5 ms·

The most important point here is their defense of the wireless exemption. Agree with it or not (I'm on the fence, and most people seem to disagree with it), it

The most important point here is their defense of the wireless exemption. Agree with it or not (I'm on the fence, and most people seem to disagree with it), it is deliberately temporary, and most importantly, subject to annual review and debate. So if you don't like it, please disagree, but do note that this is not meant to be a permanent provision.

steveklabnik 16y ago
But one could still argue that a deliberate, temporary solution still does no good. Why not just take care of everything right now, while we've already got legislators talking about it? If we have to bring up this whole discussion again a second time to get wireless done, I fear it will never be so.
- chc 16y ago
  Why not just take care of everything right now? For the same reason you don't get married on the first date. Wireless Internet is a very young and largely unknown market, we don't know what form it will eventually settle into and any laws we draft now are likely to be hopelessly naive in the much same way that software design patents are.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    We don't know how it will settle, but we (and by we I mean NN advocates) do know that we want it to respect Net Neutrality as well.
    - icarus_drowning 16y ago
      I (and many others who weren't angered by the Google proposal) agree. But laws are often very specific things. A net neutrality law for wireless networks could very well impose significant, specific restrictions that address our current wireless networks while harming those in the future. And there may be no way of knowing what those "bad" restrictions might be.
  - dieterrams 16y ago
    Wireless internet is already a total joke, where carriers charge you extra for tethering just to use the bandwidth you already paid for, and give you the runaround when you try to contest charges. The carriers will manipulate this market to squeeze every possible dime they can get from it. And recall just how badly mobile phones stagnated before the iPhone and Android. That's carrier control at work. The sooner these guys become reduced to dumb pipes, the better.
    - ergo98 16y ago
      >Wireless internet is already a total joke, where carriers charge you extra for tethering just to use the bandwidth you already paid for Bullshit. Don't dumb down the argument just because it serves your personal desires. Tethering completely upsets the usage models. Their choice is then either to increase prices for everyone, or, if it remains relatively rare, increase the prices for the few. They chose the latter.
      - ericd 16y ago
        Given that they claimed "Unlimited" bandwidth, I would say that you already paid for that slice of bandwidth you're using for your computer. That said, it would be nice to have explicit limits at different price points, regardless of how you're using it. They don't seem to be doing this, though, even on AT&T where you're specifically paying for a given amount of bandwidth. You have to pay again. So, parent was hyperbolic, but not bullshit.
        ergo98 16y ago
        >Given that they claimed "Unlimited" bandwidth I haven't signed up for a plan that claimed unlimited since the 90s. Maybe organizations around here are just more rational? However I do have a 5GB plan on my smartphone. In an average month I use around 500MB, because there's only so much you can do on a smartphone, and they know it, but they monitor the curve and provide enough excess that I know that if I really needed it for a period, I could use it. They also sell data sticks for PCs, and they charge much more for lower caps, because of course they know that you'll use it. My gym membership costs something like $19 a month. Technically I could go every open minute of every day, hogging equipment and space. So could everyone else. Of course then the gym could host a membership count in the dozens instead of in the many hundreds, and my real cost would be significantly higher.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- spot 16y ago
  verizon wouldn't agree to everything right now. keep putting pressure on them and we'll get more commitments later.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    You have a much greater amount of faith in Verizon and the public than I do.
    - spot 16y ago
      this is a democracy, what's the alternative to having faith in the public?

steveklabnik 16y ago

But one could still argue that a deliberate, temporary solution still does no good. Why not just take care of everything right now, while we've already got legislators talking about it? If we have to bring up this whole discussion again a second time to get wireless done, I fear it will never be so.

chc 16y ago
Why not just take care of everything right now? For the same reason you don't get married on the first date. Wireless Internet is a very young and largely unknown market, we don't know what form it will eventually settle into and any laws we draft now are likely to be hopelessly naive in the much same way that software design patents are.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  We don't know how it will settle, but we (and by we I mean NN advocates) do know that we want it to respect Net Neutrality as well.
  - icarus_drowning 16y ago
    I (and many others who weren't angered by the Google proposal) agree. But laws are often very specific things. A net neutrality law for wireless networks could very well impose significant, specific restrictions that address our current wireless networks while harming those in the future. And there may be no way of knowing what those "bad" restrictions might be.
- dieterrams 16y ago
  Wireless internet is already a total joke, where carriers charge you extra for tethering just to use the bandwidth you already paid for, and give you the runaround when you try to contest charges. The carriers will manipulate this market to squeeze every possible dime they can get from it. And recall just how badly mobile phones stagnated before the iPhone and Android. That's carrier control at work. The sooner these guys become reduced to dumb pipes, the better.
  - ergo98 16y ago
    >Wireless internet is already a total joke, where carriers charge you extra for tethering just to use the bandwidth you already paid for Bullshit. Don't dumb down the argument just because it serves your personal desires. Tethering completely upsets the usage models. Their choice is then either to increase prices for everyone, or, if it remains relatively rare, increase the prices for the few. They chose the latter.
    - ericd 16y ago
      Given that they claimed "Unlimited" bandwidth, I would say that you already paid for that slice of bandwidth you're using for your computer. That said, it would be nice to have explicit limits at different price points, regardless of how you're using it. They don't seem to be doing this, though, even on AT&T where you're specifically paying for a given amount of bandwidth. You have to pay again. So, parent was hyperbolic, but not bullshit.
      - ergo98 16y ago
        >Given that they claimed "Unlimited" bandwidth I haven't signed up for a plan that claimed unlimited since the 90s. Maybe organizations around here are just more rational? However I do have a 5GB plan on my smartphone. In an average month I use around 500MB, because there's only so much you can do on a smartphone, and they know it, but they monitor the curve and provide enough excess that I know that if I really needed it for a period, I could use it. They also sell data sticks for PCs, and they charge much more for lower caps, because of course they know that you'll use it. My gym membership costs something like $19 a month. Technically I could go every open minute of every day, hogging equipment and space. So could everyone else. Of course then the gym could host a membership count in the dozens instead of in the many hundreds, and my real cost would be significantly higher.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
spot 16y ago
verizon wouldn't agree to everything right now. keep putting pressure on them and we'll get more commitments later.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  You have a much greater amount of faith in Verizon and the public than I do.
  - spot 16y ago
    this is a democracy, what's the alternative to having faith in the public?