Re: [videoblogging] Re: Things are changing for real.....(?)
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.....(?)
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 ATT 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.....(?)
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 http://wreckandsalvage.com / [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, ATT 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.....(?)
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 att 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 http://wreckandsalvage.com / [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 http://wreckandsalvage.com / [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, ATT 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] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Things are changing for real.....(?)
Another doomsday scenario: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20330.htm *Adam Quirk* / Wreck Salvage http://wreckandsalvage.com / [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, ATT 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.....(?)
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 http://wreckandsalvage.com / [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, ATT 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.....(?)
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, ATT 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
