Re: [videoblogging] Re: Server Cooperative -- wanna start one?

[Markus Sandy]

ah, clint quite obviously there is a third option: people who want it free, but without the trade off of poor availability/performance/etc the reason why this is needed so much is not necessarily because people are cheap, but because they want to see it work reliably the first time when they are starting out (for one thing) i think that this is really important for vlogging to take off: reliable, free access for beginners. plus i'm sure there are plenty of folks who can't or don't want to afford yet *another* $120 (kids come to mind for one) another point: the paid options often come with a fair amount of admin hassles for some people.  they are not all turnkey and certainly not all equal or easy to use for the average person. finally, it's not always the case that a paid service performs better than a free one (especially when the paid one gets popular). every hosting provider I ever had was great until they weren't ;) maybe it's just a question of *who* is paying for the service (i.e., not users) how do we increase archive reliability and performance? is it just a money issue? how do we make Bush pay for it?  :p Clint Sharp wrote: I'd be happy to dance.  There are currently thousands of hosting options from thousands of providers who make it their business to maximize the amount of people you can fit onto one server.  Those people are not the people on this list.  I suggest you check them out. Vlog hosting needs two things, servers and bandwidth.  A "collective" or a shared hosting resource of vloggers is never going to be able to compete with people who's business it is to make a profit doing this.  You are not going to be able to rent a server from anyone, delve it up between a bunch of high-bandwidth users and make it economically feasible.  The best option is to be in the hosting business, in which you divide up hosting resources between high bandwidth users and low-bandwidth users.  Combining a group of unprofitable users is unprofitable, no matter how you do the math.  Much better to let the companies whose business it is combine users who, while they may be allocated hundreds of gigabytes a month of transfer, don't use it, with users who do. There are two options in the vlog hosting world, and I don't see a need for a third.  There are people who want to host their vlogs for free, and thus they make a tradeoff in terms of service, and there are those who are willing to pay.  I'm all for free services, and I happily recommend them to people who don't really care whether their users can access their videos.  There are also paid options, which cost a mimimal amount a month (honestly, if you can't afford $120/yr, you can't afford the camera and the computer to vlog either, probably).  I recommend the paid options to most people.  Who wants to invest the time and effort to create a middle option when the second option is already so cheap? Clint On 2/18/06, David Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: First off...*I* never asked a question. Learn reading skills. Second. My conversations take place in person where I can see a persons eyes. I trust about 1% of what I read online. Last. I really dont care about being part of some vlog collective. The original concept was for some people to group funds together for a server that would host videos. Care to dance a little more? David http://www.taoofdavid.com -- My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us http://apperceptions.org http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com http://node101.org http://spinflow.org http://wearethemedia.com http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: msandy spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.