Ironically, though the PERIOD expressed strong hidebounded certainty, the trailing "..." seemed to show doubt and hesitation. Just being silly. ;)
Ron, have you seen the internet flick Zeitgeist? You would thoroughly enjoy it. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd totally agree with you adrian, IF, and that's a serious if, the > same multimedia companies (lets not kind ourselves that they are > simply bandwidth providers) were not ramping up their own multimedia > streams that make ours look silly. > > I've no doubt that the bandwidth constraints will have no > relationship to this content, and in fact, I'd bet we'll have to pay > for each separately. > > Point is that they are doing this shit to make their plans work out. > > If it were only as altruistic as saving energy, and having a smaller > footprint... > > It's not it's about profit and control of information, PERIOD... > > peace, > Ron > > On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:38 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: > >> Not sure I have tthis right but if it is a monthly cap then this is >> the norm here in Australia and always has been. Has been one of the >> reasons why I argue very strongly for proper compression and also >> other aesthetic requirements in videoblogging. I get 8GB a month, but >> have the advantage of a university job during the day. A feature film >> is around 500MB, so that's 16 features a month, which if you're a AV >> professional is not much, but for the majority is probably in the ball >> park. >> >> However, I am going to poke the possum here (colloquial Australian >> expression, stir up things if you like). >> >> I don't understand why there is an attitude where bandwidth is treated >> as infinite and not a finite resource. It is a finite resource. Data >> and digital duplication of our material is trivial, but transferring >> that to other places is not. For example, even in Australia the >> majority of our schools have quite poor bandwidth, and if I want my >> work to be viewed in regional Australia (and for that matter parts of >> rural United States) then I have to be aware that bandwidth is >> constrained. Now bandwidth might be fast or slow, but it does have a >> width, and it is a material infrastructure with its associated costs. >> Just as with telephony there are international, national, and local >> agreements about how much a byte costs, and while the telcos might >> make lots from it (or not), the pipes are not infinite. >> >> Treating it as infinite leads to what I teach my students is >> "bandwidth pollution". Emails with stupid large attachments, videos >> that run to gigabytes. First industrialised world bandwidth arrogance >> is the internet equivalent of cheap oil (the analogy is simply if oil >> is finite, but cheap, then there is little incentive not to use it, in >> spite of it's inevitable disappearance and of course the pollution it >> is causing). The solution then becomes simply adding more. More >> cables, more electricity to run it all, and presumably more time for >> us to actually view all this extra material (I know, that's >> facetious). Here in my state we used to (20 years ago) think that >> water was infinite, and you pretty much got it for free. Then they >> started charging for it, on the reasonable basis that a) some people >> used more than others so if you had a swimming pool and fancy garden >> why shouldn't you pay more? and b) it required expensive >> infrastructure which needed to be paid for and c) it might encourage >> water conversation. We are now in a major and prolonged drought with >> substantial water restrictions. The governments response is to spend >> billions on desalination and pipelines (bigger fatter pipes) instead >> of spending the same money on ways to reduce our demand for water. I >> live on the driest continent on earth yet outside my window right now >> are English style gardens with roses, azaleas and fuschias. >> >> The point? Bigger pipes is like cheap oil is like infinite bandwidth. >> It supports an economy (of mind, of practice and of institutions) >> which thinks the answer is simply more, not less. Compress properly, >> think about length. Sustainability applies here as much (if not more >> given the energy demands of the net) as the real world. And the model >> of "I should have as much as I want" translates poorly outside of very >> specific cultural and political economies. >> >> On 05/11/2008, at 7:42 AM, Heath wrote: >> >> > I just did another post about this from another communications >> > company but now another big dog in the US is going to start limiting >> > bandwidth....AT & T...I am telling you all, this is going to stiffle >> > most video on the web, at some of these limits watching one movie >> > over Netflix will put you over for the month. Things like VloMo, >> > will go away....it's scary.....its real scary.... >> >> cheers >> Adrian Miles >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> bachelor communication honours coordinator >> vogmae.net.au >> >> >> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >
