Comments on: Doing the Big Thing http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/ Same old blog, brand new place Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:15:54 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Doc Searls http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-23138 Doc Searls Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:33:01 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/#comment-23138 Agreed, Wes. But the fact that FiOS is architected primarily to provide cable TV over fiber is no excuse for ignoring all the opportunities that it would be wise to explore, especially as the cable TV model becomes more and more obsolete every minute. Not that you're disagreeing. I just needed to say that. :-) Agreed, Wes. But the fact that FiOS is architected primarily to provide cable TV over fiber is no excuse for ignoring all the opportunities that it would be wise to explore, especially as the cable TV model becomes more and more obsolete every minute.

Not that you’re disagreeing. I just needed to say that. :-)

]]> By: Wes Felter http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-23134 Wes Felter Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:40:37 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/#comment-23134 Doc, FIOS TV is carried over essentially a separate network, and it's simpler and probably cheaper for them to send every channel to everyone. Doc, FIOS TV is carried over essentially a separate network, and it’s simpler and probably cheaper for them to send every channel to everyone.

]]> By: Doc Searls http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-23069 Doc Searls Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:26:48 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/#comment-23069 Frank, I think I was wrong to say "broken ranks". If I had written it in less haste I would have said "In a surprising move..." or something like that. I'm never sure in these cases whether I should go back and make a correction, or let it stand and work it out in the comments. Frank, I think I was wrong to say “broken ranks”. If I had written it in less haste I would have said “In a surprising move…” or something like that. I’m never sure in these cases whether I should go back and make a correction, or let it stand and work it out in the comments.

]]> By: fp http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-23059 fp Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:23:38 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/#comment-23059 Not sure why you think David has "broken ranks." I suppose some think tiered or usage based pricing unfair, but "net neutrality" is a big tent. We want an open network with the most throughput possible at the highest speed possible. We want to be able to connect every network to every network, every device to every other device. We want high speed, high capacity networking at the lowest cost possible, but we want a network with a sustainable operating model, a network that is able to grow to meet future needs as well as to be operated day by day with adequate maintenance to assure that the high speed, high capacity doesn't waver as demand grows. Someone has to pay. Somehow. I prefer a national and state regulated model that assures users of fair and universal access and best performance, a model that holds shareholders accountable for any failure to meet mandatory service levels, sort of a return to public utility regulation. But I'm not knocking a pricing model that charges based on use, as long as it's fair. Of course I'm stuck here with a DSL connnection that the telco has pawned off on me as "high speed," and for which I pay an incredibly high price. No cable down my rustic road and definitely no fiber to these 19th century homes spread out a mile or so apart. Maybe someday we can resolve that. Not sure why you think David has “broken ranks.” I suppose some think tiered or usage based pricing unfair, but “net neutrality” is a big tent. We want an open network with the most throughput possible at the highest speed possible. We want to be able to connect every network to every network, every device to every other device. We want high speed, high capacity networking at the lowest cost possible, but we want a network with a sustainable operating model, a network that is able to grow to meet future needs as well as to be operated day by day with adequate maintenance to assure that the high speed, high capacity doesn’t waver as demand grows. Someone has to pay. Somehow.

I prefer a national and state regulated model that assures users of fair and universal access and best performance, a model that holds shareholders accountable for any failure to meet mandatory service levels, sort of a return to public utility regulation. But I’m not knocking a pricing model that charges based on use, as long as it’s fair. Of course I’m stuck here with a DSL connnection that the telco has pawned off on me as “high speed,” and for which I pay an incredibly high price. No cable down my rustic road and definitely no fiber to these 19th century homes spread out a mile or so apart. Maybe someday we can resolve that.

]]> By: Net Neutrality Links 01-20-2008 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-23025 Net Neutrality Links 01-20-2008 Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:42:25 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/#comment-23025 [...] Doing the Big Thing By Doc Searls With Time Warner Cable does the right thing, David Isenberg breaks ranks with fellow net neutrality advocates by lauding Time Warner Cable’s “plan to charge more when you send or receive more Internet data”. David explains, … Tags:consumers choice democracy dying denial of service freedom threatened net neutralityRelated StoriesNet Neutrality Symposium January 26, 2008Net Neutrality Links 01-06-2008Net Neutrality Links 01-13-2008Net Neutrality Links 11-24-2007Work Boxers Widget [...] [...] Doing the Big Thing By Doc Searls With Time Warner Cable does the right thing, David Isenberg breaks ranks with fellow net neutrality advocates by lauding Time Warner Cable’s “plan to charge more when you send or receive more Internet data”. David explains, … Tags:consumers choice democracy dying denial of service freedom threatened net neutralityRelated StoriesNet Neutrality Symposium January 26, 2008Net Neutrality Links 01-06-2008Net Neutrality Links 01-13-2008Net Neutrality Links 11-24-2007Work Boxers Widget [...]

]]> By: Doc Searls http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-23023 Doc Searls Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:01:57 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/#comment-23023 Speaking of heavy downloaders, I've got hundreds of channels being poured into my set-top box, at up to 6Mb/sec, by Verizon over fiber to my home. With the exception of the only channel I'm watching at any given time, this is a waste of a perfectly huge pipe. It also speaks of huge opportunity for something/anything else, provided Verizon wants to take advantage of it. And to let its customers take advantage of it. While charging for use is a legitimate subject, it's also a red herring next to the challenge of abundance. "How to pay for it" needs to be re-framed in terms of all the businesses abundance makes possible, and how the carriers can make that happen. This is old hat for everybody in the retail and real estate building business. But it's new hat for the carriers. Still, they need to wear it. Speaking of heavy downloaders, I’ve got hundreds of channels being poured into my set-top box, at up to 6Mb/sec, by Verizon over fiber to my home. With the exception of the only channel I’m watching at any given time, this is a waste of a perfectly huge pipe.

It also speaks of huge opportunity for something/anything else, provided Verizon wants to take advantage of it. And to let its customers take advantage of it.

While charging for use is a legitimate subject, it’s also a red herring next to the challenge of abundance.

“How to pay for it” needs to be re-framed in terms of all the businesses abundance makes possible, and how the carriers can make that happen.

This is old hat for everybody in the retail and real estate building business. But it’s new hat for the carriers. Still, they need to wear it.

]]> By: Mike Warot http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-22961 Mike Warot Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:21:15 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/#comment-22961 I'm thinking you might have changed my mind on this... I'd be willing to pay a reasonable amount/byte if the base price were lowered as a result, or there was a reasonable threshold to keep below. I don't think Flickr would exist if we could all just open up a server on port 80 and share our photos, for example. Same goes for YouTube. I've got 120+ Gb of stuff, and I would really like to be able to get at it all from anywhere, and to truely share it with friends and family. The current "home" access packages are all engineered to prevent this. I’m thinking you might have changed my mind on this… I’d be willing to pay a reasonable amount/byte if the base price were lowered as a result, or there was a reasonable threshold to keep below.

I don’t think Flickr would exist if we could all just open up a server on port 80 and share our photos, for example. Same goes for YouTube.

I’ve got 120+ Gb of stuff, and I would really like to be able to get at it all from anywhere, and to truely share it with friends and family. The current “home” access packages are all engineered to prevent this.

]]> By: Jim Spencer http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-22960 Jim Spencer Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:51:45 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/#comment-22960 Home and small business Internet service needs are often relatively similar. Yet, the small business sees a huge price increase compared to home pricing due simply to the business address. Lower prices will result in greater adoption in this market. There remains an untapped hidden market in borrowed wifi signals. Most folks would rather have their own service and the reliability that is assumed to come with it. Lower prices and earn this business. Maybe Congress should... Oh never mind. ;) Home and small business Internet service needs are often relatively similar. Yet, the small business sees a huge price increase compared to home pricing due simply to the business address.

Lower prices will result in greater adoption in this market.

There remains an untapped hidden market in borrowed wifi signals. Most folks would rather have their own service and the reliability that is assumed to come with it. Lower prices and earn this business.

Maybe Congress should… Oh never mind. ;)

]]> By: Mario Olckers http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-22957 Mario Olckers Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:58:06 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/#comment-22957 That sounds about fair; pay for what you use have a flat rate per MB or GB and if you're the heavy downloader; you pay for every streaming HD download and every one is happy where the problem comes in is the heavy streamers clogging up the pipes and slowing the whole network down and everyone suffers; that's neither nice nor fair there's gonna still be lots of politics about this still... when bandwidth becomes like electricity or radio is still way off; until then the big guys who owns the infrastructure or gateways thereto will open or close the valves of the pipes in a way that secures the optimal revenue stream for them alone; that's just how the world works That sounds about fair; pay for what you use
have a flat rate per MB or GB and if you’re the heavy downloader; you pay for every streaming HD download and every one is happy

where the problem comes in is the heavy streamers clogging up the pipes and slowing the whole network down and everyone suffers; that’s neither nice nor fair
there’s gonna still be lots of politics about this still…

when bandwidth becomes like electricity or radio is still way off; until then the big guys who owns the infrastructure or gateways thereto will open or close the valves of the pipes in a way that secures the optimal revenue stream for them alone; that’s just how the world works

]]> By: Dennis Howlett http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-22954 Dennis Howlett Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:17:00 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/01/19/doing-the-big-thing/#comment-22954 Those prices are in nose bleed territory. Pay per drink is the way to go and it's fair on everyone. Those prices are in nose bleed territory. Pay per drink is the way to go and it’s fair on everyone.

]]>