Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
This is the only point I was going to make. You're all doing a fine job of debating the other politics. But make no mistake: your videos are melting the ice caps. A McKinsey study this year estimated that data centers will be bigger polluters than airlines by 2020. See: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/data-centers-are-becoming- big-polluters-study-finds/ or http://tinyurl.com/datapollution Streaming video and audio make up 20%+ of all internet traffic. Half of that (10%+ of all traffic) is YouTube. P2P makes up 40%+. It's a resource like anything else. You can switch to Solar Powered hosting - via someone like AISO.net or SolarEnergyHost.com Dreamhost use the more debatable carbon credits. But none of your video hosts like Blip or YouTube or Vimeo are green in any way, as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 10-Nov-08, at 3:00 AM, Adrian Miles wrote: On 10/11/2008, at 1:36 AM, Jay dedman wrote: Limiting the size of my video is NOT like polluting less with a gasoline car. It may be nice to keep videos small so anyone around the world can watch it, but this is NOT a proper scientific comparison. no it's not, and like all analogies it breaks once it's pushed. On the other hand broadband is a material infrastructure, and those cables are derived from petrochemicals, and the power we need to drive google and our server farms etc really are polluting. I mean this quite literally. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
In terms of the points at http://stopthecap.com/talking-points/ sorry, this is how most of the rest of the world has been operating from the beginning. some of the suggested rates and penalties are crazy, but I would suspect (given the United State's faith in the free market) that it will open opportunities for more sensible plans or b) if they all do the same thing I would have thought some anti-trust legislation would have kicked in? I think we should be able to get heaps of bandwidth and this infrastructure is fundamental to what this century is, I also think if you leave it to private industry then these are the problems we end up with. agreed. we have a real problem in the country where loud mouths preach and praise the Free Market, but what we really get is subsidized corporatism. Comcast, TimeWarner get huge subsidies and access to public land to lay down their pipes. Broadcast/Radio get monopolies over public airwaves. Since they are private companies, all information is hidden. No dialogue possible unless they are publicly shamed. This is a political problem in the US that citizens must come to a consensus on. Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew does a beautiful job detailing the destructive paradox of the Free Market movement in our country. http://tcfrank.com/books/the-wrecking-crew/ He even has a bunch of videos on his book page. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is the only point I was going to make. You're all doing a fine job of debating the other politics. But make no mistake: your videos are melting the ice caps. A McKinsey study this year estimated that data centers will be bigger polluters than airlines by 2020. like anything we do these days, people got to get smart: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081110-servers-to-finally-gain-energy-star-rating-in-february-2009.html But not just peopleBusinesses. jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
On 10/11/2008, at 1:36 AM, Jay dedman wrote: Limiting the size of my video is NOT like polluting less with a gasoline car. It may be nice to keep videos small so anyone around the world can watch it, but this is NOT a proper scientific comparison. no it's not, and like all analogies it breaks once it's pushed. On the other hand broadband is a material infrastructure, and those cables are derived from petrochemicals, and the power we need to drive google and our server farms etc really are polluting. I mean this quite literally. (For example that source of all things accurate, wikipedia, suggests Google may use 20 megawatts and is building a huge server farm next to a hydro dam, which I think might at least be green power.) So i do mean that an attitude that treats bandwidth as not actually requiring physical resources (things to be made and powered) is akin to making motor cars with bloody big engines because oil is cheap. in the US, we've been spoiled by advertised unlimited bandwidth...and now that we're taking full advantage of it, the broadband companies are crying crocodile tears. I'm sure they are, but the point of my argument is that at some point there should be some equity in use, just because I want to do video blogging and use a lot of bandwidth does not mean that my neighbours, who use a fraction of my bandwidth, should cross subsidise me. Unless a) I can't afford it (a social democratic argument) or b) I'm recognised as a significant cultural producer so should be supported in this (as happens in a variety of western European countries, god bless 'em). The real issue is the relationship between broadband customers and the broadband companies here in the US. it is one of distrust, fear, and anger. The Comcast incident where they just started filtering bit torrent secretly is a great example. No conversation. That's a political argument about telecommunications policy, but doesn't change the argument that perhaps there does need to be some equity in use and cost of that use? In the US, we are not talking about a situation where there are many small broadband operators locally who talk to their customers. Sounds like here, we have two enormous telcos that dominate the internet market, the rest just pick up the scraps. We have 3 faceless broadband conglomerates. If they have real limitations, then they need to open up and be transparent. What it feels like is a creation of false scarcity, like the diamond industry purposely keeping shiny shiny objects off the market to raise their value. It might be false scarcity, though I'm pretty sure it is just bad business. The telco's think that providing content will make them money since people will pay to get this content. At this point the telco has moved from being a telco to being a media provider. Unfortunately they aren't (yet) really media companies, so their model is very old school. Buy exclusive rights and those on our network get to view it. Our networks are built on this model, with plenty of download and bugger all back channel to send data out. It physically defines us as consumers. But now everyone is using lots of data, from all over, games, video, whatever. So now they are trying to work out how to get an income stream from this, and the simplest is to charge for the data. Now, I can't speak for these companies, but as I said earlier all the data that gets moved around does get paid for, and so if big company x has agreed to pay N cents per gigabyte, and that's their business plan, this will be based on how many gigabytes their customers will use. But if the web explodes around this then their spreadsheets are screwed. Now, I provide the content over my pipes to my customers, that's a cost I control, but if these customers are now getting all this content from over there, I have to pay for that. I don't agree with this, but it is just old skool business still thinking they're in the business of shipping stuff, it's just now bits, and working out how to charge for it. I think this is a step in the right direction since now they're just thinking about data rather than product. In terms of the points at http://stopthecap.com/talking-points/ sorry, this is how most of the rest of the world has been operating from the beginning. some of the suggested rates and penalties are crazy, but I would suspect (given the United State's faith in the free market) that it will open opportunities for more sensible plans or b) if they all do the same thing I would have thought some anti-trust legislation would have kicked in? I think we should be able to get heaps of bandwidth and this infrastructure is fundamental to what this century is, I also think if you leave it to private industry then these are the problems we end up with. cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
careful, them be unamerican views there ;-) On 11/11/2008, at 1:10 AM, Jay dedman wrote: agreed. we have a real problem in the country where loud mouths preach and praise the Free Market, but what we really get is subsidized corporatism. Comcast, TimeWarner get huge subsidies and access to public land to lay down their pipes. Broadcast/Radio get monopolies over public airwaves. Since they are private companies, all information is hidden. No dialogue possible unless they are publicly shamed. This is a political problem in the US that citizens must come to a consensus on. Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew does a beautiful job detailing the destructive paradox of the Free Market movement in our country. cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
Actually, they are pretty american views to me, they just don't remind me that they are in the newspapers:) On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: careful, them be unamerican views there ;-) On 11/11/2008, at 1:10 AM, Jay dedman wrote: agreed. we have a real problem in the country where loud mouths preach and praise the Free Market, but what we really get is subsidized corporatism. Comcast, TimeWarner get huge subsidies and access to public land to lay down their pipes. Broadcast/Radio get monopolies over public airwaves. Since they are private companies, all information is hidden. No dialogue possible unless they are publicly shamed. This is a political problem in the US that citizens must come to a consensus on. Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew does a beautiful job detailing the destructive paradox of the Free Market movement in our country. cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] adrian.miles%40rmit.edu.au bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomo.tv - finally moving to wordpress http://hatfactory.net - relaxed coworking AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
indeed, and after January I'd hope they'd be even more like American views :-) On 11/11/2008, at 12:09 PM, schlomo rabinowitz wrote: Actually, they are pretty american views to me, they just don't remind me that they are in the newspapers:) cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
I don't understand why there is an attitude where bandwidth is treated as infinite and not a finite resource. It is a finite resource. Data and digital duplication of our material is trivial, but transferring that to other places is not. For example, even in Australia the majority of our schools have quite poor bandwidth, and if I want my work to be viewed in regional Australia (and for that matter parts of rural United States) then I have to be aware that bandwidth is constrained. Now bandwidth might be fast or slow, but it does have a width, and it is a material infrastructure with its associated costs. Just as with telephony there are international, national, and local agreements about how much a byte costs, and while the telcos might make lots from it (or not), the pipes are not infinite. Limiting the size of my video is NOT like polluting less with a gasoline car. It may be nice to keep videos small so anyone around the world can watch it, but this is NOT a proper scientific comparison. in the US, we've been spoiled by advertised unlimited bandwidth...and now that we're taking full advantage of it, the broadband companies are crying crocodile tears. The real issue is the relationship between broadband customers and the broadband companies here in the US. it is one of distrust, fear, and anger. The Comcast incident where they just started filtering bit torrent secretly is a great example. No conversation. In the US, we are not talking about a situation where there are many small broadband operators locally who talk to their customers. We have 3 faceless broadband conglomerates. If they have real limitations, then they need to open up and be transparent. What it feels like is a creation of false scarcity, like the diamond industry purposely keeping shiny shiny objects off the market to raise their value. Here are some good arguments to consider: http://stopthecap.com/talking-points/ Think of this. Comcast is an internet provider AND a cable TV provider. Timewarner is all of these AND a content creator (HBO, CNN). They are worried that more and more of us are canceling our cable TV because we can watch TV (and other better stuff) on the web with our unlimited data packages. So what's the solution? Create a new business model. Cry broadband scarcity and charge people for downloads. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
Think of this. Comcast is an internet provider AND a cable TV provider. Timewarner is all of these AND a content creator (HBO, CNN). They are worried that more and more of us are canceling our cable TV because we can watch TV (and other better stuff) on the web with our unlimited data packages. So what's the solution? Create a new business model. Cry broadband scarcity and charge people for downloads. Here's a good blog post describing US broadband companies and their vertical monopolies: http://www.getmiro.com/blog/2008/09/bandwidth-caps-comcasts-silver-bullet/ It's also conceivable that Comcast might help their customers avoid penalties by offering Free HD Video Over the Internet that could be viewed without incurring any extra bandwidth usage. It would be a natural move for the cable giant, and would also fly in the face of the net neutrality principles that have succeeded in shutting down their Bittorrent filtering. The free bandwidth would no doubt be subsidized by the content creators or other sponsors. It would give Comcast an unprecedented influence over what sort of high-resolution video their customers actually watched, and it reeks of cable television. The above Free HD Video Over the Internet is a riff on Tim Wu's termination monopoly, which he describes as an ISP leveraging their subscriber base giving preferential access to the highest bidder (be it Google, Amazon, or ABC). The internet has demonstrated time and time again how awesome and unexpected things can happen, especially when people aren't solely motivated by profit. When ISP's begin leveraging their termination monopolies, it really alters the egalitarian landscape of the internet, especially with regard to HD video. -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 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] The Death of the internet as we know it....
Ironically, though the PERIOD expressed strong hidebounded certainty, the trailing ... seemed to show doubt and hesitation. Just being silly. ;) Ron, have you seen the internet flick Zeitgeist? You would thoroughly enjoy it. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd totally agree with you adrian, IF, and that's a serious if, the same multimedia companies (lets not kind ourselves that they are simply bandwidth providers) were not ramping up their own multimedia streams that make ours look silly. I've no doubt that the bandwidth constraints will have no relationship to this content, and in fact, I'd bet we'll have to pay for each separately. Point is that they are doing this shit to make their plans work out. If it were only as altruistic as saving energy, and having a smaller footprint... It's not it's about profit and control of information, PERIOD... peace, Ron On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:38 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: Not sure I have tthis right but if it is a monthly cap then this is the norm here in Australia and always has been. Has been one of the reasons why I argue very strongly for proper compression and also other aesthetic requirements in videoblogging. I get 8GB a month, but have the advantage of a university job during the day. A feature film is around 500MB, so that's 16 features a month, which if you're a AV professional is not much, but for the majority is probably in the ball park. However, I am going to poke the possum here (colloquial Australian expression, stir up things if you like). I don't understand why there is an attitude where bandwidth is treated as infinite and not a finite resource. It is a finite resource. Data and digital duplication of our material is trivial, but transferring that to other places is not. For example, even in Australia the majority of our schools have quite poor bandwidth, and if I want my work to be viewed in regional Australia (and for that matter parts of rural United States) then I have to be aware that bandwidth is constrained. Now bandwidth might be fast or slow, but it does have a width, and it is a material infrastructure with its associated costs. Just as with telephony there are international, national, and local agreements about how much a byte costs, and while the telcos might make lots from it (or not), the pipes are not infinite. Treating it as infinite leads to what I teach my students is bandwidth pollution. Emails with stupid large attachments, videos that run to gigabytes. First industrialised world bandwidth arrogance is the internet equivalent of cheap oil (the analogy is simply if oil is finite, but cheap, then there is little incentive not to use it, in spite of it's inevitable disappearance and of course the pollution it is causing). The solution then becomes simply adding more. More cables, more electricity to run it all, and presumably more time for us to actually view all this extra material (I know, that's facetious). Here in my state we used to (20 years ago) think that water was infinite, and you pretty much got it for free. Then they started charging for it, on the reasonable basis that a) some people used more than others so if you had a swimming pool and fancy garden why shouldn't you pay more? and b) it required expensive infrastructure which needed to be paid for and c) it might encourage water conversation. We are now in a major and prolonged drought with substantial water restrictions. The governments response is to spend billions on desalination and pipelines (bigger fatter pipes) instead of spending the same money on ways to reduce our demand for water. I live on the driest continent on earth yet outside my window right now are English style gardens with roses, azaleas and fuschias. The point? Bigger pipes is like cheap oil is like infinite bandwidth. It supports an economy (of mind, of practice and of institutions) which thinks the answer is simply more, not less. Compress properly, think about length. Sustainability applies here as much (if not more given the energy demands of the net) as the real world. And the model of I should have as much as I want translates poorly outside of very specific cultural and political economies. On 05/11/2008, at 7:42 AM, Heath wrote: I just did another post about this from another communications company but now another big dog in the US is going to start limiting bandwidthAT T...I am telling you all, this is going to stiffle most video on the web, at some of these limits watching one movie over Netflix will put you over for the month. Things like VloMo, will go awayit's scary.its real scary cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
I have seen Zeitgeist. I did enjoy it. I liked the myth stuff more than the current events, but I liked it nonetheless. I tend to over use the triple period thing... what is that called again? ;-) Certainly not hesitation, just an incomplete thought. I've noticed it cropping up more and more in my internet correspondence. Bad, bad writer. peace, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Nov 8, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: Ironically, though the PERIOD expressed strong hidebounded certainty, the trailing ... seemed to show doubt and hesitation. Just being silly. ;) Ron, have you seen the internet flick Zeitgeist? You would thoroughly enjoy it. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd totally agree with you adrian, IF, and that's a serious if, the same multimedia companies (lets not kind ourselves that they are simply bandwidth providers) were not ramping up their own multimedia streams that make ours look silly. I've no doubt that the bandwidth constraints will have no relationship to this content, and in fact, I'd bet we'll have to pay for each separately. Point is that they are doing this shit to make their plans work out. If it were only as altruistic as saving energy, and having a smaller footprint... It's not it's about profit and control of information, PERIOD... peace, Ron On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:38 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: Not sure I have tthis right but if it is a monthly cap then this is the norm here in Australia and always has been. Has been one of the reasons why I argue very strongly for proper compression and also other aesthetic requirements in videoblogging. I get 8GB a month, but have the advantage of a university job during the day. A feature film is around 500MB, so that's 16 features a month, which if you're a AV professional is not much, but for the majority is probably in the ball park. However, I am going to poke the possum here (colloquial Australian expression, stir up things if you like). I don't understand why there is an attitude where bandwidth is treated as infinite and not a finite resource. It is a finite resource. Data and digital duplication of our material is trivial, but transferring that to other places is not. For example, even in Australia the majority of our schools have quite poor bandwidth, and if I want my work to be viewed in regional Australia (and for that matter parts of rural United States) then I have to be aware that bandwidth is constrained. Now bandwidth might be fast or slow, but it does have a width, and it is a material infrastructure with its associated costs. Just as with telephony there are international, national, and local agreements about how much a byte costs, and while the telcos might make lots from it (or not), the pipes are not infinite. Treating it as infinite leads to what I teach my students is bandwidth pollution. Emails with stupid large attachments, videos that run to gigabytes. First industrialised world bandwidth arrogance is the internet equivalent of cheap oil (the analogy is simply if oil is finite, but cheap, then there is little incentive not to use it, in spite of it's inevitable disappearance and of course the pollution it is causing). The solution then becomes simply adding more. More cables, more electricity to run it all, and presumably more time for us to actually view all this extra material (I know, that's facetious). Here in my state we used to (20 years ago) think that water was infinite, and you pretty much got it for free. Then they started charging for it, on the reasonable basis that a) some people used more than others so if you had a swimming pool and fancy garden why shouldn't you pay more? and b) it required expensive infrastructure which needed to be paid for and c) it might encourage water conversation. We are now in a major and prolonged drought with substantial water restrictions. The governments response is to spend billions on desalination and pipelines (bigger fatter pipes) instead of spending the same money on ways to reduce our demand for water. I live on the driest continent on earth yet outside my window right now are English style gardens with roses, azaleas and fuschias. The point? Bigger pipes is like cheap oil is like infinite bandwidth. It supports an economy (of mind, of practice and of institutions) which thinks the answer is simply more, not less. Compress properly, think about length. Sustainability applies here as much (if not more given the energy demands of the net) as the real world. And the model of I should have as much as I want translates poorly outside of very specific cultural and political
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
Not sure I have tthis right but if it is a monthly cap then this is the norm here in Australia and always has been. Has been one of the reasons why I argue very strongly for proper compression and also other aesthetic requirements in videoblogging. I get 8GB a month, but have the advantage of a university job during the day. A feature film is around 500MB, so that's 16 features a month, which if you're a AV professional is not much, but for the majority is probably in the ball park. However, I am going to poke the possum here (colloquial Australian expression, stir up things if you like). I don't understand why there is an attitude where bandwidth is treated as infinite and not a finite resource. It is a finite resource. Data and digital duplication of our material is trivial, but transferring that to other places is not. For example, even in Australia the majority of our schools have quite poor bandwidth, and if I want my work to be viewed in regional Australia (and for that matter parts of rural United States) then I have to be aware that bandwidth is constrained. Now bandwidth might be fast or slow, but it does have a width, and it is a material infrastructure with its associated costs. Just as with telephony there are international, national, and local agreements about how much a byte costs, and while the telcos might make lots from it (or not), the pipes are not infinite. Treating it as infinite leads to what I teach my students is bandwidth pollution. Emails with stupid large attachments, videos that run to gigabytes. First industrialised world bandwidth arrogance is the internet equivalent of cheap oil (the analogy is simply if oil is finite, but cheap, then there is little incentive not to use it, in spite of it's inevitable disappearance and of course the pollution it is causing). The solution then becomes simply adding more. More cables, more electricity to run it all, and presumably more time for us to actually view all this extra material (I know, that's facetious). Here in my state we used to (20 years ago) think that water was infinite, and you pretty much got it for free. Then they started charging for it, on the reasonable basis that a) some people used more than others so if you had a swimming pool and fancy garden why shouldn't you pay more? and b) it required expensive infrastructure which needed to be paid for and c) it might encourage water conversation. We are now in a major and prolonged drought with substantial water restrictions. The governments response is to spend billions on desalination and pipelines (bigger fatter pipes) instead of spending the same money on ways to reduce our demand for water. I live on the driest continent on earth yet outside my window right now are English style gardens with roses, azaleas and fuschias. The point? Bigger pipes is like cheap oil is like infinite bandwidth. It supports an economy (of mind, of practice and of institutions) which thinks the answer is simply more, not less. Compress properly, think about length. Sustainability applies here as much (if not more given the energy demands of the net) as the real world. And the model of I should have as much as I want translates poorly outside of very specific cultural and political economies. On 05/11/2008, at 7:42 AM, Heath wrote: I just did another post about this from another communications company but now another big dog in the US is going to start limiting bandwidthAT T...I am telling you all, this is going to stiffle most video on the web, at some of these limits watching one movie over Netflix will put you over for the month. Things like VloMo, will go awayit's scary.its real scary cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
I'd totally agree with you adrian, IF, and that's a serious if, the same multimedia companies (lets not kind ourselves that they are simply bandwidth providers) were not ramping up their own multimedia streams that make ours look silly. I've no doubt that the bandwidth constraints will have no relationship to this content, and in fact, I'd bet we'll have to pay for each separately. Point is that they are doing this shit to make their plans work out. If it were only as altruistic as saving energy, and having a smaller footprint... It's not it's about profit and control of information, PERIOD... peace, Ron On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:38 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: Not sure I have tthis right but if it is a monthly cap then this is the norm here in Australia and always has been. Has been one of the reasons why I argue very strongly for proper compression and also other aesthetic requirements in videoblogging. I get 8GB a month, but have the advantage of a university job during the day. A feature film is around 500MB, so that's 16 features a month, which if you're a AV professional is not much, but for the majority is probably in the ball park. However, I am going to poke the possum here (colloquial Australian expression, stir up things if you like). I don't understand why there is an attitude where bandwidth is treated as infinite and not a finite resource. It is a finite resource. Data and digital duplication of our material is trivial, but transferring that to other places is not. For example, even in Australia the majority of our schools have quite poor bandwidth, and if I want my work to be viewed in regional Australia (and for that matter parts of rural United States) then I have to be aware that bandwidth is constrained. Now bandwidth might be fast or slow, but it does have a width, and it is a material infrastructure with its associated costs. Just as with telephony there are international, national, and local agreements about how much a byte costs, and while the telcos might make lots from it (or not), the pipes are not infinite. Treating it as infinite leads to what I teach my students is bandwidth pollution. Emails with stupid large attachments, videos that run to gigabytes. First industrialised world bandwidth arrogance is the internet equivalent of cheap oil (the analogy is simply if oil is finite, but cheap, then there is little incentive not to use it, in spite of it's inevitable disappearance and of course the pollution it is causing). The solution then becomes simply adding more. More cables, more electricity to run it all, and presumably more time for us to actually view all this extra material (I know, that's facetious). Here in my state we used to (20 years ago) think that water was infinite, and you pretty much got it for free. Then they started charging for it, on the reasonable basis that a) some people used more than others so if you had a swimming pool and fancy garden why shouldn't you pay more? and b) it required expensive infrastructure which needed to be paid for and c) it might encourage water conversation. We are now in a major and prolonged drought with substantial water restrictions. The governments response is to spend billions on desalination and pipelines (bigger fatter pipes) instead of spending the same money on ways to reduce our demand for water. I live on the driest continent on earth yet outside my window right now are English style gardens with roses, azaleas and fuschias. The point? Bigger pipes is like cheap oil is like infinite bandwidth. It supports an economy (of mind, of practice and of institutions) which thinks the answer is simply more, not less. Compress properly, think about length. Sustainability applies here as much (if not more given the energy demands of the net) as the real world. And the model of I should have as much as I want translates poorly outside of very specific cultural and political economies. On 05/11/2008, at 7:42 AM, Heath wrote: I just did another post about this from another communications company but now another big dog in the US is going to start limiting bandwidthAT T...I am telling you all, this is going to stiffle most video on the web, at some of these limits watching one movie over Netflix will put you over for the month. Things like VloMo, will go awayit's scary.its real scary cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
but aren't they also paying commercial and appropriate rates for the bandwidth they need? cheaper than our retail rates, but companies don't pay $n a month for all the bandwidth they want? (Not disagreeing but not sure how a company that pays for all their bandwidth is comparable?) On 07/11/2008, at 3:15 PM, Ron Watson wrote: I'd totally agree with you adrian, IF, and that's a serious if, the same multimedia companies (lets not kind ourselves that they are simply bandwidth providers) were not ramping up their own multimedia streams that make ours look silly. cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
I just did another post about this from another communications company but now another big dog in the US is going to start limiting bandwidthAT T...I am telling you all, this is going to stiffle most video on the web, at some of these limits watching one movie over Netflix will put you over for the month. Things like VloMo, will go awayit's scary.its real scary http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20081104/ap_on_hi_te/tec_at_t_internet_c aps Heath The Artist http://batmangeek.com NEW YORK - ATT Inc., the country's largest Internet service provider, is testing the idea of limiting the amount of data that subscribers can use each month. ATT will initially apply the limits in Reno, Nev., and see about extending the practice elsewhere. Increasingly, Internet providers across the country are placing such limits on the amount of data users can upload and download each month, as a way to curb a small number of bandwidth hogs who use a lot of the network capacity. For instance, 5 percent of ATT's subscribers take up 50 percent of the capacity, spokesman Michael Coe said Tuesday. But the restrictions that Internet providers are setting are tentative. And the companies differ on what limits to set and whether to charge users for going beyond the caps. Starting in November, ATT will limit downloads to 20 gigabytes per month for users of their slowest DSL service, at 768 kilobits per second. The limit increases with the speed of the plan, up to 150 gigabytes per month at the 10 megabits-per-second level. To exceed the limits, subscribers would need to download constantly at maximum speeds for more than 42 hours, depending on the tier. In practice, use of e-mail and the Web wouldn't take a subscriber anywhere near the limit, but streaming video services like the one Netflix Inc. offers could. For example, subscribers who get downloads of 3 megabits per second have a monthly cap of 60 gigabytes, which allows for the download of about 30 DVD-quality movies. The limits will initially apply to new customers in the Reno area, ATT said. Current users will be enrolled if they exceed 150 gigabytes in a month, regardless of their connection speed. This is a preliminary step to find the right model to address this trend, Coe said. The company may add another market to the test before the end of the year, he said. Customers will be able to track their usage on an ATT Web site. The company will also contact people who reach 80 percent of their limit. After a grace period to get subscribers acquainted with the system, those who exceed their allotment will pay $1 per gigabyte, Coe said. Comcast Corp., the nation's second-largest Internet service provider and ATT's competitor in Reno, last month officially began a nationwide traffic limit of 250 gigabytes per subscriber. Comcast doesn't charge people extra for going over the limit, but will cancel service after repeated warnings. Previously, it had a secret limit. Two other ISPs, Time Warner Cable Inc. and FairPoint Communications Inc., are planning or testing traffic limits as low as 5 gigabytes per month, which is easily exceeded by watchers of DVD-quality online video. Among the largest ISPs, Verizon Communications Inc. is a holdout, and has said it does not plan to limit downloads.
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
It won't work. These guys want to make money, they can't make money if people don't use their service. I don't do that much downloading on the net, so I'm not affected. I do however watch alot of movies on Netflix Instant with my Dad since we recently cut the cable. Your right, I should be pissed. I might do a piece on this. Matthew - Original Message - From: Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2008 2:42:41 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it I just did another post about this from another communications company but now another big dog in the US is going to start limiting bandwidthAT T...I am telling you all, this is going to stiffle most video on the web, at some of these limits watching one movie over Netflix will put you over for the month. Things like VloMo, will go awayit's scary.its real scary http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20081104/ap_on_hi_te/tec_at_t_internet_c aps Heath The Artist http://batmangeek.com NEW YORK - ATT Inc., the country's largest Internet service provider, is testing the idea of limiting the amount of data that subscribers can use each month. ATT will initially apply the limits in Reno, Nev., and see about extending the practice elsewhere. Increasingly, Internet providers across the country are placing such limits on the amount of data users can upload and download each month, as a way to curb a small number of bandwidth hogs who use a lot of the network capacity. For instance, 5 percent of ATT's subscribers take up 50 percent of the capacity, spokesman Michael Coe said Tuesday. But the restrictions that Internet providers are setting are tentative. And the companies differ on what limits to set and whether to charge users for going beyond the caps. Starting in November, ATT will limit downloads to 20 gigabytes per month for users of their slowest DSL service, at 768 kilobits per second. The limit increases with the speed of the plan, up to 150 gigabytes per month at the 10 megabits-per-second level. To exceed the limits, subscribers would need to download constantly at maximum speeds for more than 42 hours, depending on the tier. In practice, use of e-mail and the Web wouldn't take a subscriber anywhere near the limit, but streaming video services like the one Netflix Inc. offers could. For example, subscribers who get downloads of 3 megabits per second have a monthly cap of 60 gigabytes, which allows for the download of about 30 DVD-quality movies. The limits will initially apply to new customers in the Reno area, ATT said. Current users will be enrolled if they exceed 150 gigabytes in a month, regardless of their connection speed. This is a preliminary step to find the right model to address this trend, Coe said. The company may add another market to the test before the end of the year, he said. Customers will be able to track their usage on an ATT Web site. The company will also contact people who reach 80 percent of their limit. After a grace period to get subscribers acquainted with the system, those who exceed their allotment will pay $1 per gigabyte, Coe said. Comcast Corp., the nation's second-largest Internet service provider and ATT's competitor in Reno, last month officially began a nationwide traffic limit of 250 gigabytes per subscriber. Comcast doesn't charge people extra for going over the limit, but will cancel service after repeated warnings. Previously, it had a secret limit. Two other ISPs, Time Warner Cable Inc. and FairPoint Communications Inc., are planning or testing traffic limits as low as 5 gigabytes per month, which is easily exceeded by watchers of DVD-quality online video. Among the largest ISPs, Verizon Communications Inc. is a holdout, and has said it does not plan to limit downloads. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just did another post about this from another communications company but now another big dog in the US is going to start limiting bandwidthAT T...I am telling you all, this is going to stiffle most video on the web, at some of these limits watching one movie over Netflix will put you over for the month. Things like VloMo, will go awayit's scary.its real scary http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20081104/ap_on_hi_te/tec_at_t_internet_caps im not sure its the death of the internet as we know it. Im glad to see companies put transparent bandwidth limits...instead of secretly cutting off users that they dont like. Now there is room for other companies to offer more bandwidth as a competitive lever. as a customer, more bandwidth would be an option I would look for when choosing a provider. The problem is that in many areas in the US, there may be only one or two broadband providers. I have only one choice and the broadband limits suck. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
Yeah...the idea that there is competition at all in broadband is kinda silly. The barriers to entry are high and the market is best modeled as an oligopoly. Don't expect meaningful competitive levers. Expect cartel behavior. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com im not sure its the death of the internet as we know it. Im glad to see companies put transparent bandwidth limits...instead of secretly cutting off users that they dont like. Now there is room for other companies to offer more bandwidth as a competitive lever. as a customer, more bandwidth would be an option I would look for when choosing a provider. The problem is that in many areas in the US, there may be only one or two broadband providers. I have only one choice and the broadband limits suck. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:36 PM, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah...the idea that there is competition at all in broadband is kinda silly. The barriers to entry are high and the market is best modeled as an oligopoly. Don't expect meaningful competitive levers. Expect cartel behavior. Good characrterization of the US broadband market. As skeptical as I am, this seems good news: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/technology/internet/05spectrum.html?hp The good future could be ubiquitous wifi. lower the barriers. fuck the tubes. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
