Wrote something inspired by the day's discussions on which we can all mediate..
Religious beliefs, Conspiracies, Idiot. Always ask for proof. On Feb 10, 2008 4:04 PM, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > There is evidence for all of those things, often not a single smoking > gun, but plenty all the same. And I concede that there is obviously > some indication of how some net providers would like to behave in > future. > > What I am suggesting is that Ive yet to see a decent explanation of > just why the indy video producer, or the person that wants to watch, > need to be crushed in order for corporations to reap large profits. > > Im quite sure they can go about putting big media content on the net > in various ways, without needing to hamper others in order to be > sucessful. > > Any signs that coprorations, or governments for that matter, see the > people as 'the enemy' needs to be balanced witht he fact that they > derive their power and profit from people. If they fear people, its > because they need people, and whilst they often get away with going > too far, there are limits. > > Its not that I trust all will be well in future, or that everyone has > our best interests at heart, its that I dont believe that crying wolf > now is good. If there were an actual vlogging movement that had a > leader, would you want him or her going on talkshows and telling the > world how the little guy is being crushed? That would make me groan > and whilst it may stirr a minority to the cause, would it not cause > the masses to write that movement off as paranoid? > > > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Please show me the evidence that Big Oil and the Big 3 were > creating > > an exponential profit situation with the stubborn refusal on CAFE > > standards and greenwashing of Global Warming. > > > > Please show me the evidence that Big Media was creating a > > oligopolistic market with their sponsorship of politicians and > > legislation. > > > > Please show me the evidence that Big Insurance was creating a > medical > > system that trades profit for people's health. > > > > Please show me the evidence that Big Power has been stymying > > renewable energy. > > > > It's not easy to find that evidence, Steve, although I bet you'd > > agree that all of those things were happening. > > > > I'm not talking about some nefarious plot against vloggers. > > > > I'm talking about control over markets and the flow of information > > and a profit motivated quid pro quo between like institutions. > It's > > just business. > > > > Cable companies want more profit. Big media will pay more for > > transmission of content than independent producers will. Look at > the > > TV market - it's dying. People are moving to the internet for > media. > > Right now they're accessing free content, or content that does not > > move ad revenue to the establishment media. > > > > If you don't think that issue is being worked on, and that big > > players are not trying to win more marketshare, I think you're > crazy. > > > > The best way to gain control over a market is to use your > strategic > > advantages. In this case, I'm suggesting that the strategic > advantage > > that is being leveraged is money. They are competing with > independent > > content creators who have no capital assets. influxxmedia can't > > afford (probably can but is not willing to) to pay a few hundred > > bucks to have a website coded. I can't afford a decent boom mic. > I'm > > sure this list is saturated with people that are in a similar boat. > > > > It's simply good business to raise the barrier of entry into the > market. > > > > This is not quite the argument that the Comcast situation is > bringing > > up, but it is closely related. Content like ours will be capped > and > > managed, and there will be a new web based cable media > subscription > > service that will exist outside of the caps. > > > > I've had this argument before on other topics, and the evidentiary > > request has been thrown at me before. Take Iraq, for instance... > > October 2001, I made the argument that we would be going into > Iraq, > > and that we would enter into a perpetual war situation. I said > that > > we would be there for decades and that the invasion was designed > to > > control the flow of Oil coming out of Iraq. Where do I find > evidence > > of that? > > > > Dismissal of my arguments based on lack of evidence were very > common. > > The establishment line was always swallowed and mine was always > spit up. > > > > Giant corporations don't care. They don't like people. People are > > problematic. I believe that giant corporations look at people as > the > > enemy. The needs of people negatively impact their profit. It's > not > > some kind of nefarious plot, it's just business. > > > > I don't have any evidence that Comcast is trying to gain control > over > > the flow of information. How could I get that information? > > > > I make my argument based on the fact that they've monetized the > > distribution of information. That's their business. Comcast will > do > > everything in their power to distribute in information that > creates > > the most profit, plain and simple. Sony will pay more to have > their > > content distributed than we will. Consumers will pay more for > > Spiderman than for the Batman Geek. > > > > It's just business. > > > > Cheers, > > Ron Watson > > http://k9disc.blip.tv > > http://k9disc.com > > http://discdogradio.com > > http://pawsitivevybe.com > > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 2008, at 7:56 AM, Steve Watkins wrote: > > > > > Nah, they want to make money all right, but nobody has been able > to > > > explain to me how > > > shutting out indie content is going to improve their ability to > > > make money. > > > > > > How am I supposed to treat that argument with credibility unless > > > there are actual > > > examples of indie producers being forced out of the game by > these > > > dastardly fiends? > > > > > > Please lets not kid ourselves about what all the peer2peer > traffic > > > is currently being used > > > for. Its not indie content, its established mainstream content > > > being redistributed without > > > permission. > > > > > > And certainly ehre in the UK, when large companies try to use > > > peer2peer to delier their > > > content legitimately, the ISPs are just as annoyed by them, they > > > use their finite bandwidth > > > up, they want a cut, but if its free their is no cut to take. > > > > > > I do believe it likely that in future there may be some ISPs who > > > offer some video services > > > that are exempt from the users bandwidth quota, and wil > therefore > > > make the playingfield > > > unfair. But even witht he most draconian bandwidth limitations, > > > theres still capacity for > > > users to download a hell of a lot of vlogs, and no sign that the > > > measly upload bandwidth > > > required to send them to a video host, is going to be whisked > away > > > from under the feet of > > > indie producers. > > > > > > Show me one shred of evidence that mass media wants to create a > > > nightmare distopia in > > > the world in order to keep the masses watching its content? Why > > > would it need to, it can > > > play on its existing great strength, the domination of promotion > > > and public awareness > > > about what content exists, the ability to throw silly money at > > > creators. Yes their scale > > > means they can talk to and deal with the large > telecoms/broadband > > > companies and have > > > leverage with them in ways we cannot. But this does not > > > automatically translate to them > > > using this to crush 'us'. > > > > > > As for the mobile arena and VOIP, yes there are far more > concrete > > > struggles here between > > > users and the networks, there is a far more basic game of trying > to > > > protect existing > > > revenue stream, and build on mobile user base to create new > profit > > > streams, in play. But > > > all the same things are moving in a direction where the cost of > > > bandwidth to mobile users > > > is decreasing, and attempts to limit use or development leads to > > > loud cries which make > > > them think twice. > > > > > > I doubt there are hundreds of millions of customers paying $50 a > > > month. Millions yes, > > > much profiteering yes, but all the same it would be unfair to > paint > > > such a picture without > > > acknowleding that the costs of network infrasctructure & > > > maintenance are hardly trivial. > > > Back in the day, lots of UK ISPs completely killed themselves by > > > offering unlimited dial-up > > > access or by borrowing huge sums to lay down a physical network > of > > > cables to peoples > > > homes. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <k9disc@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I disagree with Tim's allegory and your assessment, Steve. > > > > > > > > These guys built their empire promising us exactly what we have > > > > today: "Every man a publisher. Every man a Netowork." > > > > > > > > It was the bone they threw the public and elected officials to > get > > > > relaxed regulation, re-regulation in their interests and > support for > > > > their projects. Now they plan on delivering THEIR approved HD > > > > content, THEIR telephony and THEIR approved high speed data. > > > > > > > > It's a classic bait and switch: Give me this and I'll give you > that. > > > > We give them this and they renege. > > > > > > > > This isn't about delivering content, it's about controlling > access. > > > > This isn't about reducing or managing bandwidth, it's about > > > > controlling and restricting it. > > > > > > > > They are going to price us out of the game and take money from > big > > > > corporate media to deliver their HUGE bandwidth content which > dwarfs > > > > ours. > > > > > > > > It's as simple as that. > > > > > > > > Instead of the government mandated grocery story: > > > > > > > > Comcast asked for relaxed regulation, actually they paid lots of > > > > money to sponsor think tanks, politicians and legislation that > gave > > > > them the power they have today. In return they'd give us > cheaper and > > > > greater access and more freedom. That was their argument. > > > > > > > > Comcast is busting into telephony as they strive to shut our > ability > > > > to use VOIP. > > > > They're going to use torrents to deliver THEIR HD Content as > they > > > > shut down torrent users. > > > > They're going to exponentially increase the throughput of > > > information > > > > as they cry that they're all tapped out. > > > > > > > > They're sick and tired of people like us sharing things, and > working > > > > for peanuts in THEIR market. Information sharing and small > time > > > media > > > > creators are stealing their profit. We are wasting their market > > > > resources and costing them profit. Death by a thousand paper > cuts. > > > > > > > > If they wanted more bandwidth, they'd ask government to invest > in > > > > their infrastructure. They'd ask for help. They don't want > help, > > > they > > > > don't want more bandwidth. They want control. Plain and simple. > > > > > > > > This reality that we experience right now is exactly what they > > > > offered in the negotiation to get what they wanted. They are > > > reneging > > > > on that right now. > > > > > > > > Don't be fooled. This is a scam. They are dishonest brokers. > They > > > cry > > > > that they're being taken advantage of as they seek to take > advantage > > > > of us...again. > > > > > > > > Isn't $50 a month from hundreds of millions of customers enough? > > > > > > > > Ron Watson > > > > http://k9disc.blip.tv > > > > http://k9disc.com > > > > http://discdogradio.com > > > > http://pawsitivevybe.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 9, 2008, at 9:57 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well to me that grocery store example is not what this > particular > > > > > issue is all about right > > > > > now. It does represent one side of net neutrality fears, where > > > > > potential conflict of interest > > > > > may exist if certain traffic is given priority, and the > decider > > > > > also happens to own some of > > > > > the destinations for that traffic. > > > > > > > > > > But for me the measures we see so far are more akin to a > minority > > > > > of customers to your > > > > > coffee shop, abusing a special 'all you can drink' offer, and > > > > > reducing the quality of service > > > > > & coffee the majority receive. The coffe shop management must > > > > > choose whether to invest > > > > > in more capacity to serve the overthirsty minority, change > or > > > scrap > > > > > the 'all you can drink' > > > > > offer, or take other measures to limit the service. > > > > > > > > > > The devil is in the detail as far as Im concerned. There have > > > > > always been various > > > > > bandwidth issues that have impeded some peoples ability to > have > > > the > > > > > internet they want. > > > > > There are challenges to be met in the future. Too much greed > from > > > > > either users or the > > > > > companies that deliver the network, should be kept in check. > > > > > > > > > > Luckily I believe too much present and future economic hope > rests > > > > > on the internet > > > > > continuing to exist in its present form, though if > it 'matures' as > > > > > other industries have, it > > > > > could become the usual restrictive monopoly nightmare which > wont > > > > > feel so much like the > > > > > net of today. Still it could be argued that the internet of > the > > > > > present already has a lot of > > > > > giant near-monopolies both at the network delivery & > > > infrastructure > > > > > level, and in terms of > > > > > the sites people are visiting. Yet if there is anywhere the > small > > > > > business or individual > > > > > should be able to find space to survive, it should be the > net, as > > > > > is currently the case? > > > > > > > > > > Or to put it another way, its in nobodies interests to make > the > > > > > internet completely useless. > > > > > We already live in a world where a lot of humans hardly have > > > access > > > > > to the basics of life, > > > > > let alone computers and the net, and I suggest that if those > who > > > > > can currently afford to > > > > > uploads videos to the net, face a future where they cannot, > it > > > will > > > > > be more likely due to > > > > > mass economic woes in general, or problems with electricity > > > supply, > > > > > than a few monopoly > > > > > net providers pushing things way too far. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Tim Street <tim@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't like that they are doing this. I'm against it but > I > > > think we > > > > > > should try to look at from their point of view so that we > can > > > > > > understand where they are coming from and how we might put > a > > > stop to > > > > > > this before none of us can afford to upload our shows > anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > Imagine if you ran a Grocery Store and inside your grocery > > > store you > > > > > > had a coffee shop that was owned by an Independent Coffee > Chain. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then one day the Government said "Hey you have a Coffee > Shop > > > in your > > > > > > grocery store. You need to let other coffee companies sell > > > coffee in > > > > > > your store for free." > > > > > > > > > > > > So you let Starbucks, Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf as well as > Pete's > > > > > > Coffee and Tully's sell coffee in your store and they > didn't > > > pay you > > > > > > any money but they did create more traffic in your parking > > > lot and > > > > > > they made it hard for your costumers to get into your > grocery > > > store. > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you might try and keep your parking lot free to only > your > > > > > > customers, unless the government told you that you needed > to let > > > > > > anyone park in your parking lot. > > > > > > > > > > > > In a free and open society should a grocery store be > forced > > > to allow > > > > > > other companies to sell products in their store without > paying > > > > > > something? > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim Street > > > > > > Creator/Executive Producer > > > > > > French Maid TV > > > > > > Subscribe for FREE @ > > > > > > http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes > > > > > > MyBlog > > > > > > http://1timstreet.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 9, 2008, at 4:21 PM, Jay dedman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will be the a good real test of whether or not > the > > > FCC will > > > > > > > follow up > > > > > > > > on their promise to enforce network neutrality, in > terms of > > > > > > > penalties for > > > > > > > > comcast. I'm not holding my breath. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here's how they are spinning it. > > > > > > > We are a private company and our network is private. > (even > > > if our > > > > > > > network is run over public property) > > > > > > > We are telling you in our 10 page contract (with small, > > > legalese, > > > > > > > ambiguous text) what we are allowed to do. > > > > > > > You make a choice to use us (even if we may be the only > > > broadband > > > > > > > network in your area) > > > > > > > Regulation is slows down competition. (even if we are > doing > > > our > > > > > best > > > > > > > to become a total monopoly) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somehow this argument makes the current FCC officers feel > like > > > > > all is > > > > > > > right in america. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > >
