T-Mobile CFO: Less Regulation, Repeal of Net Neutrality By Trump Would Be 'Positive For My Industry' (tmonews.com) 158
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TmoNews: T-Mobile CFO Braxton Carter spoke at the UBS Global Media and Communications Conference in New York City, and he touched a bit on President-elect Donald Trump and what his election could mean for the mobile industry. Carter expects that a Trump presidency will foster an environment that'll be more positive for wireless. "It's hard to imagine, with the way the election turned out, that we're not going to have an environment, from several aspects, that is not going to be more positive for my industry," the CFO said. He went on to explain that there will likely be less regulation, something that he feels "destroys innovation and value creation." Speaking of innovation, Carter also feels that a reversal of net neutrality and the FCC's Open Internet rules would be good for innovation in the industry, saying that it "would provide opportunity for significant innovation and differentiation" and that it'd enable you to "do some very interesting things."
Would it be positive for your customers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you name one thing that your customers actually want that is actually being prevented by network neutrality regulations? Or is this more of the same big business "we'll tell you what you want and you'll like it!" bullshit we've gotten for years and years?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Has the company lied to you? It is a mobile network, so the company has no control over how many of its subscribers enter the area covered by a particular cell. The more people connected to a cell who are using (or trying to use) a data connection, the slower each one will be.
Re: Would it be positive for your customers? (Score:2)
It's hard to image that a company that collects so much data could really be caught that off guard. Sure, there might be a strange situation, like a modern Woodstock where thousands of people suddenly descend upon a low populated area for a weekend, but those situations are rare. For the most part, carriers know how much bandwidth they need where and they have the data necessary to predict most changes in the near future. If they're unable to do this then they're just bad at statistics, which is pretty inex
Re: (Score:1)
Oh yes! I absolutely wanted my ISP to downscale what I'm watching to shit 480p resolutions because they can't be bothered to upgrade their network!
Binge On was pretty Netural (Score:2)
IIRC, Binge On was strictly based on protocols... was it identifiable as video and did it respond to commands to downgrade to 240p
That is, anyone can do it. Although there was paperwork you had to fill out saying that you abided by those limitations, so possibly it was de facto non-neutral even though it was expressed as a neutral policy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Would it be positive for your customers? (Score:5, Interesting)
What carriers REALLY want to do is hit up everyone for protection money by threatening them with slowdowns, delays, and data charges if they don't pony up.
What carriers want is not to be carriers (Score:5, Insightful)
They want to be closed worlds, revenue generating from everything you do on their network and with their business partners only.
They want perpetual customer lock-in, because each "carrier's" dog's breakfast of apps and locked-content portals would be so different from other carriers' offerings that it would be too confusing and too much work to ever change the "Carrier-net" (as opposed to Internet) that you belong to.
Re:What carriers want is not to be carriers (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a point in time when you could only use the startrek.com website if you were on a specific ISP. I don't remember which ISP it was; this was *EONS* ago, probably in the 90s. I vaguely remember getting angry about it and writing a ranty post on Usenet, though I can't find it now in Google Groups.
This is the kind of crap we might see again if Net Neutrality is tossed to the wind.
Whoah! I just remembered. It was the Star Trek Continuum site, and it only worked on MSN. Here's a link:
http://www.trektoday.com/colum... [trektoday.com]
The idea of this crap happening again really bothers me.
1980s/1990s online service redux (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You realize they're still in business. I can see their building from my office window.
Re: (Score:2)
I kind of miss the good old days of AOL. Back then you could get the latest and greatest internet connection for only $19.99 a month with no hidden fees and taxes!
And a swank set of reflective coasters for the holidays aka the spam cds....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Before AOL flooded the world with install CDs, they did this with 3.5" diskettes. If I only knew back then that acetone could be used to join ABS to itself, I would have hung on to many of them for uses beyond the occasional use for storage.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, more sponsored free data transfer and optimization from content providers. It's a grey area now. But "Stream Game of Thrones now without using your data, exclusively on AT&T" is something that carriers and content providers really want to do.
You can have this kind of thing with network neutrality.
What carriers REALLY want to do is hit up everyone for protection money by threatening them with slowdowns, delays, and data charges if they don't pony up.
This is the problem you have without network neutrality.
The problem isn't with promoting content or unmetered content. The problem is with deliberately slowing down or shaping content that isn't paying. Hell, you can even prioritise traffic as long as non-priority traffic is delivered at wire speed rather than at a shaped speed.
Given how national communication grids are designed, chances are at one point your stream of GOT will cross out of an AT
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't with promoting content or unmetered content
Not yet anyway. But once they make enough deals with content providers ("Give us money and your shows will be unmetered for your viewers") all of a sudden the internet providers will proudly boast "90% of our customers only use X GB of data, so that's where we're placing our bandwidth cap", where X is $((Current_cap/10)).
And then that will effectively stop customers from visiting any content provider that isn't zero-rated, since that eats their data cap. This either forces the remaining content providers
Re: (Score:1)
They already can do that over wireless.
Re: (Score:1)
Is AT&T going to upgrade their network to support all that free Game of Thrones they're giving away? Or for those of us who subscribed to Netflix, are we going to get throttled because we want to watch something else?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Upgrade? Hah! You're a funny guy. Netflix will be lucky to not get blocked entirely.
Re:Would it be positive for your customers? (Score:5, Informative)
"Stream Game of Thrones now without using your data, exclusively on AT&T" is something that carriers and content providers really want to do.
Close. They want the MONEY that comes with EXCLUSIVITY.
Somebody is paying for that. The big companies want it to be HBO or Showtime or Disney or whoever, spending tons of money to other big companies so the big companies can promote their big ideas.
The problem is that everybody else is excluded. Want to be in the Free Data system? Pay up. This is completely against the concept of net neutrality where all content is treated as equal content.
Prioritization is a similar issue. It is true that networks need to prioritize some types of data over other types of data. Phone calls shouldn't be buffered behind a large file transfer, so a limited degree of QoS needs to take place. But categorizing one provider over another provider is unfair. Having HBO streaming arrive at a higher QoS priority and Netflix streaming appear dead last in the QoS where it is constantly buffering and suffering lost packets because Netflix refused to pay up, that is unfair to customers.
If I pay for data it should not matter to the phone company what data I get. They should be treated as common carriers. If I want to stream data from a premium channel, or from youtube, or from a private website, or from a site the phone company thinks is undesirable, it should not matter at all. Customer pays to stream data at a specific speed, then the data should be processed at that speed. Just like common carriers of the postal service or parcel companies, if the customer pays to transfer something then it gets transferred, they don't decide to keep one company's boxes in the warehouse for an extra week just because they didn't pay an extra fee, it arrives in the warehouse it is processed just like every other package. There are still QoS for certain types of packages, a "next day air" versus regular ground shipment, but nothing is delayed because of the carrier's choices.
Binge-On is great this way. The customer can say "throttle ALL my data", or "stop throttling ALL my data". It isn't the phone company getting paid to bless a specific company with different speeds.
Hope he reads this! (Score:2)
I hope Donald Trump reads /.
Re: (Score:2)
Free data is something else entirely. We PAY for our ISPs, we PAY for netflix, and yet some carriers want to slow that down in preference for their own offerings.
Re: (Score:1)
They already do it. The FCC just told them to stop it again, but they'll find a way to repackage it as a feature while claiming it's not actually the feature they say it is but they're not falsely advertising. Again.
Glitchless streaming. (Score:4, Interesting)
Can you name one thing that your customers actually want that is actually being prevented by network neutrality regulations?
Glitchless streaming.
Streaming (things like audio, video, phone calls) requires relatively small and constant bandwidth (though compression adds variability) but isn't good at tolerating dropouts or variations in transit time. When it does get dropouts it's better to NOT send a retry correction (and have the retry packet risk delaying and/or forcing the drop of another packet).
TCP connections (things like big file transfers) error check and retry, fixing dropouts and errors so the data arrives intact, though with no guarantee exactly when. But they achieve high bandwidth and evenly divide the bandwidth at a bottleneck by deliberately speeding up until they super-saturate the bottleneck and force dropouts. The dropouts tell them they've hit the limit, so they slow down and track the bleeding edge.
Put them both on a link and treat the packets equally and TCP causes streaming to break up, stutter, etc. Overbuilding the net helps, but if the data to be tranferred is big enough TCP will ALWAYS saturate a link somewhere along the way.
Identify the traffic type and treat their packets differently - giving higher priority to stream packets (up to a limit, so applications can't gain by cheating, claiming to be a stream when they're not) - and then they play together just fine. Stream packets zip through, up to an allocation limit at some fraction of the available bandwidth, and TCP transfers evenly divide what's left - including the unused part of the streams' allocation.
But the tools for doing this also enable the ISPs to do other, not so good for customers, things. Provided they chose to do so, of course.
IMHO the bad behavior can be dealt with best, not by attempting to enforce "Network Neutrality" as a technical hack at an FCC regulation level, but as a consumer protection issue, by an agency like the FTC. Some high points:
- Break up the vertical integration of ISPs into "content provider" conglomerates, so there's no incentive to penalize the packets of competitors to the mother-ship's services.
- Treat things like throttling high-volume users and high-bandwidth services as consumer fraud: "You sold 'internet service'". Internet service doesn't work that way. Ditto "pay for better treatment of your packets" (but not "pay to sublet a fixed fraction of the pipe").
- Extra scrutiny for possible monopolistic behavior anywhere there are less than four viable broadband competitors, making it impractical for customers to "vote with their feet".
Re: Glitchless streaming. (Score:1)
I hate to break it to you, but streaming services use TCP to transfer video for things like Netflix, etc. It sounds insane, since UDP is the "obvious" choice for streaming video, but in fact they make lots of small TCP (actually HTTP) requests because they have to adjust the quality of the stream to meet the quality target (e.g don't stutter and keep playing no matter what). That's why your evening streaming movie sometimes goes to very low quality for a few seconds and then goes back to high-quality.
Have a
Re: (Score:3)
I hate to break it to you, but streaming services use TCP to transfer video for things like Netflix, etc. It sounds insane, since UDP is the "obvious" choice for streaming video, but in fact they make lots of small TCP (actually HTTP) requests because they have to adjust the quality of the stream to meet the quality target (e.g don't stutter and keep playing no matter what). That's why your evening streaming movie sometimes goes to very low quality for a few seconds and then goes back to high-quality.
Content streaming (e.g. Netflix) is bulk transmission. All that matters is whether or not there is sufficient bandwidth available in the aggregate to keep receive buffer from emptying completely.
UDP is used for "streaming" real-time data such as voice or video calling and has very different channel requirements from that of content streaming. Here latency and jitter are critical to quality of service while these same characteristics are essentially irrelevant for Netflix.
Re:Glitchless streaming. (Score:5, Interesting)
Streaming (things like audio, video, phone calls) requires relatively small and constant bandwidth (though compression adds variability) but isn't good at tolerating dropouts or variations in transit time. When it does get dropouts it's better to NOT send a retry correction (and have the retry packet risk delaying and/or forcing the drop of another packet).
Low latency and jitter are only helpful for real-time communications otherwise mostly irrelevant for Internet based content "Streaming" services.
Put them both on a link and treat the packets equally and TCP causes streaming to break up, stutter, etc. Overbuilding the net helps, but if the data to be tranferred is big enough TCP will ALWAYS saturate a link somewhere along the way.
Nonsense. You maintain low latency and minimize jitter with queue management. There are a many different fair queues you can pick from that will do this without caring at all about content.
TCP connections (things like big file transfers) error check and retry, fixing dropouts and errors so the data arrives intact
TCP can only retransmit. Only place meaningful error correction occurs is link layer. IP layer "checksums" are at best decorative.. at worst a useless waste of bandwidth and silicon.
Identify the traffic type and treat their packets differently - giving higher priority to stream packets (up to a limit, so applications can't gain by cheating, claiming to be a stream when they're not) - and then they play together just fine. Stream packets zip through, up to an allocation limit at some fraction of the available bandwidth, and TCP transfers evenly divide what's left - including the unused part of the streams' allocation.
But the tools for doing this also enable the ISPs to do other, not so good for customers, things. Provided they chose to do so, of course.
Content based prioritization is mostly pointless in the real world. It doesn't work across administrative domains and when it works at all tends to be a result of either a network being hopelessly oversubscribed or not properly managed.
Treat things like throttling high-volume users
Metering total packets to or from a customer isn't a net neutrality issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Net Neutrality doesn't say anything about treating TCP and UDP connections the same. If it does, you're reading too much Alt Right Wing news.
NN says that every similar type of content should be treated the same way. NN does NOT say that all content has to be treated the same way.
- Someone who's Whatsapp video chatting vs someone who's Skyping should be treated the same, and says nothing about what priority Youtube is compared to the video chat services.
- Throttling or charging high-usage users is also not
Re: (Score:2)
You should work for Donald Trump. Seriously. Please.
Re: (Score:2)
One way that might help is to use DSCP to assign classes of service to traffic. The problem, of course, is that DSCP can be abused. With proper settings things like bittorrent or downloading files would be assigned a low priority whereas voice traffic would be assigned the highest priority. I do this internally on my own network for upstream bandwidth so my backup traffic does not interfere with other data streams. It also means that no matter what someone may be torrenting it won't affect higher-priority t
Re: (Score:2)
While not "true" net neutrality, most people, even proponents, don't argue against prioritization of specific, well known protocols. Nobody in the world believes that their neighbor's download of Dog the Bounty hunter should be more important than their work call.
The trouble comes in when they don't prioritize by protocol, but rather by origin. So Comcast prioritizes Comcast' own VOIP offering but they ignore Skype's VOIP offering unless Microsoft pays them $bignum for prioritization on top of the user an
Re: (Score:1)
Glitchless streaming.
You don't understand net neutrality. Seriously. You don't. Glitchless streaming is a solved problem.
Net neutrality is about not discriminating one streaming service from another, so that when you implement the protocols necessary to support glitchless streaming (look into ECN for a starter) you do it for streaming in general, without preference for any specific provider or service.
That is what net neutrality is about.
It is intended to promote actual competition without discrimination.
Every supporter of true
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you. If we're all paying for the same class of service why should your packets mean more or less than mine? Why is your desire to watch Game of Thrones in UHD on a 4" screen more important than the webpage that I'm trying to load or the spreadsheet I'm trying to email that my job depends on?
Re: (Score:2)
As he said, it impinges upon creativity...fiscal creativity, that is, not the technological kind...
Re: (Score:3)
Not true. Think of how creative the tobacco industry was with their products and advertisements before they were regulated!
I'm sure AT&T and Comcast will come up with all sorts of creative ways to keep customers paying ever more to receive less and less service!
Innovation y'all!
I remember a few years ago up here in Canada when Bell & friends were pushing for data usage caps and they were quick to point out how it cause Netflix to "innovate" the great idea of degrading video quality to near-unwatcha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you name one thing that your customers actually want that is actually being prevented by network neutrality regulations? Or is this more of the same big business "we'll tell you what you want and you'll like it!" bullshit we've gotten for years and years?
Nope. Even TFS says it is the T-Mobile Chief Financial Officer. His focus is right there in his job title. I wouldn't expect anything less than "this is great for our bottom line" to ever be said by a CFO. It just feels like he's seeing new ways to pad his wallet.
Shame too, since T-Mobile's "un-carrier" stuff with unlimited streaming was a breath of fresh air against the 2-year lockdowns, and pay-extra-for-everything-including-breathing of their competitors.
Re: Would it be positive for your customers? (Score:2, Insightful)
You obviously have no idea what net neutrality is actually about. The idea isn't to make your existing service any better. The idea is to keep it from being choked to death by your ISP so they can serve cat videos from YouTube faster than you can fetch your email because Google has an agreement in place for that.
Net neutrality is an attempt to guarantee that the Big Players can't effectively take-over the Internet so that nobody else can effectively communicate.
Brave (Score:5, Insightful)
So brave of Mr. Carter to talk about deregulation at a banking conference. I'm sure his notions were vigorously challenged.
But for consumers. (Score:5, Funny)
As a consumer; however, it would be painful for both my wallet and my rectum. And they don't even have the goddamn common courtesy to give a reach around.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they give a reach around!
How else are they going to empty your wallet while pounding you from behind?
Positive for the ISPs (Score:5, Insightful)
But bad for everyone else. The ISPs control a bottleneck of the usually meshed internet: the last mile. Everywhere else one can route around a bad actor, but there leads only one line to the end users, and it goes through the ISPs.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather have the last mile be a public utility, giving me a wider choice of providers. If the providers don't have to run wire to every customer's house, merely to a routing node, many more will be able to enter the market.
Our current specimens of oligopolies here suck rotting bundles of moldy maggot-filled pig feces on a good day.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a good idea, and in fact something like that was even required in europe when the old state owned telephone companies (which owned monopolies) were put on the market, to make it possible for competitors to enter it. But its no replacement for net neutrality, because people will still blame youtube for being slow, not the ISP, and they will still only chose one ISP at a time.
Why not eliminate the Sherman Antitrust Act, too? (Score:5, Insightful)
By that same standard, the Sherman Antitrust Act, which was designed to prevent precisely the same sorts of abuse that Net Neutrality laws prevent, is also an impediment to innovation and doing interesting things, if by interesting things, you mean using bundling to drive your competition out of the market and creating an oligopoly of content providers owned by the same folks who own the pipes (i.e. the exact opposite of what the Internet was intended to be).
Not how this works (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
There is honestly nothing in your post that is factual.
So elect him president...oh, never mind.
No shit, Sherlock! (Score:2)
Who would have thought?
Value creation (Score:1)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Civics class 101 ... (Score:2)
... pop quiz:
Which branch of government deals with this shit?
One word or less.
Re:Civics class 101 ... (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, the FCC is the rulesmaking body that started this particular fight. This makes the answer: Excutive.
Now, the Legislative branch could get involved by writing up a new law outlining the FCC's authority or amending the FCC's charter. But right now, thanks to the Chevron decision and several decisions since this is clearly in the Executive's bailiwick.
What a coincidence! (Score:2)
Wells Fargo says the same thing [cnn.com]... Well, minus the 'net neutrality' thing...
Welcome to Trump's America! (Score:1)
Re:What a coincidence! (Score:4, Informative)
Posting AC for obvious reasons.
Working in the mortgage industry as I do, I wasn't particularly surprised when I heard basically the same thing at a get-together with other mortgage professionals last week. The most fun part was after a few drinks people basically predicted another housing bubble coming out of this administration and suggested to either get in on it and get out fast while the getting is good or to make long-term investments to outlast it.
Not the "innovation" we are looking for (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed that is true. Crony capitalism.
Repeal T-Mobile (Score:2)
Are you sure T-Mobile? (Score:3)
The reason we need regulation like net neutrality is because of regulation preventing new players to enter the market. I am all for deregulation IF you deregulate completely, not selectively. T-Mobile would love deregulation of net neutrality and the current "rules" don't have teeth to them anyway so I don't see why, they're still happily violating it. I would also love deregulation of the entire wireless market and the government to open the lines the tax payer has paid for. Pretty much all copper, fiber and antennae are heavily subsidized if not completely paid for by the tax payer. Sure let's deregulate those usage rights on federally, state and local levels and give them back to the tax payer.
Lets turn the dial to zero then (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we give him exactly what he wants.
And remove the regulations that forbid or make difficult municipal internet & Wifi?
And remove the regulations that make it harder for groups to even attempt to enter the last mile to compete?
I mean, if we're gonna roll back regulations, lets roll them back!
Re: (Score:2)
How about the regulations that give these few companies control over a large portion of the usable radio bandwidth?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Even better: remove all regulations on spectrum use. Why shouldn't I be able to "innovate" with the air waves?
Re: (Score:2)
Even better: remove all regulations on spectrum use. Why shouldn't I be able to "innovate" with the air waves?
Because your "innovation" may cause interference with others. And the reverse.
Radio spectrum belongs to all of us, but the government has a legitimate role in regulating the use of our spectrum so that chaos does not happen. That's why there are portions of the spectrum for various uses, some of them commercial, and others private.
Re: (Score:2)
Better check the batteries in your sarcasm detector. I don't think it's working.
Re: (Score:1)
All I see are regulations that are destroying "innovation and value creation."
Re: (Score:2)
Woosh!
Tell that to the moderator who scored Desler's post as +1 Insightful.
Triple-negative (Score:2, Funny)
It's hard to imagine, with the way the election turned out, that we're not going to have an environment, from several aspects, that is not going to be more positive for my industry
If you read this carefully, you'll see that it says the opposite of what CFO Braxton Carter intended.
Re: (Score:2)
More positive (POSITIVE) --> not "" "" (NEGATIVE) -->not going to have an environment "" ""(POSITIVE) -->Hard to imagine "" ""(NEEGATIVE)
Yep. You are correct. If he had left out the "hard to imagine", he would have been A-OK.
I think he lost track of his negatives (Score:2)
It's hard to imagine, with the way the election turned out, that we're not going to have an environment, from several aspects, that is not going to be more positive for my industry,
Let's see:
It's hard to imagine, with the way the election turned out, that we're not going to have an environment
Simplifies to:
We should, with the way the election turned out, have an environment
from several aspects, that is not going to be more positive for my industry,
Simplifies to:
from several aspects, that is going to be more negative for my industry
Aren't you supposed to be a good communicator to be a CEO? Or did the submitter/TFA misinterpret his statement?
Re: (Score:2)
How interesting? (Score:3)
Are we talking interesting things like Enron? Or interesting things like Fanny Mae?
The only interesting thing I'm sure will NOT come from this is what the FCC were doing until Trump, - adding consumer protections in a geographical monopoly trying to break into a full-on walled garden monopoly.
A different perspective (Score:2)
The US cotton industry claims that a repeal of the abolition -- which destroys innovation and value creation -- will foster an environment that'll be more positive for their business and would be good for innovation in the industry. They went on to say that it "would provide opportunity for significant innovation and differentiation" and that it'd enable you to "do some very interesting things."
Wizard of Oz (Score:1)
I agree (Score:2)
Would gladly support repeal of net neutrality just as soon as ALL large providers are broken up into separate companies no bigger than 1M subs each, all incumbent protection laws are outlawed and telecom providers forbidden from owning any stake in content creation or delivery.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll be for it when we repeal the regulations on spectrum use. Let others "innovate" with T-Mobile's allocated spectrum bands.
Good for "the industry"? Meaning higher fees (Score:2)
Regulations against Municipal broadband? (Score:2)
Oh, I see. By "less regulation" you mean letting private businesses do whatever they want, not anyone else.
FTFY (Score:2)
Sadly, you are mistaken Braxton Carter (Score:1, Troll)
I'm afraid you do not understand what industry you are in. You are a public utility. As a public utility consumers do not want you to "innovate". The Public, yes with a capital P synonymous with People in "We the People...", have a vested interest in you serving as a public utility and that means not "innovating". Innovation that is simply creative ways of charging people more money for less utility is not in the Public interest. What is good for T-Mobile is not necessarily good for the
Ya, you see... (Score:2)
T-Mobile CFO: Less Regulation, Repeal of Net Neutrality ... Would Be 'Positive For My Industry'
Limited imangination (Score:2)
It's hard to imagine, with the way the election turned out, that we're not going to have an environment, from several aspects, that is not going to be more positive for my industry
I could easily imagine how two dozen people, now homeless, huddling over a burning barrel in a Trumpville, all sharing the same cell phone, would cut wireless provider revenues.
I hate to say it (Score:2)
The working class has lost solidarity. And without that we're getting picked apart.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of those folks went to the poll for Trump
The working class has lost solidarity
Not sure those two add up.
a lot who didn't stayed home instead of throwing in for Hilary
Unless there's some evidence that only Hilary supporters were too lazy to go out and vote, this doesn't really modify your initial statement to any interesting degree.
And without that we're getting picked apart
In what way? Trump was talking up bringing jobs back to America and killing NAFTA and raising import tariffs and yadayadayada. I mean there's little chance he'll manage most of that but if you're living in a factory town that no longer has a factory, the rhetoric sounds a lot better than Clinton's promising to raise
Internet Hosts Consortium (Score:1)
Well, duh... (Score:2)
"Innovate" "Create value" (Score:2)
Re: buh (Score:1)
When consolidation in both industries let content creators buy the distributors. That's when.