Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
On Jan 18, 2008 9:44 PM, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: > > > There are probably fewer than five people on this list that would > > find any > > value in the old-school ARPANET the government gave us decades ago. > > >btw, who are the other four? Hey, Mr RichardShow, are you one? > > .. wow, ARPANET is all I ever use, I didn't know there was anything else, > though this pink unicorn net thing looks interesting ... > -- Richard http://richardhhall.org Shows http://richardshow.org http://inspiredhealing.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
On Jan 18, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: > There are probably fewer than five people on this list that would > find any > value in the old-school ARPANET the government gave us decades ago. btw, who are the other four? Hey, Mr RichardShow, are you one? our particular kind of value back then was using the ARPANET to connect from UCSB to Moffet Field where we were teaching *long* division to one of the first parallel processing computers (the ILLIAC IV, 128 parallel CPU's, fun with FORTRAN). at night we used it to play the game RISK using the net. my housemate Bert was a master. He'd hack the code to change the land masses mid-game and lock up your navy in a big inland sea. wish we had video back then please pardon the acid flashback :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
On Jan 18, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: > There are probably fewer than five people on this list that would > find any > value in the old-school ARPANET the government gave us decades ago. > Everything > newer than that, and the cheap hardware and software that made > vlogging > possible, is a chocolate river brought to us by pink unicorns. the role that the government played is the equivalent of an associate producer ;) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] It begins...
The Internets were largely, if I recall, developed by private companies (like BBN) under (D)ARPA grant. While the funding came from .gov, the innovation came from .com. Soon thereafter .com pretty much took over, no? -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eddie Codel Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 5:37 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] It begins... You mean like the Internet? Hi Charles! On Jan 18, 2008 2:05 PM, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Judging from some of the attitudes here, one might be inclined to think > that > vlogging was invented by the government and promoted by grants. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
Is there some equivalent to Godwin's Law regarding free market fights? There should be. Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
Hey Eddie! There are probably fewer than five people on this list that would find any value in the old-school ARPANET the government gave us decades ago. Everything newer than that, and the cheap hardware and software that made vlogging possible, is a chocolate river brought to us by pink unicorns. Eddie Codel wrote: > You mean like the Internet? > > Hi Charles! > > On Jan 18, 2008 2:05 PM, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Judging from some of the attitudes here, one might be inclined to think >> that >> vlogging was invented by the government and promoted by grants. >> >> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 5:05 pm, Charles HOPE wrote: > Judging from some of the attitudes here, one might be inclined to think > that > vlogging was invented by the government and promoted by grants. Yeah, just what the founding fathers wanted, government-run media ... oh, wait ... I'll be recording my non-scripted non-funded podcast this weekend after driving across state lines without filing papers or showing my passport at the Alabamastan state border. Once recorded on my Chinese-made audio recorder, I'll be editing it on a computer designed in Texas, built in Taiwan and stored on a server in LA (which is on a hosting service that charges me money if I go over a bandwidth cap) and it will be available on iTunes and Zune Marketplace to be downloaded onto the audience's Chinese made MP3 players. Something tells me if I needed the government to do that for me it would cost $30,000 in somebody elses tax dollars, take two weeks to produce and sound like it was recorded on a Victrola ... and me in a format unreadable unless your audio system runs ADA or FORTRAN. -- Brian Richardson - http://whatthecast.com - http://siliconchef.com - http://dragoncontv.com - http://www.3chip.com
Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
You mean like the Internet? Hi Charles! On Jan 18, 2008 2:05 PM, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Judging from some of the attitudes here, one might be inclined to think > that > vlogging was invented by the government and promoted by grants. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
Brian Richardson - WhatTheCast? wrote: > My cell provider gives me the option for a flat rate SMS & email plan, > which is one reason I use them over other providers. For every > per-megabyte cable provider there will be an alternative "all you can > suck" WiMAX or DSL provider. But surely these low prices must be due to regulation! Otherwise, the phone companies could charge whatever they wanted, and we would be paying $thousands a month for phone service, no? > It's choice thanks to economics, the same economics that make it > possible for regular citizens to affordably get into online content > production. Judging from some of the attitudes here, one might be inclined to think that vlogging was invented by the government and promoted by grants.
Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 4:01 pm, noel hidalgo wrote: > dear america, > > you are truly becoming a third world nation ruled by corporations. See, that's not the feeling I get for plans that work by charging people for bandwidth by use. This is one company picking one service to try. Customers may reject it, which will be people telling corporations to take the cable out of the F-type connector and shove it somewhere else. Look at telephone service over the past 30 years ... there are more flat-rate and "unlimited" plans then ever before. Not all plans have gone that way. Some cell phone companies charge per minute, some flat fees and some charge a flat fee up to a certain minute limit. It's a good variety of models to pick from, and no one is right for everyone. My cell provider gives me the option for a flat rate SMS & email plan, which is one reason I use them over other providers. For every per-megabyte cable provider there will be an alternative "all you can suck" WiMAX or DSL provider. It's choice thanks to economics, the same economics that make it possible for regular citizens to affordably get into online content production. As much as the cable company sucks, I'd rather deal with them than the government. It's easier to fire the cable company. -- Brian Richardson - http://whatthecast.com - http://siliconchef.com - http://dragoncontv.com - http://www.3chip.com
Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
dear america, you are truly becoming a third world nation ruled by corporations. sincerely, noneck ps - it's great to see that after 6 months traveling the globe, america is starting to take after other innovation leaders... i for one can't wait to get back to dial up! i love pine
Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
All of you are assuming network scarcity. Networks are only scarce when regulated by a government (FCC, USPS, et al.) Most government regulation is designed by large corporate lobbyists to thwart competition pressure from smaller players. Deregulation benefits the honest. David Meade wrote: > Yeah the scary stuffs starts when they start saying > > "Video costs $1 ... unless you're getting it from the Comcast Media > Store - then its free!" That violates net neutrality. > > It's also worth remembering that from the ISP standpoint - the > publisher/hoster IS paying for the bandwidth used ... so some could > argue here they're charging at both ends for the same thing.
Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
Just because the article uses the word "tiered service" doesn't mean this is in any way related to Net Neutrality. In Toronto, Rogers provides internet services and charges different prices based on the amount of bandwidth you want. i.e. If you're only going to surf email, you get "Rogers Ultra-Lite Internet" or if you're going to watch Youtube videos you'll want "Rogers Lite Internet". It means I don't have to pay as much and certain people can still leave bit torrent download/upload 24/7 at 400 KB/s and pay an appropriate amount for that level of bandwidth. There's no discrimination of packets in either of these tactics. Period. This has *nothing* to do with Net Neutrality. Yes, this does however have everything to do with TV over the internet but it's a method of ensuring that bandwidth can be appropriately distributed across their customer base and allows them to invest in better technology for customers that are interested in IPTV etc. On Jan 17, 2008 8:35 AM, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Information Super Highway 1996-2008 RIP > > Ron Watson > http://k9disc.blip.tv > http://k9disc.com > http://discdogradio.com > http://pawsitivevybe.com > > > > On Jan 17, 2008, at 9:24 AM, Heath wrote: > > > So it begins... http://tinyurl.com/393qmk > > > > NEW YORK - Time Warner Cable will experiment with a new pricing > > structure for high-speed Internet access later this year, charging > > customers based on how much data they download, a company spokesman > > said Wednesday. > > > > The company, the second-largest cable provider in the United States, > > will start a trial in Beaumont, Texas, in which it will sell new > > Internet customers tiered levels of service based on how much data > > they download per month, rather than the usual fixed-price packages > > with unlimited downloads. > > > > Company spokesman Alex Dudley said the trial was aimed at improving > > the network performance by making it more costly for heavy users of > > large downloads. Dudley said that a small group of super-heavy users > > of downloads, around 5 percent of the customer base, can account for > > up to 50 percent of network capacity. > > > > Dudley said he did not know what the pricing tiers would be nor the > > download limits. He said the heavy users were likely using the > > network to download large amounts of video, most likely in high > > definition. > > > > It was not clear when exactly the trial would begin, but Dudley said > > it would likely be around the second quarter. The tiered pricing > > would only affect new customers in Beaumont, not existing ones. > > > > Time Warner Cable is a subsidiary of Time Warner Inc., the world's > > largest media company. > > > > Heath > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >
Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
Yeah the scary stuffs starts when they start saying "Video costs $1 ... unless you're getting it from the Comcast Media Store - then its free!" That violates net neutrality. It's also worth remembering that from the ISP standpoint - the publisher/hoster IS paying for the bandwidth used ... so some could argue here they're charging at both ends for the same thing. - Dave On Jan 17, 2008 11:03 AM, Kary Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm OK with charging the bandwidth hogs more money than someone who only > checks email or even watches video on YouTube. I'm a network admin at a > university. In my experience 5% to 10% of the users do use around 50% of > the bandwidth, sometimes more. If charging the people who are in the top > percent makes them clean off whatever virus or bot they have on their > machine or reasonably limit the amount of file sharing they do then the > network is less congested and the experience improves for everyone. When > there are network load problems it's almost never the aggregate of normal > use; it's a handful of users using extreme amounts of bandwidth. > > So, in theory, I don't have a problem with it, but that doesn't mean it will > be implemented fairly or with the user's best interest in mind. I support > penalties for those users that cause problems for everyone else, not putting > a policy in place to cover the rising cost of bandwidth because more and > more people are watching video online. > > -- > Kary Rogers > http://www.GoodCommitment.tv > > On Jan 17, 2008 8:36 AM, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think I'm ok with this so long as where I'm downloading the video > > *from* does NOT matter in anyway. > > > > For example, if I download video from blip.tv, it should cost the same > > amount per bit as video from CNN.com. > > > > Now, granted I don't WANT to have to pay more for video downloads ... > > but as long as all creators/hosters of the content cost the consumer > > the same thing ... I think it's justifiable to price on consumption. > > (Of course the consumers aren't going to go for it unless its very > > reasonable, or every other ISP out there bands together in price > > fixing) > > > > A slippery slope though, perhaps, in regard to net neutrality - should > > be watched. > > > > - Dave > > > > > > On Jan 17, 2008 9:24 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > wrote: > > > So it begins... http://tinyurl.com/393qmk > > > > > > > > > NEW YORK - Time Warner Cable will experiment with a new pricing > > > structure for high-speed Internet access later this year, charging > > > customers based on how much data they download, a company spokesman > > > said Wednesday. > > > > > > The company, the second-largest cable provider in the United States, > > > will start a trial in Beaumont, Texas, in which it will sell new > > > Internet customers tiered levels of service based on how much data > > > they download per month, rather than the usual fixed-price packages > > > with unlimited downloads. > > > > > > Company spokesman Alex Dudley said the trial was aimed at improving > > > the network performance by making it more costly for heavy users of > > > large downloads. Dudley said that a small group of super-heavy users > > > of downloads, around 5 percent of the customer base, can account for > > > up to 50 percent of network capacity. > > > > > > Dudley said he did not know what the pricing tiers would be nor the > > > download limits. He said the heavy users were likely using the > > > network to download large amounts of video, most likely in high > > > definition. > > > > > > It was not clear when exactly the trial would begin, but Dudley said > > > it would likely be around the second quarter. The tiered pricing > > > would only affect new customers in Beaumont, not existing ones. > > > > > > Time Warner Cable is a subsidiary of Time Warner Inc., the world's > > > largest media company. > > > > > > Heath > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.DavidMeade.com > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
I'm OK with charging the bandwidth hogs more money than someone who only checks email or even watches video on YouTube. I'm a network admin at a university. In my experience 5% to 10% of the users do use around 50% of the bandwidth, sometimes more. If charging the people who are in the top percent makes them clean off whatever virus or bot they have on their machine or reasonably limit the amount of file sharing they do then the network is less congested and the experience improves for everyone. When there are network load problems it's almost never the aggregate of normal use; it's a handful of users using extreme amounts of bandwidth. So, in theory, I don't have a problem with it, but that doesn't mean it will be implemented fairly or with the user's best interest in mind. I support penalties for those users that cause problems for everyone else, not putting a policy in place to cover the rising cost of bandwidth because more and more people are watching video online. -- Kary Rogers http://www.GoodCommitment.tv On Jan 17, 2008 8:36 AM, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think I'm ok with this so long as where I'm downloading the video > *from* does NOT matter in anyway. > > For example, if I download video from blip.tv, it should cost the same > amount per bit as video from CNN.com. > > Now, granted I don't WANT to have to pay more for video downloads ... > but as long as all creators/hosters of the content cost the consumer > the same thing ... I think it's justifiable to price on consumption. > (Of course the consumers aren't going to go for it unless its very > reasonable, or every other ISP out there bands together in price > fixing) > > A slippery slope though, perhaps, in regard to net neutrality - should > be watched. > > - Dave > > > On Jan 17, 2008 9:24 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > So it begins... http://tinyurl.com/393qmk > > > > > > NEW YORK - Time Warner Cable will experiment with a new pricing > > structure for high-speed Internet access later this year, charging > > customers based on how much data they download, a company spokesman > > said Wednesday. > > > > The company, the second-largest cable provider in the United States, > > will start a trial in Beaumont, Texas, in which it will sell new > > Internet customers tiered levels of service based on how much data > > they download per month, rather than the usual fixed-price packages > > with unlimited downloads. > > > > Company spokesman Alex Dudley said the trial was aimed at improving > > the network performance by making it more costly for heavy users of > > large downloads. Dudley said that a small group of super-heavy users > > of downloads, around 5 percent of the customer base, can account for > > up to 50 percent of network capacity. > > > > Dudley said he did not know what the pricing tiers would be nor the > > download limits. He said the heavy users were likely using the > > network to download large amounts of video, most likely in high > > definition. > > > > It was not clear when exactly the trial would begin, but Dudley said > > it would likely be around the second quarter. The tiered pricing > > would only affect new customers in Beaumont, not existing ones. > > > > Time Warner Cable is a subsidiary of Time Warner Inc., the world's > > largest media company. > > > > Heath > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > -- > http://www.DavidMeade.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
I think I'm ok with this so long as where I'm downloading the video *from* does NOT matter in anyway. For example, if I download video from blip.tv, it should cost the same amount per bit as video from CNN.com. Now, granted I don't WANT to have to pay more for video downloads ... but as long as all creators/hosters of the content cost the consumer the same thing ... I think it's justifiable to price on consumption. (Of course the consumers aren't going to go for it unless its very reasonable, or every other ISP out there bands together in price fixing) A slippery slope though, perhaps, in regard to net neutrality - should be watched. - Dave On Jan 17, 2008 9:24 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So it begins... http://tinyurl.com/393qmk > > > NEW YORK - Time Warner Cable will experiment with a new pricing > structure for high-speed Internet access later this year, charging > customers based on how much data they download, a company spokesman > said Wednesday. > > The company, the second-largest cable provider in the United States, > will start a trial in Beaumont, Texas, in which it will sell new > Internet customers tiered levels of service based on how much data > they download per month, rather than the usual fixed-price packages > with unlimited downloads. > > Company spokesman Alex Dudley said the trial was aimed at improving > the network performance by making it more costly for heavy users of > large downloads. Dudley said that a small group of super-heavy users > of downloads, around 5 percent of the customer base, can account for > up to 50 percent of network capacity. > > Dudley said he did not know what the pricing tiers would be nor the > download limits. He said the heavy users were likely using the > network to download large amounts of video, most likely in high > definition. > > It was not clear when exactly the trial would begin, but Dudley said > it would likely be around the second quarter. The tiered pricing > would only affect new customers in Beaumont, not existing ones. > > Time Warner Cable is a subsidiary of Time Warner Inc., the world's > largest media company. > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
Information Super Highway 1996-2008 RIP Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Jan 17, 2008, at 9:24 AM, Heath wrote: > So it begins... http://tinyurl.com/393qmk > > NEW YORK - Time Warner Cable will experiment with a new pricing > structure for high-speed Internet access later this year, charging > customers based on how much data they download, a company spokesman > said Wednesday. > > The company, the second-largest cable provider in the United States, > will start a trial in Beaumont, Texas, in which it will sell new > Internet customers tiered levels of service based on how much data > they download per month, rather than the usual fixed-price packages > with unlimited downloads. > > Company spokesman Alex Dudley said the trial was aimed at improving > the network performance by making it more costly for heavy users of > large downloads. Dudley said that a small group of super-heavy users > of downloads, around 5 percent of the customer base, can account for > up to 50 percent of network capacity. > > Dudley said he did not know what the pricing tiers would be nor the > download limits. He said the heavy users were likely using the > network to download large amounts of video, most likely in high > definition. > > It was not clear when exactly the trial would begin, but Dudley said > it would likely be around the second quarter. The tiered pricing > would only affect new customers in Beaumont, not existing ones. > > Time Warner Cable is a subsidiary of Time Warner Inc., the world's > largest media company. > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
