Not all regulation is bad, because it is not always as simple as "turn the channel" or "don't watch it", it is a matter of respect for your fellow human beings....
Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In [email protected], "sean_m_garrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" > <shirson@> 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 > > >
