all this net neutrality stuff

[gypsy]

so, tech-minded people, how freaked out should we all be about all this (http://mydd.com/story/2006/4/24/123726/983)?

[James]

I knew it would be a matter of time before this would come up. The companies that provide this service had an innate sense of entitlement. It's kind of like if all the roads and the Interstate system was built by private companies and now they want to control the flow so that you can only drive to stores they own or have deals with.

[Hayduke]

Gypsy, what's up with the meaningful headline? Normally there's no telling if you're talking about an obscure punk band or the end of the free world. Just have to trust that it's worth clicking whatever link you post. It always is, but still....

Anyway, yes, this is the camel's nose in the door for something very bad indeed:



Comcast Customer Error Message
(this is your fault)
We're sorry. The bandwidth allocated for the site you requested [DailyKOS.org (http://www.dailykos.org/)] has been exceeded. Please try again next week. For your convenience, we will forward you to Fox News after you view this Exxon commercial.

[shoetick]

I wouldnt be too concerned about this at all. Yes the telcos can start doing this kind of thing, but when it comes down to "what is the internet" it is nothing more than conected wires (granted a lot is tranported by fiber optics) but for the most part anyone can setup a network and we could have our own internet system if every body ran a wire from their house to their neighbors house. setup a few fiber optic cables to several neighbors and you have redundancy as well. all for the cost of less than 100 dollars per household we could have a no monthly-fee internet solution. It might be a little slower in some heavy usage areas or if i'm your neighbor, but as the market starts getting flooded with orders for faster routers the market will provide a low cost solution. the only thing we would need telcos for after that is for overseas connections.

However, to agree with me on this one you are going to need a great deal of faith in humanity.

[gypsy]

Gypsy, what's up with the meaningful headline?

:)

i actually wanted an answer to this one. usually i don't care if anyone reads it or not.

[Hayduke]

I'd like to have that kind of faith in humanity, but mostly what I see is people rolling over and giving up rights and freedoms so long as the entities taking them can wrap the action in the flag or dangle something flashy before their eyes.

Besides, the Internet is a lot more than a bunch of interconnected WANs. At some point you'll have to tie in to the big pipes, rooms full of fiber optic switches, transoceanic cables and other heavy hardware and it's all owned by communications companies busy merging and cutting deals with media companies which all have something they really want you to see.

[shoetick]

i'll volunteer a room at my house to store and run the equipment for free. I am sure there is one person in every city that would do the same.

At some point the american people will have to decide whether they are going to stand up or keep getting ripped off paying for stuff that isnt rocket science.

I guess that is why they say you change the world by changing your community first.

Does anyone know the laws dealing with running wires from house A to house B with both owners permission?

[Daizy]

hmm.

hmmm. Somehow it DID strike me as odd that my provider's connection seemed to slow down...a bit...about the time that they started advertising a faster and better option to buy. I think it's a real threat.

[The Pullet Surprise]

A few points to ponder:

Once AT&T swallows BellSouth, they'll have a wholly owned regional backbone infrastructure which extends from the southeast to the Pacific NW. Even if none of the other telcos would cooperate, they could make it happen in-region (which means anywhere from California to Florida, minus a few flyovers in Qwest's territory, and all of the greater midwest).

And here's another kicker... let's say you're a Verizon Internet customer in Knoxville. How do you connect to the Internet? Over BellSouth copper loops and BellSouth metro transport, typically. The phone line coming into your house? It's owned by BellSouth, so if you have a DSL service, even from another provider, it touches BellSouth (AT&T). Even competitive phone companies like, says, US LEC uses BellSouth facilities through a regulatory regime called Unbundled Network Elements - Platform (UNE-P).

And since Internet services are not regulated by the TRA nor any other state regulatory agency, not all restrictions apply (the FCC is sorta there, but thanks to de-regulation, is a lot less of a factor).

AT&T is comprised of the old AT&T long distance company (which has its own broadband Internet division), Cingular Wireless, SBC (based in TX, provides local service to TX, OK, AR, KS, MO), Ameritech (IL, OH, WI, MI, IN), Pacific Bell (CA, NV), and plans to take over BellSouth (LA, MS, AL, KY, TN, NC, SC, GA, FL). And their CEO has said, and I quote:


How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (GOOG), MSN, Vonage, and others?

Ed Whiteacre, CEO AT&T: How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!

Should you take it seriously? Yeah. I would.

[hard69rock]

Not discrediting the thread, it DOES sound screwed up. But is it not like the old "the Post Office is going to charge you for emails" thing a while back?

Yes, I remember when the "Phone Company" was disolved because of anti-monopoly laws. Funny how all those little companies created to spur "competition" are now being absorbed by the quickly narrowing field of large companies.
Sort of like the cable company always shouting to get rid of your sat dish and get digital cable. Pretty funny considering they get their digital programming from DirecTV.

Seems logical for the telco to want to control what you get on the internet. But considering that WildBlue and Direcway are two satellite internet providers, there is plenty of room for competition there.

Sorry, that wasn't meant to sound like a commercial.

[The Pullet Surprise]

But considering that WildBlue and Direcway are two satellite internet providers, there is plenty of room for competition there.

Yeah, for consumer access, maybe. But think about it...

a) One thing satellite cannot overcome -- fixed one-way latency. 500 milliseconds. That's best case. Very limiting for some applications (e.g. IP voice, which performs and sounds much better when you have ~150ms round-trip). VSAT can't compete in a lot of the market space.

b) How do you think that a satellite provider gets you a connection to Google or to AOL? Yep. Land lines.

Try again.

[hard69rock]

Yeah, for consumer access, maybe. But think about it...

a) One thing satellite cannot overcome -- fixed one-way latency. 500 milliseconds. That's best case. Very limiting for some applications (e.g. IP voice, which performs and sounds much better when you have ~150ms round-trip). VSAT can't compete in a lot of the market space.

b) How do you think that a satellite provider gets you a connection to Google or to AOL? Yep. Land lines.

Try again.
All true, I wasn't trying to spoil the thread. I neglected to account for the VoIP, sorry.
I'd rather have a sister in a whorehouse than a kid that uses America on Hold ;)

[Cracko]

Back to dial up BBSs. I've still got the modem bank and software. I do not however have the requisite 8088 XT Clone to run it on.

Those were halcyon days. 12 inbound lines and 20 members paying $2 a month.

[The Pullet Surprise]

You can have those halcyon days.

The equivalent server is still cheaper (and more feature-rich) on hosted Internet space. $40 a month (inflation adjusted) would still be a comfy profit margin.

[Scott]

Here is a petition if anyone wants to sign it.

http://civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/

[spinetingler]

I do not however have the requisite 8088 XT Clone to run it on.

Hmm, let me check the garage. I'm kind of a pack rat.

[Gnaw Parker]

http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/?entry_id=1512499

[spinetingler]

Back to dial up BBSs. I've still got the modem bank and software. I do not however have the requisite 8088 XT Clone to run it on.
.

I believe there's one in my attic.
What's your shipping addy?

[he who]

what the companies want to do is entirely wrong---it is a lot like comcast coming back to you and saying you are really enjoying that episode of south park so let me charge you more for that.

but you would never want comcast if there was no content that someone else created for them and there is no need for a web without content as well. why would you pay for that? So again it corrupts the process especially considering these are the same people who freak out at the idea of ala cart cable channels.

BUT---I want them to do it because there will be that one company that will offer everything at one price to be competitive, and the bottom will fall out of the idea. AOL tried to do this already and users migrated off of it because they preferred picking their own content, instead of having it filtered through AOL land. AOL was very big just a few years ago---now they are in BIG trouble.

[James]

All I know is that I want equal access to MSN.com and Timeleemusic.com with no artificial wait.

[JohnT]

I'm trying to figure out why y'all think that Comcast, ATT, et al is building a slower internet as well as the faster one?

They aren't. This is the slow internet. If you like MSN and Timeleemusic with the current technology that streams a video into some 300X260 pixel frame (like currently), you won't have to worry about paying more.

If you prefer to have it streamed onto your 64 inch plasma and take up the whole screen, however, you'll have to pay for I2.

Companies that stream video, like Google, MSN, and YouTube? Well, they'll have to start paying for their bandwidth. If that's not within their business model, well, that's their tough luck: Should have thought of that before implementing a business plan and a financial structure that depends upon free-rider bandwidth inefficiencies being continued in perpetuity.

[James]

Companies that stream video, like Google, MSN, and YouTube? Well, they'll have to start paying for their bandwidth. If that's not within their business model, well, that's their tough luck: Should have thought of that before implementing a business plan and a financial structure that depends upon free-rider bandwidth inefficiencies being continued in perpetuity.Uh, the Internet is not all about business. YouTube, Abstractart.cc and a zillion others are not there for the money, but to serve me. How will this help them do that?

[JohnT]

Uh, the Internet is not all about business. YouTube, Abstractart.cc and a zillion others are not there for the money, but to serve me. How will this help them do that?

James, Youtube is a corporation. They are in it to make money - they have a business model, investors, everything. They have a strategic partnership with NBC, a new agreement with the Weinsteins about movie promotion, all sorts of stuff like that. Hell, they're even funded by Sequoia Capital (they were the VC's for Apple, Atari, Oracle, and a lot of others).

They're not existent to "help you" they are in it precisely for the money! Here's how: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/12/youtube_owns_derivative_works/

Here's some job listings: http://www.youtube.com/t/jobs - I like that one for the corporate attorney who's job is to review financial contracts. ;)

AbstractArt is a job resume. The site itself is not supposed to generate revenue (like Youtube), but don't tell me it's not set up to garner possible revenue-generating interest!

[James]

AbstractArt is a job resume. The site itself is not supposed to generate revenue (like Youtube), but don't tell me it's not set up to garner possible revenue-generating interest!The artist who put up this (http://abstractart.cc/) abstractart.cc would object very strenuously to your characterization of her web site. She only does shows, does not offer her work for sale presently, and is not looking for a job.


So, YouTube is a "business"--all of that is beside the point. My question is, how will what you are advocating make my life and the lives of Internet users better?

[metulj]

James, Youtube is a corporation. They are in it to make money - they have a business model, investors, everything. They have a strategic partnership with NBC, a new agreement with the Weinsteins about movie promotion, all sorts of stuff like that. Hell, they're even funded by Sequoia Capital (they were the VC's for Apple, Atari, Oracle, and a lot of others).

They're not existent to "help you" they are in it precisely for the money! Here's how: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/12/youtube_owns_derivative_works/

Here's some job listings: http://www.youtube.com/t/jobs - I like that one for the corporate attorney who's job is to review financial contracts. ;)

AbstractArt is a job resume. The site itself is not supposed to generate revenue (like Youtube), but don't tell me it's not set up to garner possible revenue-generating interest!

YouTube generates revenue?

This is the YouTube killer (http://www.eefoof.com)

[JohnT]

A site with "Portfolio" and "Exhibition" links is not there to promote the work of the artist? Then why those words? They have specific meanings in the art world, after all, and those meanings imply the earning of income, the building of a career, the development of an identity as an artist.

In regards to your second question, it doesn't necessarily have to "make your life better". But it won't make your life worse.

The fact is, the anti Net Neutrality debate is being framed by companies that the NN supporters would usually ignore (at best) and decry (at worst): Microsoft. Disney. Sony. Google. And they're doing it because it's cheaper and easier for them to flood the internet with data, hoping to crowd out others' data, then it is for them to pay more to prioritize (if they want) their data.

I mean, shit: you have a 10-inch pipe. 5 people put enough sludge through it to fill a 10-inch pipe, because they limit themselves to 2-inches worth of crap. All of a sudden, person 1 wants to pump out enough sludge to fill a 5-inch pipe, meaning that 4 people now have less pipe to pump out their sludge.

1. Why can't the pipe owner charge person 1 for his extra sludge?
2. Why can't the pipe owner be allowed to build a new pipe for person 1, charging him different rates?

That's precisely the problem the internet is having with the bandwidth hogs - they're exploiting Net Neutrality to crowd out other data, knowing that there's no extra cost to them for doing so. Sure, they might slow it down... but they'll slow it down for everybody, hiding their culpability from all except the pipe owners.

[JohnT]

YouTube generates revenue?

This is the YouTube killer (http://www.eefoof.com)

Of course they generate revenue. They're a private corporation financed by one of the two biggest VC companies in Silicon Valley (the other being Kleiner Perkins). You think they pay for all that bandwidth through user donations? :rolleyes: ;)

[metulj]

Of course they generate revenue. They're a private corporation financed by one of the two biggest VC companies in Silicon Valley (the other being Kleiner Perkins). You think they paid for all that bandwidth through user donations? :rolleyes: ;)

Does YouTube generate revenue?

[JohnT]

Yes.

Wasn't that clear from the "Of course they generate revenue" statement?

How much revenue is unknown, given that they are a private corporation and have no filing requirements. It is likely that profitability is a long ways down the road, if ever.

However, we'll learn what the actual numbers are once the IPO is announced.

[metulj]

Yes.

Wasn't that clear from the "Of course they generate revenue" statement?

How much revenue is unknown, given that they are a private corporation and have no filing requirements. It is likely that profitability is a long ways down the road, if ever.

However, we'll learn what the actual numbers are once the IPO is announced.

OK. I am a regular YouTube person. I also understand how revenue can be generated from a website. I look at any given YouTube offering after searching for a particular type of video and I see no, zilch, zip, zero revenue streams. That's coming later? Well, they've been beaten to the punch by eefoof.com (and YouTube has huge copyright problems). I wouldn't invest in it (unless they plunk for eefoof.com's business. Which is basically tying google ad-like streams to viral videos. They don't have the bandwidth though....

[JohnT]

I'm not saying their business model makes sense, but I do note that the very first video my eyes land on is something being pushed by MTV2, whom happens to be a Youtube partner (the first Youtube partner, as a matter of fact).

So perhaps Youtube makes money by pushing videos. Or signing half-baked deals with entertainment companies. Or, as the article I quoted says, perhaps YouTube is a means for content providers (like MTV) to steal original ideas and videos.

What they aren't is a charity or a hobby-site.

[James]

In regards to your second question, it doesn't necessarily have to "make your life better". But it won't make your life worse.That's what Comcast, AT&T and their lobbyists keep telling us, so I guess it must be true. :rolleyes:
But seriously, isn't the purpose of all laws to make our lives better? And I con't mean companies or businesses, because they are not alive, but OUR lives.



bandwidth hogs
Instead of pipes, I think of the Internet as like the postal service. Right now mail is free and the only real bandwidth hogs are the spamers who flood the system with junk mail packets. But once you require someone to buy a stamp to mail a letter, only those who can afford to buy stamps can get their mail out.

[metulj]

What they aren't is a charity or a hobby-site.

BUUUUUUT, that's the perception of their userbase.

I did some digging and saw that when you click on any video, sitemeter.net and several different ad research companies place cookies. That's a revenue stream. A nefarious one, but a revenue stream none the less. So I will take it back.

[Hammer-on]

Net Neutrality is about political control and money. Period.

NN isn't the hot topic on the 6:00 news because the media is controlled by big bro. In addition, Bubba wouldn't understand or care about it so we hear mostly about who's zommin' who.

Cable affiliates are scared they're gonna lose.

Long distance companies are scared they're gonna lose.

Politicains are scared they're gonna lose.

Dark fiber investors are scared they're gonna lose.

The internet is too good to be true and has been for too long if there's money to be made and citizens to control. It really sucks that everyone gets hung-up in "what's in it for me." It being neutral shouldn't be taken for granted and that IS what's in it for you. The music industry was the first to take the hit and it is only the tip of the iceberg unless THEY take control. Act now or it's gonna be Ophrah, Verizon wireless, happy soldiers--you know--sunshine and rainbows!

You'll miss it when it's gone.

[James]

Act now or it's gonna be Ophrah, Verizon wireless, happy soldiers--you know--sunshine and rainbows!

You'll miss it when it's gone.
http://www.931jackfm.com/siteassets/jack/jack_subdiagnol.gif http://www.wqsr.com/graphics/masthead_logo.gif

http://www.929jackfm.com/Images/SiteImages/Logo.gif http://www.milliondollarmorningshow.com/images2/x004.gif

[shoetick]

http://code0range.net/files/images/corporate_flag-1033.jpg

[JohnT]

That's what Comcast, AT&T and their lobbyists keep telling us, so I guess it must be true. :rolleyes:
But seriously, isn't the purpose of all laws to make our lives better? And I con't mean companies or businesses, because they are not alive, but OUR lives.



Instead of pipes, I think of the Internet as like the postal service. Right now mail is free and the only real bandwidth hogs are the spamers who flood the system with junk mail packets. But once you require someone to buy a stamp to mail a letter, only those who can afford to buy stamps can get their mail out.

The postal service isn't free. It costs money. That's why they sell stamps in the real postal service. The analogy doesn't work.

Pipes are the most accurate analogy because (as we discussed at work just today) one can only put a limited amount of data through a wire in a given period of time.

As far as lobbyists, the standard arguments used here were those formed and promoted by Microsoft, Google, AOL, and Disney (The internet will slow down! We'll be blocked from your home! etc). Is the point of bringing up "Comcast", et al, to start a war of lobbyist connections? Because, hell, let's pair them off:

Lobbyists against Net Neutrality:

Phone companies
Cable companies

Lobbyists for Net Neutrality

Microsoft
Disney
Google
AOL
Hollywood
The RIAA

(I'm not too sure what this list brings to the table, but as you keep bringing it up that my position is supported by Comcast, I feel compelled to respond in kind. The only question I have is: so what? So what if a position is supported by entity X? What does that prove, other than there are interested (self and otherwise) parties involved?)

[James]

... many words and points of logic...
you never answered the main question: How is this going to make my life and the lives of consumers like me better?

[Hi Top]

The postal service isn't free. It costs money. That's why they sell stamps in the real postal service. The analogy doesn't work.


But the post office always loses money. I'm ot sure if taht matters or ot, but they never make any money and are always in the red.

[Gnaw Parker]

But the post office always loses money. I'm ot sure if taht matters or ot, but they never make any money and are always in the red.
That's only due to gross mismanagement, not lack of revenue. Just like everything else in our government.

[metulj]

But the post office always loses money. I'm ot sure if taht matters or ot, but they never make any money and are always in the red.

Hrm. I think the USPS covers its costs with postage and is not the basketcase (fiscally speaking) that everyone thinks it is. Is it a nightmare to deal with on somethings? Sure.

[~Rumormonger~]

Where's the quid pro quo?

The Cable & Telcos are expected to build and maintain and, hopefully, provide capital improvements to the system so, shouldn't they have control over pricing?

If we're going to regulate their ability to raise capital via their product then we're going to have to offer them some protections in return.

If we're going to say that the Cable & Telcos can't regulate who utilizes their lines then they need to be offered protection from liability w-r-t user content and, indeed, we're going to have to offer some protection from bandwidth hogs.

That said, as wireless technology gets faster and cheaper, and therefore making it less expensive for smaller companies to enter the marketplace, doesn't it stand to reason that much of this will be a mute point in a decade or so?

[JohnT]

But the post office always loses money. I'm ot sure if taht matters or ot, but they never make any money and are always in the red.

That is not at all true. The Post Office, like any corporation, publishes an annual report of their financial statements: Here it is (http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt05/):

Given the unique nature of their mandate, that they are supposed to operate with the purpose of achieving virtual breakeven results, they do receive a yearly subsidy of $3 billion (out of $68 billion in overall revenues) which is supposed to help them to, well, balance their balance sheet. ;)

You'll notice that there's quite a bit of profit, but further reading shows that the USPS is the only government agency to lower it's debt levels since Bush took office - over $11 billion of debt was retired since 2001, leaving the Post Office debt-free.

Would that we all could claim the same. ;)

[Hi Top]

I guess my point would be they (USPS) would lose money without being subsidized. Also the fact that they are allowed to have Fed Ex boxes and worl in conjunction with Fed Ex is kinda sketchy.

[JohnT]

I guess my point would be they (USPS) would lose money without being subsidized. Also the fact that they are allowed to have Fed Ex boxes and worl in conjunction with Fed Ex is kinda sketchy.

Again, that's not true. They are mandated to have overall gross profit margins ("virtual margins") of 0%. Some years they go over, some years they go under. What they don't do is plan to lose $3 billion a year, every year.

The subsidy exists to give them a cushion to handle changing conditions, covering any externalities that might occur should the USPS be unable to financially perform it's constitutionally mandated process. Were the subsidy removed, as well as the mandate to keep virtual margins as close to 0% as possible, the financial conditions and limitations would change.

To be honest, it would be difficult to make a prediction about future profit margins as the business model differences between USPS and private distribution companies are so different... but as those other distribution companies do quite well, there's no reason to suspect that the USPS would be any different.

[metulj]

trueness

I think people just like to hate the USPS. They are often the governmental face that we see most often, even if they really aren't the government per se. The USPS rules with an iron fist given what it has to do on the scale upon which it does it. As a former resident of three different European countries, I'll attest that the mail can be a sketchy proposition even in places like Germany. I fucked up and trusted the Italian mail system to get a letter with a deposit check for an apartment to the US within 6 weeks. It got there 4 months later with some liquid spilled all over it. Needless to say, I was homeless when I got back the States.

[James]

It is true that the companies that build and maintain the communications infrastructure need to be compensated for their efforts. However, the communication system is in the public domain, and should therefore be protected as such.

[JohnT]

???

What communications system? The internet? The internet hasn't been publically funded since April 30th, 1995 when the capital costs for maintaining the infrastructure was handed to private businesses. We went over this already. ;)

The overall communications system? I didn't know that books, TV, radio, newspapers, and the Blab are all public domain.

[James]

If the Internet ain't public what is?

[~Rumormonger~]

http://media4.adforum.com/zrIf58670C/G/GR/GREC_05645/GREC_05645_0058737W.MPG

[James]

http://media4.adforum.com/zrIf58670C/G/GR/GREC_05645/GREC_05645_0058737W.MPG
that was cool.

[he who]

JohnT---- anything pumped wirelessly is public and there are quite a few hot spots, including some entire towns--radio signals and TV bandwith are bought by auction from the public through the government who gives the private industry a sweatheart deal and then does not hold them to their contractual agreement---see digital TV and what will really end up happening with it. Lower resolution but multiple channels instead of one high quality one.

People forget that we own the airwaves and that is good for the people who are leasing them from us---but they are ours.

but this is more about charging you twice for content---I buy a package from comcast that allows me so many kpbs it is mine to do what I want with. The providers of the internet regional and otherwise want to try to charge the content providers/or the end user---whoever will pay--to get what they already bought.

You tube---for example is not subsidized they pay for their servers and leave them on for us to communicate with. That is what I am paying for in my package--Comcast provides one web site of content for its users, the comcast site---would you pay just to have that? I would not---without the present structure the web becomes worhtless to me and millions of other users---it is just a bad business model to contemplate because it leaves you wide open for easy competition to drown you.

Technology already has a thousand different ways to subvert what they want to do---the easiest would be web service from out of the country--and don't forget that this conversation could be irrellavant in a year when they add internet connections through your power grid---going even faster. just plug right in---crazy what them kids come up with...

sorry so long...you gotta know your facts when debating with johnT

[James]

JohnT---- ... many points of truth ...

sorry so long...you gotta know your facts when debating with johnT

You go girl!

[JohnT]

If the Internet ain't public what is?

I don't know. Air? Water?

The internet, however, isn't.

[JohnT]

JohnT---- anything pumped wirelessly is public and there are quite a few hot spots, including some entire towns--radio signals and TV bandwith are bought by auction from the public through the government who gives the private industry a sweatheart deal and then does not hold them to their contractual agreement---see digital TV and what will really end up happening with it. Lower resolution but multiple channels instead of one high quality one.(1)

People forget that we own the airwaves and that is good for the people who are leasing them from us---but they are ours.(2)

but this is more about charging you twice for content---I buy a package from comcast that allows me so many kpbs it is mine to do what I want with. The providers of the internet regional and otherwise want to try to charge the content providers/or the end user---whoever will pay--to get what they already bought.

You tube---for example is not subsidized they pay for their servers and leave them on for us to communicate with. That is what I am paying for in my package--Comcast provides one web site of content for its users, the comcast site---would you pay just to have that? I would not---without the present structure the web becomes worhtless to me and millions of other users---it is just a bad business model to contemplate because it leaves you wide open for easy competition to drown you.

Technology already has a thousand different ways to subvert what they want to do---the easiest would be web service from out of the country--and don't forget that this conversation could be irrellavant in a year when they add internet connections through your power grid---going even faster. just plug right in---crazy what them kids come up with...

sorry so long...you gotta know your facts when debating with johnT

Yes... and there were no "facts" in what you said, other than the fact that a certain subsegment of communications technology, that dependent upon the electromagnetic spectrum, is dependent upon government regulation and actual ownership of the "medium". With airborne transmissions in the electromagnetic spectrum it was difficult (and impossible) to determine a measure of property rights in the 1920's. That is very true.

However, that is irrelevant to this discussion.

The public ownership of the electromagnetic spectrum is not the case with the Internet, nor is it the case with 802.11 broadcasts. Again, for the umpteenth time, the Internet, ALL OF IT, was privatized on April 30, 1995. Wireless broadcasts in some spectrums of a certain range (I can't recall, but I think it's less than 500 feet) are not fully regulated by the government other than interference issues (which are regulated all to hellanback): wireless keylocks, garage door openers, TV remotes, and wireless 802.11 internet connections are not regulated (or "owned" or "sold") in the manner that radio and TV spectrums are.

The idea that "Comcast" would only limit you to the "Comcast" site is silly. The people promoting this idea are the very for-profit companies that many on this board would decry in other threads. Politics makes for strange bedfellows and all, but the parroting of the Microsoft corporate line here is kind of embarrassing. ;)

Youtube is a spyware site, designed to load your computer with malware. I don't understand the part about "subsidized" - of course they are not, unless you count their investors money. That, too, is a form of subsidy - just subsidy by Venture Capitalist. ;)

Lastly... who is going to install internet connections through the power grid? Why? And with what money?

And why are you crowing that your internet connection might be owned by the likes of Enron and Exxon? How is that an improvement over Comcast?

[spinetingler]

Lastly... who is going to install internet connections through the power grid? Why? And with what money?


http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,69271,00.html
http://www.networkmagazineindia.com/200208/focus3.shtml
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,69029,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_7
http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1997/12/15/54.asp
http://www.6power.org/noticias_ipv6.php

[James]

Yes... and there were no "facts" in what you said, other than the fact that a certain subsegment of communications technology, that dependent upon the electromagnetic spectrum, is dependent upon government regulation and actual ownership of the "medium". With airborne transmissions in the electromagnetic spectrum it was difficult (and impossible) to determine a measure of property rights in the 1920's. That is very true.

However, that is irrelevant to this discussion.

The public ownership of the electromagnetic spectrum is not the case with the Internet, nor is it the case with 802.11 broadcasts. Again, for the umpteenth time, the Internet, ALL OF IT, was privatized on April 30, 1995. Wireless broadcasts in some spectrums of a certain range (I can't recall, but I think it's less than 500 feet) are not fully regulated by the government other than interference issues (which are regulated all to hellanback): wireless keylocks, garage door openers, TV remotes, and wireless 802.11 internet connections are not regulated (or "owned" or "sold") in the manner that radio and TV spectrums are.

The idea that "Comcast" would only limit you to the "Comcast" site is silly. The people promoting this idea are the very for-profit companies that many on this board would decry in other threads. Politics makes for strange bedfellows and all, but the parroting of the Microsoft corporate line here is kind of embarrassing. ;)

Youtube is a spyware site, designed to load your computer with malware. I don't understand the part about "subsidized" - of course they are not, unless you count their investors money. That, too, is a form of subsidy - just subsidy by Venture Capitalist. ;)

Lastly... who is going to install internet connections through the power grid? Why? And with what money?

And why are you crowing that your internet connection might be owned by the likes of Enron and Exxon? How is that an improvement over Comcast?
Are you sure you weren't a lawyer in another life? :D