Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

> I am confused. i think we both agree that transparency is necessary.

cool.
I was confused by this statement:
>  I'd say the 5% using 50% and expecting to get away with it forever is
>  irresponsible. Even disrespectful. If you wouldn't do it to a Mom &
>  Pop business, why would you do it to a large corporation?

If a corporation says its "all you can eat", why get angry at users
who take them up on the offer.
If the network cant handle it, dont advertise "all you can eat".
publish transparent limits so users can make choices, and competition
can choose to offer more.

US broadband companies have not been honest about their network
abilities and have oversold to make more money.
dont hate the players; hate the game that the corporations put in place.

if we agree on transparent advertisement of these limits as a start to
open dialogue, then this long thread can end!

jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I am confused.  i think we both agree that transparency is necessary.

On Feb 16, 2008 12:38 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Of course if something isn't actually unlimited it has to be mentioned
>  > somewhere. No one would argue that the contrary is acceptable. I do
>  > find it surprising that you would call bandwidth limits irresponsible
>  > though.
>
>  Patrick, you are always interested in facts...which is great.
>  I feel you're now tending towards the passionate.
>
>  Please go back and read my last email.
>  Its disrespectful for the broadband companies to tell its customers
>  that its unlimited and then its not.
>  Its respectable to actually have transparent limits so customers can
>  make a choice.
>
>
>  > I'd say the 5% using 50% and expecting to get away with it forever is
>  > irresponsible. Even disrespectful. If you wouldn't do it to a Mom &
>  > Pop business, why would you do it to a large corporation?
>
>  absolutely incorrect.
>  you do not blame the customer. what bad business practices.
>  if you say "all you can eat"then its all you can eat.
>  don't get all moral on us now.
>  If an "all you can eat" buffet has problems with people eating too
>  much...then they should advertise "all you can eat for one hour".
>
>  Patrick, why is this so confusing?
>  Broadband companies have consistently oversold their capacity.
>  "hey we got everything you want. dont go to our competitors. we let
>  you have as much as you want!"
>  Now they've shown their network vunerabilities.
>  One solution is to blame the customers who are just using what was sold to
> them.
>  Another solution is to lay down clear and reasonable limitations that
>  is transparent (not hidden behind an asterisk in small writing).
>
>  If the limit of 100GB of bandwidth a month, then say so.
>  Im sure most customers will be fine.
>  And this then allows other companies a reason to offer more to be
> competitive.
>
>
>  Jay
>
>  --
>  http://jaydedman.com
>  917 371 6790
>  Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
>  Personal: http://momentshowing.net
>  Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
>  Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
>  RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

>  Of course if something isn't actually unlimited it has to be mentioned
>  somewhere. No one would argue that the contrary is acceptable. I do
>  find it surprising that you would call bandwidth limits irresponsible
>  though.

Patrick, you are always interested in facts...which is great.
I feel you're now tending towards the passionate.

Please go back and read my last email.
Its disrespectful for the broadband companies to tell its customers
that its unlimited and then its not.
Its respectable to actually have transparent limits so customers can
make a choice.

>  I'd say the 5% using 50% and expecting to get away with it forever is
>  irresponsible. Even disrespectful. If you wouldn't do it to a Mom &
>  Pop business, why would you do it to a large corporation?

absolutely incorrect.
you do not blame the customer. what bad business practices.
if you say "all you can eat"then its all you can eat.
don't get all moral on us now.
If an "all you can eat" buffet has problems with people eating too
much...then they should advertise "all you can eat for one hour".

Patrick, why is this so confusing?
Broadband companies have consistently oversold their capacity.
"hey we got everything you want. dont go to our competitors. we let
you have as much as you want!"
Now they've shown their network vunerabilities.
One solution is to blame the customers who are just using what was sold to them.
Another solution is to lay down clear and reasonable limitations that
is transparent (not hidden behind an asterisk in small writing).

If the limit of 100GB of bandwidth a month, then say so.
Im sure most customers will be fine.
And this then allows other companies a reason to offer more to be competitive.

Jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Irina]

i did not and will not vote for any of the CEOs etc of Exxon Oil or any
other corporation that has more money
than the country where i was born (kazakhstan)

i also remember going to the polls with my parents in the soviet union
thinking "why are they voting, the only
guy on the ballot is brezhnev?" so i am very happy to be in a democracy
where we are aiming to have actual voting

i just want to remind everyone that our goverment is in fact OUR government
and is indeed a VERY young democracy --
women have only been able to vote for less than 100 years! and many people i
have interviewed for stories about race were alive and working in the days
before civil rights act. AND in florida, when i was reporting there, the
schools didnt get integrated until 1972, when i was alreay alive!

i'm really happy that our societal mentality is moving in the right
direction. we are in the first milliseconds of awareness after centuries of
darkness.

being cynical and defeatist at this stage of the game in the us democracy is
a waste of time.  what  is an action step that can  move us forward?

honestly, today -- i am helping make sure my sister has her absentee ballot
so she can vote from moscow.  if i can  do  just that one thing, get one
person  to be able to vote then it is better than not. i am helping the guy
at the coffee shop fill out his immigration paperwork. crap like that.




On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Patrick Delongchamp <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   Irresponsible?
>
> No more irresponsible than a local "all you can eat" restaurant
> "crying foul" if 5 out of 100 guests were to eat 50% of the food
> served. All the while, slowing down service for the rest of the
> guests. Would it be that 'evil' for the restaurant to ask guests who
> have had one serving already to go to the back of the line when two
> people present themselves at the buffet at the same time?
>
> Zero limits may be allowable for a period of time but when restaurant
> traffic is increasing by 40% every year, eventually Mom & Pop will
> have to place limits or "cry foul". This isn't irresponsible, it's
> very reasonable. The amount of money they are making is irrelevant.
> They are trying to maintain quality of service for their guests and
> they're not about to double the size of their restaurant for the
> greedy 5% when they can place reasonable limits on them.
>
> Of course there has to be transparency but an asterisk will do if
> we're only talking about 5% here. I don't need to visit an "All you
> can eat but you can't shove stuff into your Purse" restaurant. An
> "All you can eat(*) " restaurant will do.
>
> Of course if something isn't actually unlimited it has to be mentioned
> somewhere. No one would argue that the contrary is acceptable. I do
> find it surprising that you would call bandwidth limits irresponsible
> though.
>
> I'd say the 5% using 50% and expecting to get away with it forever is
> irresponsible. Even disrespectful. If you wouldn't do it to a Mom &
> Pop business, why would you do it to a large corporation?
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Jay, what you have to realize is that these aren't false limits. In
> > > fact, bandwidth limits are usually false in the other sense. They
> > > limits purposely allow for too much bandwidth knowing that not all
> > > users will reach the limits or at least not all at the same time.
> >
> > you are correct Patrick. very good point.
> > Lets put aside Network Neutrality, discussion around monopolies and
> > vertical integration.
> >
> > US broadband providers have advertised "unlimited" bandwidth.
> > "Hey we got a great deal...please use Cable and not DSL" (or vice versa)
> > Then when 5% of their users actually do the all you can eat, they cry
> foul.
> > This is HUGELY irresponsible on their part.
> >
> > These companies need to not blame their users, or punish everyone by
> > limited certain technologies.
> > If they cant offer unlimited bandwidth, then they should openly
> > advertise the actual limits that we are purchasing so we can make
> > informed choices as consumers. So far, its only secrets that the
> > public must uncover themselves through independent tests.
> >
> > As Charles Hope (and Canadian Charles) advocate, this will allow
> > competition to rise...and consumers to support the businesses they
> > want.
> > Companies that blame their customers are creating their own demise.
> > Like RIAA suing their music fans.
> > even if you think you're right, you're wrong.
> >
> >
> > Jay
> >
> > --
> > http://jaydedman.com
> > 917 371 6790
> > Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
> > Personal: http://momentshowing.net
> > Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> > RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
> >
>  
>



-- 
http://geekentertainment.tv


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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Irresponsible?

No more irresponsible than a local "all you can eat" restaurant
"crying foul" if 5 out of 100 guests were to eat 50% of the food
served.  All the while, slowing down service for the rest of the
guests.  Would it be that 'evil' for the restaurant to ask guests who
have had one serving already to go to the back of the line when two
people present themselves at the buffet at the same time?

Zero limits may be allowable for a period of time but when restaurant
traffic is increasing by 40% every year, eventually Mom & Pop will
have to place limits or "cry foul".  This isn't irresponsible, it's
very reasonable.  The amount of money they are making is irrelevant.
They are trying to maintain quality of service for their guests and
they're not about to double the size of their restaurant for the
greedy 5% when they can place reasonable limits on them.

Of course there has to be transparency but an asterisk will do if
we're only talking about 5% here.  I don't need to visit an "All you
can eat but you can't shove stuff into your Purse" restaurant.  An
"All you can eat(*) " restaurant will do.

Of course if something isn't actually unlimited it has to be mentioned
somewhere.  No one would argue that the contrary is acceptable.  I do
find it surprising that you would call bandwidth limits irresponsible
though.

I'd say the 5% using 50% and expecting to get away with it forever is
irresponsible.  Even disrespectful.  If you wouldn't do it to a Mom &
Pop business, why would you do it to a large corporation?

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jay, what you have to realize is that these aren't false limits. In
>  > fact, bandwidth limits are usually false in the other sense. They
>  > limits purposely allow for too much bandwidth knowing that not all
>  > users will reach the limits or at least not all at the same time.
>
>  you are correct Patrick. very good point.
>  Lets put aside Network Neutrality, discussion around monopolies and
>  vertical integration.
>
>  US broadband providers have advertised "unlimited" bandwidth.
>  "Hey we got a great deal...please use Cable and not DSL" (or vice versa)
>  Then when 5% of their users actually do the all you can eat, they cry foul.
>  This is HUGELY irresponsible on their part.
>
>  These companies need to not blame their users, or punish everyone by
>  limited certain technologies.
>  If they cant offer unlimited bandwidth, then they should openly
>  advertise the actual limits that we are purchasing so we can make
>  informed choices as consumers. So far, its only secrets that the
>  public must uncover themselves through independent tests.
>
>  As Charles Hope (and Canadian Charles) advocate, this will allow
>  competition to rise...and consumers to support the businesses they
>  want.
>  Companies that blame their customers are creating their own demise.
>  Like RIAA suing their music fans.
>  even if you think you're right, you're wrong.
>
>
>  Jay
>
>  --
>  http://jaydedman.com
>  917 371 6790
>  Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
>  Personal: http://momentshowing.net
>  Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
>  Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
>  RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

> Jay, what you have to realize is that these aren't false limits. In
>  fact, bandwidth limits are usually false in the other sense. They
>  limits purposely allow for too much bandwidth knowing that not all
>  users will reach the limits or at least not all at the same time.

you are correct Patrick. very good point.
Lets put aside Network Neutrality, discussion around monopolies and
vertical integration.

US broadband providers have advertised "unlimited" bandwidth.
"Hey we got a great deal...please use Cable and not DSL" (or vice versa)
Then when 5% of their users actually do the all you can eat, they cry foul.
This is HUGELY irresponsible on their part.

These companies need to not blame their users, or punish everyone by
limited certain technologies.
If they cant offer unlimited bandwidth, then they should openly
advertise the actual limits that we are purchasing so we can make
informed choices as consumers. So far, its only secrets that the
public must uncover themselves through independent tests.

As Charles Hope (and Canadian Charles) advocate, this will allow
competition to rise...and consumers to support the businesses they
want.
Companies that blame their customers are creating their own demise.
Like RIAA suing their music fans.
even if you think you're right, you're wrong.

Jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Richard H. Hall]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> If the companies are giving us a good deal out of the kindness of their
> hearts,
> I don't want any of it! I don't have a personal relationship with these
> faceless bureaucracies and any such charity can be withdrawn at any time.
> I
> insist that they give me any deal motivated by corporate greed and
> selfishness.
> This way I can be sure that it is in their interest to continue. And I
> want
> the satisfaction of knowing that, if they deviate, they're hurting
> themselves
> as well as me, and opening themselves up to attack from a competitor.
>  
>
>
> 
>












It's interesting that this discussion is very much about our beliefs
regarding the basic nature of people.

I could (easily and happily) give a long lecture on the history of this
fundamental question within the field of psychology ... behaviorism
(selfish); psychoanalysis (selfish); evolutionary psychology (selfish),
humanistic psychology (not selfish), positive psychology (not selfish) and
more recent research on altruism, happiness, and well being (all not
selfish).

However, when most of us really think about this, and reflect on the things
that have made us happiest - in the deepest sense - in our lives, the answer
is obvious, though contrary to popular belief.

Most of the time, people don't help people because they are going to get
something out of it, it's because it feels good. Helping someone else is the
most powerfully and deeply reinforcing thing we can do. That's the way
humans are. The happiest people are the ones that spend the most time
helping others (consistent with research on happiness and well being) -
terminology thing: happiness/well being, not necessarily the same thing as
pleasure - especially immediate pleasure.

Allow me to present this case study from the business world of a successful
company.

There is this company called Blip.tv. I use their services a lot, and have
had the pleasure of interacting with the people who run blip since near the
company's inception.

All my interactions with my blip friends (Charles, Mike, and Dina) indicate
to me that they very much enjoy making people happy. It does not appear to
me that they are being good people in order to make their business succeed,
rather, their business is succeeding because they are good people.

... Richard the happy analyst ...

-- 
Richard
http://richardhhall.org
Shows
http://richardshow.org
http://inspiredhealing.tv


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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Richard H. Hall]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> We need to get people to distinguish between the 2 Charles's on this
> list "Charles K" and "Charles H" maybe?
>
>

> __
>


I've found it helpful to put show after you name :)

-- 
Richard
http://richardhhall.org
Shows
http://richardshow.org
http://inspiredhealing.tv


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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello,

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[...]

>  > I don't think we'll ever resolve this discussion, but I want you to
>  > know that I empathize with your position in this situation.
>
>  I'm not sure exactly what shoes you think I'm wearing. I don't defend free
>  markets out of narrow self-interest as an entrepreneur; I was attracted to
>  business because I discovered the beauty of free markets.

Funny... when I read that (and he directed his comment towards
"Charles"), I thought he was talking to me :-)

It probably makes things more difficult that we have similar
philosophical views.  (I wonder how many people thought there was only
one "Charles" talking on this thread... not noticing the different
surname.)

We need to get people to distinguish between the 2 Charles's on this
list "Charles K" and "Charles H" maybe?

:-)

-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
http://ChangeLog.ca/

Motorsport Videos
http://TireBiterZ.com/

Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Jay, what you have to realize is that these aren't false limits.  In
fact, bandwidth limits are usually false in the other sense.  They
limits purposely allow for too much bandwidth knowing that not all
users will reach the limits or at least not all at the same time.
Additionally, there will always be a 5% that uses more bandwidth than
the general public.  Of course an ISP is going to upgrade it's
networks in preparation for increased usage but it isn't going to do
so solely for the 5% of users who are using 50% of the bandwidth.  How
can you argue that it doesn't make sense to charge these users more
money?  This is what bandwidth limits do, they allow you to pay more
if you want to use more.

I'll also point out that bandwidth limits do not fall under net neutrality.

In canada, I have no doubt that Rogers places their VOIP phone service
packets ahead of regular internet traffic.  I think it's great.  It
allows people in Ontario to experience cheaper telephone services with
high call quality.  Innovation would suffer without this ability.  If
our health care board wanted to set up long distance surgery with
specialists in other provinces or countries, I think it would be great
to be able to be able to use the 2nd tier and ensure a low latency
connection.  A second tiered internet allows for things like this.  If
it's anti-competitive, let the courts deal with it.  Don't just stifle
it completly "just in case" when there's absolutely no evidence nor is
there even reason to believe the internet would slow down.  Who would
you rather use 50% of your bandwidth, people who aren't paying for it,
or people who are?  In what scenario would you get a faster network?
In what scenario would there be reason to invest large amounts of
money in making your clients happy?  They're not going to improve
their network to make 5% of their clients happy who aren't paying a
penny more than the other 95%.  They're going to improve it for those
paying more.  They're also not going to allow the 95% to deal with a
slow connection.

Because of Comcasts bandwidth management, your videoblogs (that aren't
distributed via torrents) load faster.  Rogers manages torrent traffic
in Toronto and I don't experience a connection that is any slower than
when I am traveling to the states.  Bell Canada (when i was using it
last year) didn't manage torrent packets and it wasn't any faster.

You shouldn't legislate out of fear.  Especially when it stifles the
economy and innovation.



On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yes, they may be making enormous profits but they're not going to
>  > upgrade their system for 5% of users. That just doesn't make any
>  > business sense.
>
>  this just might be where you and I disagree.
>  I contend (as does most of the industry) that tomorrow's 95% will be
> today's 5%.
>  Broadband companies MUST expand the network.
>
>  Putting false limits based on bandwidth now stifles innovation.
>  again, i think we just read the situation differently.
>
>
>  >It makes more sense to place limitations or charge
>  > more for special cases. In Canada there are bandwidth gaps but
>  > they're really high. I've never reach mine, nor do i ever even worry
>  > about it. (or have ever heard of anyone reaching theirs) Apparently,
>  > they have the same in the UK. These aren't evil practices. They make
>  > a lot of sense.
>
>  as i said, as a customer, Id love to hear what these companies have in
> mind.
>  so far, all their thinking and decisions are being made behind closed
> doors.
>  they are not encouraging our trust.
>
>  If the limit is 200GB each month. I can live with that.
>  but the dark part of me imagines their accounting offices crunching
>  the numbers to see what the pain point is.
>  how much will people pay and not complain?
>  ever look at your bank/credit card fees? (probably not...too small)
>
>  But Patrick, I will be positive like you. we'll wait and see.
>  lets remember this conversation when the details come out.
>
>
>  > As for 2nd tiered internet, there's no reason to believe the internet
>  > would slow down. Why would an ISP accept money from NBC and slow down
>  > traffic for the general public. Once again, comcast has already
>  > demonstrated that this is unlikely. (seeing as they slowed down NBC
>  > torrents so that people could surf and read email faster) With a
>  > second tiered internet, NBC could pay more to be routed through better
>  > infrastructure.
>
>  cool. then there's nothing to worry about.
>  we just trust them.
>  (have they earned your trust?)
>
>
>  > Considering Blip and Youtube already pay for high bandwidth servers,
>  > there's a good chance they and other startus would have the cash to
>  > pay for this higher tier so your videoblogs would most likely download
>  > faster. At the worst, they would probably download at the same
>  > speeds.
>
>  sounds good.
>  is this in writing somewhere?
>
>  All anyone wants is a

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[J. Rhett Aultman]

>> All the libertarian ideals are great, but practical reality has produced
>> the
>> likes of Ron Paulwho is stridently anti-abortion.
>  > there's goes my rights!
>
> He is personally against abortion because of his experiences as an
> obstetrician, and yet his Constitutional ideals prevent him from
> advocating a
> federal ban on abortion.  There are your rights!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:

While it does not technically institute a federal ban on abortion, it
absolutely sets up a federal position on the status of a fetus as
"living".  Wave that "state's rights" nonsense all you want, but those of
us who've been around the block know what this is.

--
Rhett.
http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime
http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Charles HOPE]

Jay dedman wrote:
> 
> ahnow i know why we arent seeing eye to eye.
> you are assuming that all business is local where I get to meet the person
> who makes my goods and services.
> The good businessman then makes sure he is a good community citizen to
> maintain his profits.

That's not quite what I had in mind.  It's the ability of the customer to take 
their business elsewhere which is the ultimate check on corporate behavior. 
Personal relationships aren't necessary, but consumer alternatives are key, 
which is why I would like to see multiple utility networks. The stodgy 
resistance to the thought of giving Comcast true competition is why this thread 
was started.

> A long-term cause of the catastrophe was the location of the plant;
> authorities had tried and failed to persuade Carbide to build the plant away
> from densely-populated areas. Carbide explained their refusal on the expense
> that such a move would
> incur.[4]

That was a terrible tragedy. In a free-market system, where human rights were 
taken seriously, perhaps the extra revenue Carbide earned from their sweet 
location would have to be shared with the people nearby at risk.  I find it 
interesting that the authorities were so helpless to stop Carbide -- more 
likely they were paid off.  So that's where the extra revenue ended up going!

> All the libertarian ideals are great, but practical reality has produced the
> likes of Ron Paulwho is stridently anti-abortion.
 > there's goes my rights!

He is personally against abortion because of his experiences as an 
obstetrician, and yet his Constitutional ideals prevent him from advocating a 
federal ban on abortion.  There are your rights!

Ron Watson wrote:

 > Exxon Mobil when viewed as an economy is larger and far more
 > influential than the country of Austria.
 >
 > Think about that for a moment...
 >
 > Exxon Mobil is a larger economy than many Western European nations.

Given that I see market forces as more directly democratic and responsive than 
any current political system, I think this is a wonderfully progressive 
development.

 > I also think that the problem stems from too much freedom for
 > corporations. Corporations are property, not people, and they should
 > not have rights of citizens.

I don't disagree, and I think the application of the 14th amendment to the 
corporation was absurd (but yet, not as absurd as Wicker v Filburn). If 
corporations have too much power under the law, it was given them by a 
government with too much power to dispense.

 > I don't think we'll ever resolve this discussion, but I want you to
 > know that I empathize with your position in this situation.

I'm not sure exactly what shoes you think I'm wearing.  I don't defend free 
markets out of narrow self-interest as an entrepreneur; I was attracted to 
business because I discovered the beauty of free markets.

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Ron Watson]

I was listening to NPR today and there was a discussion that was very  
interesting.

It was all about how Hugo Chavez was battling Exxon Mobil in court  
over a recent move to make the government of Venezuela the majority  
owner Big Oil projects in country. I'd rather not get into the whole  
morass over who is right or who is wrong, but would like to address  
the idea of power that was seriously brought up on the program.

An argument that I make all the time about Exxon Mobil was actually  
expressed in the media, granted it was on NPR, but these days,  
there's very little difference between NPR and the Corporate Media,  
yet another discussion

Anyway, the point that one of the commentators made was that while we  
are talking about a country and Exxon Mobil, a company, Exxon Mobil  
actually had more money power and clout than the country of Venezuela.

Exxon Mobil when viewed as an economy is larger and far more  
influential than the country of Austria.

Think about that for a moment...

Exxon Mobil is a larger economy than many Western European nations.

I don't think Adam Smith had that in mind when he wrote 'Wealth of  
Nations'.

Another thing that I bring up here in Michigan, is that Exxon Mobil  
makes more in profit in one quarter than the State of Michigan has in  
it's entire yearly budget.

That's a serious problem, IMO.

When the Big Oil gets together, or any other serious industry  
organization, like banking organizations or insurance organizations,  
they wield far more power, influence, money and clout than most  
nations on the planet.

That's another problem that Adam Smith could not have known about.

That kind of scale changes everything, and I don't think many people  
realize that.

Jay,
Bhopal was an absolute horror. Thank you for bringing it up.

Charles,
I think I understand where you are coming from, and in your shoes,  
the government is definitely a problem, but I don't think that it's  
government as an institution, but government in practice.

I also think that the problem stems from too much freedom for  
corporations. Corporations are property, not people, and they should  
not have rights of citizens.

I don't think we'll ever resolve this discussion, but I want you to  
know that I empathize with your position in this situation.

Cheers,

http://k9disc.blip.tv
http://k9disc.com
http://discdogradio.com
http://pawsitivevybe.com



On Feb 13, 2008, at 6:40 PM, Jay dedman wrote:

> > The magic of market forces has nothing at all to do with hoping  
> people
> act
> > for the good of the whole. That is a strawman argument, for over 200
> years ago
> > it was explained "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the
> brewer,
> > or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to  
> their
> own
> > interest. "
>
> ahnow i know why we arent seeing eye to eye.
> you are assuming that all business is local where I get to meet the  
> person
> who makes my goods and services.
> The good businessman then makes sure he is a good community citizen to
> maintain his profits.
> Yes, im all for this.
> let freedom ring.
>
> Unfortunately, we have moved past this time where now global  
> companies sell
> us our goods.
> I know you "insist that they give me any deal motivated by  
> corporate greed
> and selfishness", but be careful what you ask for.
> Their interests may realize that destroying an entire region is  
> good for
> their business.
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster WHOOPS!)
>
> A long-term cause of the catastrophe was the location of the plant;
> authorities had tried and failed to persuade Carbide to build the  
> plant away
> from densely-populated areas. Carbide explained their refusal on  
> the expense
> that such a move would
> incur.[4]
>
> All the libertarian ideals are great, but practical reality has  
> produced the
> likes of Ron Paulwho is stridently anti-abortion.
> there's goes my rights!
>
> jay
>
> -- 
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
> Personal: http://momentshowing.net
> Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 



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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

>  The magic of market forces has nothing at all to do with hoping people
act
> for   the good of the whole. That is a strawman argument, for over 200
years ago
> it  was explained "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the
brewer,
> or  the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their
own
> interest. "

ahnow i know why we arent seeing eye to eye.
you are assuming that all business is local where I get to meet the person
who makes my goods and services.
The good businessman then makes sure he is a good community citizen to
maintain his profits.
Yes, im all for this.
let freedom ring.

Unfortunately, we have moved past this time where now global companies sell
us our goods.
I know you "insist that they give me any deal motivated by corporate greed
and selfishness", but be careful what you ask for.
Their interests may realize that destroying an entire region is good for
their business.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster WHOOPS!)

A long-term cause of the catastrophe was the location of the plant;
authorities had tried and failed to persuade Carbide to build the plant away
from densely-populated areas. Carbide explained their refusal on the expense
that such a move would
incur.[4]

All the libertarian ideals are great, but practical reality has produced the
likes of Ron Paulwho is stridently anti-abortion.
there's goes my rights!

jay




-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9


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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[J. Rhett Aultman]

> Meanwhile, in terms of education, medicine, and pretty much everything
> else,
> "public run" is a synonym for crappy and busted.

You can select an equal number of targets where "privatized" implies an
equal quagmire.

> The magic of market forces has nothing at all to do with hoping people act
> for
> the good of the whole.  That is a strawman argument, for over 200 years
> ago it
> was explained "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer,
> or
> the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own
> interest. "

Yes, but this isn't the end-all, and even P.J. O'Rourke, who recently
wrote _On The Wealth of Nations_, will quickly admit that Smith actually
wasn't a huge fan of the marketeering class.  Smith is also quoted as
saying that merchants never get together, even for recreation, without
their conversations turning to how to extort the public.

> So when was the last American government that wasn't corrupt?  Do you look
> back
> to the days of JFK?  FDR? Lincoln? How many of your good leaders do we get
> each
> century? How is that working out for you? You know the definition of
> insanity.

This is hollow rhetoric, as was your first paragraph.  There's a litany of
the corruptions of the private sector, too, and it rarely was through
competition or boycott that they were halted.

--
Rhett.
http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime
http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Charles HOPE]

Jay dedman wrote:

> All anyone wants is a set of standards and guideliness that we can all
> depend on.
> right now, its all arbitrary..and dependent on the whims of the
> broadband providers.
> They COULD behave reasonably as you suggest.
> They COULD behave in their own self-interest as the presiding fear is.


If the companies are giving us a good deal out of the kindness of their hearts, 
I don't want any of it!  I don't have a personal relationship with these 
faceless bureaucracies and any such charity can be withdrawn at any time. I 
insist that they give me any deal motivated by corporate greed and selfishness. 
  This way I can be sure that it is in their interest to continue. And I want 
the satisfaction of knowing that, if they deviate, they're hurting themselves 
as well as me, and opening themselves up to attack from a competitor.

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Charles HOPE]

Jay dedman wrote:
>>  And who gets to decide if something is a "benefit to society" or not?
> 
> we the people, and the representatives we elect.

Meanwhile, in terms of education, medicine, and pretty much everything else, 
"public run" is a synonym for crappy and busted.

> 
> I hear you charles.
> Current governments certainly dont seem to work well.
> The corrupting influences are enormous.
> But I fear just tearing it all down, hoping people act for the good of
> the whole, with no alternative structuremight be worse.

The magic of market forces has nothing at all to do with hoping people act for 
the good of the whole.  That is a strawman argument, for over 200 years ago it 
was explained "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or 
the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own 
interest. "

So when was the last American government that wasn't corrupt?  Do you look back 
to the days of JFK?  FDR? Lincoln? How many of your good leaders do we get each 
century? How is that working out for you? You know the definition of insanity.

J. Rhett Aultman wrote:
 > I would tend to agree, too.  Just look at the history of rural
 > electrification to see the failure of private industry and market forces
 > to electrify rural areas, a critical step in providing the society we now
 > enjoy.

Is it a "failure" whenever the market cannot provide some good at a price 
within the reach of everybody?  Why isn't it a failure of the technology to be 
cheap enough?  Why isn't it a failure of the rural people to go move where 
modernity is available?

 >
 > A core belief in the right to unregulated commerce is that "if I sell it
 > and someone buys it, it's our right to do", but if the service or
 > production of the good has an effect on third parties, then the
 > libertarian notion of not forcing others is broken and requires attention.

Pollution is a form of trespassing. It is hardly libertarian to ignore such a 
crime.

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[J. Rhett Aultman]

I would tend to agree, too.  Just look at the history of rural
electrification to see the failure of private industry and market forces
to electrify rural areas, a critical step in providing the society we now
enjoy.

--
Rhett.
http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime
http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime


> But the libertarian argument falls apart when it comes to shared, public
> services like military, roads, water, electricity, public transportation,
> and I contend...broadband internet.
>
> Jay
>
>
>
> --
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
> Personal: http://momentshowing.net
> Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[J. Rhett Aultman]

> Bell is not an example of an entity in a free market.  Bell obtained a
> government-enforced monopoly through the patent system and government
> regulations and licensing that (effectively) prevented other companies
> from entering the market to compete against Bell.
>
> In some countries (like in Europe), there were laws in place that
> mandated that only one specific company was allow to provide telephone
> services.

It doesn't matter how a monopoly forms.  You can use the same predictive
models for pricing and aggregate output regardless.

--
Rhett.
http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime
http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

>  And who gets to decide if something is a "benefit to society" or not?

we the people, and the representatives we elect.

I hear you charles.
Current governments certainly dont seem to work well.
The corrupting influences are enormous.
But I fear just tearing it all down, hoping people act for the good of
the whole, with no alternative structuremight be worse.
one day, it may come to that.

Jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

> Yes, they may be making enormous profits but they're not going to
> upgrade their system for 5% of users. That just doesn't make any
> business sense.

this just might be where you and I disagree.
I contend (as does most of the industry) that tomorrow's 95% will be today's 5%.
Broadband companies MUST expand the network.

Putting false limits based on bandwidth now stifles innovation.
again, i think we just read the situation differently.

>It makes more sense to place limitations or charge
> more for special cases. In Canada there are bandwidth gaps but
> they're really high. I've never reach mine, nor do i ever even worry
> about it. (or have ever heard of anyone reaching theirs) Apparently,
> they have the same in the UK. These aren't evil practices. They make
> a lot of sense.

as i said, as a customer, Id love to hear what these companies have in mind.
so far, all their thinking and decisions are being made behind closed doors.
they are not encouraging our trust.

If the limit is 200GB each month. I can live with that.
but the dark part of me imagines their accounting offices crunching
the numbers to see what the pain point is.
how much will people pay and not complain?
ever look at your bank/credit card fees?  (probably not...too small)

But Patrick, I will be positive like you. we'll wait and see.
lets remember this conversation when the details come out.

> As for 2nd tiered internet, there's no reason to believe the internet
> would slow down. Why would an ISP accept money from NBC and slow down
> traffic for the general public. Once again, comcast has already
> demonstrated that this is unlikely. (seeing as they slowed down NBC
> torrents so that people could surf and read email faster) With a
> second tiered internet, NBC could pay more to be routed through better
> infrastructure.

cool. then there's nothing to worry about.
we just trust them.
(have they earned your trust?)

> Considering Blip and Youtube already pay for high bandwidth servers,
> there's a good chance they and other startus would have the cash to
> pay for this higher tier so your videoblogs would most likely download
> faster. At the worst, they would probably download at the same
> speeds.

sounds good.
is this in writing somewhere?

All anyone wants is a set of standards and guideliness that we can all
depend on.
right now, its all arbitrary..and dependent on the whims of the
broadband providers.
They COULD behave reasonably as you suggest.
They COULD behave in their own self-interest as the presiding fear is.
Fun!

Jay


-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello,

On Feb 13, 2008 2:05 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Absolutely not. When steel and oil were "monopolies", did people pay
>  > $500,000 per ingot or barrel? Companies are always restricted by the
>  marketplace
>  > unless they have government protection. Even a monopoly cannot charge
>  infinite
>  > prices because there are always alternatives at hand.
>
>  its not just about cheap price.
>  its also about quality, safety, and the net benefit to society.

And who gets to decide if something is a "benefit to society" or not?


See ya

-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
http://ChangeLog.ca/

Motorsport Videos
http://TireBiterZ.com/

Vlog Razor... Vlogging News...  http://vlograzor.com/

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

>  Absolutely not. When steel and oil were "monopolies", did people pay
> $500,000 per ingot or barrel? Companies are always restricted by the
marketplace
> unless  they have government protection. Even a monopoly cannot charge
infinite
> prices   because there are always alternatives at hand.

its not just about cheap price.
its also about quality, safety, and the net benefit to society.
Remember those bedtime stories about people who bought putrid meat. and this
was normal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

Sinclair's account of workers falling into meat processing tanks and being
> ground, along with animal parts, into "Durham's Pure Leaf Lard", gripped
> public attention. The morbidity of the working conditions as well as the
> exploitation of children and women alike that Sinclair exposed, showed the
> corruption taking place inside the meat packing factories. Foreign sales of
> American meat fell by one-half. In order to calm public outrage and
> demonstrate the cleanliness of their meat, the major meat packers lobbied
> the Federal government to pass legislation paying for additional inspection
> and certification of meat packaged in the United States. [2] Their efforts,
> coupled with the public outcry, led to the passage of the Meat Inspection
> Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which established the Food and
> Drug Administration.
>

>  Then what prevents new entrants from coming in and profiting from the
greed
> of the monopoly?

Secrecy, men with guns, false imprisonment of competitors, manipulation of
the legal process, control of the press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_B._Gowen

>  I'm not suggesting no law at all. I'm suggesting no laws that violate
human
>  rights. If somebody wants to sell their service, and somebody else wants
to
>  pay for it, prohibition should be out of the question. Basic human
dignity,
>  which somehow gets lost in the abstract utopian rhetoric.

totally agreed.
this works for many things.

But the libertarian argument falls apart when it comes to shared, public
services like military, roads, water, electricity, public transportation,
and I contend...broadband internet.

Jay



-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9


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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello,

On Feb 13, 2008 1:11 PM, J. Rhett Aultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  > Absolutely not. When steel and oil were "monopolies", did people pay
>  > $500,000
>  > per ingot or barrel? Companies are always restricted by the marketplace
>  > unless
>  > they have government protection. Even a monopoly cannot charge infinite
>  > prices
>  > because there are always alternatives at hand.
>
>  True, but even in the intro to economics class at business school, it's
>  demonstrated that, in a monopoly market, the price and quantity produced
>  are based entirely on the monopolist's ability to maximize price as a
>  price setter. Without effective competition, utility is not maximized on
>  the demand-side. This is an inefficiency. You can easily see this
>  demonstrated in recent history with the Bell System.

Bell is not an example of an entity in a free market.  Bell obtained a
government-enforced monopoly through the patent system and government
regulations and licensing that (effectively) prevented other companies
from entering the market to compete against Bell.

In some countries (like in Europe), there were laws in place that
mandated that only one specific company was allow to provide telephone
services.


See ya

-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
http://ChangeLog.ca/

Motorsport Videos
http://TireBiterZ.com/

Vlog Razor... Vlogging News...  http://vlograzor.com/

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[J. Rhett Aultman]

> Absolutely not.  When steel and oil were "monopolies", did people pay
> $500,000
> per ingot or barrel? Companies are always restricted by the marketplace
> unless
> they have government protection.  Even a monopoly cannot charge infinite
> prices
> because there are always alternatives at hand.

True, but even in the intro to economics class at business school, it's
demonstrated that, in a monopoly market, the price and quantity produced
are based entirely on the monopolist's ability to maximize price as a
price setter.  Without effective competition, utility is not maximized on
the demand-side.  This is an inefficiency.  You can easily see this
demonstrated in recent history with the Bell System.

> I'm not suggesting no law at all.  I'm suggesting no laws that violate
> human
> rights.  If somebody wants to sell their service, and somebody else wants
> to
> pay for it, prohibition should be out of the question. Basic human
> dignity,
> which somehow gets lost in the abstract utopian rhetoric.

The problem I see here is externalities.  If the costs of externalities
were baked into every transaction, this would be true.  All too often,
it's not.

--
Rhett.
http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime
http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Ron Watson]

What's the ROI on our interstate highway system?
on our local and national parks?
on our water supplies?
on our public universities?


Ron Watson
http://k9disc.blip.tv
http://k9disc.com
http://discdogradio.com
http://pawsitivevybe.com



On Feb 13, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On Feb 13, 2008 12:08 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > everyone, including companies, pay taxes.
> > Its how we pay for things around us.
>
> It's not that way for everything... but for the things it is like that
> for... it doesn't have to be that way.
>
> We tend to get a much better ROI on things we pay for on a free
> market, than things paid for via tax money.
>
> If a private company does something we don't like, we can choose not
> to use their services or purchase their products. If they're doing
> something alot of people don't like, then alot of people will have
> this same reaction.
>
> This will affect their bottom line, and could end their business.
>
> People can even choose to even start their own company and compete
> with this company directly. And thus providing an alternative.
>
> The original company ends up shooting themselves in the foot and
> looses their business (unless they change their ways).
>
> However.. If a government provides a shitty service, what can we
> do about it? Nothing!
>
> And I know... people are going to say, well you can vote and change
> things. First, in my observation, voting rarely seems to change
> anything. But second... let's assume voting does change things...
> well you have to wait 4 years before you can affect any kind of
> change. And you get one shot at it. (We essentially have 4 year
> dictatorships.)
>
> That's NOT better than a free market.
>
> I think it's better to remove the regulations we have now that are
> (for all practical purposes) preventing new competitor ISP from
> arising.
>
> See ya
>
> --  
> Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
> http://ChangeLog.ca/
>
> Motorsport Videos
> http://TireBiterZ.com/
>
> Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
>
> 



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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Charles HOPE]

Jay dedman wrote:

> Without any market regulation, a rich man (usually always men) can do
> anything they want.

Absolutely not.  When steel and oil were "monopolies", did people pay $500,000 
per ingot or barrel? Companies are always restricted by the marketplace unless 
they have government protection.  Even a monopoly cannot charge infinite prices 
because there are always alternatives at hand.

> a free market does not mean competition.

Then what prevents new entrants from coming in and profiting from the greed of 
the monopoly?

> Tell me where this dream of freedom is being lived where there are no
> need for laws and people live together in common sense.

I'm not suggesting no law at all.  I'm suggesting no laws that violate human 
rights.  If somebody wants to sell their service, and somebody else wants to 
pay for it, prohibition should be out of the question. Basic human dignity, 
which somehow gets lost in the abstract utopian rhetoric.

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Ron Watson]

Not to mention the cost to the consumer of advertising.

Right now, in the unlimited model, advertising is free, meaning we  
get to see flashy ads on every page.

Throttle down the bandwidth consumption with caps and ads become more  
than an eyesore, they become an expense for the consumer.

Cheers,

Ron Watson
http://k9disc.blip.tv
http://k9disc.com
http://discdogradio.com
http://pawsitivevybe.com



On Feb 13, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Jay dedman wrote:

> > Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred
> > service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it
> > though? For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were  
> offering
> > high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or  
> if a
> > hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics
> > (telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection.
> > This would encourage innovation, investment and competition.
>
> agreed.
> They do charge for higher bandwidth now. ( i pay extra for a higher
> upload speed)
>
> I can see them charging for bandwdith caps as wellbut this will
> certainly stifle innovation and commercialism.
> Can you imagine having a bandwidth cap, going to a website, and having
> to make a decision if you want to load the page/video/audio?
> every click becomes a decision so new players will likely get less  
> play.
> (ask anyone who uses satellite internet with a monthly 1000mb  
> traffic limit)
>
> > It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone
> > else just because certain companies want better service. Comcast is
> > already demonstrating that the opposite is true. TV networks are
> > offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down
> > in order to provide better service for the general public.
>
> what is NBC tells Comcast, "yo, we'll pay you 50million each year to
> give us higher priority. (also, can you slow down ABC?)"
>
> > If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for
> > anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway?
>
> great question.
> I know of no law saying that Comcast cant do that now.
> They are private company and can do anything they want.
> (i hope im wrong so please double fact check me)
>
> Jay
>
> -- 
> http://jaydedman.com
> 917 371 6790
> Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
> Personal: http://momentshowing.net
> Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
> RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>
> 



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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Richard H. Hall]

On Feb 13, 2008 2:24 PM, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   Make no mistake, economy is like ecology. It is a naturally occurring
> phenomenon, whose principles were discovered and researched by scientists.
> It
> is not a machine designed by a team of engineers.
>
 

>



Make no mistake, economics and the "free" market are a game, which has no
meaning without context and rules, like any other game. The argument is just
about what those rules should be.

...  Richard

-- 
Richard
http://richardhhall.org
Shows
http://richardshow.org
http://inspiredhealing.tv


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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Ron Watson]

It worked so poorly with the highway system, didn't it?

I don't want to see them in bed with the government either which is  
why I decry the current situation.

They are in bed, in private with the government today.

I want them in the open and on the streets with the People. I believe  
that is the common carriers concept.

Government isn't inherently bad. Our current government is terrible.

Cheers,
Ron Watson
http://k9disc.blip.tv
http://k9disc.com
http://discdogradio.com
http://pawsitivevybe.com



On Feb 13, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On Feb 13, 2008 11:48 AM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > A solution is to treat broadband companies as common carriers.
> > This recognizes that the internet is a public good which everything
> > depends on...so there should be a level playing field.
> > Broadband companies would get heavy tax breaks (ie SUBSIDIES), and
> > would be guaranteed a yearly rate of return (like most water/ 
> electric
> > companies get). This is not a new practice.
>
> (Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are say, but)
>
> I really don't want to see ISP's to be "in bed" with the Government.
>
> And being recipients of tax money. (I'm really not a fan of these
> Socialist type programs.)
>
> I'm going to refrain to going off on a long rant about it, but just
> say.. it's one thing not to tax these companies to try to "make
> things happen" but it's an entirely different thing to
> (forcefully) take money from other people and give it to ISPs.
>
> See ya
>
> -- 
> Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
> http://ChangeLog.ca/
>
> Motorsport Videos
> http://TireBiterZ.com/
>
> Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
>
> 



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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Yes, they may be making enormous profits but they're not going to
upgrade their system for 5% of users.  That just doesn't make any
business sense.  It makes more sense to place limitations or charge
more for special cases.  In Canada there are bandwidth gaps but
they're really high.  I've never reach mine, nor do i ever even worry
about it. (or have ever heard of anyone reaching theirs) Apparently,
they have the same in the UK.  These aren't evil practices.  They make
a lot of sense.

As for 2nd tiered internet, there's no reason to believe the internet
would slow down.  Why would an ISP accept money from NBC and slow down
traffic for the general public.  Once again, comcast has already
demonstrated that this is unlikely. (seeing as they slowed down NBC
torrents so that people could surf and read email faster)  With a
second tiered internet, NBC could pay more to be routed through better
infrastructure.

Considering Blip and Youtube already pay for high bandwidth servers,
there's a good chance they and other startus would have the cash to
pay for this higher tier so your videoblogs would most likely download
faster.  At the worst, they would probably download at the same
speeds.




On Feb 13, 2008 3:28 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'd have to disagree on bandwidth caps. If you use a lot of
>  > bandwidth, you should pay more for it. This will encourage innovation
>  > and competition in ISPs because they'll have to (and have money to)
>  > build better networks for those paying for it.
>
>  i know you like objective proof, Patrick, so can you point to me where
>  broadband companies are not making enormous profits already?
>  you're text reads as if these companies are barely keeping afloat and need
> help.
>
>
>  > If your grandmother wants to download movies every night. Why do I
>  > have to deal with a slower network. She should have to pay more and
>  > therefor the ISPs can spend more on upgrading the network. Otherwise,
>  > they're not going to do it for the 5%. Better to begin charging more
>  > now before we all become the 5%.
>
>  hmmyou keep acting like the current network is as fast as it can
>  be...so we must limit.
>  again, lets see some numbers showing that broadband networks arent
>  already making huge profits to reinvest in infrastructure.
>  i have no doubt that rates will keep going up anyway.
>
>
>  > NBC wouldn't tell comcast to send them to the front of the line
>  > because then everyone would ask for the same thing. Are NBC, CBS, etc
>  > *all* going to be at the front of the line? ISPs will have to create
>  > a second tiered service in order to make the extra cost worth it.
>  > Your videoblogs would still transmit fine but NBC would be able to
>  > ensure better quality at a higher cost. (and asking to slow down CBS
>  > would probably be illegal)
>
>  its called the highest bidder.
>  If TimeWarner is a private company, they can do what they want.
>  and currently where are there any rules saying that my videoblogs need
>  to "transmit fine"?
>  what is the definition of "transmit fine"? 56k 128k 512k where is the
> standard?
>  you assume the these broadband companies work in good faith.
>  recent history shows that they seem to only become "transparent" when
>  forced to in a court of law (as you showed in the Vonage case).
>
>  again, i want s all to be happy and free...but usually you got to
>  fight for what that means.
>
>
>  Jay
>
>  --
>  http://jaydedman.com
>  917 371 6790
>  Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
>  Personal: http://momentshowing.net
>  Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
>  Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
>  RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

>  Milt and the Chicago School are OK but they are the weaker branch of the
>  free-market advocates. If you want the real deal, who lack these
>  inconsistencies you note, look to Von Mises and the Austrian School.
>  

ill one up you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_N._Rothbard
(you know he was Mises' student)

Rothbard criticized the "frenzied nihilism" of left-wing libertarians but
> also criticized right-wing libertarians who were content to rely only on
> education to bring down the state; he believed that libertarians should
> adopt any non-immoral tactic available to them in order bring about liberty.
>

"anarcho-capitalism ". lets
do it!
we all get our own army!

jay


-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9


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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Charles HOPE]

Jay dedman wrote:
>>  > People who cry "free market", just mean they want market regulation
>>  > that benefits them.
>>  > Regulation is about benefiting all citizens.
>>
>>  A free market has no market regulation (by definition).
> 
> absolutely correct.
> I put "free market" in quotes because all the proponents of this term
> never truly lived by their own preachings.
> Good old Uncle Milt is a great example.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman
> usually, its just deregulate...but make sure its just in the right places.

Milt and the Chicago School are OK but they are the weaker branch of the 
free-market advocates.  If you want the real deal, who lack these 
inconsistencies you note, look to Von Mises and the Austrian School.

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello,

On Feb 13, 2008 12:33 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > People who cry "free market", just mean they want market regulation
>  > > that benefits them.
>  > > Regulation is about benefiting all citizens.
>  >
>  > A free market has no market regulation (by definition).
>
>  absolutely correct.
>  I put "free market" in quotes because all the proponents of this term
>  never truly lived by their own preachings.
>  Good old Uncle Milt is a great example.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman
>  usually, its just deregulate...but make sure its just in the right places.

Yeah I could go off about him for a while :-)

He's a wolf in sheep's clothing.


-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
http://ChangeLog.ca/

Motorsport Videos
http://TireBiterZ.com/

Vlog Razor... Vlogging News...  http://vlograzor.com/

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

>  Indeed they should. But most markets tend to settle down to a small number
> of companies, although never just one.

you got to be joking me.
Think the early part of the 20th century before anti-trust laws.
The Free Market created near-monopolies in almost every sector.
Hollywood, Steel, Oil, Rubber.
Without any market regulation, a rich man (usually always men) can do
anything they want.
a free market does not mean competition.

>  What's outrageous? That companies should be able to shoot themselves in the
>  foot if they choose?
>  Here's the situation: Broadband providers are now artificial monopolies,
> due to  legislation. Now we bemoan the problems inherent in the nature of a
> monopoly,  and have two solutions before us. We can remove their monopoly 
> status. Or
we  can add still more legislative engineering on top, in order to attempt to
>  create a monopoly that doesn't stink like a monopoly. Sort of like a fat-free
>  oil, or calorie-free sweetener, we want to tamper with nature. (Then we
> find   out saccharin makes people gain weight.)
>  I don't think our economic and legislative skills are up to the task. The
> fact  that the current crisis is of OUR OWN DOING indicates our inability to
>  successfully tamper with markets.
>  Make no mistake, economy is like ecology. It is a naturally occurring
>  phenomenon, whose principles were discovered and researched by scientists.
> It is not a machine designed by a team of engineers.
>  I find something very suburban in this denial of nature.

i hear you Charles.
I dont agree that we cant work as a society.
Legislation evolves with the time.
Any problems occur usually because commercial interests write their
own legislation (think Prescription Drugs bill that the Republicans
passed 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug%2C_Improvement%2C_and_Modernization_Act)

Tell me where this dream of freedom is being lived where there are no
need for laws and people live together in common sense.
im there.

jay



-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello,

On Feb 13, 2008 12:08 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[...]

>  everyone, including companies, pay taxes.
>  Its how we pay for things around us.

It's not that way for everything... but for the things it is like that
for...  it doesn't have to be that way.

We tend to get a much better ROI on things we pay for on a free
market, than things paid for via tax money.

If a private company does something we don't like, we can choose not
to use their services or purchase their products.  If they're doing
something alot of people don't like, then alot of people will have
this same reaction.

This will affect their bottom line, and could end their business.

People can even choose to even start their own company and compete
with this company directly.  And thus providing an alternative.

The original company ends up shooting themselves in the foot  and
looses their business (unless they change their ways).


However.. If a government provides a shitty service, what can we
do about it?  Nothing!

And I know... people are going to say, well you can vote and change
things.  First, in my observation, voting rarely seems to change
anything.  But second... let's assume voting does change things...
well you have to wait 4 years before you can affect any kind of
change.  And you get one shot at it.  (We essentially have 4 year
dictatorships.)

That's NOT better than a free market.


I think it's better to remove the regulations we have now that are
(for all practical purposes) preventing new competitor ISP from
arising.


See ya

-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
http://ChangeLog.ca/

Motorsport Videos
http://TireBiterZ.com/

Vlog Razor... Vlogging News...  http://vlograzor.com/

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

>  > People who cry "free market", just mean they want market regulation
>  > that benefits them.
>  > Regulation is about benefiting all citizens.
>
>  A free market has no market regulation (by definition).

absolutely correct.
I put "free market" in quotes because all the proponents of this term
never truly lived by their own preachings.
Good old Uncle Milt is a great example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman
usually, its just deregulate...but make sure its just in the right places.

jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

> I'd have to disagree on bandwidth caps. If you use a lot of
>  bandwidth, you should pay more for it. This will encourage innovation
>  and competition in ISPs because they'll have to (and have money to)
>  build better networks for those paying for it.

i know you like objective proof, Patrick, so can you point to me where
broadband companies are not making enormous profits already?
you're text reads as if these companies are barely keeping afloat and need help.

>  If your grandmother wants to download movies every night. Why do I
>  have to deal with a slower network. She should have to pay more and
>  therefor the ISPs can spend more on upgrading the network. Otherwise,
>  they're not going to do it for the 5%. Better to begin charging more
>  now before we all become the 5%.

hmmyou keep acting like the current network is as fast as it can
be...so we must limit.
again, lets see some numbers showing that broadband networks arent
already making huge profits to reinvest in infrastructure.
i have no doubt that rates will keep going up anyway.

>  NBC wouldn't tell comcast to send them to the front of the line
>  because then everyone would ask for the same thing. Are NBC, CBS, etc
>  *all* going to be at the front of the line? ISPs will have to create
>  a second tiered service in order to make the extra cost worth it.
>  Your videoblogs would still transmit fine but NBC would be able to
>  ensure better quality at a higher cost. (and asking to slow down CBS
>  would probably be illegal)

its called the highest bidder.
If TimeWarner is a private company, they can do what they want.
and currently where are there any rules saying that my videoblogs need
to "transmit fine"?
what is the definition of "transmit fine"? 56k 128k 512k where is the standard?
you assume the these broadband companies work in good faith.
recent history shows that they seem to only become "transparent" when
forced to in a court of law (as you showed in the Vonage case).

again, i want s all to be happy and free...but usually you got to
fight for what that means.

Jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello,

On Feb 13, 2008 11:52 AM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have no idea why you think this is outrageous. If one utility network
> can
>  > be
>  > installed, why not a reasonable number like, say, three or five? There
>  > really
>  > is no reason why neighbors can't receive service from different networks.
>  > You
>  > might have a good place to keep your ice cream during a blackout.
>
>  so you want to only have 3 or 5?
>  why cant there be a 150?
>  any citizen should be allowed to build their network.
>  I can also choose to not let people from your network talk to people
>  on my network.
>  fuck you. this is freedom.
>
>  This is why its outrageous.
>  People who cry "free market", just mean they want market regulation
>  that benefits them.
>  Regulation is about benefiting all citizens.

A free market has no market regulation (by definition).


See ya

-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
http://ChangeLog.ca/

Motorsport Videos
http://TireBiterZ.com/

Vlog Razor... Vlogging News...  http://vlograzor.com/

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Charles HOPE]

Jay dedman wrote:
>>  I have no idea why you think this is outrageous. If one utility network can
>> be
>>  installed, why not a reasonable number like, say, three or five? There
>> really
>>  is no reason why neighbors can't receive service from different networks.
>> You
>>  might have a good place to keep your ice cream during a blackout.
> 
> so you want to only have 3 or 5?
> why cant there be a 150?
> any citizen should be allowed to build their network.

Indeed they should. But most markets tend to settle down to a small number of 
companies, although never just one.

> I can also choose to not let people from your network talk to people
> on my network.
> fuck you. this is freedom.

You should definitely be free to establish ridiculous company policies which 
will knock your company out of business.

> This is why its outrageous.

What's outrageous? That companies should be able to shoot themselves in the 
foot if they choose?

Here's the situation: Broadband providers are now artificial monopolies, due to 
legislation.  Now we bemoan the problems inherent in the nature of a monopoly, 
and have two solutions before us.  We can remove their monopoly status.  Or we 
can add still more legislative engineering on top, in order to attempt to 
create a monopoly that doesn't stink like a monopoly. Sort of like a fat-free 
oil, or calorie-free sweetener, we want to tamper with nature. (Then we find 
out saccharin makes people gain weight.)

I don't think our economic and legislative skills are up to the task. The fact 
that the current crisis is of OUR OWN DOING indicates our inability to 
successfully tamper with markets.

Make no mistake, economy is like ecology.  It is a naturally occurring 
phenomenon, whose principles were discovered and researched by scientists.  It 
is not a machine designed by a team of engineers.

I find something very suburban in this denial of nature.

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

> The common carrier idea you mentions sounds like a great idea it would
>  be great to have more transparency. Even enforced transparency if it
>  makes sense to do so.
>  Does it have anything to do with net neutrality though? Should you be
>  fighting for this instead of net neutrality? It seems like if this
>  isn't possible, net neutrality is a bad but necessary plan B but not
>  something anyone should truly set their sights on.

let me read Markey's bill to be make sure it doesnt have some of these
things in it already.
the biggest problem is that private companies will not willingly agree
to limits to their profits.
the broadband companies have spent years getting to this point.

Markey may just be trying to at least keep some "neutrality" in these
commercial systems.
a far less radical solution.
again, be great if these companies voluntarily agreed to be open and
for the good of everyone.
dont see it happening which os why all the noise and anger happens.

>  So you're saying if Comcast is sending torrents to the back of the
>  line, another ISP can't open up beside comcast to offer the opposite
>  using the same infrastructure? That's bad.

starting in the early 1960's, independent cable operators made deals
with local regions to lay down their cables.
They were given monopoly contracts to make sure they could make their
money back since its so expensive and messy to lay cables.

Starting in the 80's, the huge movement to consolidate happened.
These small independent, regional cable operators were bought upso
we just have the big ones now.
BUT these monopoly status of the contracts still exist.

I guess cities could revoke these contracts (unless theyve been signed
for 50 years or something).
As Charles advocates, cities could start letting other companies tear
up the streets to lay their own networks.
then we'd have competition.

jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Patrick Delongchamp]

I'd have to disagree on bandwidth caps.  If you use a lot of
bandwidth, you should pay more for it.  This will encourage innovation
and competition in ISPs because they'll have to (and have money to)
build better networks for those paying for it.

If your grandmother wants to download movies every night.  Why do I
have to deal with a slower network.  She should have to pay more and
therefor the ISPs can spend more on upgrading the network.  Otherwise,
they're not going to do it for the 5%.  Better to begin charging more
now before we all become the 5%.

NBC wouldn't tell comcast to send them to the front of the line
because then everyone would ask for the same thing.  Are NBC, CBS, etc
*all* going to be at the front of the line?  ISPs will have to create
a second tiered service in order to make the extra cost worth it.
Your videoblogs would still transmit fine but NBC would be able to
ensure better quality at a higher cost.  (and asking to slow down CBS
would probably be illegal)

As for anti-competitive stuff.  The article that began this discussion
talks about how an ISP blocked Vonage but was forced to stop.  Of
course I wouldn't be in favour of this being legal.



On Feb 13, 2008 3:01 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred
>  > service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it
>  > though? For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were offering
>  > high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or if a
>  > hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics
>  > (telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection.
>  > This would encourage innovation, investment and competition.
>
>  agreed.
>  They do charge for higher bandwidth now. ( i pay extra for a higher
>  upload speed)
>
>  I can see them charging for bandwdith caps as wellbut this will
>  certainly stifle innovation and commercialism.
>  Can you imagine having a bandwidth cap, going to a website, and having
>  to make a decision if you want to load the page/video/audio?
>  every click becomes a decision so new players will likely get less play.
>  (ask anyone who uses satellite internet with a monthly 1000mb traffic
> limit)
>
>
>  > It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone
>  > else just because certain companies want better service. Comcast is
>  > already demonstrating that the opposite is true. TV networks are
>  > offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down
>  > in order to provide better service for the general public.
>
>  what is NBC tells Comcast, "yo, we'll pay you 50million each year to
>  give us higher priority. (also, can you slow down ABC?)"
>
>
>  > If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for
>  > anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway?
>
>  great question.
>  I know of no law saying that Comcast cant do that now.
>  They are private company and can do anything they want.
>  (i hope im wrong so please double fact check me)
>
>
>  Jay
>
>  --
>  http://jaydedman.com
>  917 371 6790
>  Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
>  Personal: http://momentshowing.net
>  Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
>  Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
>  RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

>  I really don't want to see ISP's to be "in bed" with the Government.

well, if we're afraid of our governments then we're all screwed.
I know some already think this.
But at least we're supposed to be able to affect government policy.
you cant affect a private company's policy especially if they are is a
monopoly situation.

>  And being recipients of tax money. (I'm really not a fan of these
>  Socialist type programs.)
>  I'm going to refrain to going off on a long rant about it, but just
>  say.. it's one thing not to tax these companies to try to "make
>  things happen" but it's an entirely different thing to
>  (forcefully) take money from other people and give it to ISPs.

everyone, including companies, pay taxes.
Its how we pay for things around us.
I know this is a controversial issue for many (including Wesley Snipes)

By letting the water company and electric company pay lower taxes,
they can have more to invest in their infrastructure.
Same could be said for broadband providers if we, as a people, agreed
these were important services for the running of society.
Since everyone is paying to access these services, there is huge
guaranteed profits to be reaped.

Jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

>  Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred
>  service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it
>  though? For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were offering
>  high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or if a
>  hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics
>  (telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection.
>  This would encourage innovation, investment and competition.

agreed.
They do charge for higher bandwidth now. ( i pay extra for a higher
upload speed)

I can see them charging for bandwdith caps as wellbut this will
certainly stifle innovation and commercialism.
Can you imagine having a bandwidth cap, going to a website, and having
to make a decision if you want to load the page/video/audio?
every click becomes a decision so new players will likely get less play.
(ask anyone who uses satellite internet with a monthly 1000mb traffic limit)

>  It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone
>  else just because certain companies want better service. Comcast is
>  already demonstrating that the opposite is true. TV networks are
>  offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down
>  in order to provide better service for the general public.

what is NBC tells Comcast, "yo, we'll pay you 50million each year to
give us higher priority. (also, can you slow down ABC?)"

>  If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for
>  anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway?

great question.
I know of no law saying that Comcast cant do that now.
They are private company and can do anything they want.
(i hope im wrong so please double fact check me)

Jay


-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Patrick Delongchamp]

The common carrier idea you mentions sounds like a great idea it would
be great to have more transparency.  Even enforced transparency if it
makes sense to do so.

Does it have anything to do with net neutrality though?  Should you be
fighting for this instead of net neutrality?  It seems like if this
isn't possible, net neutrality is a bad but necessary plan B but not
something anyone should truly set their sights on.

So you're saying if Comcast is sending torrents to the back of the
line, another ISP can't open up beside comcast to offer the opposite
using the same infrastructure?  That's bad.

On Feb 13, 2008 2:48 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage
>  > has increased by 40% each year.
>  > Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in
>  > new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire
>  > internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of
>  > BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality.
>  > This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are
>  > facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to
>  > offer a solution to these issues.
>
>  i see several of us giving solutions (richard especially)
>  I think you simplify the problem though.
>
>  What happens when even Grandma is using daily skype, video iChat, and
>  downloading movies every night from iTunes?
>  suddenly we all become that 5%.
>
>  So these companies should be thinking of how to expand their network,
>  rather than limiting usage, or denying certain technologies.
>  if they want to raise their rates or shape traffic, these
>  conversations should be done out on the open.
>  if these companies didnt have regional monopolies, i would just go to
>  another competitor.
>
>  A solution is to treat broadband companies as common carriers.
>  This recognizes that the internet is a public good which everything
>  depends on...so there should be a level playing field.
>  Broadband companies would get heavy tax breaks (ie SUBSIDIES), and
>  would be guaranteed a yearly rate of return (like most water/electric
>  companies get). This is not a new practice.
>  In return, there would be heavy investment is expanding the network
>  and open access to these lines.
>  People who want to get rich will get rich. The people who want free
>  speech and competition online, get free speech and competition online.
>
>  Currently, broadband providers are pretty much a monopoly.
>  Usually just one or two carriers in each area.
>  They are investor owned, so do not have to share any info with the public.
>  they also can do pretty much what they want just by adding some
>  legalese in their TOS (or not).
>
>  Carriers, like Time Warner, are also content creators. They own HBO, CNN,
> etc.
>  so its like the old days of Hollywood where studios made the movies,
>  the also owned the movie theaters.
>  It was common for Warner Brother theaters to play just Warner Brothers
> movies.
>  Called "Vertical integration", or a monopoly.
>  The studios eventually had to sell their theaters.
>  Independent film and theaters could then flourish.
>
>  I dont want rules.
>  I want everyone, including companies, to be free.
>  But there must be a level of transparency and guarantee that the
>  network is also open.
>  I crave the day when Comcast, Verizon, Time/Warner voluntarily say,
>  "we promise to not slow down anyone's traffic even if it competes with
>  our own media". Suddenly we have a conversation amongst a company and
>  its customers. everyone feels good.
>
>  Instead, its silence, and mystery, and their lawyers affecting laws
>  with lobbyists.
>
>
>  Jay
>
>  --
>  http://jaydedman.com
>  917 371 6790
>  Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
>  Personal: http://momentshowing.net
>  Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
>  Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
>  RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello,

On Feb 13, 2008 11:48 AM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[...]

>  A solution is to treat broadband companies as common carriers.
>  This recognizes that the internet is a public good which everything
>  depends on...so there should be a level playing field.
>  Broadband companies would get heavy tax breaks (ie SUBSIDIES), and
>  would be guaranteed a yearly rate of return (like most water/electric
>  companies get). This is not a new practice.

(Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are say, but)

I really don't want to see ISP's to be "in bed" with the Government.

And being recipients of tax money.  (I'm really not a fan of these
Socialist type programs.)

I'm going to refrain to going off on a long rant about it, but just
say.. it's one thing not to tax these companies to try to "make
things happen" but it's an entirely different thing to
(forcefully) take money from other people and give it to ISPs.


See ya


-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
http://ChangeLog.ca/

Motorsport Videos
http://TireBiterZ.com/

Vlog Razor... Vlogging News...  http://vlograzor.com/

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

> Carriers, like Time Warner, are also content creators. They own HBO, CNN, etc.
> so its like the old days of Hollywood where studios made the movies,
> the also owned the movie theaters.
> It was common for Warner Brother theaters to play just Warner Brothers movies.
> Called "Vertical integration", or a monopoly.
> The studios eventually had to sell their theaters.
> Independent film and theaters could then flourish.

here the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures%2C_Inc.
really interesting history for opening up the movie industry.

Jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

>  I have no idea why you think this is outrageous. If one utility network can
> be
>  installed, why not a reasonable number like, say, three or five? There
> really
>  is no reason why neighbors can't receive service from different networks.
> You
>  might have a good place to keep your ice cream during a blackout.

so you want to only have 3 or 5?
why cant there be a 150?
any citizen should be allowed to build their network.
I can also choose to not let people from your network talk to people
on my network.
fuck you. this is freedom.

This is why its outrageous.
People who cry "free market", just mean they want market regulation
that benefits them.
Regulation is about benefiting all citizens.

Jay




-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Excellent post Richard.  I didn't realize some net neutrality bills
being pushed allowed for that.

Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred
service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it
though?  For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were offering
high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or if a
hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics
(telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection.

This would encourage innovation, investment and competition.

It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone
else just because certain companies want better service.  Comcast is
already demonstrating that the opposite is true.  TV networks are
offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down
in order to provide better service for the general public.

If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for
anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway?


On Feb 13, 2008 1:54 PM, Richard H. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Pat,
>
>  I believe you're absolutely correct that the networks are going to need to
>  be "smart" and take into account different data types and route/shape
>  accordingly for the networks to be efficient. Net neutrality as originally
>  conceived in the Markey amendment allowed for that.
>
>  Here's the deal/misunderstanding.
>
>  According the the original Markey Bill (it's not clear yet what the new one
>  specifies) networks CAN discriminate based on data type - so ISPs can
>  totally manage traffic by taking into account the nature of the data type -
>  they could NOT discriminate based on data origination (they could not, for
>  example, give more bandwidth within the network to CBS vs me).
>
>  About network neutrality and competition. First, of course, if everyone has
>  a fair playing field within the network (like a phone call from me to you,
>  gets the same priority as a phone call from one AT&T executive to another),
>  then competition will be increased, sine it allows innovators and start ups
>  with lots of ideas and little money to compete and, in fact, we've seen
> this
>  a lot already afforded by the web. Second, competition was SEVERELY
>  curtailed when some court somewhere ruled that cable, and then dsl
> companies
>  do not have to abide by common carriage laws when it comes to the internet.
>  So, with phone lines, the companies who built the lines have to share the
>  lines with other phone companies (they get a lot of tax breaks for building
>  them and they are the default carrier, so it's still a good deal for them).
>  Makes sense, of course, since we don't want every phone company building
>  lines through public right aways and such. However, the internet with cable
>  and dsl is not treated that way. This is why you only have one choice of
> ISP
>  if you use one company's dsl lines, and same with cable. Remember with dial
>  up when you could use different ISPs? Very very non-competitive, and surely
>  one reason why there is so little build out of high speed lines in the US
>  compared to other first-world countries - no motivation to do so, when you
>  have a service monopoly on the lines already built.
>
>  ... just explaining what may be some misunderstanding about what "network
>  neutrality" is, and why it came into being ... Richard
>
>  On Feb 13, 2008 11:29 AM, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>  wrote:
>
>  > Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage
>  > has increased by 40% each year.
>  >
>  > Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in
>  > new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire
>  > internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of
>  > BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality.
>  >
>  > This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are
>  > facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to
>  > offer a solution to these issues.
>  >
>  >
>  > On Feb 13, 2008 11:49 AM, Tim Street
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>  > wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Sorry about that.
>  > >
>  > > Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Tim Street
>  > > Creator/Executive Producer
>  > > French Maid TV
>  > > Subscribe for FREE @
>  > > http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
>  > > MyBlog
>  > > http://1timstreet.com
>  > >
>  > > On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote:
>  > >
>  > > > that url doesnt work for me.
>  > > >
>  > > > On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>  > wrote:
>  > > > > Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal
>  > > > >
>  > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Tim Street
>  > > > > Creator/Executive Producer
>  > > > > French Mai

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

> Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage
>  has increased by 40% each year.
>  Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in
>  new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire
>  internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of
>  BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality.
>  This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are
>  facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to
>  offer a solution to these issues.

i see several of us giving solutions (richard especially)
I think you simplify the problem though.

What happens when even Grandma is using daily skype, video iChat, and
downloading movies every night from iTunes?
suddenly we all become that 5%.

So these companies should be thinking of how to expand their network,
rather than limiting usage, or denying certain technologies.
if they want to raise their rates or shape traffic, these
conversations should be done out on the open.
if these companies didnt have regional monopolies, i would just go to
another competitor.

A solution is to treat broadband companies as common carriers.
This recognizes that the internet is a public good which everything
depends on...so there should be a level playing field.
Broadband companies would get heavy tax breaks (ie SUBSIDIES), and
would be guaranteed a yearly rate of return (like most water/electric
companies get). This is not a new practice.
In return, there would be heavy investment is expanding the network
and open access to these lines.
People who want to get rich will get rich. The people who want free
speech and competition online, get free speech and competition online.

Currently, broadband providers are pretty much a monopoly.
Usually just one or two carriers in each area.
They are investor owned, so do not have to share any info with the public.
they also can do pretty much what they want just by adding some
legalese in their TOS (or not).

Carriers, like Time Warner, are also content creators. They own HBO, CNN, etc.
so its like the old days of Hollywood where studios made the movies,
the also owned the movie theaters.
It was common for Warner Brother theaters to play just Warner Brothers movies.
Called "Vertical integration", or a monopoly.
The studios eventually had to sell their theaters.
Independent film and theaters could then flourish.

I dont want rules.
I want everyone, including companies, to be free.
But there must be a level of transparency and guarantee that the
network is also open.
I crave the day when Comcast, Verizon, Time/Warner voluntarily say,
"we promise to not slow down anyone's traffic even if it competes with
our own media". Suddenly we have a conversation amongst a company and
its customers. everyone feels good.

Instead, its silence, and mystery, and their lawyers affecting laws
with lobbyists.

Jay


-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Charles HOPE]

Jay dedman wrote:

> this is crazy to me.
> this is like saying that everyone can make their own power plants nd
> run lines all over town. (and charge for that power)
> everyone can make their own water companies and dig up the ground for
> pipes. (and charge for their use)
> or everyone can make their own roads. (and charge for their use)

I have no idea why you think this is outrageous.  If one utility network can be 
installed, why not a reasonable number like, say, three or five? There really 
is no reason why neighbors can't receive service from different networks.  You 
might have a good place to keep your ice cream during a blackout.

> Can I make my own army?

Why not?  You wouldn't be the first. 

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Jay dedman]

>  It doesn't make very much sense to me. There's plenty more room in the
> ground
>  for wire, more space for newfangled telephone poles carrying broadband, and
>  more radio spectrum. Using this seems a lot more fair to me than to have
> the
>  first company pay for all the infrastructure and then forcing them to turn
> it
>  over to a flock of free-riding competitors. Or for the first company to
> foist
>  the infrastructure bill on the overburdened taxpayer.

this is crazy to me.
this is like saying that everyone can make their own power plants nd
run lines all over town. (and charge for that power)
everyone can make their own water companies and dig up the ground for
pipes. (and charge for their use)
or everyone can make their own roads. (and charge for their use)
Can I make my own army?

in any society, we must agree on basic resources that are common to us all.
investor owned companies whose mission is pure profit is not a
solution to every problem.

Jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790
Professional: http://ryanishungry.com
Personal: http://momentshowing.net
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman
RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Charles HOPE]

Richard H. Hall wrote:

> About network neutrality and competition. First, of course, if everyone has
> a fair playing field within the network (like a phone call from me to you,
> gets the same priority as a phone call from one AT&T executive to another),
> then competition will be increased, sine it allows innovators and start ups
> with lots of ideas and little money to compete and, in fact, we've seen this
> a lot already afforded by the web. Second, competition was SEVERELY
> curtailed when some court somewhere ruled that cable, and then dsl companies
> do not have to abide by common carriage laws when it comes to the internet.
> So, with phone lines, the companies who built the lines have to share the
> lines with other phone companies (they get a lot of tax breaks for building
> them and they are the default carrier, so it's still a good deal for them).
> Makes sense, of course, since we don't want every phone company building
> lines through public right aways and such. 


It doesn't make very much sense to me. There's plenty more room in the ground 
for wire, more space for newfangled telephone poles carrying broadband, and 
more radio spectrum. Using this seems a lot more fair to me than to have the 
first company pay for all the infrastructure and then forcing them to turn it 
over to a flock of free-riding competitors.  Or for the first company to foist 
the infrastructure bill on the overburdened taxpayer.

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Richard H. Hall]

One thing. When I said that some court somewhere ruled that cable/dsl were
not subject to common carrier rules, the truth is the FCC made that ruling,
not any court.

... richard

On Feb 13, 2008 12:54 PM, Richard H. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Pat,
>
> I believe you're absolutely correct that the networks are going to need to
> be "smart" and take into account different data types and route/shape
> accordingly for the networks to be efficient. Net neutrality as originally
> conceived in the Markey amendment allowed for that.
>
> Here's the deal/misunderstanding.
>
> According the the original Markey Bill (it's not clear yet what the new
> one specifies) networks CAN discriminate based on data type - so ISPs can
> totally manage traffic by taking into account the nature of the data type -
> they could NOT discriminate based on data origination (they could not, for
> example, give more bandwidth within the network to CBS vs me).
>
> About network neutrality and competition. First, of course, if everyone
> has a fair playing field within the network (like a phone call from me to
> you, gets the same priority as a phone call from one AT&T executive to
> another), then competition will be increased, sine it allows innovators and
> start ups with lots of ideas and little money to compete and, in fact, we've
> seen this a lot already afforded by the web. Second, competition was
> SEVERELY curtailed when some court somewhere ruled that cable, and then dsl
> companies do not have to abide by common carriage laws when it comes to the
> internet. So, with phone lines, the companies who built the lines have to
> share the lines with other phone companies (they get a lot of tax breaks for
> building them and they are the default carrier, so it's still a good deal
> for them). Makes sense, of course, since we don't want every phone company
> building lines through public right aways and such. However, the internet
> with cable and dsl is not treated that way. This is why you only have one
> choice of ISP if you use one company's dsl lines, and same with cable.
> Remember with dial up when you could use different ISPs? Very very
> non-competitive, and surely one reason why there is so little build out of
> high speed lines in the US compared to other first-world countries - no
> motivation to do so, when you have a service monopoly on the lines already
> built.
>
> ... just explaining what may be some misunderstanding about what "network
> neutrality" is, and why it came into being ... Richard
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2008 11:29 AM, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >   Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage
> > has increased by 40% each year.
> >
> > Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in
> > new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire
> > internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of
> > BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality.
> >
> > This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are
> > facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to
> > offer a solution to these issues.
> >
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2008 11:49 AM, Tim Street <[EMAIL 
> > PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry about that.
> > >
> > > Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim Street
> > > Creator/Executive Producer
> > > French Maid TV
> > > Subscribe for FREE @
> > > http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
> > > MyBlog
> > > http://1timstreet.com
> > >
> > > On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote:
> > >
> > > > that url doesnt work for me.
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street <[EMAIL 
> > > > PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > > > Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal
> > > > >
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tim Street
> > > > > Creator/Executive Producer
> > > > > French Maid TV
> > > > > Subscribe for FREE @
> > > > > http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
> > > > > MyBlog
> > > > > http://1timstreet.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.DavidMeade.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> >  
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Richard
> http://richardhhall.org
> Shows
> http://richardshow.org
> http://inspiredhealing.tv
>



-- 
Richard
http://richardhhall.org
Shows
http://richardshow.org
http://inspiredhealing.tv


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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Richard H. Hall]

Pat,

I believe you're absolutely correct that the networks are going to need to
be "smart" and take into account different data types and route/shape
accordingly for the networks to be efficient. Net neutrality as originally
conceived in the Markey amendment allowed for that.

Here's the deal/misunderstanding.

According the the original Markey Bill (it's not clear yet what the new one
specifies) networks CAN discriminate based on data type - so ISPs can
totally manage traffic by taking into account the nature of the data type -
they could NOT discriminate based on data origination (they could not, for
example, give more bandwidth within the network to CBS vs me).

About network neutrality and competition. First, of course, if everyone has
a fair playing field within the network (like a phone call from me to you,
gets the same priority as a phone call from one AT&T executive to another),
then competition will be increased, sine it allows innovators and start ups
with lots of ideas and little money to compete and, in fact, we've seen this
a lot already afforded by the web. Second, competition was SEVERELY
curtailed when some court somewhere ruled that cable, and then dsl companies
do not have to abide by common carriage laws when it comes to the internet.
So, with phone lines, the companies who built the lines have to share the
lines with other phone companies (they get a lot of tax breaks for building
them and they are the default carrier, so it's still a good deal for them).
Makes sense, of course, since we don't want every phone company building
lines through public right aways and such. However, the internet with cable
and dsl is not treated that way. This is why you only have one choice of ISP
if you use one company's dsl lines, and same with cable. Remember with dial
up when you could use different ISPs? Very very non-competitive, and surely
one reason why there is so little build out of high speed lines in the US
compared to other first-world countries - no motivation to do so, when you
have a service monopoly on the lines already built.

... just explaining what may be some misunderstanding about what "network
neutrality" is, and why it came into being ... Richard

On Feb 13, 2008 11:29 AM, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>   Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage
> has increased by 40% each year.
>
> Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in
> new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire
> internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of
> BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality.
>
> This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are
> facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to
> offer a solution to these issues.
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2008 11:49 AM, Tim Street <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry about that.
> >
> > Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html
> >
> >
> > Tim Street
> > Creator/Executive Producer
> > French Maid TV
> > Subscribe for FREE @
> > http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
> > MyBlog
> > http://1timstreet.com
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote:
> >
> > > that url doesnt work for me.
> > >
> > > On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street <[EMAIL 
> > > PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts
> > > >
> > > > Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal
> > > >
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tim Street
> > > > Creator/Executive Producer
> > > > French Maid TV
> > > > Subscribe for FREE @
> > > > http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
> > > > MyBlog
> > > > http://1timstreet.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.DavidMeade.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>  
>



-- 
Richard
http://richardhhall.org
Shows
http://richardshow.org
http://inspiredhealing.tv


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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage
has increased by 40% each year.

Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in
new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire
internet to slow down because of 5% of users?  The creator of
BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality.

This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are
facing as bandwidth use increases.  No one here seems to be able to
offer a solution to these issues.

On Feb 13, 2008 11:49 AM, Tim Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry about that.
>
>  Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html
>
>
>  Tim Street
>  Creator/Executive Producer
>  French Maid TV
>  Subscribe for FREE @
>  http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
>  MyBlog
>  http://1timstreet.com
>
>  On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote:
>
>  > that url doesnt work for me.
>  >
>  > On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > > Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts
>  > >
>  > > Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal
>  > >
>  > > http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Tim Street
>  > > Creator/Executive Producer
>  > > French Maid TV
>  > > Subscribe for FREE @
>  > > http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
>  > > MyBlog
>  > > http://1timstreet.com
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>  > --
>  > http://www.DavidMeade.com
>  >
>  >
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Richard H. Hall]

This is great! Go Markey! He's clearly a champion of independent content
creators (IMHO)

... Richard

On Feb 13, 2008 10:49 AM, Tim Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   Sorry about that.
>
> Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html
>
>
> Tim Street
> Creator/Executive Producer
> French Maid TV
> Subscribe for FREE @
> http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
> MyBlog
> http://1timstreet.com
>
> On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote:
>
> > that url doesnt work for me.
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street <[EMAIL 
> > PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts
> > >
> > > Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim Street
> > > Creator/Executive Producer
> > > French Maid TV
> > > Subscribe for FREE @
> > > http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
> > > MyBlog
> > > http://1timstreet.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.DavidMeade.com
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>



-- 
Richard
http://richardhhall.org
Shows
http://richardshow.org
http://inspiredhealing.tv


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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[Tim Street]

Sorry about that.

Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html


Tim Street
Creator/Executive Producer
French Maid TV
Subscribe for FREE @
http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
MyBlog
http://1timstreet.com






On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote:

> that url doesnt work for me.
>
> On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts
> >
> > Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr
> >
> >
> >
> > Tim Street
> > Creator/Executive Producer
> > French Maid TV
> > Subscribe for FREE @
> > http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
> > MyBlog
> > http://1timstreet.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --  
> http://www.DavidMeade.com
>
> 



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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

[David Meade]

that url doesnt work for me.

On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts
>
> Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr
>
>
>
> Tim Street
> Creator/Executive Producer
> French Maid TV
> Subscribe for FREE @
> http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
> MyBlog
> http://1timstreet.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>



-- 
http://www.DavidMeade.com

Re: [videoblogging] Net Neutrality Article from BBC News

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hey Jay,

On 9/7/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "US backing for two-tier internet"
>  >  
>  >  "The US Justice Department has said that internet service providers
>  >  should be allowed to charge for priority traffic.
>  >  The agency said it was opposed to "network neutrality", the idea that
>  >  all data on the net is treated equally."
>
>  where's the guy on this list who said commericial companies should be
>  able to do anything they want? I'd love to hear his spin on this.
>
>  Great, so in a couple yearsour web experience will be decided by
>  what website Comcast and ATT decide pay enough to get the fast
>  service.
>
>  Any creator on this list will have slow, tedious videos.
>  they are creating a false scarcity.
>  Funny how free marketers like to choose when "free markets" are helpful to 
> them.

I was one of the people defending companies before.

So maybe you're talking about me... although I don't remember saying
"commercial companies should be able to do anything they want"... so
maybe it was someone else that was saying something about it too.

But anyways to put in my "2 cents"...

Although I don't like a tiered Internet and think people should do
something about it... I don't think that "something" should be
legislation.  (This article is talking about trying to do "something"
with legislation.)

(I'm against forcing companies as much as I'm against forcing
people... after all... companies are groups of people.  And forcing
companies really means forcing each of those people in that group.)

One way to tackle this problem is to work on creating alternative
forms of "Internet access".

Even before this was going on, there have been people who have been
creating new "networks" (separate from the teleco's network or the
cable companies' network) made up of wireless routers.

Here's one example in Seattle...

http://www.seattlewireless.net/

There's many many others all over the world.  (I can't remember the
other links off the top of my head.)

That's super simple to do... after all... wireless routers are pretty
affordable.


Also... if you have the resources... you could start your own ISP that
doesn't tier the Internet.  Get other people to "care" about the
cause... and show them that you provide an alternative.


Also... people can "boycott" any company they see tiering the Internet
in a way you don't like.

I believe that using force against someone (who hasn't used force
against you) is wrong no matter who it's against.  Even if it's
against a bunch of assholes is some company.


See ya

-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. 


 Vlog Razor... Vlogging News
http://vlograzor.com/

Re: [videoblogging] Net Neutrality Article from BBC News

[Jay dedman]

> "US backing for two-tier internet"
>  
>  "The US Justice Department has said that internet service providers
>  should be allowed to charge for priority traffic.
>  The agency said it was opposed to "network neutrality", the idea that
>  all data on the net is treated equally."

where's the guy on this list who said commericial companies should be
able to do anything they want? I'd love to hear his spin on this.

Great, so in a couple yearsour web experience will be decided by
what website Comcast and ATT decide pay enough to get the fast
service.

Any creator on this list will have slow, tedious videos.
they are creating a false scarcity.
Funny how free marketers like to choose when "free markets" are helpful to them.

jay



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

**check out the new look: ryanishungry.com**

Re: [videoblogging] net neutrality mention in St. Louis paper

[Jan McLaughlin]

Tagged for the Vlog Press Kit.

Well done, Dr. Hall.

Warmly,
Jan

On 3/13/07, Richard (Show) Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thought you guys might be interested.
>
> The St. Louis post dispatch mentioned the video I did on net neutrality.
>
> *http://tinyurl.com/2ztg6h
>
> ... Richard
> *
> --
> Richard
> http://richardhhall.org
> Shows
> http://richardshow.org
> http://inspiredhealing.tv
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com


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