Re: Equal access to content
I think this whole debate is really funny. Back in the days, email was content, USENET was content. Then FTP. Then IRC and the like. Oh, eventually the "Web" emerged. And so on. And somehow, because it's now movies or whatever, the rules changed. Give me a break. Truth is, the RBOCs keep trying to treat non-telephony like telephony, and it's fundamentally broken. They keep trying to impose a PSTN billing model on the world and really have trouble with any other models. MSOs are realy the same. Disruptors have emerged and will disrupt the post-mature industry. It's not like this is the heyday, as much as there's an illusion of that in certain boardrooms. Money that could've been used to evolve has been squandered on dividends, inefficiencies etc over periods of decades. MSOs are a bit different there. So, to now sit here and somehow justify this as is really funny to watch because when all you know is hammers, everything looks like a nail. And it'll work for a while. Screws will go in eventually. But at some point you'll figure out that you're just out of luck because you haven't spent any money being near the leading edge, the 'fast follower' monicker has become a joke all in itself, and you're not able to figure out what else you need to add to the toolset before all other costs eat you alive (pension funds, healthcare, costs to maintain existing 'paid for' infrastructure that has finally reached its limits for good, etc -- there are enough riders of the apocalypse). So, your hammer will be inefficient and you will have no money left to buy a next gen hammer. Or if you do, all other lines of revenue that sustain you will suffer and break your back. It's a catch 22. Or that's my admittedly cloudy crystal ball. Now, they all got what it takes to be successful. The rbocs with their yellow pages were the google advertising revenue of decades past. They got the basic elements, but they cannot innovate themselves out of a wet paper bag because they're all terrified of cannibalization of existing revenue. Only if they do cannibalize, they stand a chance. And if that's no executed right, it'll break their spines in the process as their dividend happy investors will dump them wholesale. And, let's not forget that the RBOCs aren't the only ones doing this. MSO perspectives are just as bad. MSO's are actually much more protective of their 'content' and how gets to do what on their network for what price. And at some point in the future, they both will look like a lot of energy companies (or steel, pick your poison). The content debate is nicely spun, but it's really ridiculous hype. What people derive value from is what 'content' is. But apparently the industry has as a whole fallen into this spin trap. Particularly how ownership has replaced licensing in all this. Ownership doesn't even exist in some virtual reference. I can't help but find all this amusing.
Re: Equal access to content
> That's a wonderful bluring of what Randy's issue was to the point of > indistinction. Yes, try to flip it. The issue is when a consumer buys > access to the "Internet" what do they get? for some help, see rfc 4084, though it is weak in the area of interest. randy
Re: Equal access to content
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Mike Leber wrote: > Certainly AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy were all walled gardens before > the Internet. Before in the sense of before they connected to it. (not literally of course) +- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.he.net | +---+
Re: Equal access to content
That's a wonderful bluring of what Randy's issue was to the point of indistinction. Yes, try to flip it. The issue is when a consumer buys access to the "Internet" what do they get? One way of tackling this is a truth in advertising defintion of what selling access to the "Internet" means. If you sell access to the "Internet" does that mean everybody except companies that offer services that compete with you? (for example: competing VOIP for phone companies, or competing IPTV for cable networks) Does access to the "Internet" include prefixes of: * prefixes of networks willing to pay you money * prefixes of networks willing to call it even * prefixes of networks that wanted you to pay money At some point, what you would be selling would not be access to what the average business customer or consumer would call the "Internet", in which case you shouldn't be allowed to market it that way. You should have to call it access to the "Partial Internet", or "Some of the Internet", or "The portion of the Internet willing to pay us money". i.e. "Contains only 50 percent Internet". (heh, just like a can of mixed nuts letting you know the amount of peanuts, or "fruit juice" that discloses whether it really has any fruit juice in it at all.) Most of us can probably agree that you should be free to sell whatever concontion of network connectivity you want. Certainly AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy were all walled gardens before the Internet. Knock yourself out, just don't call it Internet access. Mike. On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Sean Donelan wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Randy Bush wrote: > > the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent public > > statements on the use of his wires by google and the like. > > Should content suppliers be required to provide equal access to all > networks? Or can content suppliers enter into exclusive contracts? > > If Google sets up a WiFi network in San Francisco or buys AOL with > Comcast, can Google create a custom content for users on its networks? Or > must Google offer the same cotent on the same terms and conditions to > everyone? Should AOL be able to offer selected content to only its > customers, such as music downloads? Or must AOL supply that content > to everyone equally? Comcast offers its users access to the Disney > Connection web site, should Disney be required to offer it to all Internet > users equally? The NFL offers its Sunday Ticket exclusively through > DirecTV? Or must the NFL offer the same content to every network? > > What rules should exist on how Google operates? Or is it just > traditionally lobbying? Google says regulate the other guy, but > not itself. The other guys say regulate Google, but not them. > +- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.he.net | +---+
Re: Equal access to content
Sean Donelan wrote: Should content suppliers be required to provide equal access to all networks? Or can content suppliers enter into exclusive contracts? Erm .. the content 'belongs' to the supplier, why shouldn't they be allowed to chose who can and can't get access to it. The electronic retailer I work for deny access to all content that they own/supply to several networks, as a matter of policy. Noone should be able to tell us that we have to start supplying it. We also give some third-parties more content based on commercial relationships in place. Similarly, google own all of the data that they've crawled/indexed/archived - why shouldn't they be able to hold that data to ransom. Why shouldn't google be able to supply extra content to networks that it runs ? [...] > What rules should exist on how Google operates? Or is it just > traditionally lobbying? Google says regulate the other guy, but > not itself. The other guys say regulate Google, but not them. So google charge for their data (either by subscription, or forcing users to join GoogleNet to get access to what they want). Fine. If Google do, someone else will be perfectly willing to crawl/index/archive a new set of data. And many webmasters will be quick to deny access to google's spider. -a
Re: Equal access to content
Sean Donelan wrote: > Should content suppliers be required to provide equal access to all > networks? Or can content suppliers enter into exclusive contracts? SBC and Yahoo! have already answered this question (for example). I also think that most people on this list will remember the early days of broadband suppliers like RoadRunner who tried to build a "we are mostly local content, plus some Internet access" model which the customers hated, and they (for the most part) eventually abandoned altogether. Even AOL was forced by market pressure to provide real Internet to its customers. Doug .oO(Glad I don't own any SBC stock ...) -- If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough
Re: Equal access to content
aol/google/content-provider-foo might provide exclusive content for a higher (or lower) price than to normal folks, it also might be bitten by the lose of potential customers that way :( This sounds like a business decision not a legislative one, eh? Connection web site, should Disney be required to offer it to all Internet users equally? The NFL offers its Sunday Ticket exclusively through DirecTV? Or must the NFL offer the same content to every network? no one cares about football... Now, hockey! That's a sport that everyone should get access to! :) I, for one, welcome Christopher Morrow, and Sean Donelan as my new monopoly overlords. I'd like to remind him that as a trusted former associate/acquaintance, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves. And yes, it has been done to death... I am not proud...
Re: Equal access to content
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Sean Donelan wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Randy Bush wrote: > > the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent public > > statements on the use of his wires by google and the like. > > Should content suppliers be required to provide equal access to all > networks? Or can content suppliers enter into exclusive contracts? equal access at same cost perhaps... though honestly it's their content so they can decide if they don't want one or some folks to view it I'd think. (ianal, of course) > > If Google sets up a WiFi network in San Francisco or buys AOL with > Comcast, can Google create a custom content for users on its networks? Or this is a 'customer portal' no? Don't lots of folks do this today? to provide customized content to their subscribers, somehow wrapping that cost into the cost of the network service they offer? > must Google offer the same cotent on the same terms and conditions to > everyone? Should AOL be able to offer selected content to only its > customers, such as music downloads? Or must AOL supply that content > to everyone equally? Comcast offers its users access to the Disney aol/google/content-provider-foo might provide exclusive content for a higher (or lower) price than to normal folks, it also might be bitten by the lose of potential customers that way :( This sounds like a business decision not a legislative one, eh? > Connection web site, should Disney be required to offer it to all Internet > users equally? The NFL offers its Sunday Ticket exclusively through > DirecTV? Or must the NFL offer the same content to every network? > no one cares about football... Now, hockey! That's a sport that everyone should get access to! :) > What rules should exist on how Google operates? Or is it just > traditionally lobbying? Google says regulate the other guy, but > not itself. The other guys say regulate Google, but not them. Isn't this just the normal political/regulator/lobbyist dance? Those with the slickest, loudest, most-involved lobbyists 'win' in the end don't they? Take Disney's constant push to up the Copyright timeframes for example... -Chris
Re: Equal access to content
>> the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent public >> statements on the use of his wires by google and the like. > Should content suppliers be required to provide equal access to all > networks? Or can content suppliers enter into exclusive contracts? the content providers are not common carriers whose irreplacable access to the customer prem was subsidized by public funding and protection. and perhaps we should be declaring our employment affiliations. mine is iij, a large japanese/asian non-carrier isp with some service in the us, plus various consulting gigs, none for content providers. randy
Equal access to content
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Randy Bush wrote: > the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent public > statements on the use of his wires by google and the like. Should content suppliers be required to provide equal access to all networks? Or can content suppliers enter into exclusive contracts? If Google sets up a WiFi network in San Francisco or buys AOL with Comcast, can Google create a custom content for users on its networks? Or must Google offer the same cotent on the same terms and conditions to everyone? Should AOL be able to offer selected content to only its customers, such as music downloads? Or must AOL supply that content to everyone equally? Comcast offers its users access to the Disney Connection web site, should Disney be required to offer it to all Internet users equally? The NFL offers its Sunday Ticket exclusively through DirecTV? Or must the NFL offer the same content to every network? What rules should exist on how Google operates? Or is it just traditionally lobbying? Google says regulate the other guy, but not itself. The other guys say regulate Google, but not them.
