Re: [videoblogging] Re: Comcast officially admits to throttling bandwidth use
Big Energy buying up and sitting on renewable energy to ensure the continued commoditization of energy. Enron was the largest wind producer in America. BP Bought and throttled down Solarex, the most promising solar company in the nation at one time. Big Oil and Automakers standing sqarely in the way of CAFE standards to protect automakers and ensure Big Oil's exponential profits we see today. Massive expenditures and effort to deny global warming and then the subsequent greenwashing that we see today. The criminalization of Marijuana. Amoco and GM purchasing and dismantling light rail to ensure that the automobile became the mandatory mode of transportation in America. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Lobbying, in and of itself, is creation and maintenence of market trends. It is not adapting, it is visionary. CATO is not visionary? AEI is not visionary? The Chemical and Manufacturing association is not visionary? Billions are spent to influence and control public policy to suit their interests. Was that a joke? Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Feb 11, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: Ron Watson wrote: Steve, great post as always.. I'll give an explanation. We're scary. Show us evidence (even anecdotal) that Big Business is visionary enough to realize this, or plans long-term enough to take steps to shut down. I think you are presuming that Big Business is a rational, energetic actor, and that you are mistaken. Big Business does not conspire to change contexts, but adapts. These guys built their empire promising us exactly what we have today: Every man a publisher. Every man a Network. It was the bone they threw the public and elected officials to get relaxed regulation, re-regulation in their interests and support for their projects. It seems quite naïve to hold an industry to the empty promises made by its lobbyists in a system so corrupt. The actual promises delivered concerned strings of zeros deposited in legislators' bank accounts. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Comcast officially admits to throttling bandwidth use
Ron Watson wrote: Steve, great post as always.. I'll give an explanation. We're scary. Show us evidence (even anecdotal) that Big Business is visionary enough to realize this, or plans long-term enough to take steps to shut down. I think you are presuming that Big Business is a rational, energetic actor, and that you are mistaken. Big Business does not conspire to change contexts, but adapts. These guys built their empire promising us exactly what we have today: Every man a publisher. Every man a Network. It was the bone they threw the public and elected officials to get relaxed regulation, re-regulation in their interests and support for their projects. It seems quite naïve to hold an industry to the empty promises made by its lobbyists in a system so corrupt. The actual promises delivered concerned strings of zeros deposited in legislators' bank accounts.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Comcast officially admits to throttling bandwidth use
Wrote something inspired by the day's discussions on which we can all mediate.. Religious beliefs, Conspiracies, Idiot. Always ask for proof. On Feb 10, 2008 4:04 PM, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is evidence for all of those things, often not a single smoking gun, but plenty all the same. And I concede that there is obviously some indication of how some net providers would like to behave in future. What I am suggesting is that Ive yet to see a decent explanation of just why the indy video producer, or the person that wants to watch, need to be crushed in order for corporations to reap large profits. Im quite sure they can go about putting big media content on the net in various ways, without needing to hamper others in order to be sucessful. Any signs that coprorations, or governments for that matter, see the people as 'the enemy' needs to be balanced witht he fact that they derive their power and profit from people. If they fear people, its because they need people, and whilst they often get away with going too far, there are limits. Its not that I trust all will be well in future, or that everyone has our best interests at heart, its that I dont believe that crying wolf now is good. If there were an actual vlogging movement that had a leader, would you want him or her going on talkshows and telling the world how the little guy is being crushed? That would make me groan and whilst it may stirr a minority to the cause, would it not cause the masses to write that movement off as paranoid? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please show me the evidence that Big Oil and the Big 3 were creating an exponential profit situation with the stubborn refusal on CAFE standards and greenwashing of Global Warming. Please show me the evidence that Big Media was creating a oligopolistic market with their sponsorship of politicians and legislation. Please show me the evidence that Big Insurance was creating a medical system that trades profit for people's health. Please show me the evidence that Big Power has been stymying renewable energy. It's not easy to find that evidence, Steve, although I bet you'd agree that all of those things were happening. I'm not talking about some nefarious plot against vloggers. I'm talking about control over markets and the flow of information and a profit motivated quid pro quo between like institutions. It's just business. Cable companies want more profit. Big media will pay more for transmission of content than independent producers will. Look at the TV market - it's dying. People are moving to the internet for media. Right now they're accessing free content, or content that does not move ad revenue to the establishment media. If you don't think that issue is being worked on, and that big players are not trying to win more marketshare, I think you're crazy. The best way to gain control over a market is to use your strategic advantages. In this case, I'm suggesting that the strategic advantage that is being leveraged is money. They are competing with independent content creators who have no capital assets. influxxmedia can't afford (probably can but is not willing to) to pay a few hundred bucks to have a website coded. I can't afford a decent boom mic. I'm sure this list is saturated with people that are in a similar boat. It's simply good business to raise the barrier of entry into the market. This is not quite the argument that the Comcast situation is bringing up, but it is closely related. Content like ours will be capped and managed, and there will be a new web based cable media subscription service that will exist outside of the caps. I've had this argument before on other topics, and the evidentiary request has been thrown at me before. Take Iraq, for instance... October 2001, I made the argument that we would be going into Iraq, and that we would enter into a perpetual war situation. I said that we would be there for decades and that the invasion was designed to control the flow of Oil coming out of Iraq. Where do I find evidence of that? Dismissal of my arguments based on lack of evidence were very common. The establishment line was always swallowed and mine was always spit up. Giant corporations don't care. They don't like people. People are problematic. I believe that giant corporations look at people as the enemy. The needs of people negatively impact their profit. It's not some kind of nefarious plot, it's just business. I don't have any evidence that Comcast is trying to gain control over the flow of information. How could I get that information? I make my argument based on the fact that
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Comcast officially admits to throttling bandwidth use
Ron Watson wrote: Enron was the largest wind producer in America. BP Bought and throttled down Solarex, the most promising solar company in the nation at one time. Amoco and GM purchasing and dismantling light rail to ensure that the automobile became the mandatory mode of transportation in America. I would love to hear more details about these two cases. I am not familiar with them. Lobbying, in and of itself, is creation and maintenence of market trends. It is not adapting, it is visionary. When a bill is introduced into Congress by, for instance, the environmentalists, business must react by lobbying against it. I don't consider this visionary. It is reactive, not proactive. In general, I don't see business acting as strongly as it could in such cases. But they are limited by responsibility to shareholders, to do only the minimum necessary to resist encroachments. It is conceivable that business could hide behind many layers and hire thugs to intimidate and kill their enemies by the dozen, never getting caught. Or stage well-publicized and intentional distribution shortages to, for example, withhold all cigarettes from New York City until cigarette taxes are lowered, smoking bans are dropped, or State House lawsuits retracted. Or even publish strongly worded full-page ads in the New York Times. Instead, they play meekly within the rules and obey when the laws find against them. Networks of corporate governance discourage risk and long-term planning.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Comcast officially admits to throttling bandwidth use
Please show me the evidence that Big Oil and the Big 3 were creating an exponential profit situation with the stubborn refusal on CAFE standards and greenwashing of Global Warming. Please show me the evidence that Big Media was creating a oligopolistic market with their sponsorship of politicians and legislation. Please show me the evidence that Big Insurance was creating a medical system that trades profit for people's health. Please show me the evidence that Big Power has been stymying renewable energy. It's not easy to find that evidence, Steve, although I bet you'd agree that all of those things were happening. I'm not talking about some nefarious plot against vloggers. I'm talking about control over markets and the flow of information and a profit motivated quid pro quo between like institutions. It's just business. Cable companies want more profit. Big media will pay more for transmission of content than independent producers will. Look at the TV market - it's dying. People are moving to the internet for media. Right now they're accessing free content, or content that does not move ad revenue to the establishment media. If you don't think that issue is being worked on, and that big players are not trying to win more marketshare, I think you're crazy. The best way to gain control over a market is to use your strategic advantages. In this case, I'm suggesting that the strategic advantage that is being leveraged is money. They are competing with independent content creators who have no capital assets. influxxmedia can't afford (probably can but is not willing to) to pay a few hundred bucks to have a website coded. I can't afford a decent boom mic. I'm sure this list is saturated with people that are in a similar boat. It's simply good business to raise the barrier of entry into the market. This is not quite the argument that the Comcast situation is bringing up, but it is closely related. Content like ours will be capped and managed, and there will be a new web based cable media subscription service that will exist outside of the caps. I've had this argument before on other topics, and the evidentiary request has been thrown at me before. Take Iraq, for instance... October 2001, I made the argument that we would be going into Iraq, and that we would enter into a perpetual war situation. I said that we would be there for decades and that the invasion was designed to control the flow of Oil coming out of Iraq. Where do I find evidence of that? Dismissal of my arguments based on lack of evidence were very common. The establishment line was always swallowed and mine was always spit up. Giant corporations don't care. They don't like people. People are problematic. I believe that giant corporations look at people as the enemy. The needs of people negatively impact their profit. It's not some kind of nefarious plot, it's just business. I don't have any evidence that Comcast is trying to gain control over the flow of information. How could I get that information? I make my argument based on the fact that they've monetized the distribution of information. That's their business. Comcast will do everything in their power to distribute in information that creates the most profit, plain and simple. Sony will pay more to have their content distributed than we will. Consumers will pay more for Spiderman than for the Batman Geek. It's just business. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Feb 10, 2008, at 7:56 AM, Steve Watkins wrote: Nah, they want to make money all right, but nobody has been able to explain to me how shutting out indie content is going to improve their ability to make money. How am I supposed to treat that argument with credibility unless there are actual examples of indie producers being forced out of the game by these dastardly fiends? Please lets not kid ourselves about what all the peer2peer traffic is currently being used for. Its not indie content, its established mainstream content being redistributed without permission. And certainly ehre in the UK, when large companies try to use peer2peer to delier their content legitimately, the ISPs are just as annoyed by them, they use their finite bandwidth up, they want a cut, but if its free their is no cut to take. I do believe it likely that in future there may be some ISPs who offer some video services that are exempt from the users bandwidth quota, and wil therefore make the playingfield unfair. But even witht he most draconian bandwidth limitations, theres still capacity for users to download a hell of a lot of vlogs, and no sign that the measly upload bandwidth required to send them to a video host, is going to be whisked away from under the feet of indie producers. Show me one shred of evidence that mass media wants
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Comcast officially admits to throttling bandwidth use
I disagree with Tim's allegory and your assessment, Steve. These guys built their empire promising us exactly what we have today: Every man a publisher. Every man a Netowork. It was the bone they threw the public and elected officials to get relaxed regulation, re-regulation in their interests and support for their projects. Now they plan on delivering THEIR approved HD content, THEIR telephony and THEIR approved high speed data. It's a classic bait and switch: Give me this and I'll give you that. We give them this and they renege. This isn't about delivering content, it's about controlling access. This isn't about reducing or managing bandwidth, it's about controlling and restricting it. They are going to price us out of the game and take money from big corporate media to deliver their HUGE bandwidth content which dwarfs ours. It's as simple as that. Instead of the government mandated grocery story: Comcast asked for relaxed regulation, actually they paid lots of money to sponsor think tanks, politicians and legislation that gave them the power they have today. In return they'd give us cheaper and greater access and more freedom. That was their argument. Comcast is busting into telephony as they strive to shut our ability to use VOIP. They're going to use torrents to deliver THEIR HD Content as they shut down torrent users. They're going to exponentially increase the throughput of information as they cry that they're all tapped out. They're sick and tired of people like us sharing things, and working for peanuts in THEIR market. Information sharing and small time media creators are stealing their profit. We are wasting their market resources and costing them profit. Death by a thousand paper cuts. If they wanted more bandwidth, they'd ask government to invest in their infrastructure. They'd ask for help. They don't want help, they don't want more bandwidth. They want control. Plain and simple. This reality that we experience right now is exactly what they offered in the negotiation to get what they wanted. They are reneging on that right now. Don't be fooled. This is a scam. They are dishonest brokers. They cry that they're being taken advantage of as they seek to take advantage of us...again. Isn't $50 a month from hundreds of millions of customers enough? Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Feb 9, 2008, at 9:57 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: Well to me that grocery store example is not what this particular issue is all about right now. It does represent one side of net neutrality fears, where potential conflict of interest may exist if certain traffic is given priority, and the decider also happens to own some of the destinations for that traffic. But for me the measures we see so far are more akin to a minority of customers to your coffee shop, abusing a special 'all you can drink' offer, and reducing the quality of service coffee the majority receive. The coffe shop management must choose whether to invest in more capacity to serve the overthirsty minority, change or scrap the 'all you can drink' offer, or take other measures to limit the service. The devil is in the detail as far as Im concerned. There have always been various bandwidth issues that have impeded some peoples ability to have the internet they want. There are challenges to be met in the future. Too much greed from either users or the companies that deliver the network, should be kept in check. Luckily I believe too much present and future economic hope rests on the internet continuing to exist in its present form, though if it 'matures' as other industries have, it could become the usual restrictive monopoly nightmare which wont feel so much like the net of today. Still it could be argued that the internet of the present already has a lot of giant near-monopolies both at the network delivery infrastructure level, and in terms of the sites people are visiting. Yet if there is anywhere the small business or individual should be able to find space to survive, it should be the net, as is currently the case? Or to put it another way, its in nobodies interests to make the internet completely useless. We already live in a world where a lot of humans hardly have access to the basics of life, let alone computers and the net, and I suggest that if those who can currently afford to uploads videos to the net, face a future where they cannot, it will be more likely due to mass economic woes in general, or problems with electricity supply, than a few monopoly net providers pushing things way too far. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't like that they are doing this. I'm against it but I think we should try to look at from their point of view so that we
