Actually, you make a pretty decent preface there for the argument that
*sales* sites should pay more for access because they make money,
whereas the blogs, vlogs, and schlogs, hobby sites, free radio and
video, etc etc should always have reliable, broadband, free access on
solid peered networks.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 8:38 am, randulo wrote:
Actually, you make a pretty decent preface there for the argument that
*sales* sites should pay more for access because they make money,
whereas the blogs, vlogs, and schlogs, hobby sites, free radio and
video, etc etc should always have reliable,
On 6/29/07, Brian Richardson - WhatTheCast? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um, I think people should just pay for a service. More bandwidth costs
more money, less bandwidth is cheaper. Trying to figure out how much to
charge by content instead of usage is ... well, there's no polite way to
say it
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:05 am, randulo wrote:
Sorry the irony didn't come through.
Drat, my irony filter was on :)
--
Brian Richardson
- http://siliconchef.com
- http://dragoncontv.com
- http://whatthecast.com
- http://www.3chip.com
Actually, you make a pretty decent preface there for the argument
that
*sales* sites should pay more for access because they make money,
whereas the blogs, vlogs, and schlogs, hobby sites, free radio and
video, etc etc should always have reliable, broadband, free
access on
solid
There are going to have to be rules. There will be regulation. The
only question is: Which interests will be served by the make up of
the rules?
The Free Market did wonders for TV and Cable didn't it?
Man the Free Market kicks ass in the Oil business.
That Free Market's done great for
Hello Ron,
On 6/29/07, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The Free Market did wonders for TV and Cable didn't it?
Man the Free Market kicks ass in the Oil business.
That Free Market's done great for Healthcare, and I rumor has it that
it's going to be really good for our water
Well quite a talk... probably not best to discuss this further, as it
does get quite off topic.
I knew I should have put supercommas around ''free markets', but I
kind of take the fact that 'free markets' aren't free, for granted.
You are right, of course, that these are regulated markets.
It will help the consumer, but hurt the citizen.
There is a big difference between getting your shit that you bought
delivered and getting access to stuff that is out there.
Delivery vs Access... That's the frames we're working with guys.
ATT wants to be able to 'deliver you the (their)
Like anyone here on this group didn't know this but look at the last
line from this article
WASHINGTON - The Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday urged
policymakers to proceed cautiously on any regulation of high-speed
Internet traffic.
The agency issued a report addressing the controversial
This is why I totally support Jeff Pulver in his move to tell the FTC to
keep their hands off the internet.
The FTC is good for television, but the internet is supposed to be free!
On 6/27/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like anyone here on this group didn't know this but look at the last
I question whether the FTC is good for television.
I'm against any kind of (non-voluntary... and thus forced) regulation.
--
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/
All the Vlogging News on One Page
http://vlograzor.com/
On 6/27/07,
The latter group wants the option of charging customers more for
transmitting certain content, including live
video, faster or more reliably than other data.
... this is NOT what net-neutrality is - and this is a big misconception in
how it is often presented - as specified in, for example, the
13 matches
Mail list logo
