Great analogy, Richard. I tried to do one, but had to delete it because I couldn't get it to work. Thanks, Ron Watson
Pawsitive Vybe 11659 Berrigan Ave Cedar Springs, MI 49319 http://pawsitivevybe.com Personal Contact: 616.443.3984 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the Web: Pawsitive Vybe K9Disc.com Art of K9Disc Discdog Radio On Feb 11, 2008, at 12:13 PM, Richard H. Hall wrote: > Allow me to amend the coffee shop analogy a little, to make it more > accurately reflect the comcast/net neutrality issue > > Let's call the independent coffee makers comcastbucks, and the > super market > govmart. First, Comcastbucks did not just build a coffee shop, they > built an > entire coffee communication infrastructure that is required for > anyone to > make coffee. In fact, they got a lot of financial support from > govmart, > since govmart figures, once an infrastructure is in place, then > other coffee > companies can use it too; and these competitors won't have to keep > rebuilding the infrastructure over and over and the market will > make the > coffee services better due to increased competition. Comcastbucks > still gets > to be the default coffee that is served at govmart. This is > consistent with > very old practices in the US (and the world) called coffee > carriage, which > everyone agree is the best thing for consumers and competition, > while at the > same time rewarding the coffee company who builds the > infrastructure by > allowing them to be the default coffee served. > > Of course, Comcastbucks agrees to all this, since they're getting a > pretty > sweet deal, with so much of their costs covered by the super > market, and > they get to be the default coffee. In fact, it's misleading to even > say that > comcastbucks owns the infrastructure, since the super market paid > for so > much of it. Comcastbucks even agrees to build new and better coffee > infrastructures all over so that, even under served coffee > communities will > now be able to get good coffee. > > After a while Comcastbucks figures that they want more, and they don't > really like the whole competition thing, and they certainly don't > want to > have to build any more infrastructure, so they argue that they are > selling > data coffee, not communication coffee and, for some reason, this > obscure > distinction allows them to take advantage of a loop hole in the coffee > carriage practices, so they no longer have to adhere to them. So > they can > sell their coffee for whatever price they want, to whoever they > want, and > they can even sell the coffee for different prices to different > people, and > not sell any coffee at all to some. > > I think this is a little more accurate analogy. > > ... Richard > > On Feb 9, 2008 7:29 PM, 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] > > > > > > > > -- > Richard > http://richardhhall.org > Shows > http://richardshow.org > http://inspiredhealing.tv > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
