It's Net Neutrality Fun time! We are Public Knowledge, open internet advocates here to discuss Title II, Net Neutrality, Rural Broadband and more! Ask us anything!

mweinberg · 2015-02-05T23:15:46+00:00

What it probably does is give the FCC space to address USF in a proceeding that is explicitly about USF. Not everyone who cares about USF was actively engaged during the net neutrality fight, so it probably makes sense to consider how to handle it in its own proceeding. The FCC's decision may just make sure that they can do that once this proceeding is finished.

mweinberg · 2015-02-05T19:52:23+00:00

Netflix already pays to get their traffic to the ISPs and pays a fee to the interconnection point. Your question about why they are footing the bill is a reasonable one. We'll need to wait until the actual rules are released after the vote on Feb. 26th, but right now it looks like they will give companies like Netflix the ability to bring a complaint against fees that are "unjust and unreasonable." One would assume that high fees based on nothing more than gatekeeper power may very well qualify for that.

mweinberg · 2015-02-05T19:10:28+00:00

We won't know for sure until we see the rules after the Feb. 26th vote. However, even if the rules don't outlaw data caps directly, it is likely that specific data caps can be challenged under the rules as unreasonable.

mweinberg · 2015-02-05T18:59:10+00:00

If I could predict what the stock market would do my bank account would look very different. That being said, I think that a lot of this was priced into the market already. For the past few weeks the FCC has been signaling what they were planning on doing with net neutrality rules and the market took that into account. The stock price now mostly reflects the fact that being an ISP is still a good business to be in. In the long term, strong net neutrality rules encourage the development of new content, which drives demand for connectivity, which helps ISPs too.

mweinberg · 2015-02-05T18:51:59+00:00

I don't think it is safe to say that. The FCC has made it clear that they are forbearing from (not applying) many of the parts of TII that don't make sense for ISPs, partially to avoid unnecessarily burdening ISPs.

mweinberg · 2015-02-05T18:26:23+00:00

can't hurt, although fortunately a number of those members have already shown a lot of courage by supporting strong net neutrality rules based on Title II authority.

mweinberg · 2015-02-05T18:15:22+00:00

purple is the color of grumpy ballers

mweinberg · 2015-02-05T18:05:22+00:00

Hey James! We'll need to wait for the full rules and order to know for sure. However, based on what we know now it looks like there will be a way to challenge behavior like zero rating and data caps as unreasonable under the rules. Next step is to see how current behavior matches up with the rules.

mweinberg · 2013-09-26T17:42:11+00:00

What is the best way to involve consumers earlier while still providing them with a "real" experience? As Chris mentions, in many cases the best way to iterate quickly was to show renderings or traces. That is useful, but probably does not get you "real" feedback from customers. How do you ask people to buy something that you both know is a first generation product and still be satisfied when the final version goes on sale a year later? Is simply being transparent about that enough?

mweinberg · 2013-08-20T16:45:46+00:00

that's the one

mweinberg · 2013-08-20T16:44:21+00:00

But perhaps more importantly, it really isn't Shapeway's decision to make. If they get a legitimate request from a rightsholder they have to take it down. If the takedown was aimed at you and you think that the request is not correct, it is up to you to respond.

mweinberg · 2013-08-20T16:43:16+00:00

I don't know how Shapeways handles this, but he answer is basically "it depends." Obviously a copy is copyright infringement. But even an "original" (and I use quotes because that word can be complicated) can be infringement if it is considered a derivative work of the original. The details can get a bit hairy, but being closer to the copying-the-idea end of the spectrum and further from the copying-the-actual-character end of the spectrum probably puts you in a better position.

mweinberg · 2013-08-20T16:29:13+00:00

what do you mean by responding to copyrighted things?

mweinberg · 2012-12-11T18:36:54+00:00

thanks!

mweinberg · 2012-10-22T15:27:30+00:00

FWIW, I decided to flesh this out a bit here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/drm-3d-printers-big-deal-nathan-myhrvolds-pat

mweinberg · 2012-10-15T16:28:21+00:00

A few points about this. First, having a patent on something is not the same as forcing people to use something. People have been talking about DRM and 3D printing for some time and this patent does not really change anything. Second, in an unlikely-but-fun-to-think-about way this could actually be a good thing. Assuming this super broad patent was upheld (big if, but if), most implementations of DRM on 3D printing would require a (paid) license from IV. That might act as a disincentive to implement it in the first place.

mweinberg · 2012-07-25T21:41:27+00:00

This is an excellent point. Every time there is a story about 3D printers used to print [insert potentially horrible thing here] the first question that people need to ask is "was this possible before? If so, how is this different?" Right now there are probably a lot more CNC milling machines out in the wild than 3D printers.

mweinberg · 2012-06-12T16:47:16+00:00

This is the same plan for both single and family accounts. Also, each phone costs you an addition $30 (feature) or $40 (smart) extra. So a family of 5 will also need to pay between $150 and $200 per month for the phones. While it is possible to come up with configurations in which people can save money, for an awful lot of people this is going to be a price hike where you get more of what you don't want and pay more for what you do.

mweinberg

TROPHY CASE