carriers and content

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thing2, Nov 20, 2005.

  1. thing2

    thing2 Guest

    http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673

    Reading this I can begin to see (I believe) why we are seeing changes to
    terms and conditions for Clear/Paradise etc. The carriers are wanting to
    become content providers in a walled garden. No longer satisfied with
    providing a utility, they want to dump the freeloaders (people who use
    only their base service) for those users who they can make extras on.
    Extras that cost them little but have high or very high margins.

    So when we see lines in contracts like, "if you complain to/about us or
    or partners spamming you, we can simply disconnect you". It is just
    that, a "freeloader" is in their walled garden and if that "freeloader"
    objects and wants freedom, they get kicked offline....no ifs no buts no
    legal re-dress.....

    So instaed of entering a golden age of the Internet, in fact we could
    well be seeing the beginning of the end of it.

    Like TV, mine failed a month ago, I dont miss it.....

    So the Q is what do we do?

    1) Lobby the Govn? Govn generally seem to dislike the freedom the
    Internet gives its citizens, on balance I expect absolutley nothing.

    2) Give up and find something else to do? seems probable.

    3) Abandon broadband and go back to limited hours dial up because that
    is all the walled garden will be worth?

    4) BBS again?

    5) Community wi-fi? quite possible, citylink seem to think as a utility,
    so I for one just need to get to a peering level...not that it gets me
    that much further i still need an ISP to get out. Whether that attitude
    will remain if and when they get bought out remains to be seen....

    6) ?

    regards

    thing
    thing2, Nov 20, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. thing2

    Rob J Guest

    In article <>, y
    says...
    > http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
    >
    > Reading this I can begin to see (I believe) why we are seeing changes to
    > terms and conditions for Clear/Paradise etc. The carriers are wanting to
    > become content providers in a walled garden. No longer satisfied with
    > providing a utility, they want to dump the freeloaders (people who use
    > only their base service) for those users who they can make extras on.
    > Extras that cost them little but have high or very high margins.


    It's a free market - and you have a choice.

    If you don't like Telstra - pay $$$ more to a niche provider who will
    give you the service you want.

    Are you some sort of moron, everyone wants cheaper prices and prices
    keep dropping. Once upon a time I paid around $40 for my flat rate
    dialup, it is now $15. The whingers and malcontents whined loud and long
    on here about Orcon's service, but at the end of the day they were all
    mean spirited tightfists expecting something for nothing.

    How do you expect the ISPs to keep providing service with their income
    shrinking? By cutting costs, of course.
    Rob J, Nov 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. thing2

    steve Guest

    thing2 wrote:

    > So the Q is what do we do?
    >
    > 1) Lobby the Govn? Govn generally seem to dislike the freedom the
    > Internet gives its citizens, on balance I expect absolutley nothing.


    You could vote Green....as the Greens are the most committed party where
    freedom and democracy are concerned.

    The other parties talk about it. The Greens actually DO it.

    Note how the OTHERS laugh and ridicule the Greens for being so determinedly
    democratic and inclusive.

    > 2) Give up and find something else to do? seems probable.


    Always worth having a backup option.

    Or how about an open-source network? Composed of links supplied by freely
    associating citizens?

    Connect your property / dwelling from one boundary to the other - and
    encourage your neighbour to do the same. Richard Naylor is a champion of
    the "Just DO it!" school of citizen networking.
    steve, Nov 20, 2005
    #3
  4. thing2

    Rob J Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > thing2 wrote:
    >
    > > So the Q is what do we do?
    > >
    > > 1) Lobby the Govn? Govn generally seem to dislike the freedom the
    > > Internet gives its citizens, on balance I expect absolutley nothing.

    >
    > You could vote Green....as the Greens are the most committed party where
    > freedom and democracy are concerned.
    >
    > The other parties talk about it. The Greens actually DO it.


    They don't do anything. They only have 5% of the vote. Just pretend
    they're not there, just like the Alliance, no probs.

    > Note how the OTHERS laugh and ridicule the Greens for being so determinedly
    > democratic and inclusive.


    Nah. Blink and you'd miss them> All the ideology means bugger all when
    they can't achieve anything.
    Rob J, Nov 20, 2005
    #4
  5. thing2

    steve Guest

    Rob J wrote:

    > It's a free market - and you have a choice.
    >
    > If you don't like Telstra - pay $$$ more to a niche provider who will
    > give you the service you want.
    >


    There's Rob J - going in to bat for the monopoly, multi-billion dollar,
    customer-raping "underdog".

    Yet again.

    You should read the article posted......
    steve, Nov 20, 2005
    #5
  6. thing2

    steve Guest

    Rob J wrote:

    > Nah. Blink and you'd miss them> All the ideology means bugger all when
    > they can't achieve anything.


    Now if ever there was someone worth ignoring.....You'd be him.
    steve, Nov 20, 2005
    #6
  7. thing2

    shannon Guest

    Rob J wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >> thing2 wrote:
    >>
    >>> So the Q is what do we do?
    >>>
    >>> 1) Lobby the Govn? Govn generally seem to dislike the freedom the
    >>> Internet gives its citizens, on balance I expect absolutley nothing.

    >> You could vote Green....as the Greens are the most committed party where
    >> freedom and democracy are concerned.
    >>
    >> The other parties talk about it. The Greens actually DO it.

    >
    > They don't do anything. They only have 5% of the vote. Just pretend
    > they're not there, just like the Alliance, no probs.
    >
    >> Note how the OTHERS laugh and ridicule the Greens for being so determinedly
    >> democratic and inclusive.

    >
    > Nah. Blink and you'd miss them> All the ideology means bugger all when
    > they can't achieve anything.
    >


    They achieved MMP before they even got elected, and even Gerry Brownlee
    sorts his recycling now.
    shannon, Nov 20, 2005
    #7
  8. thing2

    -=rjh=- Guest

    thing2 wrote:
    > http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
    >
    > Reading this I can begin to see (I believe) why we are seeing changes to
    > terms and conditions for Clear/Paradise etc. The carriers are wanting to
    > become content providers in a walled garden.


    I think they've always wanted to do that - they've deliberately tried to
    keep the 'net asymetrical. Berners-Lee had always envisioned that the
    web in particular would be symetrical, and was disappointed that only
    one web browser ever made it as easy to publish as to read.

    Things have been changing very fast recently, with the rise of online
    publishing made easier for many people.

    Buried well down Doc Searls' article is the link to an old article that
    is still very relevant:

    http://www.eff.org/Misc/Publications/John_Perry_Barlow/HTML/death_from_above.html

    which goes some way to explaining why 128kbs upstream ADSL might not
    just be a technical issue (if indeed it ever was) but is an ideological
    issue for all concerned. And one that the CC totally fails to appreciate.

    Imagine if the entire internet was like Vodafone Live! That's where the
    carriers would like this to be headed. I feel sick just thinking about it.
    -=rjh=-, Nov 20, 2005
    #8
  9. thing2

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Rob J wrote:
    > In article <>, y
    > says...
    >
    >>http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
    >>
    >>Reading this I can begin to see (I believe) why we are seeing changes to
    >>terms and conditions for Clear/Paradise etc. The carriers are wanting to
    >>become content providers in a walled garden. No longer satisfied with
    >>providing a utility, they want to dump the freeloaders (people who use
    >>only their base service) for those users who they can make extras on.
    >>Extras that cost them little but have high or very high margins.

    >
    >
    > It's a free market - and you have a choice.


    Yeah, right. In NZ, if you want ADSL, it is Telecom all the way.

    >
    > If you don't like Telstra - pay $$$ more to a niche provider who will
    > give you the service you want.
    >
    > Are you some sort of moron, everyone wants cheaper prices and prices
    > keep dropping. Once upon a time I paid around $40 for my flat rate
    > dialup, it is now $15. The whingers and malcontents whined loud and long
    > on here about Orcon's service, but at the end of the day they were all
    > mean spirited tightfists expecting something for nothing.


    There were serious issues with the suddenly degraded service provided to
    Orcon by Telecom; I don't think any of the discussion here mentioned
    price at all, only the service. Orcon doesn't differentiate itself on price.

    >
    > How do you expect the ISPs to keep providing service with their income
    > shrinking? By cutting costs, of course.


    Maybe you should read the article? The discussion is about carriers, not
    ISPs.
    -=rjh=-, Nov 20, 2005
    #9
  10. thing2

    Rob J Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Rob J wrote:
    >
    > > It's a free market - and you have a choice.
    > >
    > > If you don't like Telstra - pay $$$ more to a niche provider who will
    > > give you the service you want.
    > >

    >
    > There's Rob J - going in to bat for the monopoly, multi-billion dollar,
    > customer-raping "underdog".
    >
    > Yet again.
    >
    > You should read the article posted......


    I read what you said. Just a thread hijack for your favourite political
    party, who don't do much other than sit on their asses in Parliament and
    prattle on about their high minded principles and stuff.

    Everyone including you, because you're an Orcon customer, go for the
    cheapest deal they can get, and you think there's no connection between
    price and standard of service? LOL.
    Rob J, Nov 20, 2005
    #10
  11. thing2

    Rob J Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Rob J wrote:
    >
    > > Nah. Blink and you'd miss them> All the ideology means bugger all when
    > > they can't achieve anything.

    >
    > Now if ever there was someone worth ignoring.....You'd be him.


    Obviously not.
    Rob J, Nov 20, 2005
    #11
  12. thing2

    Rob J Guest

    In article <4380f7bf$>, says...
    > Rob J wrote:
    > > In article <>, y
    > > says...
    > >
    > >>http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
    > >>
    > >>Reading this I can begin to see (I believe) why we are seeing changes to
    > >>terms and conditions for Clear/Paradise etc. The carriers are wanting to
    > >>become content providers in a walled garden. No longer satisfied with
    > >>providing a utility, they want to dump the freeloaders (people who use
    > >>only their base service) for those users who they can make extras on.
    > >>Extras that cost them little but have high or very high margins.

    > >
    > >
    > > It's a free market - and you have a choice.

    >
    > Yeah, right. In NZ, if you want ADSL, it is Telecom all the way.


    Who says you have to buy ADSL?

    > > If you don't like Telstra - pay $$$ more to a niche provider who will
    > > give you the service you want.
    > >
    > > Are you some sort of moron, everyone wants cheaper prices and prices
    > > keep dropping. Once upon a time I paid around $40 for my flat rate
    > > dialup, it is now $15. The whingers and malcontents whined loud and long
    > > on here about Orcon's service, but at the end of the day they were all
    > > mean spirited tightfists expecting something for nothing.

    >
    > There were serious issues with the suddenly degraded service provided to
    > Orcon by Telecom; I don't think any of the discussion here mentioned
    > price at all, only the service. Orcon doesn't differentiate itself on price.


    Orcon offered more bang for the buck than any other ISP when they first
    made their big push into the residential market a couple of years back.
    Right now their home broadband deal is one of the cheapest around, 236kb
    for $29.95


    > > How do you expect the ISPs to keep providing service with their income
    > > shrinking? By cutting costs, of course.

    >
    > Maybe you should read the article? The discussion is about carriers, not
    > ISPs.


    The discussion is about how the internet is all going commercial and is
    never going to be as "cheap" as it is now.

    And Mr Thingummy stuck in his oar about how ISPs like Telstra were
    slinging off the cheapass customers that they weren't making money out
    of.
    Rob J, Nov 20, 2005
    #12
  13. thing2

    shannon Guest

    thing2 wrote:
    > http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
    >
    > Reading this I can begin to see (I believe) why we are seeing changes to
    > terms and conditions for Clear/Paradise etc. The carriers are wanting to
    > become content providers in a walled garden. No longer satisfied with
    > providing a utility, they want to dump the freeloaders (people who use
    > only their base service) for those users who they can make extras on.
    > Extras that cost them little but have high or very high margins.
    >
    > So when we see lines in contracts like, "if you complain to/about us or
    > or partners spamming you, we can simply disconnect you". It is just
    > that, a "freeloader" is in their walled garden and if that "freeloader"
    > objects and wants freedom, they get kicked offline....no ifs no buts no
    > legal re-dress.....
    >
    > So instaed of entering a golden age of the Internet, in fact we could
    > well be seeing the beginning of the end of it.
    >
    > Like TV, mine failed a month ago, I dont miss it.....
    >
    > So the Q is what do we do?



    We just carry on blogging and podcasting and creating and consuming
    content as fast as we can.
    Thats the workaround, using the back channel to upload content only once
    to those who slap a little ad on it and serve it out to others download
    pipes.

    Your comment about your tv says it really, with cable tv and a video
    rental place down the road there still isn't enough content, I find
    myself buying series box sets on amazon and using up my 10GB in about 3
    or 4 days on torrents.

    The comment from the SBC exec that started Doc Searls fretting is from
    the previous "bomber generation" thinkers that JP Barlow described.
    They think they can get the worms back in the can, theres just no way,
    Its being described like the internet is a system of pipes by the SBC
    guy, and as a place by the essay writer, its like Marco Polo's
    descriptions in Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities, same place, different
    POV.
    In my description, the internet is information, its mental process and
    it is impossible for it to get smaller or slower If SBC can't keep up
    they will have to stay out of the way.
    They may be able to find some way of shaking down content providers for
    a small toll, but ultimately they will be outflanked.
    shannon, Nov 20, 2005
    #13
  14. thing2

    Mutlley Guest

    thing2 <> wrote:


    >5) Community wi-fi? quite possible, citylink seem to think as a utility,
    > so I for one just need to get to a peering level...not that it gets me
    >that much further i still need an ISP to get out. Whether that attitude
    >will remain if and when they get bought out remains to be seen....
    >


    Sounds like a good idea. But how long do you think before the
    existing carriers and ISPs complain to the GVT about unfair
    competition and want them closed down..
    Mutlley, Nov 20, 2005
    #14
  15. thing2

    thing2 Guest

    Rob J wrote:
    > In article <>, y
    > says...
    >
    >>http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
    >>
    >>Reading this I can begin to see (I believe) why we are seeing changes to
    >>terms and conditions for Clear/Paradise etc. The carriers are wanting to
    >>become content providers in a walled garden. No longer satisfied with
    >>providing a utility, they want to dump the freeloaders (people who use
    >>only their base service) for those users who they can make extras on.
    >>Extras that cost them little but have high or very high margins.

    >
    >
    > It's a free market - and you have a choice.


    Dogma and distorted ideaology will be your un-doing.

    The problem is I do not have a free choice, it is not a free market, it
    is a duopoly at best.

    There is only one cable provider, if I move to ADSL I will also pay for
    calls to kapiti where at present they are free.

    > If you don't like Telstra - pay $$$ more to a niche provider who will
    > give you the service you want.
    >
    > Are you some sort of moron,


    An offensive d*ckhead I dont need get a life.

    everyone wants cheaper prices and prices
    > keep dropping.


    The thrust of my points are, we loose the freedom to go and to look at
    what we want in an un-distorted way.

    Once upon a time I paid around $40 for my flat rate
    > dialup, it is now $15.


    A commodity should drop in price, a sign of competition, hence one of my
    options to move back to dial up, there the carrier is of no matter, I
    can choose any ISP I want.

    The whingers and malcontents whined loud and long
    > on here about Orcon's service, but at the end of the day they were all
    > mean spirited tightfists expecting something for nothing.


    I never mentioned Orcon, what I did mention was the trends I am reading
    about in the US and how Clear's terms of conditions would seem to point
    the same way.

    > How do you expect the ISPs to keep providing service with their income
    > shrinking? By cutting costs, of course.


    You obviously are mentally challenged not to be able to see what I am
    talking about, I suggest you give up reading any of my posts.

    regards

    Thing
    thing2, Nov 20, 2005
    #15
  16. thing2

    thing2 Guest

    steve wrote:
    > thing2 wrote:
    >
    >
    >>So the Q is what do we do?
    >>
    >>1) Lobby the Govn? Govn generally seem to dislike the freedom the
    >>Internet gives its citizens, on balance I expect absolutley nothing.

    >
    >
    > You could vote Green....as the Greens are the most committed party where
    > freedom and democracy are concerned.


    I did, and did so last time, though it was a choice of lesser evils ie
    vote green to get them in and keep them there thus denying National,
    rather than voting labour/centre.

    > The other parties talk about it. The Greens actually DO it.
    >
    > Note how the OTHERS laugh and ridicule the Greens for being so determinedly
    > democratic and inclusive.
    >
    >
    >>2) Give up and find something else to do? seems probable.

    >
    >
    > Always worth having a backup option.
    >
    > Or how about an open-source network? Composed of links supplied by freely
    > associating citizens?


    I have a lot of time for RN.

    regards

    Thing

    > Connect your property / dwelling from one boundary to the other - and
    > encourage your neighbour to do the same. Richard Naylor is a champion of
    > the "Just DO it!" school of citizen networking.
    >
    >
    thing2, Nov 20, 2005
    #16
  17. thing2

    thing2 Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:
    > thing2 wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
    >>
    >> Reading this I can begin to see (I believe) why we are seeing changes
    >> to terms and conditions for Clear/Paradise etc. The carriers are
    >> wanting to become content providers in a walled garden.

    >
    >
    > I think they've always wanted to do that - they've deliberately tried to
    > keep the 'net asymetrical. Berners-Lee had always envisioned that the
    > web in particular would be symetrical, and was disappointed that only
    > one web browser ever made it as easy to publish as to read.
    >
    > Things have been changing very fast recently, with the rise of online
    > publishing made easier for many people.
    >
    > Buried well down Doc Searls' article is the link to an old article that
    > is still very relevant:
    >
    > http://www.eff.org/Misc/Publications/John_Perry_Barlow/HTML/death_from_above.html
    >
    >
    > which goes some way to explaining why 128kbs upstream ADSL might not
    > just be a technical issue (if indeed it ever was) but is an ideological
    > issue for all concerned. And one that the CC totally fails to appreciate.
    >
    > Imagine if the entire internet was like Vodafone Live! That's where the
    > carriers would like this to be headed. I feel sick just thinking about it.


    "dropping explosives on people from commanding heights served as a great
    place to develop a world view compatible with the management of a large
    post-war corporation."

    Hmmm the big difference between a soldier and a bomber pilot is you dont
    see whom or how many people you kill, you are really removed from the
    face of death, unless a fighter pilot spoils your day....

    regards

    Thing
    thing2, Nov 21, 2005
    #17
  18. thing2

    -=rjh=- Guest

    shannon wrote:
    > thing2 wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
    >>
    >> Reading this I can begin to see (I believe) why we are seeing changes
    >> to terms and conditions for Clear/Paradise etc. The carriers are
    >> wanting to become content providers in a walled garden. No longer
    >> satisfied with providing a utility, they want to dump the freeloaders
    >> (people who use only their base service) for those users who they can
    >> make extras on. Extras that cost them little but have high or very
    >> high margins.
    >>
    >> So when we see lines in contracts like, "if you complain to/about us
    >> or or partners spamming you, we can simply disconnect you". It is just
    >> that, a "freeloader" is in their walled garden and if that
    >> "freeloader" objects and wants freedom, they get kicked offline....no
    >> ifs no buts no legal re-dress.....
    >>
    >> So instaed of entering a golden age of the Internet, in fact we could
    >> well be seeing the beginning of the end of it.
    >>
    >> Like TV, mine failed a month ago, I dont miss it.....
    >>
    >> So the Q is what do we do?

    >
    >
    >
    > We just carry on blogging and podcasting and creating and consuming
    > content as fast as we can.
    > Thats the workaround, using the back channel to upload content only once
    > to those who slap a little ad on it and serve it out to others download
    > pipes.
    >


    In some ways, Bob Young (ex RedHat, now lulu.com) has the right idea.

    In a recent interview, he said one of the reasons he set up lulu.com was
    as leverage against copyright law "reform" - if a significant number of
    people other than large publishers have copyright material, it becomes
    harder for the large conglomerates to dictate the terms of any
    "reforms". I think it curently lists about 35,000 titles, and sells
    about 30,000 copies a month. lulu.com allows anybody to publish single
    copies of their own books, for a few dollars. Some of these are just
    awesome; imagine being able to publish a book of your autistic child's
    photographs of bridges, for example - http://www.lulu.com/content/135487
    - as a fundraising venture, without having to deal with the normal
    publishing gatekeepers, who probably wouldn't be interested.

    Same applies here, as you said - it isn't just about connections, but
    also about where the material comes from. Even if you don't have a lot
    to say, maybe in the long run, it is still worth saying it, just to
    establish your future right to publish online. Publish a few photos now
    and then, the occasional blog post.


    > Your comment about your tv says it really, with cable tv and a video
    > rental place down the road there still isn't enough content, I find
    > myself buying series box sets on amazon and using up my 10GB in about 3
    > or 4 days on torrents.
    >
    > The comment from the SBC exec that started Doc Searls fretting is from
    > the previous "bomber generation" thinkers that JP Barlow described.
    > They think they can get the worms back in the can, theres just no way,
    > Its being described like the internet is a system of pipes by the SBC
    > guy, and as a place by the essay writer, its like Marco Polo's
    > descriptions in Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities, same place, different
    > POV.
    > In my description, the internet is information, its mental process and
    > it is impossible for it to get smaller or slower If SBC can't keep up
    > they will have to stay out of the way.
    > They may be able to find some way of shaking down content providers for
    > a small toll, but ultimately they will be outflanked.


    That may be your view, but unfortunately there are a lot of web users
    who don't have any interest in using it as a two-way medium. They see it
    pretty much as a replacement for TV. If that continues, we may well be
    stuffed.
    -=rjh=-, Nov 21, 2005
    #18
  19. thing2

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Rob J wrote:
    > In article <4380f7bf$>, says...
    >
    >>Rob J wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <>, y
    >>>says...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
    >>>>
    >>>>Reading this I can begin to see (I believe) why we are seeing changes to
    >>>>terms and conditions for Clear/Paradise etc. The carriers are wanting to
    >>>>become content providers in a walled garden. No longer satisfied with
    >>>>providing a utility, they want to dump the freeloaders (people who use
    >>>>only their base service) for those users who they can make extras on.
    >>>>Extras that cost them little but have high or very high margins.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>It's a free market - and you have a choice.

    >>
    >>Yeah, right. In NZ, if you want ADSL, it is Telecom all the way.

    >
    >
    > Who says you have to buy ADSL?
    >
    >
    >>>If you don't like Telstra - pay $$$ more to a niche provider who will
    >>>give you the service you want.
    >>>
    >>>Are you some sort of moron, everyone wants cheaper prices and prices
    >>>keep dropping. Once upon a time I paid around $40 for my flat rate
    >>>dialup, it is now $15. The whingers and malcontents whined loud and long
    >>>on here about Orcon's service, but at the end of the day they were all
    >>>mean spirited tightfists expecting something for nothing.

    >>
    >>There were serious issues with the suddenly degraded service provided to
    >>Orcon by Telecom; I don't think any of the discussion here mentioned
    >>price at all, only the service. Orcon doesn't differentiate itself on price.

    >
    >
    > Orcon offered more bang for the buck than any other ISP when they first
    > made their big push into the residential market a couple of years back.
    > Right now their home broadband deal is one of the cheapest around, 236kb
    > for $29.95
    >
    >
    >
    >>>How do you expect the ISPs to keep providing service with their income
    >>>shrinking? By cutting costs, of course.

    >>
    >>Maybe you should read the article? The discussion is about carriers, not
    >>ISPs.

    >
    >
    > The discussion is about how the internet is all going commercial and is
    > never going to be as "cheap" as it is now.


    With all due respect, if you have even glanced at the article, your
    comprehension skills seem to be somewhat limited.

    Thing pointed to a very significant article. Read it. Come back when you
    have something to contribute.
    -=rjh=-, Nov 21, 2005
    #19
  20. thing2

    thing2 Guest

    shannon wrote:
    > thing2 wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
    >>
    >> Reading this I can begin to see (I believe) why we are seeing changes
    >> to terms and conditions for Clear/Paradise etc. The carriers are
    >> wanting to become content providers in a walled garden. No longer
    >> satisfied with providing a utility, they want to dump the freeloaders
    >> (people who use only their base service) for those users who they can
    >> make extras on. Extras that cost them little but have high or very
    >> high margins.
    >>
    >> So when we see lines in contracts like, "if you complain to/about us
    >> or or partners spamming you, we can simply disconnect you". It is just
    >> that, a "freeloader" is in their walled garden and if that
    >> "freeloader" objects and wants freedom, they get kicked offline....no
    >> ifs no buts no legal re-dress.....
    >>
    >> So instaed of entering a golden age of the Internet, in fact we could
    >> well be seeing the beginning of the end of it.
    >>
    >> Like TV, mine failed a month ago, I dont miss it.....
    >>
    >> So the Q is what do we do?

    >
    >
    >
    > We just carry on blogging and podcasting and creating and consuming
    > content as fast as we can.
    > Thats the workaround, using the back channel to upload content only once
    > to those who slap a little ad on it and serve it out to others download
    > pipes.
    >
    > Your comment about your tv says it really, with cable tv and a video
    > rental place down the road there still isn't enough content, I find
    > myself buying series box sets on amazon and using up my 10GB in about 3
    > or 4 days on torrents.
    >
    > The comment from the SBC exec that started Doc Searls fretting is from
    > the previous "bomber generation" thinkers that JP Barlow described.
    > They think they can get the worms back in the can, theres just no way,
    > Its being described like the internet is a system of pipes by the SBC
    > guy, and as a place by the essay writer, its like Marco Polo's
    > descriptions in Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities, same place, different
    > POV.
    > In my description, the internet is information, its mental process and
    > it is impossible for it to get smaller or slower If SBC can't keep up
    > they will have to stay out of the way.
    > They may be able to find some way of shaking down content providers for
    > a small toll, but ultimately they will be outflanked.



    I agree and I disagree.


    I agree.

    Part of what keeps me hopeful is the little bit about MS changing thier
    netbios guts to break samba on service pack releases, within a few daya
    the samba team had reverse engineered the changes and written a fix.........

    MS has not changed this practice though just gotten cuter, ie xml
    extensions....

    Same with this move, they own the backbone and have got cuter.....

    The fact that Paradises's / Clear's terms of connection seem to be
    morfing to along these lines suggests this is quite a possible scenario
    here. Lets face it Clear broke WIX in order to price gouge, so this is
    not that much furtehr a move.

    A friend of mine thinks the future is small agile companies, I tend to
    agrre and think that the same will hapen to the Internet, forced in part
    by these moves. ie consumers make their own "Undernet" so we end up with
    lots of peering communities in a mesh configuration....I hope that
    reults because then we eont need the carrires or their canned content.

    Also of course tehre is Internet2, which will be high speed academic
    networking....we might seee "our" meshes networked using this.

    I disagree

    Because of the establishments wish to control, this is from Governments
    and Corporations and they have the political clout and money and they
    want to keep it. So they all band together and lock us out, big brother
    has arrived.

    In conclusion

    It will come down to the likes of the battle of samba v MS, as long as
    "we" can work around the road blocks the big boys put in place we will
    continue to win because we will be far far more agile. Their biggest
    problem will be responding in a covert way which will take time, if they
    go overt then like Sony they will get strung up....

    You raise a good point, "the Internet is information" it is vastly more
    than canned content and hugely distributed so difficult to control that
    is an advantage to us.......

    regards

    thing
    thing2, Nov 21, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joe Matuscak

    Bonded T1s from different carriers?

    Joe Matuscak, Jan 3, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    499
    Joe Matuscak
    Jan 3, 2006
  2. Burt Gummer
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    945
    Charlie Root
    Feb 10, 2006
  3. {{{{{Welcome}}}}}
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    454
    {{{{{Welcome}}}}}
    Feb 25, 2005
  4. Mark  Phillips

    Blocked Content _this content not availabe at this time?

    Mark Phillips, Dec 10, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    434
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    Dec 11, 2006
  5. Nick Mackechnie

    carriers and content

    Nick Mackechnie, Nov 22, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    355
    Nick Mackechnie
    Nov 22, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page