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. I'll go for that!
/r On 6/29/07, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > > AT&T wants to be able to 'deliver you the (their) world', and people > like you and I just want access. > > I've been through this before on this list, and I still believe that > it holds true. > > If the debate is framed in terms of 'delivery': products being > bought, sold, packaged shipped, etc. If this is the frame for the > debate, we are in trouble. > > Our stuff just gets in the way of people getting stuff that 'they > actually paid for'. Quite literally, by definition, our kind of media > impacts the 'consumer'. > > It's all going to make sense because it's true. Net Neutrality does > impact the consumer. It makes them have to pay less. Consumers > SPEND,SPEND,SPEND, not save, save, save. > > Net Neutrality is an absolute requirement if the internet is going to > be more than an 'information market'. Without Net Neutrality, our > information, 'all information' will become a commodity and it will be > sold to the highest bidder, and guess what? Most real live breathing > people will not be able to compete with the $10 Billion in quarterly > profit of an Exxon. It's nothing for them to shell out $50K, heck > even $500K to get good access, especially when that access is > unchallenged. > > In fact, I would even argue that for them to do business it is > imperative that they clamp down on all the cheap and rapid > development of today's internet. It cost more to print the literature > for an obsolete 2 year old running IT project than it would be to pay > a $50,000 flat fee for privileged internet access. > > Get evolution to a manageable pace, restrict access and consolidate > power. That's what the destruction of Net Neutrality offers them. > > I think that the big companies can't compete in a Net Neutral > internet. There's just too much overhead. Layers and layers of > bureaucracy, layers and layers of costs that must be born because of > instantaneously shifting trends in information technology. The > internet has proven to be more than an information market. We are > more than consumers. > > Citizens require access to good information. > > Consumers pay to have information delivered. > > Access is more important than delivery. > > I'd love to talk more about this... > > Cheers, > > Ron Watson > http://k9disc.blip.tv > http://k9disc.com > http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog > http://pawsitivevybe.com > > > > On Jun 27, 2007, at 4:30 PM, Heath wrote: > > > 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 subject of > > network neutrality, which is the notion that all online traffic > > should be treated equally by Internet service providers. > > > > The issue pits consumer groups and content providers such as Google > > Inc. against large telecommunications companies, such as AT&T Inc. > > and Comcast Corp. The latter group wants the option of charging > > customers more for transmitting certain content, including live > > video, faster or more reliably than other data. > > > > FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras said that without evidence > > of "market failure or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers > > should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this > > area." The Federal Communications Commission and Department of > > Justice have jurisdiction over high-speed Internet access, while > > Congress has considered legislation that would mandate network > > neutrality. > > > > The agency also said that certain practices that would discriminate > > among Internet traffic, such as prioritizing some data or providing > > exclusive deals to content providers, "can benefit consumers." > > > > "can benefit consumers".....my a$$..... > > > > Heath > > http://batmangeek.com > > http://aroundcincinnati.net > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
