3 ms·

Ah, so you are involved in this lobby effort somehow? I noticed you said "the closest metric "we" can come up with". If you are you should declare your lobbying

Ah, so you are involved in this lobby effort somehow? I noticed you said "the closest metric "we" can come up with". If you are you should declare your lobbying interest when commenting. I'm sure theres a site rule about that. I think "maybe I shouldnt, in general, trust the conclusions of" your comment? Orthogonal. lol... ummm ok.

Spivak 9y ago
* I meant we as in the technical community. * You shouldn't -- that's the point. You should look at the actual facts of the case and decide for yourself what you think the intentions of the players are. * Yes it is orthogonal. Who should win this case is decided by the authority and intent of the FCC: it has nothing to do with right or wrong or what helps or hurts consumers.
- throwawaymanbot 9y ago
  Im not sure which technical community you are talking about? Im fairly certain most technical communities regardless of outlook dont want higher bills, for poorer service, from these companies, who's only skill is lobbying politicians and milking consumers. I thought I was looking at the facts of the case, and deciding for myself what the intentions of the players are? Your last sentence is interesting. Therein lies whats wrong with the FCC. But what you seem to be OK with.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    > I'm not sure... Ours? We were talking about coming up with the best single metric for internet speed which is difficult to cheat, provides some minimum guarantees, increases with speed and reliability, and correlates with the actual user perception of speed (e.g. latency alone would be a terrible metric because 1ms ping and 128k throughput isn't 'fast'). I would say such a metric is absolutely necessary for advertising purposes because without it companies will just choose their own to mislead consumers into worse service. > I thought... I only brought it up because you were citing the article authors opinions and conclusions from the facts as if they were facts themselves. > Your last... None of this really has anything to do with the FCC although my sentence might accidentally suggest it. How the courts rule will depend on their analysis of the FCC's authority, how their rules relate to state consumer protection laws, and if the FCC intended for their rules to be preemptive. The courts are the ones carrying out the formal process of law and being cold and analytical.
    - throwawaymanbot 9y ago
      Ours? quite the assumption. Again, I have no doubt in my mind that the large Internet providers care little about consumers, and only about their bottom line. Which is fine. Thats what corporations do. Paying off people to get that, is what I'm disagreeing with, and this reeks of that. You were saying that they (the authors) were entirely wrong? Did you email the authors of the article? I hope so. Conclusions from facts has been a fairly solid method, that journalists (among others) have used to navigate through the understanding of many things, including the sheer amount of BS added in to bills, created by lobbyists on behalf of corporations. What do you make of the large Corps suing local municipalities over local fiber offerings? Was that for a better technical standard? or was that just plain ole competition stomping? I'm sure their corporate angle has not changed here. One standard (as you call it), means one office to subvert with lobbying. Why deny it?

Spivak 9y ago

* I meant we as in the technical community. * You shouldn't -- that's the point. You should look at the actual facts of the case and decide for yourself what you think the intentions of the players are. * Yes it is orthogonal. Who should win this case is decided by the authority and intent of the FCC: it has nothing to do with right or wrong or what helps or hurts consumers.

throwawaymanbot 9y ago
Im not sure which technical community you are talking about? Im fairly certain most technical communities regardless of outlook dont want higher bills, for poorer service, from these companies, who's only skill is lobbying politicians and milking consumers. I thought I was looking at the facts of the case, and deciding for myself what the intentions of the players are? Your last sentence is interesting. Therein lies whats wrong with the FCC. But what you seem to be OK with.
- Spivak 9y ago
  > I'm not sure... Ours? We were talking about coming up with the best single metric for internet speed which is difficult to cheat, provides some minimum guarantees, increases with speed and reliability, and correlates with the actual user perception of speed (e.g. latency alone would be a terrible metric because 1ms ping and 128k throughput isn't 'fast'). I would say such a metric is absolutely necessary for advertising purposes because without it companies will just choose their own to mislead consumers into worse service. > I thought... I only brought it up because you were citing the article authors opinions and conclusions from the facts as if they were facts themselves. > Your last... None of this really has anything to do with the FCC although my sentence might accidentally suggest it. How the courts rule will depend on their analysis of the FCC's authority, how their rules relate to state consumer protection laws, and if the FCC intended for their rules to be preemptive. The courts are the ones carrying out the formal process of law and being cold and analytical.
  - throwawaymanbot 9y ago
    Ours? quite the assumption. Again, I have no doubt in my mind that the large Internet providers care little about consumers, and only about their bottom line. Which is fine. Thats what corporations do. Paying off people to get that, is what I'm disagreeing with, and this reeks of that. You were saying that they (the authors) were entirely wrong? Did you email the authors of the article? I hope so. Conclusions from facts has been a fairly solid method, that journalists (among others) have used to navigate through the understanding of many things, including the sheer amount of BS added in to bills, created by lobbyists on behalf of corporations. What do you make of the large Corps suing local municipalities over local fiber offerings? Was that for a better technical standard? or was that just plain ole competition stomping? I'm sure their corporate angle has not changed here. One standard (as you call it), means one office to subvert with lobbying. Why deny it?