Hey, there! Log in / Register
Local tech reporter has a refreshing lack of understanding of net neutrality
By Dani B. on Thu, 12/31/2015 - 3:26pm
In a column penned yesterday, Boston Globe tech reporter Hiawatha Bray has demonstrated that he lacks even a basic understanding of what net neutrality is or why it's important. I wonder how he'd feel if T-Mobile allowed unlimited browsing of bostonherald.com but charged for data in order to browse bostonglobe.com? You can read his column here.
He doubled down with an equally ridiculous tweet:
Dear FCC: Don’t fight #Internet freebies. #netneutrality be hanged--I want more free stuff! | BetaBoston https://t.co/JQLwDXI24M
— Hiawatha Bray (@GlobeTechLab) December 30, 2015
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
He's demonstrated a pretty clear understanding, actually.
You can disagree with him, but the example that he's using is spot-on, and his understanding of net neutrality is solid. I tend to think that yours may not be, professor.
Ignoring that the new ideas are rarely from large corporations
I disagree. He doesn't have sound logic. He believes in a pay to play system? Where I pay Comcast for internet and pay Netflix for programming delivered by internet. He wants a system where Netflix has to pay Comcast for access to deliver me the content I'm already paying to receive. AND, Comcast will still limit the amount of that content I can receive without paying them more. Because Comcast has a monopoly in the area, I have no other options and therefore they get paid 3 times so I can watch what I want when I want.
This means that new ideas can not enter the market place without Comcast's approval. How is that reasonable?
Repeat: you can disagree with
Repeat: you can disagree with him (which I also do), but his understanding is solid.
No, he doesn't.
I heard his nonsensical explaination on WBUR yesterday afternoon. He argued that Net Neutrality would only be necessary if providers were giving themselves an unfair advantage by purposefully degrading the speed or quality of competitors--he doesn't seem to grasp that giving your own content (or those of a partner) a boost by either speeding it up or not charging for it, is also an unfair advantage.
I've noticed in his columns that he often has no clue about the technology he's writing about apart from whatever pro-industry whitepaper he's been assigned to regurgitate. He's nothing but a paid schill, just like Shirley Leung and everyone else at the Globe.
Of course there is room for new ideas
By your logic, we should be paying for all data. How is that better than offering some of the most popular services for free? T-Mobile's minimum data plan with Binge-On includes 3GB of data, so use the free allowance for Netflix and the 3 gigabytes you have left for the "new ideas" you crave. Or, with your plan, use up half the allowance on Netflix and have much less left over for everyone else. Your concept makes no sense to me.
Yes, we should pay for all data.
Internet providers are not content providers. Why should they be the gatekeepers over what content you get for "free"? Why should they be able to provide incentive for people to use their favored movie streaming site by offering it for "free" when there might be newer, better streaming sites out there?
T-Mobile shouldn't be picking winners and losers. They should be providing connectivity.
Cable providers
In many cases Internet providers are also providers of content.
Cable providers are both content providers (via cable TV) and bandwidth providers (via internet). As such, they have a vested interest in choking off alternative providers of content like Netflix to force you to buy cable TV from them.
I think he understands Net Neutrality fine
And he just doesn't care, because he's too busy thinking about his short-term interests ("Free stuff!") to recognize the long-term impact his decisions make.
Has he?
He allegedly craves innovation when the policy he defends stifles innovation. How does the next Netflix get off the ground if their established competitors have a "free" data advantage. He lacks a basic understanding of the issues and just goes gaga over the word free without thinking of the ramifications.
It seems to me that he doesn
It seems to me that he doesn't understand how markets and incentives work for human nature.
That's a spicy opinion.
That's a spicy opinion.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/000/690/043/988.gif
Free Software Foundation
Free Software Foundation
https://www.google.com/search?q=neutrality+site%3Afsf.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality
Not surprising...
Hiawatha has never seemed to understand technology. I sat next to him 10 years ago at state senate hearings regarding choosing a way to digitally archive important documents, and it was clear from his line of questions that he didn't really get what we were talking about. It hasn't gotten any better. Hiawatha strikes me as someone who heard about something interesting from someone else but didn't hear all the words, and now is trying to describe the thing to his audience.
He's not a Big Picture guy.
He's not a Big Picture guy. He will tell you which consumer product has the best screen resolution but concepts of freedom are too much for him, (especially when free stuff is involved).
It's the Globe for Chrissakes
It's the Globe for Chrissakes. It's been decades since they printed anything worthwhile or factual.
He doesn't follow
Bray says he wants free stuff and new stuff, but if Comcast can give away free stuff to undercut and put out of business any newcomer to the web with a fresh idea, "free" will destroy "new".
Imagine Netflix trying to start up today. Comcast would throttle them in their crib.
This practice has been going on for hundreds of years. Why do we forget it over and over?