The internet is dying! Must we rush in to save it? Or is it actually doing just fine and doesn't need medical resuscitation? Is it a thing at all? Find out inside!
P.S. We don't actually discuss whether the internet is a thing...go ask a philosopher. For witty banter and awesome insights though, we're here to help!
To download for later click here
The Gibson guitar story Matt told is wrong in most of the major details. I assume the "SWAT team" bit is mostly right, though it wasn't a SWAT team per se; I assume the FBI used whatever equipment they usually use when serving a search and seizure warrant. (I couldn't find anything to support the implication that they broke down doors and/or violently subdued employees, the sort of images generally conjured by the phrase "SWAT raid".) But the bit about them not breaking the law seems to be totally wrong. Matt claims that they had "the right paperwork" are contrary to the company's sworn statements from their settlement of the DOJ's lawsuit. The investigation found their own employees warned them in 2008 that they were breaking the (newly-amended) law. (And it was a law they were breaking, not regulation passed by some regulatory body run amok.)
ReplyDeleteThe story about the Detroit PD employing a farrier seems to also be wrong in all the major details. First, the Detroit police do still have horses. Second, the employee in question was transferred to the Departement of Water and Sewage some time ago, and that department has a full machine shop including a blacksmith shop. Third, the outdated description of the primary job responsibility is an overly-specific description of this employee's capabilities, they're a blacksmith. Given that Detroit has wildly undermaintined infrastrucutre, being able to create components for urgent repairs might be quite valuable to them. While that article I linked to presumes that hiring a blacksmith must be a real waste, the $30k salaray doesn't seem out of line, and it's entirely likely that this employee helps the city far more than the cost of their salary and benefits.
On net nutrality: I think there are large swaths of agreements between liberals and conservatives on what sort of outcomes they don't want for the internet. Pretty much everyone thinks internet access should be available that's reasonably cheap, reasonably fast, and where there's no one messing with either users' requests or the content sent back in response. No one wants ISPs going to the cable TV model (but conservatives are more sympathetic to the argument that ISPs wouldn't do that anyways). I expect the real risks and benefits of various sorts of net-neutrality regulation (including corporate policy) are more subtle, but there are real risks for free speech and innovation (my informed opinion: a lot more innovation comes from companies using the internet as a platform than from the large ISPs themselves). Obviously, liberals tend to be biased in favor of noticing the risks presented by corporate quasi-monopolies and conservatives tend to notice the risks presented by loosely-constrained regulatory agencies. Both have real hazards, though.
ReplyDeleteOn Uber: I've had good experiences with Uber in Boston (it's cheap, clean, convenient; drivers have told me they like it because they can use their personal cars instead of leasing, actually make more money when working inconvenient times with insufficient supply, and don't have to carry cash in amounts that present a tempting target for thieves). But I'm still not totally down on cab regulation. When I call for Uber, I know what the fare structure is and have some general idea what their standards are and how those standards are enforced. But when I flag down a cab on the street, I don't need to know what specific cab company it is to answer those questions (and I often don't know anything about the specific cab company, sometimes don't know what company it is until the cab pulls closer). Not knowing that would make it very impractical to flag down a cab on the street (not knowing the fare structure until getting in to the cab would lead to some particularly bad customer experiences). Hearing people talk about their experiences with unlicensed rickshaws doesn't make me wish that US cities would get rid of all cab regulation.
Utilities have some very good properties. But every company that could run a utility with thier infrastructure might do better if they could control who can run value-added services on / develop hardware that connects to that infrastructure, and network effects may make competition prohibitively expensive. Common carrier regulation for the phone companies had a lot of good effects, including for the development of the internet. It was good that people other than the phone companies could produce modems you could legally connect to the phone network. It was good when the price of long-distance phone service, long suspended in the stratosphere, dropped close to cost. I want there to be utilities that businesses and individuals can freely innovate on top of, and I think government regulation (or even direct government provision) of utilities is a reasonable means to that end.