I think this conversation is missing a key element. I'll try to provide it. :-DPublishers are already paying for network access. In fact, they're already paying based on what they consume. Not only that, they're paying more for high priority access.
Blip Networks (aka blip.tv) pays several
Yes, and the key is what comes over their wires not how much comes over.what=contentToday and into tomorrow, content comes from everyday people more than ever before... not just broadcasting entities, big business and government. Preserving the everyday peoples right and ability to use the
Sorry I've been traveling and not had time to keep up ...On 5/20/06, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's interesting here is that you and others think that you have
rights to use equipment that is not yours. ... am not completely deaf to the idea, but I think that the
hidden
How can I have the right to sell fruit but not have the right to charge
more for the watermelons than the oranges?
David Meade wrote:
Sorry I've been traveling and not had time to keep up ...
On 5/20/06, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's interesting here is
The magic here is who they are charging. Telcos could charge the consumer per KB if they wanted. But the dont.
So instead we're supposed to let them prioratize what can be published? That doesnt make any sense.
Charge me for the video I consume ... ok ... sucks but ok. (market competition
I'm doing 100 things at once so I appologize for typing/spelling/etc ... but to cary your example out a bit Charles ...
They arent asking to charge more for watermelons ... they are asking to charge watermelon farmers more for the right to sell the product than they are apples.
On 5/25/06,
David Meade wrote:
The magic here is who they are charging. Telcos could charge
the consumer per KB if they wanted. But the dont.
So instead we're supposed to let them prioratize what can be
published? That doesnt make any sense.
Are you demanding that FedEx deliver all packages
On 5/25/06, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you demanding that FedEx deliver all packages for the same price? Yes, perhaps they wish to charge a flat rate per ounce. But what if they wanted to charge businesses more than nonprofits? What if they wanted to take bids? What if they
filmmaker
- Original Message -
From:
Ron Watson
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: You can't save Internet
Freedom by taking it away [was: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Lobbyists Trying to
Destroy Internet Freedom?]
This see
Jan wrote:
I've been mostly deleting this thread, but the
word 'weasely' jumped out at me. You guys aren't stooping to ad hominim
attacks are you? 'Cause if you are, I'm gonna stop this car
Nope.
A weasel word is a word that is intended to, or has the
effect of,
Ah, another great addition to the lexicon. So glad I
asked.
Jan
- Original Message -
From:
Charles HOPE
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 6:56
PM
Subject: Re: You can't save Internet
Freedom by taking it away [was: Re
I don't know which is more polite. I fear people are tired of this
thread, but it would be rude to ignore your responses.
David Meade wrote:
I guess because the reason Net Neutrality is
important to me is because
it would prevent "powers that be" from taking action contrary to rights
I
David Meade wrote:
Charles the Bill of Rights isn't about government self regulation
really. It has wording such as "congress shall pass no law that
... " but its REALLY about setting the legal edicts that guide the
country.
According to whom? That's a rather striking reinterpretation.
On 5/19/06, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Meade wrote:
Charles the Bill of Rights isn't about government self regulation
really. It has wording such as congress shall pass no law that
... but its REALLY about setting the legal edicts that guide the
country.
According to
David Meade wrote:
Its symantics I guess ... but the truth is that The Intent of the Bill
of Rights was not simply to take away rights from the government, but
to ensure certain rights are protected for The People.
I beg your pardon? What is the difference?
The Bill of Rights was created
And just to stir the pot a bit...it was created to protect the people in power at the time, the civilians in power that is. (as opposed to government in power)...did that make any sense?On 5/19/06,
Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Meade wrote:
Its symantics I guess ...
I don't think we disagree. I think we're just looking at the same thing from two different sides of the same coin. :-Pclearly it was written to prevent government from squashing rights ... and so yes it details some things government cant do
My point was only that it was written for the
Nevertheless, it looks like Charles K. wins this round. The Bill of
Rights restricts government power; Net Neutrality restricts the power
of the People (who own and control the wires).
David Meade wrote:
I don't think we disagree. I think we're just looking at
the same thing from two
On 5/19/06, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nevertheless, it looks like Charles K. wins this round. The Bill of
Rights restricts government power; Net Neutrality restricts the power
of the People (who own and control the wires).Says you. :-PGoing back and forth on definitions is
David Meade wrote:
On 5/19/06, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nevertheless, it looks like
Charles K. wins this round. The Bill of
Rights restricts government power; Net Neutrality restricts the power
of the People (who own and control the wires).
Says
On 5/19/06, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Meade wrote:
This seems weasely. Why not admit that it is regulation for the Good
Cause of Protecting the Internet from Evil?I guess because the reason Net Neutrality is important to me is because it would prevent powers that
This seems weasely. Why not admit that it is regulation for the Good Cause of Protecting the Internet from Evil?What is weasely is the idea that the internet is not regulated already. The communications cartel has all kinds of regulations that they are operating under. Can't have x% much
Another interesting debate on definition would be "The People" ... I guess I'm not willing consider huge corporate conglomerates as "The People" ... and therefore refuse to consider Net Neutrality as a regulation of The People. The standard distinction is drawn between public and private
Hello,On 5/19/06, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Meade wrote:
On 5/19/06, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nevertheless, it looks like
Charles K. wins this round. The Bill of
Rights restricts government power; Net Neutrality restricts the power
of
On 5/19/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do NOT want to see a Tiered Internet. However, I must keep my morals. And given I believe that forcibly taking away someone else's freedom is morally wrong. Then I must also believe that regulating the Internet (even to prevent a
I know people have good intentions (in wanting governments to regulate the Internet to prevent a Tiered Internet).Why don't you just say it, Charles? Why does it need to be implied parenthetically?You are presenting a false dichotomy. We can have regulation and a tier-free internet, or we can
That is the ninth amendment :"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."On May 19, 2006, at 6:35 PM, David Meade wrote: On 5/19/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do NOT want to see a
On 5/19/06, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is the ninth amendment :The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Yes thats what I meant when I said that Net Neutrality is the legal affirmation of
Hello David,On 5/19/06, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/19/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do NOT want to see a Tiered Internet. However, I must keep my morals. And given I believe that forcibly taking away someone else's freedom is morally wrong. Then I
On 5/19/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(If you don't believe this, then fair enough,... but then we should probably have another discussion because believing
that forcibly taking away someone else's freedom is NOT morally wrong means that you MUST also believe that
Hello Ron,On 5/19/06, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know people have good intentions (in wanting governments to regulate the Internet to prevent a Tiered Internet).Why don't you just say it, Charles? Why does it need to be implied parenthetically?
You are presenting a false
Hello,I think we've gotten as far as we are going to with this argument :-)However, regarding the part about... believing
that forcibly taking away someone else's freedom is NOT morally wrong means that you MUST also believe that slavery is NOT morally wrong.
Just to point out one thing,...
Charles the Bill of Rights isn't about government self regulation
really. It has wording such as congress shall pass no law that
... but its REALLY about setting the legal edicts that guide the
country.
I'm not allowed to take action that would hinder your right to free speech anymore than
On 5/18/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,I guess what I'm trying to say is that there must be a better way to stop a Tiered Internet (than having governments regulate it).well again, its not that they are regulating it with net neutrality, they are only saying you
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there must be a better way to stop a Tiered Internet (than having governments regulate it).That is a total false dichotomy. That was the intent, the main idea, of that Astroturf propaganda. If we start the conversation with those choices it is a gimme for
Please speak for yourself Ron.
I've been studying this issue and lurking on this thread for a while
now and it seems to me that there is no single correct point of view
here. I'm amazed at the number of misconceptions put forth.
For me, this is just one set of big corps against another
e Internet
Freedom by taking it away [was: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Lobbyists Trying to
Destroy Internet Freedom?]
Please speak for yourself Ron. I've been studying this
issue and lurking on this thread for a while now and it seems to me that there
is no single correct point of view here.
To:
videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:51
AM
Subject: Re: You can't save Internet
Freedom by taking it away [was: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Lobbyists Trying to
Destroy Internet Freedom?]
Please speak for yourself Ron. I've been studying this
issue
ge.mac.com/janmclaughlin/loveletter/iMovieTheater26.html
- filmmaker
- Original Message -
From: Markus Sandy
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: You can't save Internet Freedom by taking
it away [was: Re: [videobl
save Internet Freedom by taking
it away [was: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Lobbyists Trying to Destroy
Internet Freedom?]
Please speak for yourself Ron.
I've been studying this issue and lurking on this thread for a while
now and it seems to me that there is no single correct point of view
As you can tell by my signature, I don't have an opinion on this issue ... Here's my feeling about government regulation the bill of rights, the patriot act, and the COPE (network neutrality) legislation.
The bill of rights is a good thing, the patriot act is a bad thing, the COPE legislation
Freedom by taking it away [was: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Lobbyists Trying to
Destroy Internet Freedom?]
Please speak for yourself Ron. I've been studying this
issue and lurking on this thread for a while now and it seems to me that there
is no single correct point of view here. I'm
Hello,On 5/18/06, Richard (Show) Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As you can tell by my signature, I don't have an opinion on this issue ... I agree in saving the Internet too. I just disagree on how to do it.See ya
Here's my feeling about government regulation the bill of rights, the patriot
his is just one [set of big corps] against another [set of big corps] and consumers are in the middleIf you don't want to call them a cartel, then don't, but a set of big corps colluding for their own interests, read: profit; is a cartel. Yahoo, Google, etc don't really care. They do
44 matches
Mail list logo
