subject:"Re\: \[videoblogging\] Net\-Neutrality"

Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage
has increased by 40% each year.

Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in
new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire
internet to slow down because of 5% of users?  The creator of
BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality.

This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are
facing as bandwidth use increases.  No one here seems to be able to
offer a solution to these issues.

On Feb 13, 2008 11:49 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:






 Sorry about that.

  Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html


  Tim Street
  Creator/Executive Producer
  French Maid TV
  Subscribe for FREE @
  http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
  MyBlog
  http://1timstreet.com

  On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote:

   that url doesnt work for me.
  
   On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts
   
Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal
   
http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr
   
   
   
Tim Street
Creator/Executive Producer
French Maid TV
Subscribe for FREE @
http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
MyBlog
http://1timstreet.com
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   
   
   
   
Yahoo! Groups Links
   
   
   
   
  
   --
   http://www.DavidMeade.com
  
  

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

2008-02-13 Thread Richard H. Hall

One thing. When I said that some court somewhere ruled that cable/dsl were
not subject to common carrier rules, the truth is the FCC made that ruling,
not any court.

... richard

On Feb 13, 2008 12:54 PM, Richard H. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Pat,

 I believe you're absolutely correct that the networks are going to need to
 be smart and take into account different data types and route/shape
 accordingly for the networks to be efficient. Net neutrality as originally
 conceived in the Markey amendment allowed for that.

 Here's the deal/misunderstanding.

 According the the original Markey Bill (it's not clear yet what the new
 one specifies) networks CAN discriminate based on data type - so ISPs can
 totally manage traffic by taking into account the nature of the data type -
 they could NOT discriminate based on data origination (they could not, for
 example, give more bandwidth within the network to CBS vs me).

 About network neutrality and competition. First, of course, if everyone
 has a fair playing field within the network (like a phone call from me to
 you, gets the same priority as a phone call from one ATT executive to
 another), then competition will be increased, sine it allows innovators and
 start ups with lots of ideas and little money to compete and, in fact, we've
 seen this a lot already afforded by the web. Second, competition was
 SEVERELY curtailed when some court somewhere ruled that cable, and then dsl
 companies do not have to abide by common carriage laws when it comes to the
 internet. So, with phone lines, the companies who built the lines have to
 share the lines with other phone companies (they get a lot of tax breaks for
 building them and they are the default carrier, so it's still a good deal
 for them). Makes sense, of course, since we don't want every phone company
 building lines through public right aways and such. However, the internet
 with cable and dsl is not treated that way. This is why you only have one
 choice of ISP if you use one company's dsl lines, and same with cable.
 Remember with dial up when you could use different ISPs? Very very
 non-competitive, and surely one reason why there is so little build out of
 high speed lines in the US compared to other first-world countries - no
 motivation to do so, when you have a service monopoly on the lines already
 built.

 ... just explaining what may be some misunderstanding about what network
 neutrality is, and why it came into being ... Richard


 On Feb 13, 2008 11:29 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage
  has increased by 40% each year.
 
  Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in
  new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire
  internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of
  BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality.
 
  This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are
  facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to
  offer a solution to these issues.
 
 
  On Feb 13, 2008 11:49 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL 
  PROTECTED]tim%40frenchmaidtv.com
  wrote:
  
  
  
  
  
  
   Sorry about that.
  
   Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html
  
  
   Tim Street
   Creator/Executive Producer
   French Maid TV
   Subscribe for FREE @
   http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
   MyBlog
   http://1timstreet.com
  
   On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote:
  
that url doesnt work for me.
   
On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]tim%40frenchmaidtv.com
  wrote:
 Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts

 Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal

 http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr



 Tim Street
 Creator/Executive Producer
 French Maid TV
 Subscribe for FREE @
 http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
 MyBlog
 http://1timstreet.com








 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




 Yahoo! Groups Links




   
--
http://www.DavidMeade.com
   
   
  
   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  
  
   
 



 --
 Richard
 http://richardhhall.org
 Shows
 http://richardshow.org
 http://inspiredhealing.tv




-- 
Richard
http://richardhhall.org
Shows
http://richardshow.org
http://inspiredhealing.tv


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

  It doesn't make very much sense to me. There's plenty more room in the
 ground
  for wire, more space for newfangled telephone poles carrying broadband, and
  more radio spectrum. Using this seems a lot more fair to me than to have
 the
  first company pay for all the infrastructure and then forcing them to turn
 it
  over to a flock of free-riding competitors. Or for the first company to
 foist
  the infrastructure bill on the overburdened taxpayer.

this is crazy to me.
this is like saying that everyone can make their own power plants nd
run lines all over town. (and charge for that power)
everyone can make their own water companies and dig up the ground for
pipes. (and charge for their use)
or everyone can make their own roads. (and charge for their use)
Can I make my own army?

in any society, we must agree on basic resources that are common to us all.
investor owned companies whose mission is pure profit is not a
solution to every problem.

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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

Richard H. Hall wrote:

 About network neutrality and competition. First, of course, if everyone has
 a fair playing field within the network (like a phone call from me to you,
 gets the same priority as a phone call from one ATT executive to another),
 then competition will be increased, sine it allows innovators and start ups
 with lots of ideas and little money to compete and, in fact, we've seen this
 a lot already afforded by the web. Second, competition was SEVERELY
 curtailed when some court somewhere ruled that cable, and then dsl companies
 do not have to abide by common carriage laws when it comes to the internet.
 So, with phone lines, the companies who built the lines have to share the
 lines with other phone companies (they get a lot of tax breaks for building
 them and they are the default carrier, so it's still a good deal for them).
 Makes sense, of course, since we don't want every phone company building
 lines through public right aways and such. 


It doesn't make very much sense to me. There's plenty more room in the ground 
for wire, more space for newfangled telephone poles carrying broadband, and 
more radio spectrum. Using this seems a lot more fair to me than to have the 
first company pay for all the infrastructure and then forcing them to turn it 
over to a flock of free-riding competitors.  Or for the first company to foist 
the infrastructure bill on the overburdened taxpayer.

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

Jay dedman wrote:

 this is crazy to me.
 this is like saying that everyone can make their own power plants nd
 run lines all over town. (and charge for that power)
 everyone can make their own water companies and dig up the ground for
 pipes. (and charge for their use)
 or everyone can make their own roads. (and charge for their use)

I have no idea why you think this is outrageous.  If one utility network can be 
installed, why not a reasonable number like, say, three or five? There really 
is no reason why neighbors can't receive service from different networks.  You 
might have a good place to keep your ice cream during a blackout.

 Can I make my own army?

Why not?  You wouldn't be the first. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company#U.S._companies

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

 Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage
  has increased by 40% each year.
  Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in
  new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire
  internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of
  BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality.
  This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are
  facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to
  offer a solution to these issues.

i see several of us giving solutions (richard especially)
I think you simplify the problem though.

What happens when even Grandma is using daily skype, video iChat, and
downloading movies every night from iTunes?
suddenly we all become that 5%.

So these companies should be thinking of how to expand their network,
rather than limiting usage, or denying certain technologies.
if they want to raise their rates or shape traffic, these
conversations should be done out on the open.
if these companies didnt have regional monopolies, i would just go to
another competitor.

A solution is to treat broadband companies as common carriers.
This recognizes that the internet is a public good which everything
depends on...so there should be a level playing field.
Broadband companies would get heavy tax breaks (ie SUBSIDIES), and
would be guaranteed a yearly rate of return (like most water/electric
companies get). This is not a new practice.
In return, there would be heavy investment is expanding the network
and open access to these lines.
People who want to get rich will get rich. The people who want free
speech and competition online, get free speech and competition online.

Currently, broadband providers are pretty much a monopoly.
Usually just one or two carriers in each area.
They are investor owned, so do not have to share any info with the public.
they also can do pretty much what they want just by adding some
legalese in their TOS (or not).

Carriers, like Time Warner, are also content creators. They own HBO, CNN, etc.
so its like the old days of Hollywood where studios made the movies,
the also owned the movie theaters.
It was common for Warner Brother theaters to play just Warner Brothers movies.
Called Vertical integration, or a monopoly.
The studios eventually had to sell their theaters.
Independent film and theaters could then flourish.

I dont want rules.
I want everyone, including companies, to be free.
But there must be a level of transparency and guarantee that the
network is also open.
I crave the day when Comcast, Verizon, Time/Warner voluntarily say,
we promise to not slow down anyone's traffic even if it competes with
our own media. Suddenly we have a conversation amongst a company and
its customers. everyone feels good.

Instead, its silence, and mystery, and their lawyers affecting laws
with lobbyists.

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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

 Carriers, like Time Warner, are also content creators. They own HBO, CNN, etc.
 so its like the old days of Hollywood where studios made the movies,
 the also owned the movie theaters.
 It was common for Warner Brother theaters to play just Warner Brothers movies.
 Called Vertical integration, or a monopoly.
 The studios eventually had to sell their theaters.
 Independent film and theaters could then flourish.

here the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures%2C_Inc.
really interesting history for opening up the movie industry.

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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

Excellent post Richard.  I didn't realize some net neutrality bills
being pushed allowed for that.

Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred
service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it
though?  For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were offering
high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or if a
hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics
(telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection.

This would encourage innovation, investment and competition.

It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone
else just because certain companies want better service.  Comcast is
already demonstrating that the opposite is true.  TV networks are
offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down
in order to provide better service for the general public.

If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for
anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway?


On Feb 13, 2008 1:54 PM, Richard H. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:






 Pat,

  I believe you're absolutely correct that the networks are going to need to
  be smart and take into account different data types and route/shape
  accordingly for the networks to be efficient. Net neutrality as originally
  conceived in the Markey amendment allowed for that.

  Here's the deal/misunderstanding.

  According the the original Markey Bill (it's not clear yet what the new one
  specifies) networks CAN discriminate based on data type - so ISPs can
  totally manage traffic by taking into account the nature of the data type -
  they could NOT discriminate based on data origination (they could not, for
  example, give more bandwidth within the network to CBS vs me).

  About network neutrality and competition. First, of course, if everyone has
  a fair playing field within the network (like a phone call from me to you,
  gets the same priority as a phone call from one ATT executive to another),
  then competition will be increased, sine it allows innovators and start ups
  with lots of ideas and little money to compete and, in fact, we've seen
 this
  a lot already afforded by the web. Second, competition was SEVERELY
  curtailed when some court somewhere ruled that cable, and then dsl
 companies
  do not have to abide by common carriage laws when it comes to the internet.
  So, with phone lines, the companies who built the lines have to share the
  lines with other phone companies (they get a lot of tax breaks for building
  them and they are the default carrier, so it's still a good deal for them).
  Makes sense, of course, since we don't want every phone company building
  lines through public right aways and such. However, the internet with cable
  and dsl is not treated that way. This is why you only have one choice of
 ISP
  if you use one company's dsl lines, and same with cable. Remember with dial
  up when you could use different ISPs? Very very non-competitive, and surely
  one reason why there is so little build out of high speed lines in the US
  compared to other first-world countries - no motivation to do so, when you
  have a service monopoly on the lines already built.

  ... just explaining what may be some misunderstanding about what network
  neutrality is, and why it came into being ... Richard

  On Feb 13, 2008 11:29 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  wrote:

   Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage
   has increased by 40% each year.
  
   Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in
   new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire
   internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of
   BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality.
  
   This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are
   facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to
   offer a solution to these issues.
  
  
   On Feb 13, 2008 11:49 AM, Tim Street
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]tim%40frenchmaidtv.com

   wrote:
   
   
   
   
   
   
Sorry about that.
   
Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html
   
   
Tim Street
Creator/Executive Producer
French Maid TV
Subscribe for FREE @
http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
MyBlog
http://1timstreet.com
   
On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote:
   
 that url doesnt work for me.

 On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]tim%40frenchmaidtv.com

   wrote:
  Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts
 
  Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal
 
  http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr
 
 
 
  Tim Street
  Creator/Executive Producer
  French Maid TV
  Subscribe for FREE @
  http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes
  MyBlog
  http://1timstreet.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  [Non-text portions of

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

  I really don't want to see ISP's to be in bed with the Government.

well, if we're afraid of our governments then we're all screwed.
I know some already think this.
But at least we're supposed to be able to affect government policy.
you cant affect a private company's policy especially if they are is a
monopoly situation.

  And being recipients of tax money. (I'm really not a fan of these
  Socialist type programs.)
  I'm going to refrain to going off on a long rant about it, but just
  say.. it's one thing not to tax these companies to try to make
  things happen but it's an entirely different thing to
  (forcefully) take money from other people and give it to ISPs.

everyone, including companies, pay taxes.
Its how we pay for things around us.
I know this is a controversial issue for many (including Wesley Snipes)

By letting the water company and electric company pay lower taxes,
they can have more to invest in their infrastructure.
Same could be said for broadband providers if we, as a people, agreed
these were important services for the running of society.
Since everyone is paying to access these services, there is huge
guaranteed profits to be reaped.

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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

I'd have to disagree on bandwidth caps.  If you use a lot of
bandwidth, you should pay more for it.  This will encourage innovation
and competition in ISPs because they'll have to (and have money to)
build better networks for those paying for it.

If your grandmother wants to download movies every night.  Why do I
have to deal with a slower network.  She should have to pay more and
therefor the ISPs can spend more on upgrading the network.  Otherwise,
they're not going to do it for the 5%.  Better to begin charging more
now before we all become the 5%.

NBC wouldn't tell comcast to send them to the front of the line
because then everyone would ask for the same thing.  Are NBC, CBS, etc
*all* going to be at the front of the line?  ISPs will have to create
a second tiered service in order to make the extra cost worth it.
Your videoblogs would still transmit fine but NBC would be able to
ensure better quality at a higher cost.  (and asking to slow down CBS
would probably be illegal)

As for anti-competitive stuff.  The article that began this discussion
talks about how an ISP blocked Vonage but was forced to stop.  Of
course I wouldn't be in favour of this being legal.



On Feb 13, 2008 3:01 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:






  Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred
   service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it
   though? For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were offering
   high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or if a
   hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics
   (telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection.
   This would encourage innovation, investment and competition.

  agreed.
  They do charge for higher bandwidth now. ( i pay extra for a higher
  upload speed)

  I can see them charging for bandwdith caps as wellbut this will
  certainly stifle innovation and commercialism.
  Can you imagine having a bandwidth cap, going to a website, and having
  to make a decision if you want to load the page/video/audio?
  every click becomes a decision so new players will likely get less play.
  (ask anyone who uses satellite internet with a monthly 1000mb traffic
 limit)


   It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone
   else just because certain companies want better service. Comcast is
   already demonstrating that the opposite is true. TV networks are
   offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down
   in order to provide better service for the general public.

  what is NBC tells Comcast, yo, we'll pay you 50million each year to
  give us higher priority. (also, can you slow down ABC?)


   If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for
   anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway?

  great question.
  I know of no law saying that Comcast cant do that now.
  They are private company and can do anything they want.
  (i hope im wrong so please double fact check me)


  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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

  I have no idea why you think this is outrageous. If one utility network can
 be
  installed, why not a reasonable number like, say, three or five? There
 really
  is no reason why neighbors can't receive service from different networks.
 You
  might have a good place to keep your ice cream during a blackout.

so you want to only have 3 or 5?
why cant there be a 150?
any citizen should be allowed to build their network.
I can also choose to not let people from your network talk to people
on my network.
fuck you. this is freedom.

This is why its outrageous.
People who cry free market, just mean they want market regulation
that benefits them.
Regulation is about benefiting all citizens.

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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

Hello,

On Feb 13, 2008 11:48 AM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[...]

  A solution is to treat broadband companies as common carriers.
  This recognizes that the internet is a public good which everything
  depends on...so there should be a level playing field.
  Broadband companies would get heavy tax breaks (ie SUBSIDIES), and
  would be guaranteed a yearly rate of return (like most water/electric
  companies get). This is not a new practice.

(Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are say, but)

I really don't want to see ISP's to be in bed with the Government.

And being recipients of tax money.  (I'm really not a fan of these
Socialist type programs.)

I'm going to refrain to going off on a long rant about it, but just
say.. it's one thing not to tax these companies to try to make
things happen but it's an entirely different thing to
(forcefully) take money from other people and give it to ISPs.


See ya


-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
http://ChangeLog.ca/

Motorsport Videos
http://TireBiterZ.com/

Vlog Razor... Vlogging News...  http://vlograzor.com/

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

  Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred
  service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it
  though? For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were offering
  high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or if a
  hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics
  (telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection.
  This would encourage innovation, investment and competition.

agreed.
They do charge for higher bandwidth now. ( i pay extra for a higher
upload speed)

I can see them charging for bandwdith caps as wellbut this will
certainly stifle innovation and commercialism.
Can you imagine having a bandwidth cap, going to a website, and having
to make a decision if you want to load the page/video/audio?
every click becomes a decision so new players will likely get less play.
(ask anyone who uses satellite internet with a monthly 1000mb traffic limit)

  It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone
  else just because certain companies want better service. Comcast is
  already demonstrating that the opposite is true. TV networks are
  offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down
  in order to provide better service for the general public.

what is NBC tells Comcast, yo, we'll pay you 50million each year to
give us higher priority. (also, can you slow down ABC?)

  If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for
  anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway?

great question.
I know of no law saying that Comcast cant do that now.
They are private company and can do anything they want.
(i hope im wrong so please double fact check me)

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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

The common carrier idea you mentions sounds like a great idea it would
be great to have more transparency.  Even enforced transparency if it
makes sense to do so.

Does it have anything to do with net neutrality though?  Should you be
fighting for this instead of net neutrality?  It seems like if this
isn't possible, net neutrality is a bad but necessary plan B but not
something anyone should truly set their sights on.

So you're saying if Comcast is sending torrents to the back of the
line, another ISP can't open up beside comcast to offer the opposite
using the same infrastructure?  That's bad.

On Feb 13, 2008 2:48 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:






  Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage
   has increased by 40% each year.
   Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in
   new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire
   internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of
   BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality.
   This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are
   facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to
   offer a solution to these issues.

  i see several of us giving solutions (richard especially)
  I think you simplify the problem though.

  What happens when even Grandma is using daily skype, video iChat, and
  downloading movies every night from iTunes?
  suddenly we all become that 5%.

  So these companies should be thinking of how to expand their network,
  rather than limiting usage, or denying certain technologies.
  if they want to raise their rates or shape traffic, these
  conversations should be done out on the open.
  if these companies didnt have regional monopolies, i would just go to
  another competitor.

  A solution is to treat broadband companies as common carriers.
  This recognizes that the internet is a public good which everything
  depends on...so there should be a level playing field.
  Broadband companies would get heavy tax breaks (ie SUBSIDIES), and
  would be guaranteed a yearly rate of return (like most water/electric
  companies get). This is not a new practice.
  In return, there would be heavy investment is expanding the network
  and open access to these lines.
  People who want to get rich will get rich. The people who want free
  speech and competition online, get free speech and competition online.

  Currently, broadband providers are pretty much a monopoly.
  Usually just one or two carriers in each area.
  They are investor owned, so do not have to share any info with the public.
  they also can do pretty much what they want just by adding some
  legalese in their TOS (or not).

  Carriers, like Time Warner, are also content creators. They own HBO, CNN,
 etc.
  so its like the old days of Hollywood where studios made the movies,
  the also owned the movie theaters.
  It was common for Warner Brother theaters to play just Warner Brothers
 movies.
  Called Vertical integration, or a monopoly.
  The studios eventually had to sell their theaters.
  Independent film and theaters could then flourish.

  I dont want rules.
  I want everyone, including companies, to be free.
  But there must be a level of transparency and guarantee that the
  network is also open.
  I crave the day when Comcast, Verizon, Time/Warner voluntarily say,
  we promise to not slow down anyone's traffic even if it competes with
  our own media. Suddenly we have a conversation amongst a company and
  its customers. everyone feels good.

  Instead, its silence, and mystery, and their lawyers affecting laws
  with lobbyists.


  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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

 I'd have to disagree on bandwidth caps. If you use a lot of
  bandwidth, you should pay more for it. This will encourage innovation
  and competition in ISPs because they'll have to (and have money to)
  build better networks for those paying for it.

i know you like objective proof, Patrick, so can you point to me where
broadband companies are not making enormous profits already?
you're text reads as if these companies are barely keeping afloat and need help.

  If your grandmother wants to download movies every night. Why do I
  have to deal with a slower network. She should have to pay more and
  therefor the ISPs can spend more on upgrading the network. Otherwise,
  they're not going to do it for the 5%. Better to begin charging more
  now before we all become the 5%.

hmmyou keep acting like the current network is as fast as it can
be...so we must limit.
again, lets see some numbers showing that broadband networks arent
already making huge profits to reinvest in infrastructure.
i have no doubt that rates will keep going up anyway.

  NBC wouldn't tell comcast to send them to the front of the line
  because then everyone would ask for the same thing. Are NBC, CBS, etc
  *all* going to be at the front of the line? ISPs will have to create
  a second tiered service in order to make the extra cost worth it.
  Your videoblogs would still transmit fine but NBC would be able to
  ensure better quality at a higher cost. (and asking to slow down CBS
  would probably be illegal)

its called the highest bidder.
If TimeWarner is a private company, they can do what they want.
and currently where are there any rules saying that my videoblogs need
to transmit fine?
what is the definition of transmit fine? 56k 128k 512k where is the standard?
you assume the these broadband companies work in good faith.
recent history shows that they seem to only become transparent when
forced to in a court of law (as you showed in the Vonage case).

again, i want s all to be happy and free...but usually you got to
fight for what that means.

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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

 The common carrier idea you mentions sounds like a great idea it would
  be great to have more transparency. Even enforced transparency if it
  makes sense to do so.
  Does it have anything to do with net neutrality though? Should you be
  fighting for this instead of net neutrality? It seems like if this
  isn't possible, net neutrality is a bad but necessary plan B but not
  something anyone should truly set their sights on.

let me read Markey's bill to be make sure it doesnt have some of these
things in it already.
the biggest problem is that private companies will not willingly agree
to limits to their profits.
the broadband companies have spent years getting to this point.

Markey may just be trying to at least keep some neutrality in these
commercial systems.
a far less radical solution.
again, be great if these companies voluntarily agreed to be open and
for the good of everyone.
dont see it happening which os why all the noise and anger happens.

  So you're saying if Comcast is sending torrents to the back of the
  line, another ISP can't open up beside comcast to offer the opposite
  using the same infrastructure? That's bad.

starting in the early 1960's, independent cable operators made deals
with local regions to lay down their cables.
They were given monopoly contracts to make sure they could make their
money back since its so expensive and messy to lay cables.

Starting in the 80's, the huge movement to consolidate happened.
These small independent, regional cable operators were bought upso
we just have the big ones now.
BUT these monopoly status of the contracts still exist.

I guess cities could revoke these contracts (unless theyve been signed
for 50 years or something).
As Charles advocates, cities could start letting other companies tear
up the streets to lay their own networks.
then we'd have competition.

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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

Jay dedman wrote:
  I have no idea why you think this is outrageous. If one utility network can
 be
  installed, why not a reasonable number like, say, three or five? There
 really
  is no reason why neighbors can't receive service from different networks.
 You
  might have a good place to keep your ice cream during a blackout.
 
 so you want to only have 3 or 5?
 why cant there be a 150?
 any citizen should be allowed to build their network.

Indeed they should. But most markets tend to settle down to a small number of 
companies, although never just one.

 I can also choose to not let people from your network talk to people
 on my network.
 fuck you. this is freedom.

You should definitely be free to establish ridiculous company policies which 
will knock your company out of business.

 This is why its outrageous.

What's outrageous? That companies should be able to shoot themselves in the 
foot if they choose?

Here's the situation: Broadband providers are now artificial monopolies, due to 
legislation.  Now we bemoan the problems inherent in the nature of a monopoly, 
and have two solutions before us.  We can remove their monopoly status.  Or we 
can add still more legislative engineering on top, in order to attempt to 
create a monopoly that doesn't stink like a monopoly. Sort of like a fat-free 
oil, or calorie-free sweetener, we want to tamper with nature. (Then we find 
out saccharin makes people gain weight.)

I don't think our economic and legislative skills are up to the task. The fact 
that the current crisis is of OUR OWN DOING indicates our inability to 
successfully tamper with markets.

Make no mistake, economy is like ecology.  It is a naturally occurring 
phenomenon, whose principles were discovered and researched by scientists.  It 
is not a machine designed by a team of engineers.

I find something very suburban in this denial of nature.

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

Hello,

On Feb 13, 2008 11:52 AM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  I have no idea why you think this is outrageous. If one utility network
 can
   be
   installed, why not a reasonable number like, say, three or five? There
   really
   is no reason why neighbors can't receive service from different networks.
   You
   might have a good place to keep your ice cream during a blackout.

  so you want to only have 3 or 5?
  why cant there be a 150?
  any citizen should be allowed to build their network.
  I can also choose to not let people from your network talk to people
  on my network.
  fuck you. this is freedom.

  This is why its outrageous.
  People who cry free market, just mean they want market regulation
  that benefits them.
  Regulation is about benefiting all citizens.

A free market has no market regulation (by definition).


See ya

-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
http://ChangeLog.ca/

Motorsport Videos
http://TireBiterZ.com/

Vlog Razor... Vlogging News...  http://vlograzor.com/

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

Yes, they may be making enormous profits but they're not going to
upgrade their system for 5% of users.  That just doesn't make any
business sense.  It makes more sense to place limitations or charge
more for special cases.  In Canada there are bandwidth gaps but
they're really high.  I've never reach mine, nor do i ever even worry
about it. (or have ever heard of anyone reaching theirs) Apparently,
they have the same in the UK.  These aren't evil practices.  They make
a lot of sense.

As for 2nd tiered internet, there's no reason to believe the internet
would slow down.  Why would an ISP accept money from NBC and slow down
traffic for the general public.  Once again, comcast has already
demonstrated that this is unlikely. (seeing as they slowed down NBC
torrents so that people could surf and read email faster)  With a
second tiered internet, NBC could pay more to be routed through better
infrastructure.

Considering Blip and Youtube already pay for high bandwidth servers,
there's a good chance they and other startus would have the cash to
pay for this higher tier so your videoblogs would most likely download
faster.  At the worst, they would probably download at the same
speeds.




On Feb 13, 2008 3:28 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:






  I'd have to disagree on bandwidth caps. If you use a lot of
   bandwidth, you should pay more for it. This will encourage innovation
   and competition in ISPs because they'll have to (and have money to)
   build better networks for those paying for it.

  i know you like objective proof, Patrick, so can you point to me where
  broadband companies are not making enormous profits already?
  you're text reads as if these companies are barely keeping afloat and need
 help.


   If your grandmother wants to download movies every night. Why do I
   have to deal with a slower network. She should have to pay more and
   therefor the ISPs can spend more on upgrading the network. Otherwise,
   they're not going to do it for the 5%. Better to begin charging more
   now before we all become the 5%.

  hmmyou keep acting like the current network is as fast as it can
  be...so we must limit.
  again, lets see some numbers showing that broadband networks arent
  already making huge profits to reinvest in infrastructure.
  i have no doubt that rates will keep going up anyway.


   NBC wouldn't tell comcast to send them to the front of the line
   because then everyone would ask for the same thing. Are NBC, CBS, etc
   *all* going to be at the front of the line? ISPs will have to create
   a second tiered service in order to make the extra cost worth it.
   Your videoblogs would still transmit fine but NBC would be able to
   ensure better quality at a higher cost. (and asking to slow down CBS
   would probably be illegal)

  its called the highest bidder.
  If TimeWarner is a private company, they can do what they want.
  and currently where are there any rules saying that my videoblogs need
  to transmit fine?
  what is the definition of transmit fine? 56k 128k 512k where is the
 standard?
  you assume the these broadband companies work in good faith.
  recent history shows that they seem to only become transparent when
  forced to in a court of law (as you showed in the Vonage case).

  again, i want s all to be happy and free...but usually you got to
  fight for what that means.


  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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

  Milt and the Chicago School are OK but they are the weaker branch of the
  free-market advocates. If you want the real deal, who lack these
  inconsistencies you note, look to Von Mises and the Austrian School.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

ill one up you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_N._Rothbard
(you know he was Mises' student)

Rothbard criticized the frenzied nihilism of left-wing libertarians but
 also criticized right-wing libertarians who were content to rely only on
 education to bring down the state; he believed that libertarians should
 adopt any non-immoral tactic available to them in order bring about liberty.


anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism. lets
do it!
we all get our own army!

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]

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

It worked so poorly with the highway system, didn't it?

I don't want to see them in bed with the government either which is  
why I decry the current situation.

They are in bed, in private with the government today.

I want them in the open and on the streets with the People. I believe  
that is the common carriers concept.

Government isn't inherently bad. Our current government is terrible.

Cheers,
Ron Watson
http://k9disc.blip.tv
http://k9disc.com
http://discdogradio.com
http://pawsitivevybe.com



On Feb 13, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:

 Hello,

 On Feb 13, 2008 11:48 AM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 [...]

  A solution is to treat broadband companies as common carriers.
  This recognizes that the internet is a public good which everything
  depends on...so there should be a level playing field.
  Broadband companies would get heavy tax breaks (ie SUBSIDIES), and
  would be guaranteed a yearly rate of return (like most water/ 
 electric
  companies get). This is not a new practice.

 (Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are say, but)

 I really don't want to see ISP's to be in bed with the Government.

 And being recipients of tax money. (I'm really not a fan of these
 Socialist type programs.)

 I'm going to refrain to going off on a long rant about it, but just
 say.. it's one thing not to tax these companies to try to make
 things happen but it's an entirely different thing to
 (forcefully) take money from other people and give it to ISPs.

 See ya

 -- 
 Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
 http://ChangeLog.ca/

 Motorsport Videos
 http://TireBiterZ.com/

 Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

   People who cry free market, just mean they want market regulation
   that benefits them.
   Regulation is about benefiting all citizens.

  A free market has no market regulation (by definition).

absolutely correct.
I put free market in quotes because all the proponents of this term
never truly lived by their own preachings.
Good old Uncle Milt is a great example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman
usually, its just deregulate...but make sure its just in the right places.

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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

Hello,

On Feb 13, 2008 12:08 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[...]

  everyone, including companies, pay taxes.
  Its how we pay for things around us.

It's not that way for everything... but for the things it is like that
for...  it doesn't have to be that way.

We tend to get a much better ROI on things we pay for on a free
market, than things paid for via tax money.

If a private company does something we don't like, we can choose not
to use their services or purchase their products.  If they're doing
something alot of people don't like, then alot of people will have
this same reaction.

This will affect their bottom line, and could end their business.

People can even choose to even start their own company and compete
with this company directly.  And thus providing an alternative.

The original company ends up shooting themselves in the foot  and
looses their business (unless they change their ways).


However.. If a government provides a shitty service, what can we
do about it?  Nothing!

And I know... people are going to say, well you can vote and change
things.  First, in my observation, voting rarely seems to change
anything.  But second... let's assume voting does change things...
well you have to wait 4 years before you can affect any kind of
change.  And you get one shot at it.  (We essentially have 4 year
dictatorships.)

That's NOT better than a free market.


I think it's better to remove the regulations we have now that are
(for all practical purposes) preventing new competitor ISP from
arising.


See ya

-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
http://ChangeLog.ca/

Motorsport Videos
http://TireBiterZ.com/

Vlog Razor... Vlogging News...  http://vlograzor.com/

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

Indeed they should. But most markets tend to settle down to a small number
of companies, although never just one.

you got to be joking me.
Think the early part of the 20th century before anti-trust laws.
The Free Market created near-monopolies in almost every sector.
Hollywood, Steel, Oil, Rubber.
Without any market regulation, a rich man (usually always men) can do
anything they want.
a free market does not mean competition.

What's outrageous? That companies should be able to shoot themselves in the
foot if they choose?
Here's the situation: Broadband providers are now artificial monopolies,
due to legislation. Now we bemoan the problems inherent in the nature of a
monopoly, and have two solutions before us. We can remove their monopoly
status. Or
we can add still more legislative engineering on top, in order to attempt to
create a monopoly that doesn't stink like a monopoly. Sort of like a fat-free
oil, or calorie-free sweetener, we want to tamper with nature. (Then we
find out saccharin makes people gain weight.)
I don't think our economic and legislative skills are up to the task. The
fact that the current crisis is of OUR OWN DOING indicates our inability to
successfully tamper with markets.
Make no mistake, economy is like ecology. It is a naturally occurring
phenomenon, whose principles were discovered and researched by scientists.
It is not a machine designed by a team of engineers.
I find something very suburban in this denial of nature.

i hear you Charles.
I dont agree that we cant work as a society.
Legislation evolves with the time.
Any problems occur usually because commercial interests write their
own legislation (think Prescription Drugs bill that the Republicans
passed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug%2C_Improvement%2C_and_Modernization_Act)

Tell me where this dream of freedom is being lived where there are no
need for laws and people live together in common sense.
im there.

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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

Hello,

On Feb 13, 2008 12:33 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   People who cry free market, just mean they want market regulation
that benefits them.
Regulation is about benefiting all citizens.
  
   A free market has no market regulation (by definition).

  absolutely correct.
  I put free market in quotes because all the proponents of this term
  never truly lived by their own preachings.
  Good old Uncle Milt is a great example.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman
  usually, its just deregulate...but make sure its just in the right places.

Yeah I could go off about him for a while :-)

He's a wolf in sheep's clothing.


-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
http://ChangeLog.ca/

Motorsport Videos
http://TireBiterZ.com/

Vlog Razor... Vlogging News...  http://vlograzor.com/

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

Jay dedman wrote:
   People who cry free market, just mean they want market regulation
   that benefits them.
   Regulation is about benefiting all citizens.

  A free market has no market regulation (by definition).
 
 absolutely correct.
 I put free market in quotes because all the proponents of this term
 never truly lived by their own preachings.
 Good old Uncle Milt is a great example.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman
 usually, its just deregulate...but make sure its just in the right places.

Milt and the Chicago School are OK but they are the weaker branch of the 
free-market advocates.  If you want the real deal, who lack these 
inconsistencies you note, look to Von Mises and the Austrian School.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

2008-02-13 Thread Richard H. Hall

On Feb 13, 2008 2:24 PM, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   Make no mistake, economy is like ecology. It is a naturally occurring
 phenomenon, whose principles were discovered and researched by scientists.
 It
 is not a machine designed by a team of engineers.

 





Make no mistake, economics and the free market are a game, which has no
meaning without context and rules, like any other game. The argument is just
about what those rules should be.

...  Richard

-- 
Richard
http://richardhhall.org
Shows
http://richardshow.org
http://inspiredhealing.tv


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

Not to mention the cost to the consumer of advertising.

Right now, in the unlimited model, advertising is free, meaning we  
get to see flashy ads on every page.

Throttle down the bandwidth consumption with caps and ads become more  
than an eyesore, they become an expense for the consumer.

Cheers,

Ron Watson
http://k9disc.blip.tv
http://k9disc.com
http://discdogradio.com
http://pawsitivevybe.com



On Feb 13, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Jay dedman wrote:

  Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred
  service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it
  though? For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were  
 offering
  high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or  
 if a
  hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics
  (telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection.
  This would encourage innovation, investment and competition.

 agreed.
 They do charge for higher bandwidth now. ( i pay extra for a higher
 upload speed)

 I can see them charging for bandwdith caps as wellbut this will
 certainly stifle innovation and commercialism.
 Can you imagine having a bandwidth cap, going to a website, and having
 to make a decision if you want to load the page/video/audio?
 every click becomes a decision so new players will likely get less  
 play.
 (ask anyone who uses satellite internet with a monthly 1000mb  
 traffic limit)

  It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone
  else just because certain companies want better service. Comcast is
  already demonstrating that the opposite is true. TV networks are
  offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down
  in order to provide better service for the general public.

 what is NBC tells Comcast, yo, we'll pay you 50million each year to
 give us higher priority. (also, can you slow down ABC?)

  If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for
  anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway?

 great question.
 I know of no law saying that Comcast cant do that now.
 They are private company and can do anything they want.
 (i hope im wrong so please double fact check me)

 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]

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

What's the ROI on our interstate highway system?
on our local and national parks?
on our water supplies?
on our public universities?


Ron Watson
http://k9disc.blip.tv
http://k9disc.com
http://discdogradio.com
http://pawsitivevybe.com



On Feb 13, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:

 Hello,

 On Feb 13, 2008 12:08 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 [...]

  everyone, including companies, pay taxes.
  Its how we pay for things around us.

 It's not that way for everything... but for the things it is like that
 for... it doesn't have to be that way.

 We tend to get a much better ROI on things we pay for on a free
 market, than things paid for via tax money.

 If a private company does something we don't like, we can choose not
 to use their services or purchase their products. If they're doing
 something alot of people don't like, then alot of people will have
 this same reaction.

 This will affect their bottom line, and could end their business.

 People can even choose to even start their own company and compete
 with this company directly. And thus providing an alternative.

 The original company ends up shooting themselves in the foot and
 looses their business (unless they change their ways).

 However.. If a government provides a shitty service, what can we
 do about it? Nothing!

 And I know... people are going to say, well you can vote and change
 things. First, in my observation, voting rarely seems to change
 anything. But second... let's assume voting does change things...
 well you have to wait 4 years before you can affect any kind of
 change. And you get one shot at it. (We essentially have 4 year
 dictatorships.)

 That's NOT better than a free market.

 I think it's better to remove the regulations we have now that are
 (for all practical purposes) preventing new competitor ISP from
 arising.

 See ya

 --  
 Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
 http://ChangeLog.ca/

 Motorsport Videos
 http://TireBiterZ.com/

 Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

Hello,

On Feb 13, 2008 1:11 PM, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   Absolutely not. When steel and oil were monopolies, did people pay
   $500,000
   per ingot or barrel? Companies are always restricted by the marketplace
   unless
   they have government protection. Even a monopoly cannot charge infinite
   prices
   because there are always alternatives at hand.

  True, but even in the intro to economics class at business school, it's
  demonstrated that, in a monopoly market, the price and quantity produced
  are based entirely on the monopolist's ability to maximize price as a
  price setter. Without effective competition, utility is not maximized on
  the demand-side. This is an inefficiency. You can easily see this
  demonstrated in recent history with the Bell System.

Bell is not an example of an entity in a free market.  Bell obtained a
government-enforced monopoly through the patent system and government
regulations and licensing that (effectively) prevented other companies
from entering the market to compete against Bell.

In some countries (like in Europe), there were laws in place that
mandated that only one specific company was allow to provide telephone
services.


See ya

-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
http://ChangeLog.ca/

Motorsport Videos
http://TireBiterZ.com/

Vlog Razor... Vlogging News...  http://vlograzor.com/

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

  Absolutely not. When steel and oil were monopolies, did people pay
 $500,000 per ingot or barrel? Companies are always restricted by the
marketplace
 unless  they have government protection. Even a monopoly cannot charge
infinite
 prices   because there are always alternatives at hand.

its not just about cheap price.
its also about quality, safety, and the net benefit to society.
Remember those bedtime stories about people who bought putrid meat. and this
was normal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

Sinclair's account of workers falling into meat processing tanks and being
 ground, along with animal parts, into Durham's Pure Leaf Lard, gripped
 public attention. The morbidity of the working conditions as well as the
 exploitation of children and women alike that Sinclair exposed, showed the
 corruption taking place inside the meat packing factories. Foreign sales of
 American meat fell by one-half. In order to calm public outrage and
 demonstrate the cleanliness of their meat, the major meat packers lobbied
 the Federal government to pass legislation paying for additional inspection
 and certification of meat packaged in the United States. [2] Their efforts,
 coupled with the public outcry, led to the passage of the Meat Inspection
 Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which established the Food and
 Drug Administration.


  Then what prevents new entrants from coming in and profiting from the
greed
 of the monopoly?

Secrecy, men with guns, false imprisonment of competitors, manipulation of
the legal process, control of the press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_B._Gowen

  I'm not suggesting no law at all. I'm suggesting no laws that violate
human
  rights. If somebody wants to sell their service, and somebody else wants
to
  pay for it, prohibition should be out of the question. Basic human
dignity,
  which somehow gets lost in the abstract utopian rhetoric.

totally agreed.
this works for many things.

But the libertarian argument falls apart when it comes to shared, public
services like military, roads, water, electricity, public transportation,
and I contend...broadband internet.

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]

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

  And who gets to decide if something is a benefit to society or not?

we the people, and the representatives we elect.

I hear you charles.
Current governments certainly dont seem to work well.
The corrupting influences are enormous.
But I fear just tearing it all down, hoping people act for the good of
the whole, with no alternative structuremight be worse.
one day, it may come to that.

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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

2008-02-13 Thread J. Rhett Aultman


 Bell is not an example of an entity in a free market.  Bell obtained a
 government-enforced monopoly through the patent system and government
 regulations and licensing that (effectively) prevented other companies
 from entering the market to compete against Bell.

 In some countries (like in Europe), there were laws in place that
 mandated that only one specific company was allow to provide telephone
 services.

It doesn't matter how a monopoly forms.  You can use the same predictive
models for pricing and aggregate output regardless.

--
Rhett.
http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime
http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

 Yes, they may be making enormous profits but they're not going to
 upgrade their system for 5% of users. That just doesn't make any
 business sense.

this just might be where you and I disagree.
I contend (as does most of the industry) that tomorrow's 95% will be today's 5%.
Broadband companies MUST expand the network.

Putting false limits based on bandwidth now stifles innovation.
again, i think we just read the situation differently.

It makes more sense to place limitations or charge
 more for special cases. In Canada there are bandwidth gaps but
 they're really high. I've never reach mine, nor do i ever even worry
 about it. (or have ever heard of anyone reaching theirs) Apparently,
 they have the same in the UK. These aren't evil practices. They make
 a lot of sense.

as i said, as a customer, Id love to hear what these companies have in mind.
so far, all their thinking and decisions are being made behind closed doors.
they are not encouraging our trust.

If the limit is 200GB each month. I can live with that.
but the dark part of me imagines their accounting offices crunching
the numbers to see what the pain point is.
how much will people pay and not complain?
ever look at your bank/credit card fees?  (probably not...too small)

But Patrick, I will be positive like you. we'll wait and see.
lets remember this conversation when the details come out.

 As for 2nd tiered internet, there's no reason to believe the internet
 would slow down. Why would an ISP accept money from NBC and slow down
 traffic for the general public. Once again, comcast has already
 demonstrated that this is unlikely. (seeing as they slowed down NBC
 torrents so that people could surf and read email faster) With a
 second tiered internet, NBC could pay more to be routed through better
 infrastructure.

cool. then there's nothing to worry about.
we just trust them.
(have they earned your trust?)

 Considering Blip and Youtube already pay for high bandwidth servers,
 there's a good chance they and other startus would have the cash to
 pay for this higher tier so your videoblogs would most likely download
 faster. At the worst, they would probably download at the same
 speeds.

sounds good.
is this in writing somewhere?

All anyone wants is a set of standards and guideliness that we can all
depend on.
right now, its all arbitrary..and dependent on the whims of the
broadband providers.
They COULD behave reasonably as you suggest.
They COULD behave in their own self-interest as the presiding fear is.
Fun!

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

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

Hello,

On Feb 13, 2008 2:05 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Absolutely not. When steel and oil were monopolies, did people pay
   $500,000 per ingot or barrel? Companies are always restricted by the
  marketplace
   unless they have government protection. Even a monopoly cannot charge
  infinite
   prices because there are always alternatives at hand.

  its not just about cheap price.
  its also about quality, safety, and the net benefit to society.

And who gets to decide if something is a benefit to society or not?


See ya

-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
http://ChangeLog.ca/

Motorsport Videos
http://TireBiterZ.com/

Vlog Razor... Vlogging News...  http://vlograzor.com/

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

2008-02-13 Thread J. Rhett Aultman

I would tend to agree, too.  Just look at the history of rural
electrification to see the failure of private industry and market forces
to electrify rural areas, a critical step in providing the society we now
enjoy.

--
Rhett.
http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime
http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime


 But the libertarian argument falls apart when it comes to shared, public
 services like military, roads, water, electricity, public transportation,
 and I contend...broadband internet.

 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]




 Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

Jay dedman wrote:
  And who gets to decide if something is a benefit to society or not?
 
 we the people, and the representatives we elect.

Meanwhile, in terms of education, medicine, and pretty much everything else, 
public run is a synonym for crappy and busted.

 
 I hear you charles.
 Current governments certainly dont seem to work well.
 The corrupting influences are enormous.
 But I fear just tearing it all down, hoping people act for the good of
 the whole, with no alternative structuremight be worse.

The magic of market forces has nothing at all to do with hoping people act for 
the good of the whole.  That is a strawman argument, for over 200 years ago it 
was explained It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or 
the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own 
interest. 

So when was the last American government that wasn't corrupt?  Do you look back 
to the days of JFK?  FDR? Lincoln? How many of your good leaders do we get each 
century? How is that working out for you? You know the definition of insanity.

J. Rhett Aultman wrote:
  I would tend to agree, too.  Just look at the history of rural
  electrification to see the failure of private industry and market forces
  to electrify rural areas, a critical step in providing the society we now
  enjoy.

Is it a failure whenever the market cannot provide some good at a price 
within the reach of everybody?  Why isn't it a failure of the technology to be 
cheap enough?  Why isn't it a failure of the rural people to go move where 
modernity is available?

 
  A core belief in the right to unregulated commerce is that if I sell it
  and someone buys it, it's our right to do, but if the service or
  production of the good has an effect on third parties, then the
  libertarian notion of not forcing others is broken and requires attention.

Pollution is a form of trespassing. It is hardly libertarian to ignore such a 
crime.

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

Jay dedman wrote:

 All anyone wants is a set of standards and guideliness that we can all
 depend on.
 right now, its all arbitrary..and dependent on the whims of the
 broadband providers.
 They COULD behave reasonably as you suggest.
 They COULD behave in their own self-interest as the presiding fear is.


If the companies are giving us a good deal out of the kindness of their hearts, 
I don't want any of it!  I don't have a personal relationship with these 
faceless bureaucracies and any such charity can be withdrawn at any time. I 
insist that they give me any deal motivated by corporate greed and selfishness. 
  This way I can be sure that it is in their interest to continue. And I want 
the satisfaction of knowing that, if they deviate, they're hurting themselves 
as well as me, and opening themselves up to attack from a competitor.

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

  The magic of market forces has nothing at all to do with hoping people
act
 for   the good of the whole. That is a strawman argument, for over 200
years ago
 it  was explained It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the
brewer,
 or  the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their
own
 interest. 

ahnow i know why we arent seeing eye to eye.
you are assuming that all business is local where I get to meet the person
who makes my goods and services.
The good businessman then makes sure he is a good community citizen to
maintain his profits.
Yes, im all for this.
let freedom ring.

Unfortunately, we have moved past this time where now global companies sell
us our goods.
I know you insist that they give me any deal motivated by corporate greed
and selfishness, but be careful what you ask for.
Their interests may realize that destroying an entire region is good for
their business.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster WHOOPS!)

A long-term cause of the catastrophe was the location of the plant;
authorities had tried and failed to persuade Carbide to build the plant away
from densely-populated areas. Carbide explained their refusal on the expense
that such a move would
incur.[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster#_note-Kovel

All the libertarian ideals are great, but practical reality has produced the
likes of Ron Paulwho is stridently anti-abortion.
there's goes my rights!

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]

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality

2008-02-13 Thread J. Rhett Aultman


 Meanwhile, in terms of education, medicine, and pretty much everything
 else,
 public run is a synonym for crappy and busted.

You can select an equal number of targets where privatized implies an
equal quagmire.

 The magic of market forces has nothing at all to do with hoping people act
 for
 the good of the whole.  That is a strawman argument, for over 200 years
 ago it
 was explained It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer,
 or
 the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own
 interest. 

Yes, but this isn't the end-all, and even P.J. O'Rourke, who recently
wrote _On The Wealth of Nations_, will quickly admit that Smith actually
wasn't a huge fan of the marketeering class.  Smith is also quoted as
saying that merchants never get together, even for recreation, without
their conversations turning to how to extort the public.

 So when was the last American government that wasn't corrupt?  Do you look
 back
 to the days of JFK?  FDR? Lincoln? How many of your good leaders do we get
 each
 century? How is that working out for you? You know the definition of
 insanity.

This is hollow rhetoric, as was your first paragraph.  There's a litany of
the corruptions of the private sector, too, and it rarely was through
competition or boycott that they were halted.

--
Rhett.
http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime
http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime

Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality