There is evidence for all of those things, often not a single smoking gun, but plenty all the same. And I concede that there is obviously some indication of how some net providers would like to behave in future.
What I am suggesting is that Ive yet to see a decent explanation of just why the indy video producer, or the person that wants to watch, need to be crushed in order for corporations to reap large profits. Im quite sure they can go about putting big media content on the net in various ways, without needing to hamper others in order to be sucessful. Any signs that coprorations, or governments for that matter, see the people as 'the enemy' needs to be balanced witht he fact that they derive their power and profit from people. If they fear people, its because they need people, and whilst they often get away with going too far, there are limits. Its not that I trust all will be well in future, or that everyone has our best interests at heart, its that I dont believe that crying wolf now is good. If there were an actual vlogging movement that had a leader, would you want him or her going on talkshows and telling the world how the little guy is being crushed? That would make me groan and whilst it may stirr a minority to the cause, would it not cause the masses to write that movement off as paranoid? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Please show me the evidence that Big Oil and the Big 3 were creating > an exponential profit situation with the stubborn refusal on CAFE > standards and greenwashing of Global Warming. > > Please show me the evidence that Big Media was creating a > oligopolistic market with their sponsorship of politicians and > legislation. > > Please show me the evidence that Big Insurance was creating a medical > system that trades profit for people's health. > > Please show me the evidence that Big Power has been stymying > renewable energy. > > It's not easy to find that evidence, Steve, although I bet you'd > agree that all of those things were happening. > > I'm not talking about some nefarious plot against vloggers. > > I'm talking about control over markets and the flow of information > and a profit motivated quid pro quo between like institutions. It's > just business. > > Cable companies want more profit. Big media will pay more for > transmission of content than independent producers will. Look at the > TV market - it's dying. People are moving to the internet for media. > Right now they're accessing free content, or content that does not > move ad revenue to the establishment media. > > If you don't think that issue is being worked on, and that big > players are not trying to win more marketshare, I think you're crazy. > > The best way to gain control over a market is to use your strategic > advantages. In this case, I'm suggesting that the strategic advantage > that is being leveraged is money. They are competing with independent > content creators who have no capital assets. influxxmedia can't > afford (probably can but is not willing to) to pay a few hundred > bucks to have a website coded. I can't afford a decent boom mic. I'm > sure this list is saturated with people that are in a similar boat. > > It's simply good business to raise the barrier of entry into the market. > > This is not quite the argument that the Comcast situation is bringing > up, but it is closely related. Content like ours will be capped and > managed, and there will be a new web based cable media subscription > service that will exist outside of the caps. > > I've had this argument before on other topics, and the evidentiary > request has been thrown at me before. Take Iraq, for instance... > October 2001, I made the argument that we would be going into Iraq, > and that we would enter into a perpetual war situation. I said that > we would be there for decades and that the invasion was designed to > control the flow of Oil coming out of Iraq. Where do I find evidence > of that? > > Dismissal of my arguments based on lack of evidence were very common. > The establishment line was always swallowed and mine was always spit up. > > Giant corporations don't care. They don't like people. People are > problematic. I believe that giant corporations look at people as the > enemy. The needs of people negatively impact their profit. It's not > some kind of nefarious plot, it's just business. > > I don't have any evidence that Comcast is trying to gain control over > the flow of information. How could I get that information? > > I make my argument based on the fact that they've monetized the > distribution of information. That's their business. Comcast will do > everything in their power to distribute in information that creates > the most profit, plain and simple. Sony will pay more to have their > content distributed than we will. Consumers will pay more for > Spiderman than for the Batman Geek. > > It's just business. > > Cheers, > Ron Watson > http://k9disc.blip.tv > http://k9disc.com > http://discdogradio.com > http://pawsitivevybe.com > > > > On Feb 10, 2008, at 7:56 AM, Steve Watkins wrote: > > > Nah, they want to make money all right, but nobody has been able to > > explain to me how > > shutting out indie content is going to improve their ability to > > make money. > > > > How am I supposed to treat that argument with credibility unless > > there are actual > > examples of indie producers being forced out of the game by these > > dastardly fiends? > > > > Please lets not kid ourselves about what all the peer2peer traffic > > is currently being used > > for. Its not indie content, its established mainstream content > > being redistributed without > > permission. > > > > And certainly ehre in the UK, when large companies try to use > > peer2peer to delier their > > content legitimately, the ISPs are just as annoyed by them, they > > use their finite bandwidth > > up, they want a cut, but if its free their is no cut to take. > > > > I do believe it likely that in future there may be some ISPs who > > offer some video services > > that are exempt from the users bandwidth quota, and wil therefore > > make the playingfield > > unfair. But even witht he most draconian bandwidth limitations, > > theres still capacity for > > users to download a hell of a lot of vlogs, and no sign that the > > measly upload bandwidth > > required to send them to a video host, is going to be whisked away > > from under the feet of > > indie producers. > > > > Show me one shred of evidence that mass media wants to create a > > nightmare distopia in > > the world in order to keep the masses watching its content? Why > > would it need to, it can > > play on its existing great strength, the domination of promotion > > and public awareness > > about what content exists, the ability to throw silly money at > > creators. Yes their scale > > means they can talk to and deal with the large telecoms/broadband > > companies and have > > leverage with them in ways we cannot. But this does not > > automatically translate to them > > using this to crush 'us'. > > > > As for the mobile arena and VOIP, yes there are far more concrete > > struggles here between > > users and the networks, there is a far more basic game of trying to > > protect existing > > revenue stream, and build on mobile user base to create new profit > > streams, in play. But > > all the same things are moving in a direction where the cost of > > bandwidth to mobile users > > is decreasing, and attempts to limit use or development leads to > > loud cries which make > > them think twice. > > > > I doubt there are hundreds of millions of customers paying $50 a > > month. Millions yes, > > much profiteering yes, but all the same it would be unfair to paint > > such a picture without > > acknowleding that the costs of network infrasctructure & > > maintenance are hardly trivial. > > Back in the day, lots of UK ISPs completely killed themselves by > > offering unlimited dial-up > > access or by borrowing huge sums to lay down a physical network of > > cables to peoples > > homes. > > > > Cheers > > > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <k9disc@> wrote: > > > > > > 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 <tim@> 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
