Re: [videoblogging] Re: Things are changing for real.....(?)

2008-07-24 Thread Pat Cook 
Hi everyone:

Here's MY take on the whole issue.  See my responses below

Jay dedman wrote:
> 
>  > On a more positive note, I think that even if we are forced into a tiered
>  > situation, it probably won't last very long. People will be angry and
>  > demand more bandwidth. Other companies could rise to the challenge 
> and lay
>  > bigger pipes and tubes to meet demand. We may see a temporary information
>  > recession, but it's not the end of the world.
> 
> Comcast and other broadband providers need to simply be transparent.
> they cant say they have "all-you-can-eat" service and then throttle
> back how much you actually get.
> this is the bait-and-switch method of business.
> If I'm only going to get 100GB of traffic a month, then tell me that.

I do believe someone could *conceivably* claim DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING on 
the part of the cable & Telco industries if they REALLY wanted to.

> Broadband companies need to say what they are actually offering so
> customers can make educated decisions.

Beyond the packages, that has nothing to do with it.

> unfortunately in the US, there is often only one broadband in a region
> (aka monopoly)
> This is why we must also have regulation to make sure that one carrier
> doesn't block certain technologies or websites arbitrarily.
> They must be neutral about what goes "through the pipes".

Well whether Comcast likes it or not, my little Internet TV station will 
be going 'through their pipes'.  The same goes for my radio station too.

I think what needs to be done is for either Congress or (Perhaps even 
more appropriately) the U.S. Supreme Court to take action against State 
and/or local laws governing who shall be the provider of Cable, Internet 
& Telephone service in their area.  I mean LOOK AT THE SATELLITE TV 
INDUSTRY.  They're free to operate wherever they damned well choose. 
The cable companies don't have that luxury because of ANTIQUATED State 
and/or Local laws, many of which date back to the late '70s and early '80s.

I say this because Denver is one of those municipalities where such a 
law exists.  It basically states that not more than ONE cable company 
(Today that would be Comcast) CANNOT operate within the boundaries of 
The City & County Of Denver.  They CAN however operate in the Suburbs 
(In fact, United Cable did just that when it was around while Mile High 
Cablevision operated in The City & County Of Denver itself AND had the 
SOLE & EXCLUSIVE license as a result of that law being passed by voters).

Now today, if (Let's say for the sake of discussion) Cox Communications 
wanted to set up shop and offer their cable services, they could 
probably do so, but again, it'd have to be in the suburbs since Comcast 
(Through it's acqusition of AT&T Broadband many moons ago) has the sole 
& exclusive license to operate in The City & County Of Denver itself.

But the big $64,000 question there is would Cox REALLY wanna step on 
Comcast's toes to get into the Denver market?  With Comcast being THE 
ONLY game in town when it comes to Cable TV, Comcast has FREE REIGN to 
do whatever it damned well pleases in BOTH the suburbs AND The City & 
County Of Denver.

In short, I think the problem lies with all these old antiquated State 
and/or local laws that are STILL in/on the books which NO ONE seems to 
be in a real big hurry to change.  And unfortunately, unless something 
is done soon, the complacency by the government AND the cable and Telco 
industries WILL prove to be COSTLY (And WE CONSUMERS will come out on 
the losing end as we'll be THE BIGGEST LOSERS!! :( ).

Just my opinion

Cheers :)

-- 
Pat Cook
Denver, Colorado
PODCASTS -
AS MY WORLD TURNS - Blogger Page - http://asmyworldturnstv.blogspot.com/ 
BlogTV Page - http://www.blogtv.com/Shows/20453
AS MY WEIGHT LOSS WORLD TURNS - http://asmyweightlossworldturns.blogspot.com
PAT'S REAL DEAL VIDEO BLOG - http://patsrealdeal.livejournal.com/
PAT'S HEALTH & MEDICAL WONDERS VIDEOCAST - 
http://patshealthmedicalwondersvideocast.blogspot.com/
YOUTUBE CHANNEL - http://www.youtube.com/amwowttv/
THE PAT COOK SHOW  - http://www.livevideo.com/thepcshow
THE PAT COOK SHOW (Video Podcast) - Blogger Page - 
http://thepctvshow.blogspot.com/ - BlogTV Page - 
http://www.blogtv.com/Shows/19924
**COMING SOON** - PAT'S CLASSIC TV COMMERCIALS VIDEO PODCAST - 
http://patsclassictvcommercials-ipod.blogspot.com/ (iPod), 
http://patsclassictvcommercials-flash.blogspot.com/ (Flash)

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Things are changing for real.....(?)

2008-07-24 Thread Patrick Delongchamp 
amen to that.

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On a more positive note, I think that even if we are forced into a tiered
>> situation, it probably won't last very long. People will be angry and
>> demand more bandwidth. Other companies could rise to the challenge and lay
>> bigger pipes and tubes to meet demand. We may see a temporary information
>> recession, but it's not the end of the world.
>
> Comcast and other broadband providers need to simply be transparent.
> they cant say they have "all-you-can-eat" service and then throttle
> back how much you actually get.
> this is the bait-and-switch method of business.
> If I'm only going to get 100GB of traffic a month, then tell me that.
>
> Broadband companies need to say what they are actually offering so
> customers can make educated decisions.
> unfortunately in the US, there is often only one broadband in a region
> (aka monopoly)
> This is why we must also have regulation to make sure that one carrier
> doesn't block certain technologies or websites arbitrarily.
> They must be neutral about what goes "through the pipes".
>
> Jay
>
> --
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Things are changing for real.....(?)

2008-07-24 Thread Jay dedman 
> On a more positive note, I think that even if we are forced into a tiered
> situation, it probably won't last very long. People will be angry and
> demand more bandwidth. Other companies could rise to the challenge and lay
> bigger pipes and tubes to meet demand. We may see a temporary information
> recession, but it's not the end of the world.

Comcast and other broadband providers need to simply be transparent.
they cant say they have "all-you-can-eat" service and then throttle
back how much you actually get.
this is the bait-and-switch method of business.
If I'm only going to get 100GB of traffic a month, then tell me that.

Broadband companies need to say what they are actually offering so
customers can make educated decisions.
unfortunately in the US, there is often only one broadband in a region
(aka monopoly)
This is why we must also have regulation to make sure that one carrier
doesn't block certain technologies or websites arbitrarily.
They must be neutral about what goes "through the pipes".

Jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Things are changing for real.....(?)

2008-07-23 Thread Adam Quirk 
It very well could be complete garbage.  And at the very least, the part
about them slipping it past Canadians with little fanfare is obviously never
going to happen.  But it makes sense financially.  And usually corporations
like to make money.

There's also this, if that first article wasn't mongering enough fear:
http://digg.com/tech_news/2012_The_Year_The_Internet_Ends

If and when the Time article comes out, we'll see if they really have
sources from those top Telco's.

As a poster on another list I'm on states:
"did you believe it when you first heard at&t had special rooms to share all
packets with the feds? i had a tough time with that one, yet it was proven
to be true, for all the major us telcos except quest."

On a more positive note, I think that even if we are forced into a tiered
situation, it probably won't last very long.  People will be angry and
demand more bandwidth.  Other companies could rise to the challenge and lay
bigger pipes and tubes to meet demand.  We may see a temporary information
recession, but it's not the end of the world.

*Adam Quirk* / Wreck & Salvage  /
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim)

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Agreed.  Sorry Adam but that article was garbage.  No references and
> pure fear mongering.  As i read Jay's first post I thought about how
> we've moved away from uninformed fear mongering arguments about net
> neutrality.  Does anyone remember the Rocketboom highway analogy
> video? Anyone who's ever tried to do some work at 10 PM in a business
> traveler's hotel understands how detrimental a lack of network
> management can be.  While some guests are downloading films over bit
> torrent, others are waiting 30 minutes just to check their email.
>
> Network management isn't going to go away.  It's useful for multiple
> reasons.  The primary reason being customer satisfaction.  However,
> rules that discourage anti-competitiveness are necessary.  Obviously
> ISP shouldn't be aloud to completely block content, only modify it's
> priority. i.e. Prioritize VOIP packets while delaying bittorrent
> packets.  The best solution I can imagine would be in the form of
> network management transparency with the public or a government
> agency.
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > They try this, they won't know what hit them.
> >
> > I like how the article says Canada is a good test case because
> > Canadians are more laissez faire and less politically motivated. Not
> > my experience of Canada so far. They might seem laid back, but poke
> > them with a stick and they're like hornets. And people here seem
> > more reliant on the internet for communication and information than
> > those in countries with greater population density.
> >
> > Britain would be a better test case. People are less gung ho about
> > new technology & computers there. Except there are 1000s of ISPs,
> > and they all compete to offer more freedom and goodies.
> >
> > And even in Britain, when 3 mobile tried to do this with internet
> > access on their 3G phones in England, it didn't work and they had to
> > open it up so they could compete with Vodafone & O2. AOL died in the
> > UK for much the same reason.
> >
> > Wherever it's tried where there's competition, it won't work. Where
> > I am on Vancouver Island, Telus and Shaw compete pretty aggressively
> > with both rival ADSL & Cable services available to most households.
> > Whoever tries to introduce this kind of bullshit will lose most of
> > their customers to a competitor who offers a better deal.
> >
> > Rupert
> > http://twittervlog.tv
> >
> > On 22-Jul-08, at 9:56 AM, Adam Quirk wrote:
> >
> > Another doomsday scenario:
> > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20330.htm
> >
> > *Adam Quirk* / Wreck & Salvage  /
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim)
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > I'm surprised it got this far as well, but I still
> > worry.they may
> >> > not be able to block traffic but I do see the day when we are
> > paying
> >> > for what we download and I see the Verizon's, comcast, time warner,
> >> > AT&T etc somehow making their own content exempt from the bandwith
> >> > consumption and making deals with other content providers who only
> >> > produce professional content and that will all but kill user gen
> >> > content
> >>
> >> yeah...I probably spoke too soon:
> >>
> >> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080716-martin-be-damned-
> > cable-isps-want-network-management-freedom.html
> >>
> >> Jay
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://jaydedman.com
> >> 917 371 6790
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > [Non-text por

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Things are changing for real.....(?)

2008-07-22 Thread Patrick Delongchamp 
Agreed.  Sorry Adam but that article was garbage.  No references and
pure fear mongering.  As i read Jay's first post I thought about how
we've moved away from uninformed fear mongering arguments about net
neutrality.  Does anyone remember the Rocketboom highway analogy
video? Anyone who's ever tried to do some work at 10 PM in a business
traveler's hotel understands how detrimental a lack of network
management can be.  While some guests are downloading films over bit
torrent, others are waiting 30 minutes just to check their email.

Network management isn't going to go away.  It's useful for multiple
reasons.  The primary reason being customer satisfaction.  However,
rules that discourage anti-competitiveness are necessary.  Obviously
ISP shouldn't be aloud to completely block content, only modify it's
priority. i.e. Prioritize VOIP packets while delaying bittorrent
packets.  The best solution I can imagine would be in the form of
network management transparency with the public or a government
agency.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They try this, they won't know what hit them.
>
> I like how the article says Canada is a good test case because
> Canadians are more laissez faire and less politically motivated. Not
> my experience of Canada so far. They might seem laid back, but poke
> them with a stick and they're like hornets. And people here seem
> more reliant on the internet for communication and information than
> those in countries with greater population density.
>
> Britain would be a better test case. People are less gung ho about
> new technology & computers there. Except there are 1000s of ISPs,
> and they all compete to offer more freedom and goodies.
>
> And even in Britain, when 3 mobile tried to do this with internet
> access on their 3G phones in England, it didn't work and they had to
> open it up so they could compete with Vodafone & O2. AOL died in the
> UK for much the same reason.
>
> Wherever it's tried where there's competition, it won't work. Where
> I am on Vancouver Island, Telus and Shaw compete pretty aggressively
> with both rival ADSL & Cable services available to most households.
> Whoever tries to introduce this kind of bullshit will lose most of
> their customers to a competitor who offers a better deal.
>
> Rupert
> http://twittervlog.tv
>
> On 22-Jul-08, at 9:56 AM, Adam Quirk wrote:
>
> Another doomsday scenario:
> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20330.htm
>
> *Adam Quirk* / Wreck & Salvage  /
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim)
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I'm surprised it got this far as well, but I still
> worry.they may
>> > not be able to block traffic but I do see the day when we are
> paying
>> > for what we download and I see the Verizon's, comcast, time warner,
>> > AT&T etc somehow making their own content exempt from the bandwith
>> > consumption and making deals with other content providers who only
>> > produce professional content and that will all but kill user gen
>> > content
>>
>> yeah...I probably spoke too soon:
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080716-martin-be-damned-
> cable-isps-want-network-management-freedom.html
>>
>> Jay
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://jaydedman.com
>> 917 371 6790
>>
>> 
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Things are changing for real.....(?)

2008-07-22 Thread Rupert 
They try this, they won't know what hit them.

I like how the article says Canada is a good test case because  
Canadians are more laissez faire and less politically motivated.  Not  
my experience of Canada so far.  They might seem laid back, but poke  
them with a stick and they're like hornets.  And people here seem  
more reliant on the internet for communication and information than  
those in countries with greater population density.

Britain would be a better test case.  People are less gung ho about  
new technology & computers there.  Except there are 1000s of ISPs,  
and they all compete to offer more freedom and goodies.

And even in Britain, when 3 mobile tried to do this with internet  
access on their 3G phones in England, it didn't work and they had to  
open it up so they could compete with Vodafone & O2.  AOL died in the  
UK for much the same reason.

Wherever it's tried where there's competition, it won't work.  Where  
I am on Vancouver Island, Telus and Shaw compete pretty aggressively  
with both rival ADSL & Cable services available to most households.   
Whoever tries to introduce this kind of bullshit will lose most of  
their customers to a competitor who offers a better deal.

Rupert
http://twittervlog.tv

On 22-Jul-08, at 9:56 AM, Adam Quirk wrote:

Another doomsday scenario:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20330.htm

*Adam Quirk* / Wreck & Salvage  /
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim)

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:

 > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > > I'm surprised it got this far as well, but I still  
worry.they may
 > > not be able to block traffic but I do see the day when we are  
paying
 > > for what we download and I see the Verizon's, comcast, time warner,
 > > AT&T etc somehow making their own content exempt from the bandwith
 > > consumption and making deals with other content providers who only
 > > produce professional content and that will all but kill user gen
 > > content
 >
 > yeah...I probably spoke too soon:
 >
 > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080716-martin-be-damned- 
cable-isps-want-network-management-freedom.html
 >
 > Jay
 >
 >
 > --
 > http://jaydedman.com
 > 917 371 6790
 >
 > 
 >
 > Yahoo! Groups Links
 >
 >
 >
 >

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Things are changing for real.....(?)

2008-07-22 Thread Adam Quirk 
Another doomsday scenario:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20330.htm



*Adam Quirk* / Wreck & Salvage  /
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim)

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm surprised it got this far as well, but I still worry.they may
> > not be able to block traffic but I do see the day when we are paying
> > for what we download and I see the Verizon's, comcast, time warner,
> > AT&T etc somehow making their own content exempt from the bandwith
> > consumption and making deals with other content providers who only
> > produce professional content and that will all but kill user gen
> > content
>
> yeah...I probably spoke too soon:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080716-martin-be-damned-cable-isps-want-network-management-freedom.html
>
> Jay
>
>
> --
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
>
> 
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Things are changing for real.....(?)

2008-07-16 Thread Jay dedman 
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm surprised it got this far as well, but I still worry.they may
> not be able to block traffic but I do see the day when we are paying
> for what we download and I see the Verizon's, comcast, time warner,
> AT&T etc somehow making their own content exempt from the bandwith
> consumption and making deals with other content providers who only
> produce professional content and that will all but kill user gen
> content

yeah...I probably spoke too soon:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080716-martin-be-damned-cable-isps-want-network-management-freedom.html

Jay


-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790

[videoblogging] Re: Things are changing for real.....(?)

2008-07-16 Thread Heath 
I'm surprised it got this far as well, but I still worry.they may 
not be able to block traffic but I do see the day when we are paying 
for what we download and I see the Verizon's, comcast, time warner, 
AT&T etc somehow making their own content exempt from the bandwith 
consumption and making deals with other content providers who only 
produce professional content and that will all but kill user gen 
content

Heath
http://batmangeek.com
http://heathparks.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Im pretty surprised by the sequence of events.
> A year ago, some bloggers in the P2P world started complaining 
because it
> seemed that Comcast was blocking bit torrent traffic.
> The web communities started discussing it, testing the hypothesis, 
and
> proved it to be true.
> I remember we had some hot and heavy debates about Comcast's 
actions.
> 
> 
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2008/07/portfolio_0711
> 
> > "The sanctions would be the first time the commission has come 
down on an
> > internet provider for denying consumers the right to open, 
unfettered
> > internet access. It may set a precedent on how the federal 
government
> > oversees management of internet traffic flows in the future."
> >
> 
> Honestly, i thought Comcast would get away with iteven make it 
into a
> new policy banning bit torrent universally.
> Isn't bit torrent just used for pirated material?
> Bit torrent users are like drug dealers, right?
> 
> But it seems that everyone from all across the spectrum understand 
that
> companies cannot pick and choose what goes over the networks.
> There must be neutrality and transparency.
> In fact, this whole incident has been a great example of why we 
need Net
> Neutrality legislation...whereas before it was just abstract 
discussions.
> 
> the FCC ruling on Comcast is not a done deal, but I'm amazed it 
even got
> this far.
> maybe web communities really are progressing and becoming a 
powerful force
> in how things are done (at least in the USA).
> 
> Jay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>