I disagree with Tim's allegory and your assessment, Steve. These guys built their empire promising us exactly what we have today: "Every man a publisher. Every man a Netowork."
It was the bone they threw the public and elected officials to get relaxed regulation, re-regulation in their interests and support for their projects. Now they plan on delivering THEIR approved HD content, THEIR telephony and THEIR approved high speed data. It's a classic bait and switch: Give me this and I'll give you that. We give them this and they renege. This isn't about delivering content, it's about controlling access. This isn't about reducing or managing bandwidth, it's about controlling and restricting it. They are going to price us out of the game and take money from big corporate media to deliver their HUGE bandwidth content which dwarfs ours. It's as simple as that. Instead of the government mandated grocery story: Comcast asked for relaxed regulation, actually they paid lots of money to sponsor think tanks, politicians and legislation that gave them the power they have today. In return they'd give us cheaper and greater access and more freedom. That was their argument. Comcast is busting into telephony as they strive to shut our ability to use VOIP. They're going to use torrents to deliver THEIR HD Content as they shut down torrent users. They're going to exponentially increase the throughput of information as they cry that they're all tapped out. They're sick and tired of people like us sharing things, and working for peanuts in THEIR market. Information sharing and small time media creators are stealing their profit. We are wasting their market resources and costing them profit. Death by a thousand paper cuts. If they wanted more bandwidth, they'd ask government to invest in their infrastructure. They'd ask for help. They don't want help, they don't want more bandwidth. They want control. Plain and simple. This reality that we experience right now is exactly what they offered in the negotiation to get what they wanted. They are reneging on that right now. Don't be fooled. This is a scam. They are dishonest brokers. They cry that they're being taken advantage of as they seek to take advantage of us...again. Isn't $50 a month from hundreds of millions of customers enough? Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Feb 9, 2008, at 9:57 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > Well to me that grocery store example is not what this particular > issue is all about right > now. It does represent one side of net neutrality fears, where > potential conflict of interest > may exist if certain traffic is given priority, and the decider > also happens to own some of > the destinations for that traffic. > > But for me the measures we see so far are more akin to a minority > of customers to your > coffee shop, abusing a special 'all you can drink' offer, and > reducing the quality of service > & coffee the majority receive. The coffe shop management must > choose whether to invest > in more capacity to serve the overthirsty minority, change or scrap > the 'all you can drink' > offer, or take other measures to limit the service. > > The devil is in the detail as far as Im concerned. There have > always been various > bandwidth issues that have impeded some peoples ability to have the > internet they want. > There are challenges to be met in the future. Too much greed from > either users or the > companies that deliver the network, should be kept in check. > > Luckily I believe too much present and future economic hope rests > on the internet > continuing to exist in its present form, though if it 'matures' as > other industries have, it > could become the usual restrictive monopoly nightmare which wont > feel so much like the > net of today. Still it could be argued that the internet of the > present already has a lot of > giant near-monopolies both at the network delivery & infrastructure > level, and in terms of > the sites people are visiting. Yet if there is anywhere the small > business or individual > should be able to find space to survive, it should be the net, as > is currently the case? > > Or to put it another way, its in nobodies interests to make the > internet completely useless. > We already live in a world where a lot of humans hardly have access > to the basics of life, > let alone computers and the net, and I suggest that if those who > can currently afford to > uploads videos to the net, face a future where they cannot, it will > be more likely due to > mass economic woes in general, or problems with electricity supply, > than a few monopoly > net providers pushing things way too far. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Tim Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I don't like that they are doing this. I'm against it but I think we > > should try to look at from their point of view so that we can > > understand where they are coming from and how we might put a stop to > > this before none of us can afford to upload our shows anymore. > > > > Imagine if you ran a Grocery Store and inside your grocery store you > > had a coffee shop that was owned by an Independent Coffee Chain. > > > > Then one day the Government said "Hey you have a Coffee Shop in your > > grocery store. You need to let other coffee companies sell coffee in > > your store for free." > > > > So you let Starbucks, Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf as well as Pete's > > Coffee and Tully's sell coffee in your store and they didn't pay you > > any money but they did create more traffic in your parking lot and > > they made it hard for your costumers to get into your grocery store. > > > > Maybe you might try and keep your parking lot free to only your > > customers, unless the government told you that you needed to let > > anyone park in your parking lot. > > > > In a free and open society should a grocery store be forced to allow > > other companies to sell products in their store without paying > > something? > > > > Tim Street > > Creator/Executive Producer > > French Maid TV > > Subscribe for FREE @ > > http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes > > MyBlog > > http://1timstreet.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 9, 2008, at 4:21 PM, Jay dedman wrote: > > > > > > This will be the a good real test of whether or not the FCC will > > > follow up > > > > on their promise to enforce network neutrality, in terms of > > > penalties for > > > > comcast. I'm not holding my breath. > > > > > > here's how they are spinning it. > > > We are a private company and our network is private. (even if our > > > network is run over public property) > > > We are telling you in our 10 page contract (with small, legalese, > > > ambiguous text) what we are allowed to do. > > > You make a choice to use us (even if we may be the only broadband > > > network in your area) > > > Regulation is slows down competition. (even if we are doing our > best > > > to become a total monopoly) > > > > > > somehow this argument makes the current FCC officers feel like > all is > > > right in america. > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > -- > > > http://jaydedman.com > > > 917 371 6790 > > > Professional: http://ryanishungry.com > > > Personal: http://momentshowing.net > > > Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman > > > RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
