how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
417 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
DampierPhillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY
3 edits | Don't Fall for the Cable Industry's Invented Narrative »www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1fCgca9ZNk
Once again, people writing on this issue should stop accepting the false premise that there is sufficient justification to impose usage caps, "reasonable" or not. The cable industry has hired lobbying firms, working with well-connected, biased public policy institutes and equipment manufacturers to create, advance and suggest panic about an impending bandwidth crisis in the United States.
It's a "crisis" not apparent to their competitors, which continue to deploy (at a faster rate than ever) profitable broadband platforms with an all-you-can-eat business model. Make no mistake, no publicly traded company would permit such an investment if there was a crisis as the cable industry would suggest.
When you argue on their playing field, it creates a de facto acceptance of the legitimacy of their argument, which is advanced with absolutely no independent verification (the data they use to build their narrative is conveniently unavailable to neutral analysts 'for competitive reasons.')
Time Warner's mobile broadband-like usage caps only illustrate a fumble in the public relations campaign underway to get consumers to accept capped usage without ANY corresponding decrease in the price they pay for access. Suggestions that cable may move to consumption-based pricing is just that, a pie in the sky suggestion. Behind the scenes, the entire pricing model of broadband by the cable industry depends on uniform pricing and they actually resist pay-per-byte pricing much the same way the cable industry resists a-la-carte video programming packages.
If one reads the trade magazines for this industry, they are signalling to the cable corporate heads that:
a) Bloggers are crazy people outraged and insane about the very concept of capped pricing. Multichannel News is using publicity stills of Jack Nicholson in The Shining on their site to depict angry bloggers.
b) Time Warner bungled the PR game in the effort to build a narrative to push capped usage on consumers and needs to better manage PR if they wish to be successful at convincing customers this is a good thing.
The evidence of the lobbying effort and getting consumers to support things against their own interests is in plain view when you read the trade press. Pitting customer against customer on some invented stereotype of a bandwidth hog picking other people's pockets (despite no promise to LOWER prices for anyone, cap or not) is part of the plan.
It's a real shame that those who have made their livelihood out of covering such things have apparently not come to understand the fundamentals of the cable industry and their history of involvement in public policy. The path to their high profits, partly enabled by their lobbying efforts, is a well-worn one, and they are following it yet again.
Construct a narrative.
Gain support for it by hiring lobbying firms to find "independent" analysts with ties to the industry to support the premise they raise.
Refuse to release raw data for independent verification for "competitive reasons."
Co-opt consumers into fighting against their own best interests by constructing fictional us vs. them arguments based on plausible stereotypes and making promises about reduced costs or better services without ever implementing them.
Seek media attention where reporters are willing to accept the premise of a cable-forwarded narrative and then rely on reporter laziness to simply grab response quotes from both sides without ever bothering to challenge the premise.
Appeal to lawmakers to address the narrative they have constructed with no corresponding regulation, or as a potential golden bonus, using public money to help build the necessary infrastructure to "relieve the crisis."
Advance the potential positive outcome of their public policy lobbying to shareholders to increase shareholder value.
Obtain the results desired and never implement promises made to consumers (or never market them) of cost savings that would supposedly result from victory.
It's the same story again and again. It has been since the 1980s when cable began building enormous clout on Capitol Hill. The only question is, when will people who claim knowledge of this industry demonstrate it by being willing to never accept a premise or narrative that is clearly being engineered by well-paid lobbying efforts with absolutely no independent verification.
That's what is REALLY behind the numbers. Stop playing on their field.
You can read more about the background of this entire effort here: »Some Facts to Consider (Was Er, no.) | |
| Why talk here? Justin, DSLReports.com's owner, has approved caps and overages. And, he conveniently ignored: 1. A foolproof program to prove you used that bandwidth. 2. Are ADs, spam, popups, etc. counted? 3. Will they charge you less if you only use 10% of your cap? 4. Will the overage charge per gig be reasonable? 5. Why are ISPs still advertising "unlimited" or insinuating "unlimited" with "always on connections'? Isn't that fraud if you have a cap and don't enforce it let alone enforce it? You bet it is. 6. Violation of Interstate Commerce Laws. Any website owner pays bandwidth fees to reach a customer. When it loses customers, that is violating Interstate Commerce laws. 7. Guess Net Neutrality is only available to the rich now. 8. Won't this destroy freedom of speech and freedom of religion? 9. Will they charge you bandwidth using their online tools for their phone service? Sounds like a unlawful extra charge and a PSC violation to me.
Justin didn't figure out much in his "Australian colored opinion."
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 | Justin is entitled to share his opinion, however unpopular it may be. He doesn't appear to be using his powers to stop Karl, so I don't feel there's any wrongdoing here that would lead me to stop participating on this site.
| |
DampierPhillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY | reply to supergirl
As I have written elsewhere, the original author has had to endure the Australian broadband experience, which is among the most dismal in the entire developed world. Telstra, the incumbent phone company, maintains a 50% market share providing poor service at incredibly high prices. It has become so bad that the Australian government is now able to make the case its hurting the country economically in the new Internet marketplace, and that changes to increase competition are in order.
An Australian citizen, respectfully, is at high risk of misunderstanding the American broadband experience over the past decade in an unregulated, price competitive marketplace. For Americans accustomed to expanded speeds and services at prices that remain highly profitable for the providers (and have literally remained unchanged in most instances for more than a decade), a draconian cap such as the one contemplated by Time Warner is an act of war against consumers and poses incredibly serious threats to online commerce, equal access to information have's and have not's, and to our global competitiveness. It all comes packaged as an argument that includes absolutely no independently verified evidence, backed by individuals and companies with a direct financial interest to the cable companies arguing the point.
Justin may be surprised by the intense blowback his editorial provides, but people should be informed that he's hardly being paid off by cable interests to support their position. His perspective comes from his experiences as an Australian living under the kind of online experience that has kept his fellow countrymen years behind those of us in North America, Europe, and significant parts of Asia.
I appreciate his perspective, but I think his arguments are dramatically undercut by his literal distance to the current situation on the ground in this country. | |
1 edit | said by Dampier:Justin may be surprised by the intense blowback his editorial provides, but people should be informed that he's hardly being paid off by cable interests to support their position. Then Justin should prove it by saying he's not towing the ISPs ridiculous argument(s). His "opinion" was ill-informed since Australia is now even seeing the light. The Internet is becoming a huge commerce component of the U.S. If Justin is just mad about his own country's lack of consumer protections, he shouldn't want to bring that crap here. The Net has already revolutionized the music industry. If a company doesn't have a web presence, potential employees ignore them and so do potential customers. Or, maybe Justin should just read our laws. Australia's laws aren't as freedom-oriented as they are here. He might also understand being anti-consumer here is akin to blasphemy in the United States, and very bad for his "website". Maybe Karl is just allowed his opinions to assuage the backlash Justin's getting. If it smells like astroturfing, it probably is. I know people in tech I emailed his article to have a negative opinion of this site now.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
 rec9140Provoice just DO it
join:2003-07-29
Mulberry, FL | reply to djrobx
said by djrobx:
Justin is entitled to share his opinion, however unpopular it may be.
He is most certainly entitled to his opinion.... BUT.....
As the owner and operator of this site, which is HIGHLY PREDICATED on HIGH SPEED INTERNET....his opinion carries a large amount of weight, like it or not.
His opinion and post I am sure is on some PRsleazer desk right now being used to support this crap.
There are times when your PERSONAL opinion and the BUSINESS opinion are not in agreement and in those cases you should keep your personal opinions to yourself. Want to voice your opinion then you quit that position. You can say this is my personal opinion etc. all you want, it still is going to be tied to the business you are connected with, like it or not.
His editorial has the potential to do great harm to HSI customers on all services and technogolies. My opinion is it has done a great harm to the HSI user community already, one that needs heavy, and quick action to correct in the form of "beating down" the TWC trial to a pulp.
ISP's should be just that, and ISP. A link to the internet unfettered, unmolested. You want to offer other things like VOIP, VOD, streaming video or what ever else then you COMPETE in the MARKETPLACE, FAIRLY....
Unfortunately the definition in use by business today of fairly = MONOPOLY.
I don't have crapble for video for a reason, I despise with a passion crapble companies. I've had first hand experience with them from a local cable board point of view. The only way to keep them in line is REGULATE THEM TO DEATH, WATCH EVERY BREATH THEY TAKE every second of the day. You practically need to have a cable board memeber in each tech's truck, at every desk in every office to watch these sleazeoids.
Unfortunately due to the screwed up HSI marketplace there is only one choice available for HSI, crapble. Which right now is acceptable, I am not thrilled with dealing with a crapble company but its crable or dial up. Fios would be available, actually I its maybe 500 feet away, but its only wired for the schools in my area for some reason. Need a trench VZ? ?? NO PROBLEM! You let me know when and it will be ready.
Every one is entitlted to their personal opinion, unfortunately in the busines world some times you need to keep your opinions to yourself when they don't match up with your business.
--
Lorem ipsum ei pro stet equidem labores, at enim animal expetenda nec. Ea vix argumentum dissentiunt, usu esse ridens ex./ »www.nobcs.net | | |
|
|
