Re: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
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 ass-covering, not foresight, which means that instead of boldly changing the environment, they figure out how to survive in the new environment. So the usual result is just good enough, or too little too late. Steve Watkins wrote: > Ive seen no crushing from media companies. Same as when newspapers being > threatened > by the internet was a big story, at most all they could do was try to rubbish > the internet, > but there was no halting that tide. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
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, and it should not. The real question is whether or not we, meaning those producing distributed video and particularly this group, are a threat to the corporate media, and what the corporate media plans to do about it. I simply mentioned net neutrality as a path to consolidate and control distributed media. I reiterate, if you think they're going to just give their power and control away to pissants like us, you're crazy. Look at how fast this group mobilized against heavy.com. A bunch of regular people with zero corporate lawyers and no budget swarmed them, and forced them to change their method of operation. How much VC money was invested in Heavy.com? Distributed media, and to a lesser extent, this group, is dangerous. With a viable distributed medai, fights will not be waged in courts, or in corporate board rooms, they're going to be waged in public, and when those making distributed media align, there is a very powerful megaphone we (not you Patrick) wield that can challenge all the money and power of the corporate media, and that is unacceptable. Add to that the idea that we (not you Patrick) are stealing a piece of their pie and it's even more unpalatable. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog http://pawsitivevybe.com On Dec 31, 2007, at 1:55 PM, 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 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 "last time I checked neither NBC nor videobloggers used >> >> torrents very often to distribute content" >> >> I was simply pointing out that there was an error in that statement, >> because bittorrent has many deals with content partners to >> distrubute >> content. And on a side note it could be very useful to vloggers who >> are working on HD projects to use torrents to distribute their >> content, as a matter of fact it's probably the best way right now. >> >> The fact is that Comcast traffic shaped, they lied about it and then >> when they were caught, they danced around it. They did the very >> thing they and all other ISP's said that they wouldn't do. They >> treated traffic differently for different entities, thus violating >> the principles of a Netural Net. And if given the chance they will >> do it again and if they can make money by doing it, you can belive >> that they will. And let's remove youtube and blip and so on from the >> equation, becaue what about a guy who is paying for his own >> bandwith? Like a lot of people do, I doubt that they could afford to >> pay to get priority traffic. >> >> And as far as Canadian ISP's were going I was just basing that on >> the >> various articles I have read from Cnet, Wired, etc who have talked >> and written about ISP traffic shaping. Glad to hear you arn't >> affected. >> >> >> Heath >> http://batmangeek.com >> >> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> 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 never noticed that it's >>> slower in Canada. >>> >> >>> On Dec 31, 2007 12:31 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually, bittorrent does have a distrubution deal with many >> partners including NBC. Talk to people from Canada whose ISP's have been traffic shaping >> for a while now, let them tell you how bad it is. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" 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 the transmission speed of vlogs probably got >> faster > because of this) > > 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
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
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 crush this > community. > > That's what I mean when I say we should stick to the topic at hand. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
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 "last time I checked neither NBC nor videobloggers used > > torrents very often to distribute content" > > I was simply pointing out that there was an error in that statement, > because bittorrent has many deals with content partners to distrubute > content. And on a side note it could be very useful to vloggers who > are working on HD projects to use torrents to distribute their > content, as a matter of fact it's probably the best way right now. > > The fact is that Comcast traffic shaped, they lied about it and then > when they were caught, they danced around it. They did the very > thing they and all other ISP's said that they wouldn't do. They > treated traffic differently for different entities, thus violating > the principles of a Netural Net. And if given the chance they will > do it again and if they can make money by doing it, you can belive > that they will. And let's remove youtube and blip and so on from the > equation, becaue what about a guy who is paying for his own > bandwith? Like a lot of people do, I doubt that they could afford to > pay to get priority traffic. > > And as far as Canadian ISP's were going I was just basing that on the > various articles I have read from Cnet, Wired, etc who have talked > and written about ISP traffic shaping. Glad to hear you arn't > affected. > > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 never noticed that it's > > slower in Canada. > > > > > On Dec 31, 2007 12:31 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, bittorrent does have a distrubution deal with many > partners > > > including NBC. > > > > > > Talk to people from Canada whose ISP's have been traffic shaping > for > > > a while now, let them tell you how bad it is. > > > > > > Heath > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" > > > > > > 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 the transmission speed of vlogs probably got > faster > > > > because of this) > > > > > > > > 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, not slower. > > > > > > > > No one here is "dead on." Net neutrality is a complicated > issue. > > > All > > > > i'm saying is that the debate is not evidence that tv networks > are > > > > trying to crush us. > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 31, 2007 11:21 AM, Heath wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're dead on and it has already happened, Comcast has > admitting > > > to > > > > > traffic shaping, slowing upload and I believe download > speeds to > > > > > users who were, in there own words, "abusing" the bandwith. > So > > > how > > > > > much is abusing? Whatever they decide. So little old me, who > is > > > > > uploading a video a day and maybe starts uploading very large > > > files > > > > > because storage is becoming so cheap, all of a sudden I can > be > > > > > an "abuser". Oh, Comcast guised it as combating priacy, but > if it > > > > > walks and quacks like a duck > > > > > > > > > > Heath > > > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm no expert on net neutrality, but my understanding is > that > > > the > > > > > > tiered internet concept changes the way content can be > > > received. > > > > > > > > > > > > So the people who control the pipes can relegate the blips > and > > > > > > revvers to the slow lane to pave the way for blazing > access for > > > > > NBC, > > > > > > Viacom, TW/AOL, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't matter how much Blip's paying for their > bandwidth,
[videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
--- 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 what to stick to, or I shall - as politely as possible - tell you where to stick it. Chris
[videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
--- 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, raise dozens of kitties and make money stealing shopping carts and selling them back to stores. But that's just me. ;) Chris
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
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 attacks within the confines of net neutrality. Just an argument to say that there are dangers on both sides of the issue. Let's stick to the topic at hand. On Dec 31, 2007 12:45 PM, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > --- 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, not slower. > > Some of us don't want to hang our hopes on "likely" and "probably" > when our access to information and freedom to disseminate it hang in > the balance. > > Chris > >
[videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
--- 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, not slower. Some of us don't want to hang our hopes on "likely" and "probably" when our access to information and freedom to disseminate it hang in the balance. Chris
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
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 never noticed that it's slower in Canada. On Dec 31, 2007 12:31 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Actually, bittorrent does have a distrubution deal with many partners > including NBC. > > Talk to people from Canada whose ISP's have been traffic shaping for > a while now, let them tell you how bad it is. > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 the transmission speed of vlogs probably got faster > > because of this) > > > > 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, not slower. > > > > No one here is "dead on." Net neutrality is a complicated issue. > All > > i'm saying is that the debate is not evidence that tv networks are > > trying to crush us. > > > > > On Dec 31, 2007 11:21 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're dead on and it has already happened, Comcast has admitting > to > > > traffic shaping, slowing upload and I believe download speeds to > > > users who were, in there own words, "abusing" the bandwith. So > how > > > much is abusing? Whatever they decide. So little old me, who is > > > uploading a video a day and maybe starts uploading very large > files > > > because storage is becoming so cheap, all of a sudden I can be > > > an "abuser". Oh, Comcast guised it as combating priacy, but if it > > > walks and quacks like a duck > > > > > > Heath > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm no expert on net neutrality, but my understanding is that > the > > > > tiered internet concept changes the way content can be > received. > > > > > > > > So the people who control the pipes can relegate the blips and > > > > revvers to the slow lane to pave the way for blazing access for > > > NBC, > > > > Viacom, TW/AOL, etc. > > > > > > > > It doesn't matter how much Blip's paying for their bandwidth, > it > > > > matters how the traffic cops route their information. > > > > > > > > I have no problem with people making money. > > > > > > > > I have no problem with people making obscene amounts of money. > > > Good > > > > for them. I'd like to do that some day too. > > > > > > > > I do, however, have a problem with people that make obscene > > > amounts > > > > of money leveraging their economic might against people like me > > > and > > > > smaller entities like Blip that are trying to compete against > them. > > > > > > > > The tiered internet scheme to replace net neutrality does just > that. > > > > > > > > It allows the ISPs to limit the freedom to receive information > by > > > end > > > > users. It limits access to information by the user. Limiting my > > > > access to information by choking off traffic that ISPs deem > > > inferior > > > > is unacceptable. > > > > > > > > My understanding is that it would work like this: > > > > Verizon Wireless, my ISP would say that Blip traffic does not > make > > > > them as much money as NBC's traffic. So blip traffic will be > > > pushed > > > > into a tiny little trickle so that NBC's info can flow like a > > > raging > > > > river. > > > > > > > > Given that blip is a small start up, and doesn't have the > > > tremendous > > > > assets that an NBC has, NBC could afford a giant subscription > cost > > > > that blip could never hope to cover. This happens all the time > in > > > > unregulated markets. Big players who can afford it, will push > the > > > > costs up, pricing smaller competitors out of the game. > > > > > > > > That can happen at the transition end, and already did. I > watched > > > > bandwidth triple as the Information Superhighway was turned > into > > > > eCommerce. Things have settled on that end a bit, but now the > move > > > is > > > > to actually limit access to information by the enduser if the > > > content > > > > provider doesn't pony up big money for preferred traffic > > > treatment. > > > > This means that all of us on this list, would be relegated to > to a > > > > trickle while NBC would get t
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
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 the transmission speed of vlogs probably got faster because of this) 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, not slower. No one here is "dead on." Net neutrality is a complicated issue. All i'm saying is that the debate is not evidence that tv networks are trying to crush us. On Dec 31, 2007 11:21 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > You're dead on and it has already happened, Comcast has admitting to > traffic shaping, slowing upload and I believe download speeds to > users who were, in there own words, "abusing" the bandwith. So how > much is abusing? Whatever they decide. So little old me, who is > uploading a video a day and maybe starts uploading very large files > because storage is becoming so cheap, all of a sudden I can be > an "abuser". Oh, Comcast guised it as combating priacy, but if it > walks and quacks like a duck > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm no expert on net neutrality, but my understanding is that the > > tiered internet concept changes the way content can be received. > > > > So the people who control the pipes can relegate the blips and > > revvers to the slow lane to pave the way for blazing access for > NBC, > > Viacom, TW/AOL, etc. > > > > It doesn't matter how much Blip's paying for their bandwidth, it > > matters how the traffic cops route their information. > > > > I have no problem with people making money. > > > > I have no problem with people making obscene amounts of money. > Good > > for them. I'd like to do that some day too. > > > > I do, however, have a problem with people that make obscene > amounts > > of money leveraging their economic might against people like me > and > > smaller entities like Blip that are trying to compete against them. > > > > The tiered internet scheme to replace net neutrality does just that. > > > > It allows the ISPs to limit the freedom to receive information by > end > > users. It limits access to information by the user. Limiting my > > access to information by choking off traffic that ISPs deem > inferior > > is unacceptable. > > > > My understanding is that it would work like this: > > Verizon Wireless, my ISP would say that Blip traffic does not make > > them as much money as NBC's traffic. So blip traffic will be > pushed > > into a tiny little trickle so that NBC's info can flow like a > raging > > river. > > > > Given that blip is a small start up, and doesn't have the > tremendous > > assets that an NBC has, NBC could afford a giant subscription cost > > that blip could never hope to cover. This happens all the time in > > unregulated markets. Big players who can afford it, will push the > > costs up, pricing smaller competitors out of the game. > > > > That can happen at the transition end, and already did. I watched > > bandwidth triple as the Information Superhighway was turned into > > eCommerce. Things have settled on that end a bit, but now the move > is > > to actually limit access to information by the enduser if the > content > > provider doesn't pony up big money for preferred traffic > treatment. > > This means that all of us on this list, would be relegated to to a > > trickle while NBC would get the raging river. > > > > That's what the big scare is from people who steadfastly support > Net > > Neutrality. > > > > Nobody's saying that bandwidth should be free, only that it should > be > > treated the same by those entities who route the traffic. > > > > I hope this makes sense, and I hope that someone will either > support > > me on this or check me. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ron Watson > > http://k9disc.blip.tv > > http://k9disc.com > > http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog > > http://pawsitivevybe.com > > > > > > > > On Dec 31, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: > > > > > Ron, let me start by saying that you've given me something to > think > > > about regarding personally types. However, though we may > communicate > > > differently, there's still something to be said about reasoned > > > arguments. > > > > > > For example, I fail to see how an internet lacking in "net > neutrality" > > > would crush this community. For example, correct me if I'm > wrong, but > > > I'm pretty sure blip.tv and youtube have paid higher costs for > better > > > bandwidth from the start. Are you saying that their business > model > > > wouldn't allow them
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
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: > You're dead on and it has already happened, Comcast has admitting to > traffic shaping, slowing upload and I believe download speeds to > users who were, in there own words, "abusing" the bandwith. So how > much is abusing? Whatever they decide. So little old me, who is > uploading a video a day and maybe starts uploading very large files > because storage is becoming so cheap, all of a sudden I can be > an "abuser". Oh, Comcast guised it as combating priacy, but if it > walks and quacks like a duck > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm no expert on net neutrality, but my understanding is that the > > tiered internet concept changes the way content can be received. > > > > So the people who control the pipes can relegate the blips and > > revvers to the slow lane to pave the way for blazing access for > NBC, > > Viacom, TW/AOL, etc. > > > > It doesn't matter how much Blip's paying for their bandwidth, it > > matters how the traffic cops route their information. > > > > I have no problem with people making money. > > > > I have no problem with people making obscene amounts of money. > Good > > for them. I'd like to do that some day too. > > > > I do, however, have a problem with people that make obscene > amounts > > of money leveraging their economic might against people like me > and > > smaller entities like Blip that are trying to compete against them. > > > > The tiered internet scheme to replace net neutrality does just that. > > > > It allows the ISPs to limit the freedom to receive information by > end > > users. It limits access to information by the user. Limiting my > > access to information by choking off traffic that ISPs deem > inferior > > is unacceptable. > > > > My understanding is that it would work like this: > > Verizon Wireless, my ISP would say that Blip traffic does not make > > them as much money as NBC's traffic. So blip traffic will be > pushed > > into a tiny little trickle so that NBC's info can flow like a > raging > > river. > > > > Given that blip is a small start up, and doesn't have the > tremendous > > assets that an NBC has, NBC could afford a giant subscription cost > > that blip could never hope to cover. This happens all the time in > > unregulated markets. Big players who can afford it, will push the > > costs up, pricing smaller competitors out of the game. > > > > That can happen at the transition end, and already did. I watched > > bandwidth triple as the Information Superhighway was turned into > > eCommerce. Things have settled on that end a bit, but now the move > is > > to actually limit access to information by the enduser if the > content > > provider doesn't pony up big money for preferred traffic > treatment. > > This means that all of us on this list, would be relegated to to a > > trickle while NBC would get the raging river. > > > > That's what the big scare is from people who steadfastly support > Net > > Neutrality. > > > > Nobody's saying that bandwidth should be free, only that it should > be > > treated the same by those entities who route the traffic. > > > > I hope this makes sense, and I hope that someone will either > support > > me on this or check me. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ron Watson > > http://k9disc.blip.tv > > http://k9disc.com > > http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog > > http://pawsitivevybe.com > > > > > > > > On Dec 31, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: > > > > > Ron, let me start by saying that you've given me something to > think > > > about regarding personally types. However, though we may > communicate > > > differently, there's still something to be said about reasoned > > > arguments. > > > > > > For example, I fail to see how an internet lacking in "net > neutrality" > > > would crush this community. For example, correct me if I'm > wrong, but > > > I'm pretty sure blip.tv and youtube have paid higher costs for > better > > > bandwidth from the start. Are you saying that their business > model > > > wouldn't allow them to continue to pay for better bandwidth in a > > > tiered tiered service model? I don't think so. > > > > > > You're ignoring the fact that blip and youtube are also out to > make > > > money. > > > > > > If blip.tv or youtube hadn't been allowed to pay more for > bandwidth, > > > (like they currently do) these exciting new business models may > never > > > have taken off. I think it's great that they were allowed to pay > > > extra to get better bandwidth and that their providers had more > reason > > > to invest in better technology. > > > > > > You'll have to explain how net neutrality would have prevented > blip.tv > >
