Subscribe: Comments for
Preview: Comments for

Comments for

David S. Isenberg's musings about loci of intelligence and stupidity.

Last Build Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 03:20:16 +0000


Comment on Everybody vs. FCC except . . . by Eye Espy

Mon, 12 May 2014 03:20:16 +0000

How can people be for or against something they have not seen? What is really going on is that corporations are trying to pressure the FCC into proposing something that is beneficial to them. This is not democracy, it's bullying.

Comment on Everybody vs. FCC except . . . by Mark Milliman

Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:59:07 +0000

David: I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Is it that the so-called self-serving capitalists are only supported by their cronies? Not so. They understand the issues at hand here. This is a traffic management issue plain and simple. Video has flooded the Internet and decreased the quality of service for all. Traffic management for time-sensitive traffic is a cost-effective way providing the best QoE for all services, even best-effort. Businesses have been purchasing managed services for years just for that reason. It is time that we extend it to the residential services. The net neutrality pundits have it wrong. They don't understand the issues. What they want is just like Obamacare; a lower quality of service for everyone. The FCC is proposing rules that will provide a competitive playing field for the OTT providers since we cannot get it on a network-basis. I am not surprised at Vint Cerf's position since such a proposal would cost Google millions per year. If he were still with Vz/MCI he would be singing a different song. I have not heard or read a single technical argument that supports "net neutrality" as the people above define it. My definition is more like that of Silicon Flatirons which allows traffic prioritization as a way to improve service delivery. This uproar has become more of an emotional issue rather than an intelligently debated one. I would hope that you would understand the discussion and come to the same conclusion.

Comment on Everybody vs. FCC except . . . by Blue Marble Times – Technology | Everybody vs. FCC except . . .

Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:36:06 +0000

[…] – Everybody is against FCC Chairman Wheeler’s soon-to-be-forthcoming proposal, it seems, except Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and Time Warner Cable. And a few on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand academics like Kevin Werbach and Phil Weiser, both of whom have served in the federal government to augment their academic careers. It’s exactly as David Pogue outlined in his recent Scientific American column, The Net Neutrality Debate in 2 Minutes or Less, Network Neutrality is supported by . […]

Comment on Muni nets are no substitute for net neutrality by Melchior blausand (@blausand)

Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:40:15 +0000

Many many thanks from Cologne, Germany for your point. I'm currently fighting for regaining citizens control over our (top 3) municipal fibre net. Without your clear words i could easily have lost focus on net neutrality, which is of course an issue superiour to what i'm talking about very much these days: service level decentralisation.

Comment on Muni nets are no substitute for net neutrality by Muni nets are no substitute for net neutrality | Dewayne-Net Archives

Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:42:32 +0000

[…] Muni nets are no substitute for net neutrality By David Isenberg Apr 28 2014 […]

Comment on Muni nets are no substitute for net neutrality by Christopher Mitchell

Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:02:26 +0000

David, I think you are too negative on muni networks even as I agree that they alone do not solve the problem. But Susan is smart to put more of an emphasis on them as one of several solutions. First of all, we have more representation in City Hall than in states and certainly at the Federal Government. City Council and Mayoral elections are not nearly as dominated by commercial advertising and grassroots strategies can be far more effective. So even if we assume that muni nets are going to engage in limiting subscriber benefits, we have far more capacity to change that than at any other level of government. Local races often turn on a few hundred votes or even tens of votes. Structural separation is a good national solution and I hope to see it imposed as it is elegant, easily enforced, and would result in many better outcomes than the status quo. Finally, we are seeing far more interest from local governments to build these networks so the current number should be viewed as indicative of what is possible. The more we have community networks, small independent networks, etc, the more obvious it is how the massive cable and telephone companies are screwing us. This is a long term fight, not something that we can "win" on and go fishing. In over 100 years of electricity provisioning, the private companies are still trying to game the system constantly and harvest wealth from us.

Comment on My Internet Dream and My Nightmare by Tim Scott

Sat, 12 Apr 2014 02:23:35 +0000

It was excellent, great vision David. Keep bringing it every year as opposed to every few. Thanks

Comment on My Internet Dream and My Nightmare by Lindsey Annison

Fri, 11 Apr 2014 13:00:33 +0000

As ever, right on the money, Mr Isenberg. It is the edgy development at the edge that makes life online so exciting, uncontrollable, and sexily scary. Well said, brilliant speech. Hope they cheered loudly in Austin :)

Comment on After The Open Internet Order, Reclassification! by Net Neutrality Ruling - The Creative Librarian

Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:20:48 +0000

[…] is about. Who Killed Net Neutrality? : The New Yorker has a review of how we got to this point. After The Open Internet Order, Reclassification! finds a silver lining in the cloud. ‘A FEMA-level fail’: The law professor who coined ‘net […]