> > 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!
Why? That's not really the problem, that people are making money. I'm cool with people making money. It's the restricting access based upon whatever metrics the communications companies decide to legislate that troubles me. Make a gazillion dollars, that's fine, but don't be using that money to legislate and price small content providers like us out of the game. > 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 ... pretty dumb. > > I produce the same bandwith load for AT&T with 100MB of ABC > podcasts as > I would getting 100MB of Dragon*ConTV ... that doesn't mean I > should pay > more or less for the bandwidth used to get ABC's content, and I should > get it at a similar speed. > > Anything else is the insertion of anti-corporate nonsense or political > correctness into a simple business transaction between myself and a > communications company. It's akin to saying business should pay > more per > gallon for water, poor communities should get higher water > pressure, or > water must go to the BrandA faucet first because they sponsor the > water > company. > > I just want bandwidth in a free market economy ... that's all. If the > company I use to get it doesn't give me proper service, then I want > the > ability to get it somewhere else. > > Go tell the folks at AskANinja or SliceOfSciFi they need to pay > more for > bandwidth now that they generate some revenue. Let me know how that > goes > over :) I agree to a point. I would like transactions to be business based without the side order of agenda, but we also need to be conscious of the internet as more than just a free market construct. 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 Healthcare, and I rumor has it that it's going to be really good for our water supply. I mean, look what it's done for the food business. Costs are down, prices and profits are up, but how is it all performing? Move along... There's nothing to see here. I think we're getting screwed by all the legislating of profit. I think people are dying because we have been legislating for profit before people. I think people starve because we legislate profit before people. I think we cannot allow access to all of the information on the internet to be denied, damaged, degraded, or otherwise restricted based upon the profit driven needs of big giant corporations who will be bringing everything they have to the table to ensure that people like us can't play on the internet of tomorrow. I just hope there are more of us that are aware of that than there seem to be. If the Coporate Agenda is allowed to do with the internet what is good for profits, we're all screwed. "Move along there's nothing to see here," and how will we know? We'll just have to trust the simple virtue of profit. There's more to the internet than commerce. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog http://pawsitivevybe.com On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Brian Richardson - WhatTheCast? wrote: > 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, broadband, free > access on > > solid peered networks. I'll go for that! > > > > 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 ... pretty dumb. > > I produce the same bandwith load for AT&T with 100MB of ABC > podcasts as > I would getting 100MB of Dragon*ConTV ... that doesn't mean I > should pay > more or less for the bandwidth used to get ABC's content, and I should > get it at a similar speed. > > Anything else is the insertion of anti-corporate nonsense or political > correctness into a simple business transaction between myself and a > communications company. It's akin to saying business should pay > more per > gallon for water, poor communities should get higher water > pressure, or > water must go to the BrandA faucet first because they sponsor the > water > company. > > I just want bandwidth in a free market economy ... that's all. If the > company I use to get it doesn't give me proper service, then I want > the > ability to get it somewhere else. > > Go tell the folks at AskANinja or SliceOfSciFi they need to pay > more for > bandwidth now that they generate some revenue. Let me know how that > goes > over :) > -- > Brian Richardson > - http://siliconchef.com > - http://dragoncontv.com > - http://whatthecast.com > - http://www.3chip.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
