Oh, Comcast guised it as combating priacy, but if it
walks and quacks like a duck
If you say it's a duck your wearing a tinfoil hat.
Cheers,
Ron Watson
http://k9disc.blip.tv
http://k9disc.com
http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog
http://pawsitivevybe.com
On Dec 31, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Heath wrote:
This isn't evidence that big corporations are trying to crush us. The
last time I checked, neither NBC nor videobloggers used torrents very
often to distribute content. i.e. this community probably benefited
from this move. (i'm not saying I think comcast was right or wrong,
just saying that
So you're saying that thanks to Comcast...NBC's torrent traffic is
actually being hindered? Once again, this is still not evidence that
TV networks are trying to crush us. Obviously.
btw, I'm Canadian and I use torrents. i also frequently travel to
different areas of the US for work. I've
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nor is there reason to believe that the internet as we know it would
slow down. It would likely only speed up for certain services that
pay more. blip.tv and especially youtube would probably become
faster,
This discussion is primarily about whether or not TV networks are
trying to crush bloggers.
and like I said, net neutrality isn't a simple issue. With a
saturated market, ISPs have less reason to invest in new technologies.
Additionally, it would be difficult to fight against spam and hacker
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
btw, I'm Canadian and I use torrents. i also frequently travel to
different areas of the US for work. I've never noticed that it's
slower in Canada.
If I were Canadian, I'd live in a shed behind a trailer,
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's stick to
the topic at hand.
Excuse me?
Corporate control of the little guy's voice, either through
assimilation or elimination, is most definitely part of this topic.
And I'll thank you not to tell me
The question isn't whether or not Net Neutrality is good or bad, it's
whether or not TV networks are using net neutrality to crush this
community.
That's what I mean when I say we should stick to the topic at hand.
On Dec 31, 2007 1:11 PM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pat
You said
If they've been seen to shape traffic, I don't think it's a stretch to consider
that they might shape traffic to their competitive benefit.
Patrick Delongchamp wrote:
The question isn't whether or not Net Neutrality is good or bad, it's
whether or not TV networks are using net neutrality to
Actaully that was just a part of the question. And there's a real
problem with trying to pigeon hole the conversation to one question
at a time.
A conversation like this is bound to meander quite a bit, and despite
your best efforts to keep it to one tiny topic, it's not going to
happen,
This type of conversation rings with a fear which I think unjustified. I find
that many outside Big Business greatly overestimate its capacity for rational
action. But the standard mode is reaction, not action. The standard scale is
short-term, not long-term. The standard motivation is
11 matches
Mail list logo
