The magic here is who they are charging. Telcos could charge the consumer per KB if they wanted. But the dont.
So instead we're supposed to let them prioratize what can be published? That doesnt make any sense.
Charge me for the video I consume ... ok ... sucks but ok. (market competition will make sure this stays within the realm of reality)
But to leverage the content that is available to be comsumed is evil. Sure they might not do it in an evil way ... but they could ... and they'd make more profit if they did ... so what do you think they'll do?
If we let them create a system where content that is most favorable to their bottom line is the only content that can be easily accessed we let them create a system that WILL be abused by the wealthy powers that be.
If we let them create a system where their politcal interests can be blocked/hindered ... they will use that system
Its the difference of who is charged for what. They arent asking for consumers to be charged for what they use, they are asking for the right to prioritize and charge differently the content that is available to be consumed ... evil.
On 5/25/06, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How can I have the right to sell fruit but not have the right to charge more for the watermelons than the oranges?
David Meade wrote:Sorry I've been traveling and not had time to keep up ...
On 5/20/06, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Not at all the right I'm talking about. I pay for my access to the Internet. They can charge more if they want ... I'll still pay.
What's interesting here is that you and others think that you have rights to use equipment that is not yours. ... am not completely deaf to the idea, but I think that the hidden assumption should be brought out and exposed.
the right I'm talking about is the right to have access to the information out there without the gatekeepers deciding which should be more readily available. Without them deciding which should be more easily published and seen.
Its the 1st amendment and ... like ... the inverse of that. The right to access others free speech without the powers that be limiting or hindering my access based on what is most favorable to them.
It has nothing to do with not wanting to pay for my internet access. It's that very mistake the telcos are tryin to convince people what net neutrality is about ... and its not .. at all.
--
http://www.DavidMeade.com
feed: http://www.DavidMeade.com/feedSPONSORED LINKS
Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
http://www.DavidMeade.com
feed: http://www.DavidMeade.com/feed
SPONSORED LINKS
| Fireant | Individual | Typepad |
| Use | Explains |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
