The reporter that interviewed Jeff channeled the typical DC/regulator mentality perfectly. That is, if broadcast TV is regulated and then you find this thing that happens to be delivered over the Intenret, but looks a lot like TV, well then, shouldn't that be regulated, too?
Of course, the better question is that with true convergence coming, why would you regulate any form of TV in the first place? But, that's generally not the way regulators think. Tech policy is my job, so naturally I believe this is serious stuff. But, I do gently suggest that folks in this amazing niche start considering a world where they are not 100% bullet-proof from government incursions just because "it's the Internet." The sooner this is done, the better you'll be able to fend off rules. BTW, along with indencency standards (children are our future and all that), history has shown that political speech is a leading bridge drug to red tape. I'm not a big blog plugger (to my detriment), but I do cover online video policy issues closely here: http://463.blogs.com/the_463/online_video_policy/ Best, Sean --- In [email protected], "Stan Hirson, Sarah Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Jeff Pulver" <jeff@> wrote: > [snip] > > The last thing anyone needs is to see legacy broadcasting rules > > applied to the Internet. > > > But what happens when legacy broadcasting behavior and content are > applied to the internet? > > We are seeing quite a bit of broadcast television being aped on the > internet. > > I agree that the same rules should not be applied, but it does raise > issues. > > Stan Hirson > http://hestakaup.com >
