taken from them via the force of government.

        All government action harms someone. That’s why it should be limited to dealing with situations, where someone has already harmed someone else first.

        Most of what government does these days isn’t handling crime: it just makes voluntary transactions not involving the use of force or harming anyone, illegal. Like buying your old insurance plan that Obama and the Democrats promised you could keep. Something that if an insurance company executive promised and failed to deliver, he’d be prosecuted by government and would go to jail for fraud. So much for government following the law, and protecting our lives, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness (unless you’re a politician, government bureaucrat, or the 1% rich owner of an insurance company that Obama has approved – then you benefit from government use of force).

    8. You have at your disposal an entire internet cataloging decades of excuses for government regulatory failures, and the one you go with is kkkorporations sabotaging the noble president out of racism? That one might work for casually badmouthing Republicans while you’re in line at the natural foods co-op, but we expect better here.

      1. Because Alice really wants single payer. Any other explanation for the failure of the ACA would undermine that goal.

        1. But racist corporations? Why not blame to kulaks or the Jewish bankers, or at least the greedy doctors and insurance companies? It’s just lazy.

          1. Corporations are the modern left’s boogieman.

            1. They are half of the crony capitalist kleptocracy we’re trying to fight off today, so they’re not a completely imaginary threat. You could make some really plausible excuses using them, and some might even be a little right. It’s the racist part that I’m objecting to.

              That and the sabotage. I guess it does require some extraordinary explanation as to why these heartless corporations that would sell their grandmothers for an extra buck suddenly are willing to stop acting in their best interests. Or did they drop the story that the ACA will only help the medical industry’s financials?

              1. “They are half of the crony capitalist kleptocracy we’re trying to fight off today, so they’re not a completely imaginary threat. ”

                The vast majority of corporations are mom and pop family businesses trying to fight off tort lawyers with slip and fall artists and SJWs for clients.

    9. You do know that Progressivism is some truly evil shit?

    10. Re-check your cable bill. Those nickel and dime fees are all fees or taxes tacked on by the state or the Fed, not the cable company.

      1. Obamaphones for everyone! so Mexican Slim can keep his #1 spot on the richest man list.

    11. “Government will totally FUCK UP the Internet. …because the telecom companies … will do their best to sabotage any attempts at the govenrment cutting them out.”

      Considering the telecom companies have invested billions of dollars of their stockholder’s money, for which those stockholders want a return, why shouldn’t the telecom companies try to stop the government from putting them out of business in favor of the government doing the job?

      By the way, if you have a 401K you are likely part owner of a one or more ISP or Cable company.

      But you can have government providing your internet service, and NOW. Just move to Cuba or North Korea where all internet service is provided by the government, except for those illegally accessing it via satellite.

    12. Alice that is an ignorant comment. The government screwed up the ACA on their own. With the help of an arrogant jerk like Gruber.

      And your implying that congress won’t cooperate with Obama because he is black makes you are racist moron. They won’t cooperate with him because he is a fool.

  9. Isn’t comcast just a subsidiary of local governments?

    Are you sure you don’t have that backwards?

  10. Designing an Internet with service that never degrades at peak times is like designing a highway system that never has traffic jams.

    Widen I-90 across Montana and South Dakota to ten lanes, just in case.

    1. Noooooooooooo… I like my little two-lane highways with no shoulders!

      1. I want a road with shoulders.

    2. Even then someone would jackknife a big rig every now and then and muck things up.

  11. I worked this issue for years in D.C. before quitting the entire city. The “stifling innovation” argument is utter bullshit. This is little more than a fight over whose content provider service (or preferred provider) gets used. Comcast are a bunch of shits with gubmint mini-opolies but they are shits who have invested billions in infrastructure and logically want to leverage that investment to promote their own or commercial partner content delivery services. Amazon/Netflix are shits because they want to freeload on someone else’s investment. This is nothing but using government to pick winners. I hope Cuban is right that wireless broadband breaks the local government lock but I’m sure those leeches – with the help of the FCC – will find ways to drag it down to mediocrity.

    1. The problem with wireless is getting new devices certified by the FCC. I used to work for company that had created a cottage industry in getting other manufacturers devices certified by the FCC.

      The process is so byzantine that other companies were willing to pay them to go through the process for them. Knowing what and when to file with the FCC is worth a lot of dollars to people who don’t have to do it all the time.

      1. Not to mention spectrum auctions. What a shitshow. I imagine (hope?) this has changed in the last six years but I can remember a certain fairly large wireless company essentially squatting on a swath of spectrum that was supposed to be turned over to first-responders all so the company didn’t have to jump into the multi-billion dollar bidding with their other competitors.

    2. Wireless broadband isn’t going to happen. Fine for surfing web pages, but there’s no way it can sustain an entire neighborhood all trying to watch Netflix after dinner.

      If you really want better internet, separate the carriers from the last mile infrastructure. If an ISP just needs to get fiber to a central office to pick up a city’s worth of customers, then you’ll see real competition.

      1. Agree. You know what’s truly pathetic though? After dinner my phone is faster than my Comcast connection. (facepalm)

        1. their customers hating them only enough to continue subscribing isn’t a national problem

          1. I really wanted to pull the plug and just do broadband and Aereo. SCOTUS crushed the Aereo part of that.

            1. Hi Neighbor.

              I use Clear Wireless down here in Clear Lake and it decent at $50 a month.

        2. See this is why torrenting bootlegged video is superior to Netflix. You can download at non-peak hours, and then relax in the eveing and watch lag-free.

      2. If you really want better internet, separate the carriers from the last mile infrastructure.

        Bingo.
        Break up the local cable monopolies, so all they do is connect the last mile.
        Then you can get lots of competition between local carriers, and none of them have to deal with managing traffic congestion on the back bone, or have any conflicts of interest between their own content and internet content.
        Then leave the people running the backbone networks alone to deal with managing traffic to deliver content as efficiently as possible.

      3. I don’t know, bro. Hughesnet, for example is ten times as fast as it was only 10 years ago.

        If there’s enough demand for an alternative to cable companies it will happen. But if the government gets control then it won’t happen. It really is that simple.

        1. This is true. But of course, the government already IS involved via local franchise agreements.
          Local government are already limiting the number of cable operators (and thus, effectively, broadband ISPs) allowed in a given area.

  12. Well, shriek is now caught on the horns of a dilemma – who does he he follow – the Lightworker or Cuban?

    1. Considering how far he has Obama’s cock down his non-sentient throat, it’s not even a contest.

  13. What’s hilarious, and sad, to me is that if any of the fucking retarded shits on reddit and twitter and facebook had been alive in the 90’s, they’d know that what Cuban says is true. I mean, AOL dial-up used to be the best thing going for christ’s sake.

    1. I remember getting an AOL disc in the mailbox every other day.

      LOL good times.

  14. “Blocking access is different animal. Where have you seen it happen?”

    Umm… Every day? When is there NOT a story in the news about cable companies using their local monopolies to extort content providers?

    The funny thing is that it’s penny-ante sites like this that will be on the “Fuck you, pay me” list when the ISPs start extorting. I’m not worried about Google and Netflix, they have the cash… Does Reason?

    1. This war is Google and Netflix vs. Comcast and AT&T.

      What keeps the bandwidth providers from tightening down too much is that they’re unambiguously terrible at content and pretty much every aspect of the customer experience. They can’t make it without content providers any more than a freight company can make do by shipping cartons full of packing peanuts.

      As always, a lack of net neutrality yields a market clearing price via Coasian bargaining. Net neutrality laws are just Coasian bargaining by other means.

      1. Net Neutrality laws are “look here I’ve got this thuggish looking man and he will kneecap you if you don’t give me the price I want.”

    2. And where do the cable companies get their monopolies from?

      I’m surprised you can feed yourself if you’re this stupid.

      1. “And where do the cable companies get their monopolies from?”

        I think they get it from diapers. 100% of cable company execs were in diapers.

        Or, they get it from water. Again, all of them have had water.

        1. This is the dumbest thing I’ve seen you post. You’re a better troll than that.

          1. “This is the dumbest thing I’ve seen you post. You’re a better troll than that.”

            It makes just as much sense as the Libertarian Logic which states that because Gubment didn’t regulate Comcast heavily enough we should blame the current situation on Gubment.

            So called Modern Libertarians have figured out the perfect formula for damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

            In this case, they don’t give the due credit to the government for both creating and furthering the internet. Fact. I was there.

            Yet they now act as if they were born with the net as a Libertarian Miracle and God Forbid the Gubment step in and fuck up this “natural right” they have….

            Now that…..is dumb and dumber.

            You assignment, if you so take it, is to actually look up what Al Gore did for the internet and report back. Also look up what the Father of the Internet said about Gore’s contribution.

            You might learn something. Everyone has to start somewhere. Going through life fat, drunk and stupid is no way to……prosper
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK-Dqj4fHmM

            1. Yup Al Gore. A modern day Eli Whitney.

              His greatest invention of all, even more so than man made global warming, is building a web site so he could by carbon credita from himself so his mansions and jet are carbon netural.

              I wnoder how much money he made off of selling carbon credits to himself?

            2. ?? Do you believe the garbage you just wrote? The Government (military) funded colleges and universities to develop what has become the internet. Gore voted to help fund it.

              Neither the government or Gore “created” the internet.

        2. This is nonsensical even for you.

      2. Yes – let’s smash the monopolies! …But who in power is proposing this?

        All I see is politicians backing one team of oligarchs or the other.

    3. I have literally not read or seen one story about telecom companies blocking access to a site. Except for in China and North Korea. Gee, what do those two places have in common.

      (Oh, and fighting with content providers IS NOT blocking access.)

      1. “Except for in China and Korea. Gee, what do those two places have in common.”

        Faster internet?

        1. You’ve never been to China, I see.

          Not only is the internet only so-so there, its also slowed down by government agents literally having to okay which sites you see in real time.

          Korea also bans porn.

          But let’s talk about Korea. So many people get so jelly about Korean internet speeds. They think that somehow we could have those, except ATT & comcast are meanies.

          Well, what’s stopping Korea Telecom from coming over to America and undercutting Comcast, ATT, etc.?

          They never answer that question. I guess Koreans don’t like money, or exporting products to America, or something.

    4. I interpret (perhaps incorrectly) “blocking access” to mean based on the content of the information. Pro-NetNeu people scream about how First Amendment rights will be trampled because large corporations will be all corporashunny and stifle viewpoints. I think there have been like five cases of that and the FCC fined the shit out of those accused. Being able to stream in HD on someone else’s pipes isn’t a First Amendment issue, IMO. It’s freeloading.

      General web browsing/reading (like on Reason or HuffPo) is never going to be deliberately degraded because it’s not bandwidth heavy and will cause a consumer backlash.

      1. Under net neutrality there will be restrictions on content put in place.

        Once it’s a utility, I guarantee that the government will try to regulate political speech on the internet. There is no universe in which they would not want to do that.

        1. Yeah, I suppose I should’ve qualified that “…browsing/reading…is never going to be degraded…” comment with “unless NN passes and then you can welcome in a glorious new era of the Fairness Doctrine…and that’s if we’re lucky.”

        2. They only want to stop anti-competitive practices.

          …and track down death threats against women. But what kind of terrible person wouldn’t want the FCC to do that?

          Oh, that? It’s just the camel’s nose. Stop freaking out, you’re acting like it’s a whole camel.

          1. Is this camel wearing a leather jacket and sunglasses? If so, we should feel safe. The gubmint already banned him. You know, for the children.

        3. OF COURSE! They’ll start with “hate speech” and “bullying” then move on down the list. If 4Chan or Reddit think there’s a shot in hell they’ll survive an FCC regulated internet they have their heads up their collective asses.

          1. And they do.

            It really does break down to them wanting to be able to stream tv, download a pirated movie, and play WoW (or whatever) without paying extra for it. And fuck anyone else whose connection is slowed down because of them.

            1. The first thing that is going to get throttled if the FCC gains control of the internet is pirated movie content.

              The studios will sue them if they don’t do it.

        4. You are absolutely correct. Let the camels nose in the tent and soon you are living with camels. Too many fools supporting net neutrality don’t understand that.

    5. they have the cash… Does Reason?

      Between the year end donation drive, all the ads and the Newsmax crap they should be good. Not to mention the Kochs.

    6. Seriously? Text content doesn’t use the kind of bandwidth that it would be worth bothering.

    7. ” I’m not worried about Google and Netflix, they have the cash… Does Reason?”

      Since Reason is supposedly owned by those evil Koch brothers they might be able to squeak by.

  15. they can’t build a website, but they can make the internet fairer.

    1. Those who can, do. Those who can’t…regulate.

  16. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  17. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  18. My analogy for this is as follows:

    You have a hub/station and build roads to your neighbors.
    Your distant neighbor does the same.

    You and your distant neighbor than decide to build a large toll free road between each other’s stations that can be used by your respective connected neighbors with the understanding that each side won’t send much more traffic towards the other than they are sent.

    At some point your distant neighbor connects a large road to their station with a 3rd distant neighbor.

    After a while you notice that incoming traffic to your station is something like 10 times more than outbound and nearly all is coming from that 3rd neighbor. Why does that 3rd neighbor get a free ride on the road between you and your neighbor #2.

    You can:
    -begin turning some of #3’s traffic back,
    -charging #3 to access your station
    -dissolve the free road agreement and begin charging your neighbor #2 for access to your station
    -demand that #3 builds a road directly to your station if they wish to direct this much traffic towards your neighbors.

    If you can’t turn them around (throttling), charge them more, don’t want to hurt #2’s neighbors by dissolving the free road agreement, and #3 has refused to build a road directly to you, you now have an actual or inevitable congestion problem with all this incoming traffic.

    1. You might find that it’s not worth it to expand your station and/or road just so that #3 can have easy unpaid access to your station and neighbors, thus you now have slow access to your station and your neighbors suffer.

    2. maybe you need to charge your neighbors more since they keep asking guy #3 to send traffic their way.

      1. That can work too, but then we end up with whining about escalating internet prices and/or the complaints that the rich shouldn’t be the only ones to get good internet access.

        If the internet is treated as a utility, you can be that access for at least some plans will be metered and the people who pick those plans will be be on the new shrieking about their bill similar to how people chose the low cost cell phone plans and complained that they had to be expensive overage charges.

        1. That can work too, but then we end up with whining about escalating internet prices and/or the complaints that the rich shouldn’t be the only ones to get good internet access.

          so the solution to the freeriding nonproblem is more freeriding?

          1. If it was a nonproblem, there wouldn’t be talk of throttling or other measures to reduce traffic.

            1. I’m old enough enough to remember when the fully regulated phone company utility throttled long distance calls. You could pay extra for a WATS line though.

    3. “My analogy for this is as follows:

      You have a hub/station and build roads to your neighbors.
      Your distant neighbor does the same.”

      Some of this might make sense if the roads weren’t on land owned by the public and the right of ways controlled by taxpayers, etc.

      But, yeah, if all roads were on private land you’d have a point. Like if they were on the Koch ranch.

      However, it becomes more nuanced when we the people are providing the land which the highways are built upon.

      1. I notice you didn’t address the costs of the stations.

  19. As long as net neutrality includes an Internet social justice czar I’m all for this!

    1. That’s almost entirely what Net Neutrality does.

  20. Net Neutrality and Title II reclassification are solutions to problems (blocking of sites! fast lanes that prevent new services from coming to market!) that don’t yet exist.

    Correct, but it is a mistake to frame it that way, because if those these do become problems, net neutrality advocates can say “See?! Now we do it our way.”

    Government internet regulation will be the wrong solution if those problems do come to pass.

  21. Make the internet a utility. It works great for our electric grid, and it’s done wonders for the consumer in terms of cable…

  22. Mark Cuban – what he really thinks….

    “It’s great that the government created the internet, put forth policies which allow it to be less corporate owned, paid for a lot of the spreading of it, gave tax breaks for using it commercially and did so many other things that made me a billionaire.
    But now that they are trying to keep one or two corporations from owning the whole thing, they are bad bad bad and will surely screw it up”……

    🙂

    My Charter internet SUCKS. Yesterday I had a hard time getting 1 Mbps – today I have 10. This is always how it tests out and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. No competition.

    I’m passive on true “net neutrality”, but at the same time I want to see much more competition for better service to the end user. And, I don’t care if Big Gubment spends some of my $$$ to help the companies that improve things – it will pay off many times over in customer savings in the end.

    But, really, allowing Time-Warner to have a vast % of the market and then tell us all to fuck ourselves doesn’t sit well with me.

    1. Let’s see here. We have problems thanks to government created monopolies that lacks competition and the incentives that it creates, and you want to fix it with more government. What could possibly go wrong?

    2. “My Charter internet SUCKS. Yesterday I had a hard time getting 1 Mbps – today I have 10. “

      You fucking idiot. The reason you got 1 Mbps is because your neighbors were watching hours of Netflix and Youtube. It’s the exact problem the ISPs are trying to solve.

      1. “You fucking idiot. The reason you got 1 Mbps is because your neighbors were watching hours of Netflix and Youtube. It’s the exact problem the ISPs are trying to solve.”

        Yes, I’m sure at 11 am they were heavily watching that stuff.

        Charter has a long history of such BS and it has nothing to do with congested pipes. It’s often related to their DNS stuff internally…

    3. Change ISPs.

      I live in an area with 3-4 options. Thus, I’ve never experienced any of these problems.

      If you live in an area without competition, spend some time finding out why.

  23. you didn’t build that Cubes!

  24. Well, the government can’t do any worse than Verizon or TWC at fucking up the internet in the U.S. As for “innovation” the current ISP’s frankly are deincentivized to innovate. Their focus on shareholder ROI motivates them to only upgrade services in high population density areas and then only after they have fully amortized their infrastructure investments, which in a technology driven society where technology is largely obsolete 18-24 months after it hits the market, actually hinders innovation.

    The internet has to a large extent supplanted highways, airports, airwaves and telephone communications. Indeed, few businesses, schools, governments and national defense infrastructures could adequately function today without the internet. In fact, studies done by the Army War College has concluded that net “neutrality” and government oversight of net access and security are national defense imperatives.

    The internet has evolved into a vital service, no less than electrical service, sewer and water, police and fire, public transportation. Ask any major business or government agency if they could function today without it. Ask any high school or college student if they could study today without it.

    It has been and always will be (since the beginning of governments) a necessary and vital function of government to oversee and regulate vital services so that those services are available to all citizens on equal terms and not just available to the highest bidder.

    1. Well, the government can’t do any worse than Verizon or TWC at fucking up the internet in the U.S.

      Yes, yes they can.

      1. Especially if we ever have a party in power that openly threatens to “punish those who didn’t vote for us”.

        Not that that would ever happen of course….wait!

    2. It has been and always will be (since the beginning of governments) a necessary and vital function of government to oversee and regulate vital services so that those services are available to all citizens on equal terms and not just available to the highest bidder.

      We got to the point that the internet is vital for everyday life without it being very regulated. Why do we suddenly need to change that?

      Well, the government can’t do any worse than Verizon or TWC at fucking up the internet in the U.S.

      Oh, I heartily disagree. Whatever the FCC does is likely to be fairly populist at first, and it may even have some short term benefit. Maybe.

      The problem is what comes next. Verizon, Comcast, and the other major players will have all the incentive in the world to influence FCC decisions that impact that, and the money to make it happen. Do you think that influence will be wielded to encourage creative destruction and new entrants/technologies that can upset Verizon, Comcast, et al.? Or do you think they’ll benefit Verizon and Comcast at the expense of the smaller, innovative companies and technology.

      1. I can’t predict how it will all play out, no one can. But here is one hypothetical to consider. Suppose, at the instruction of the FCC, the ISPs build out broadband to rural communities and sink a lot of money into upgrading infrastructure. Now suppose some new way of delivering broadband is invented, and some young start-up company wants to roll it out, probably first in big market like NYC or LA. Verizon just sunk lots of money into cable and/or fiber. Do you think they’ll stand idly by while some newcomer takes away their market share? Absent the power to use FCC regulations to stifle competition, they’d have to compete and improve their service, or adopt the new tech themselves. But with the FCC to use as a bludgeon, they can just make it illegal for that new company to operate, unless of course they pay up.

        If you don’t think this can happen, just look at the challenges being thrown up in front of Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, Aereo…

        1. “Now suppose some new way of delivering broadband is invented, and some young start-up company wants to roll it out, probably first in big market like NYC or LA. Verizon just sunk lots of money into cable and/or fiber.”

          This is underway already – both Facebook and Google are going to do drone and balloon internet for very rural areas…although most of these areas will likely be elsewhere than the USA.

          As far as inventing new ways, the speed of light is pretty much fixed, so it’s not going to be the case that a satellite, etc. is going to do the same job (delays are too great). Basically, a cable or fiber is the best and only way until you either fix that speed of light thingy or else have Big Gubment allow for vast numbers of towers or balloons/drones at relatively low altitudes.

      2. Yes, what happens when regulatory capture takes hold?

        People are going to find all sorts of reasons why some traffic is more equal than others.

        1. “People are going to find all sorts of reasons why some traffic is more equal than others.”

          Which it is. Cell companies already put priority on phone calls over the same data stream. Getting your email or app download with a 1 second delay is just not as important…..

          There is such a thing as reality. Reason, so to speak. Logic.

      3. “We got to the point that the internet is vital for everyday life without it being very regulated. Why do we suddenly need to change that?”

        You obviously have not been paying attention to the rise of the internet….or, you label “government intervention” as not being regulation.

        It took special laws (regs) to make stuff not taxable – I’ve been an internet consultant since 1995 and both states and the feds have given me incredible breaks – to say nothing of the money they have put toward fast lane internets and protection of certain IP (not allowing cybersquatting, for example).

        Big Bad Gubment created the net and also created policies which made it grow.

        Acting as if they didn’t build it…now….is typical “modern libertarianism” – as if we all woke up yesterday and all this stuff was HERE ALREADY and now we can complain about the government.

  25. I don’t know a heck of a lot about how the internet works.

    I wonder, though, when it comes to FCC regulation, where have we seen more innovation and quality? Is it from the stations heavily regulated by the FCC or cable, pay, and Internet where the FCC has little authority?

    1. “I wonder, though, when it comes to FCC regulation, where have we seen more innovation and quality? Is it from the stations heavily regulated by the FCC or cable, pay, and Internet where the FCC has little authority?”

      How is that relevant when the gubment paid for and created the internet and also has advanced policies after the creation which allowed for a more level playing field?

      If you consider Fox News and Howard Stern as quality and innovation…well, that’s another story.

    2. Well the FCC did respond quickly and decisively to the Nipple that appeared at the Superbowl. And there are lots of nipples on the internet.

  26. So on one side we have the netflix vs comcast where comcast throttled back netflix until netflix paid them some money.

    On the other side we have users that are claiming that if they’ve been promised X amount of data per month and specific data rates then they should receive X amount of data and specific data rates.

    To me this is an ISP marketing exaggeration issue – yeah I know that they do not guarantee data rates, but they also don’t mention that they will throttle your incoming data just because they want to tweak a company that you are doing business with. ISPs should not be able to throttle down specific websites. They should however have the right to throttle down their entire user base if they cannot handle the overall bandwidth – that would result in greater competition for the end user and at that point if the end user feels cheated they can switch to another more reliable ISP.

    1. They should however have the right to throttle down their entire user base if they cannot handle the overall bandwidth

      That’s an inevitability. If they don’t have the bandwidth, they don’t have the bandwidth. At that point it’s not “throttling”, it’s congestion. The packets sit in a queue somewhere until they can get through the pipe.

      The problem is that heavy bandwidth users are causing congestion that degrades the user experience for ALL Comcast customers. One of the heaviest bandwidth applications is Netflix streaming. Now, maybe it’s unfair to go after Netflix only, and not YouTube and World of Warcraft and porn torrents, but if there is one website that is a clear bandwidth hog, it’s probably the first one you’re going to go after.

      In a sense, Comcast was throttling Netflix in order to improve quality of service for the vast majority of Comcast customers – the one’s NOT streaming Netflix all evening on three devices. By throttling Netflix, there is more bandwidth available for thousands of other people’s online activities, which would otherwise have lag due to Netflix related congestion.

      Also, in a sense, charging Netflix for the use of Comcast’s pipe allows costs to be transferred from all Comcast customers to only those who use Netflix, as Netflix will raise it’s subscription fees.

      1. Or instead of making some backroom deal, you charge the people who use the bandwidth a price that works for both of you. Boom. Quality improved without racketeering. Giving a half a damn about the customer wants so you retain them – happens when people are likely to move to competitor’s service. Right now, in the world of the reality vs. imaginary, it’s Network Neutrality – 1 (Comcast throttles Netflix), Imaginary medical devices that need a fast lane to be hacked – 0.

    2. They should however have the right to throttle down their entire user base if they cannot handle the overall bandwidth

      That’s an inevitability. If they don’t have the bandwidth, they don’t have the bandwidth. At that point it’s not “throttling”, it’s congestion. The packets sit in a queue somewhere until they can get through the pipe.

      The problem is that heavy bandwidth users are causing congestion that degrades the user experience for ALL Comcast customers. One of the heaviest bandwidth applications is Netflix streaming. Now, maybe it’s unfair to go after Netflix only, and not YouTube and World of Warcraft and porn torrents, but if there is one website that is a clear bandwidth hog, it’s probably the first one you’re going to go after.

      In a sense, Comcast was throttling Netflix in order to improve quality of service for the vast majority of Comcast customers – the one’s NOT streaming Netflix all evening on three devices. By throttling Netflix, there is more bandwidth available for thousands of other people’s online activities, which would otherwise have lag due to Netflix related congestion.

      Also, in a sense, charging Netflix for the use of Comcast’s pipe allows costs to be transferred from all Comcast customers to only those who use Netflix, as Netflix will raise it’s subscription fees.

  27. I’m holding out for Net Nutrisystem — the more I browse, the more pounds I lose.

  28. If only Cuban applied the same logic to Obamacare. He was a pretty big fan of it on his blog.

  29. Work 5 hours daily and make$3000/weekly… You’ll need a computer and a reliable internet connection…
    Freelance job on following web == ?w?w?w.M?o?n?e?y?k?i?n.c?o?m?

  30. My classmate’s mother-in-law makes $73 every hour on the computer . She has been without work for five months but last month her check was $14391 just working on the computer for a few hours. why not try this out.
    vi?????????sit hom?????????epage ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.