I am confused. i think we both agree that transparency is necessary.
On Feb 16, 2008 12:38 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course if something isn't actually unlimited it has to be mentioned
somewhere. No one would argue that the contrary is acceptable. I do
find it
I am confused. i think we both agree that transparency is necessary.
cool.
I was confused by this statement:
I'd say the 5% using 50% and expecting to get away with it forever is
irresponsible. Even disrespectful. If you wouldn't do it to a Mom
Pop business, why would you do it to a large
i did not and will not vote for any of the CEOs etc of Exxon Oil or any
other corporation that has more money
than the country where i was born (kazakhstan)
i also remember going to the polls with my parents in the soviet union
thinking why are they voting, the only
guy on the ballot is brezhnev?
Of course if something isn't actually unlimited it has to be mentioned
somewhere. No one would argue that the contrary is acceptable. I do
find it surprising that you would call bandwidth limits irresponsible
though.
Patrick, you are always interested in facts...which is great.
I feel
Jay, what you have to realize is that these aren't false limits. In
fact, bandwidth limits are usually false in the other sense. They
limits purposely allow for too much bandwidth knowing that not all
users will reach the limits or at least not all at the same time.
you are correct
Irresponsible?
No more irresponsible than a local all you can eat restaurant
crying foul if 5 out of 100 guests were to eat 50% of the food
served. All the while, slowing down service for the rest of the
guests. Would it be that 'evil' for the restaurant to ask guests who
have had one serving
Jay, what you have to realize is that these aren't false limits. In
fact, bandwidth limits are usually false in the other sense. They
limits purposely allow for too much bandwidth knowing that not all
users will reach the limits or at least not all at the same time.
Additionally, there will
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!
He is personally against abortion because of his experiences as an
obstetrician, and yet his Constitutional ideals prevent him from
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I don't think we'll ever resolve this discussion, but I want you to
know that I empathize with your position in this situation.
I'm not sure exactly what shoes you think I'm wearing. I don't defend free
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We need to get people to distinguish between the 2 Charles's on this
list Charles K and Charles H maybe?
__
I've found it helpful to put show after you name :)
--
Richard
http://richardhhall.org
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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 @
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
This is great! Go Markey! He's clearly a champion of independent content
creators (IMHO)
... Richard
On Feb 13, 2008 10:49 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry about that.
Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html
Tim Street
Creator/Executive
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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,
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.
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
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,
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.
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
I was listening to NPR today and there was a discussion that was very
interesting.
It was all about how Hugo Chavez was battling Exxon Mobil in court
over a recent move to make the government of Venezuela the majority
owner Big Oil projects in country. I'd rather not get into the whole
US backing for two-tier internet
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6983375.stm
The US Justice Department has said that internet service providers
should be allowed to charge for priority traffic.
The agency said it was opposed to network neutrality, the idea that
all data on the net
Hey Jay,
On 9/7/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
US backing for two-tier internet
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6983375.stm
The US Justice Department has said that internet service providers
should be allowed to charge for priority traffic.
The agency said it was
57 matches
Mail list logo
