Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Fukitol's avatar

Re: net neutrality, the original issue was that comcast (I think it was them) and a few other providers were floating the idea of charging individual websites for access to "fast lane" services - or in other words throttling anyone who didn't pay up. It was a shakedown, and an untenable one at that. Imagine you host a site and now on top of hosting fees you have to give up lunch money to ensure your site loads at a reasonable speed on a myriad of individual ISPs. This is something companies like netflix could deal with but not rando web hosts.

This on its own may have been a stupid move, since we as web hosts could have rebelled and alerted visitors that their ISPs were throttling us. Consumer choice could sort this out one way or other. Except that ISPs have cut exclusivity deals with municipal governments and property management firms, so that many consumers no longer have a choice of ISP, on infrastructure their taxes and/or rent paid for. Even where that's not the case the ISPs lobby local chambers of commerce to interfere with new competitors building infrastructure (comcast for example lobbied hard against Google's fiber internet service with result that it's not available in many cities where they hold an artificial monopoly).

Thing is the FCC is deeply corrupt and stupid, and the rules they wrote also seemed to interfere with QoS systems, which prioritize certain kinds of high bandwidth traffic (videos, games) which is generally good and what the customer wants.

So it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. One way or other somebody is grabbing power and it causes somebody else damage, all of which could be avoided if not for the original corruption. Hardly matters now, since the internet is dead anyway.

Re: noncompetes, it's just standard boilerplate in every contract now. Has nothing to do with training and everything to do with making employees think twice about quitting. Can't remember the last time I signed a contract without a non-compete. Never cared because they're unenforceable in many states and in general in practical effect. For some people they were ruinous, particularly artists who worked for the satanic rodent, but California banned them ages ago, rendering the point moot for most of their animators.

I don't like the federal government interfering in either of these things and don't think they have the authority to do so. But I also don't feel sorry for the poor widdle crony corps who were whining about it. We're not living with a free market here, it's just grifts and graft all the way down.

Expand full comment
Charlotte Pendragon's avatar

Thank you Stone for an excellent well thought out presentation. I have a much better understanding of net neutrality now. Thank you! What I notice today compared to the early to mid 2000s is my google results are much less and “directed”. Remember those good old days when hundred and even thousands of results generated from typing in a subject? I fell in love with the Internet then and I am disappointed know that I am redirected to Quora or Reddit for answers by opinions. You may as well fine what you’re looking for on Facebook. Lol!

This: “So… basically, it is the same as hosting a barbecue and telling a 250-pound guest that they can eat no more food than an attendee who only weighs 115 pounds, because it wouldn’t be ‘fair;’ does that make any kind of sense? There is a word for that, you know - ‘equity.’” My 140 lb Great Pyrenees doesn’t think it’s fair when I give him the same equitable amount of food as I do my 20 lb overweight poodle. 🐩

Expand full comment
38 more comments...

No posts