What's your neighborhood and how do we know it isn't an issue of the demand side of the market not validating the investment?

Not quite sure, are you making the case for no legislation at all?

To summarize, you're saying that none of these look like legit solutions broadly, but a hodgepodge of different solutions in different locations can create interesting options for competition against the natural monopolies, but these natural monopolies may remain in some areas regardless?

So are you saying you think no legislation can help here, or do you think there is something that can enforce e2e but it just wouldn't get through in practice without dinging certain use cases?

In general, I don't think legislation ever helps. The political meat grinder perverts a grassroots call for sanity into more red tape that supports the incumbents' status quo. Keep in mind that the large companies you might be tempted to say would support net neutrality are actually incumbents and would love to keep competition from springing up, especially if they were based on compelling non-http technologies.

If you think otherwise, please take my first point and run with it. I personally think the only way forward is to get more encrypted peer-talking traffic-indistinguishable apps into more people's day-to-day use. Then there's an actual market demand for real Internet access.

agree. while people may sometimes have valid concerns, its the chain of reasoning that leads to proposed ways of addressing those concerns that often isn't grounded in realistic economics.

Pretty sure the answer is yes and it has a lot more to do with what Apple and Google were able to do. They didn't gain share in any PC OS or PC apps markets where microsoft was dominant, they just made those markets less relevant.

It sounds like you're agreeing with him. Microsoft was complacent, that's why it didn't try to get into those new markets until it was too late

Jim, this is a really fantastic breakdown. thanks. The part I still don't understand is - how can I threatening W other than by violating their terms with C? Doesn't C, the party who pays I, ultimately pay for a service spec? Is the spec too loose such that it allows I to throttle specific W's?

We've sent you a new EULA, it's 5,000 pages, please sign it to continue to receive internet service.

done. plz fax eula, i only received digi

Could you clarify the following and maybe provide a link?

"right now there's no free market in the broadband space. ISP's have managed to basically outlaw competition from their areas, so before we even begin to accept the idea of "competition is the solution, not regulation", then we need to actually make that true, and make sure all such restrictions against new entrants are lifted"

Agree that we need to look at concrete deal terms in question and talk about what's actually anticompetitive vs. what is just sound decisions by self-interested economic actors. It seems to me that if torrent users are paying for connection parameters that account for the specifics of their usage, there shouldn't be any problems. I have tried to find good detailed accounts about the torrent vs. comcast battle, but haven't found any really detailed technical and economic accounts of what's been happening and why. Anyone have a good link?

thanks so much! what can we do to make it even better?

Please get some more sharing integrations into the app. I want Buffer integration. Also I would love to have Pocket integration for reading something later.

improve search within the site - i want it to be easier to index and bring back articles i have read in the past. right now i manage this via sharing to twitter + adding to delicious.

if delicious has an API that lets you do it, add the ability to post directly to delicious

We're working on windows this year!