Hooray for capitalism!

[Thrillhouse]

Big business is trying to kill the internet as we know it, just to milk it for all it's worth. Bastards. Of course, what would one expect from the cable companies?

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6600/view/print

 

[Stout chap]

Oh shush. Didn't you know money is more important than anything else in life? If it hasn't got a hefty monetary value attached to it, it's useless. The internet? pshaw! let's shut it down and open some Starbucks in the voids.

Stout chap out.

 

[REDWAVE]

Good article

Very informative article there, Thrillhouse. I'd love to see the right-wingers on the board try to respond to it. Are they going to argue in favor of cutting their own throats, along with everyone else?

 

[Stout chap]

Whatever they're in favour of, they don't seem to be all to happy to respond at all! I wonder why.

Stout chap out.

 

[Spinaroonie]

They already throttle high bandwith users or block ports that are used by P2P programs.

It'll just make more people switch to DSL.

 

[Aquila]

Right winger here.

I would not like to see this happen at all. will it happen? yes.
the only way for it NOT to happen is for more people to support the smaller local ISP's and not the larger corporations.

You exercise control of these large corporations by providing them money. take away the money and they will change their policies.

Under a capitolist system (which I love and will always support)
Think of each dollar you spend on a certain company as a "vote"

 

[Carp]

Limited resources are always rationed- the only exception that I can think of is air, and even there, companies are paying fees associated with air polution.

Bandwidth is a resource. It is currently rationed- dialup is cheaper than broadband, 128k dsl is cheaper than 256k, etc. I have no problems with the rationing of bandwidth.

But I also agree with Aquila, we must continue to use the services of small ISPs, to combat big bisunesses attempts to limit access to content, which I see as much more problematic than rationing.

 

[REDWAVE]

My campaign pledge

I promise that, after the revolution, the internet will be free and accessible to all, and those nasty big corporations will no longer even exist!

 

[Thrillhouse]

Limited resources are always rationed- the only exception that I can think of is air, and even there, companies are paying fees associated with air polution.

Bandwidth is a resource. It is currently rationed- dialup is cheaper than broadband, 128k dsl is cheaper than 256k, etc. I have no problems with the rationing of bandwidth.

But I also agree with Aquila, we must continue to use the services of small ISPs, to combat big bisunesses attempts to limit access to content, which I see as much more problematic than rationing.

There is no reason to ration bandwidth. From the article in question:

Mike LaJoie, vice president for advanced technology at AOL-Time Warner told MultiChannel News, "The way that the HFC (hybrid fiber coaxial) architecture works, we never run out of bandwidth," LaJoie said. "We can always split or do other things that will give us the bandwidth that we want, so it really ends up being a desire to provide the best and highest experience for our customers." (See "HD on VOD Searches for Resolution", Multichannel News, 09/30/02) What these statements make clear is that the cable industry's goal for broadband is to monetize bandwidth. By charging a toll for every bit, the industry can simultaneously extract great profits from the new applications that it allows on its networks, as well as restrict access to those that it finds problematic, i.e. those that compete with its own content offerings. In short, the industry finally sees a way to make money online.

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: My campaign pledge

I promise that, after the revolution, the internet will be free and accessible to all, and those nasty big corporations will no longer even exist!

And paid for by?

Heh.

 

[Carp]

There is no reason to ration bandwidth. From the article in question:

Mike LaJoie, vice president for advanced technology at AOL-Time Warner told MultiChannel News, "The way that the HFC (hybrid fiber coaxial) architecture works, we never run out of bandwidth," LaJoie said. "We can always split or do other things that will give us the bandwidth that we want, so it really ends up being a desire to provide the best and highest experience for our customers." (See "HD on VOD Searches for Resolution", Multichannel News, 09/30/02) What these statements make clear is that the cable industry's goal for broadband is to monetize bandwidth. By charging a toll for every bit, the industry can simultaneously extract great profits from the new applications that it allows on its networks, as well as restrict access to those that it finds problematic, i.e. those that compete with its own content offerings. In short, the industry finally sees a way to make money online.

It's great to talk about how, in the future, some resource will be unlimited, and that "when that great day comes, it will be free for all." Reality, however, bites. That great day never arrives, because someone has to pay to develop this new, magical technology, then to put the infrastructre in place, etc, etc, etc. Who wants to do this, when there is no return?, or, to quote JMJ, "And paid for by?"

 

[Thrillhouse]

Is philanthropy dead, or just mortally wounded?

 

[Unclebill]

Re: My campaign pledge

Is philanthropy dead, or just mortally wounded?

Government is smothering it with regulation and taxation.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: Good article

Very informative article there, Thrillhouse. I'd love to see the right-wingers on the board try to respond to it. Are they going to argue in favor of cutting their own throats, along with everyone else?

I plan to respond to this as soon as I have time to read the entire article. Right now, I am working a little bit and can't concentrate on it appropriately.

 

[A Desert Rose]

I read this. It was boring, it was dry and it took me 3 reads.

Pricing: As the way the free market works, the company with the best price and best business practices, wins out and that is, if the scenario in this essay even comes to be.

Why does the communications industry want "to kill the internet as we know it?" Restrict the internet and those companies will be cutting their own throats. Don't think for a moment that other smaller, cheaper and just as effective businesses won't come along and draw a crowd of customers.

In sum, the Internet as we now know it -- and its revolutionary promise -- may soon pass into the history books. In the absence of public policy safeguards, the emerging pricing and control structures will fundamentally change the kinds of information -- and way it’s delivered -- on the Internet. The ramifications extend far beyond the quarterly reports and shareholder earnings for the nation’s telecommunications corporations.

"Public policy safeguards" are buzz words for more government control. In a well working free enterprise society, the government stays out of the private sector and lets business take its course.

I for one, do not buy into this doom and gloom picture that the article puts forth. But I could be wrong and we could all be destined to lose a lot of porn in the process. LOL