[ale] Ale Digest, Vol 86, Issue 8

Jim Kinney jkinney at jimkinney.us
Mon Mar 9 18:17:31 EDT 2015


Excellent example and explanation!

Here's hoping the non-abuse of customers gets promoted and the abuse of customers get strongly slapped down.

I would actual buy cable tv again if I could get the 5 or 6 channels we ever watched for closer to $25/mo instead $100/mo.

On March 9, 2015 6:10:32 PM EDT, Allan Richardson <jallan32 at att.net> wrote:
>Let's go back to the 19th century for a minute.  You own a railroad 
>(call it Railroad A); there is a steel mill in city X, and a coal mine 
>in city Y.  You make money hauling coal from Y to X at a market 
>determined rate (the steel mill gets its iron ore from somewhere else
>on 
>another railroad), and hauling steel from X to many places, and the
>coal 
>mine, steel mill and iron ore mine make money. Everybody's happy.
>
>Then you see a chance to buy a bankrupt coal mine in city Z, which is a
>
>bit farther from X than Y is from X, so your freight hauling rates for 
>coal from /your/// mine in Z to the steel mill in X are higher than
>what 
>you have been charging from Y to X, so the steel mill continues to buy 
>from Y rather than Z.  But since your railroad and your coal mine are 
>parts of the same company, you can instead haul freight from /your/
>coal 
>mine at Z to the steel mill at X at a /loss/, and make up the
>difference 
>by stealing business from Y, who does /not/ have the advantage of his 
>own railroad going to X.  For reasons like this, the Congress back in 
>the 1880s created the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission) and 
>designated the railroads as /common carriers/, meaning that they must 
>publish a price for hauling commodity C from X to Y or from Y to X, 
>known as a /tariff/, and charge /all/ customers, including subsidiaries
>
>of the railroads, according to the same tariffs.  Or better yet, 
>railroads should not /own/ other business which are customers of the 
>railroad.
>
>This same philosophy was extended in the 20th century to trucks, 
>airlines, bus lines and telephone/telegraph lines (not sure about river
>
>barges): if your business is carrying it, you have to treat the cargo 
>(or passengers or messages) of your own subsidiaries (if you have any) 
>the same as any other customers' cargo (or passengers or messages).  
>With some exceptions and modifications, this has worked well in those 
>businesses, and /informally/ the internet carriers have followed the 
>same practice until the last few years. The new regulations do not 
>involve government telling internet relaying organizations or last-mile
>
>ISP carriers how to do their business, only how /not/ to do it: namely,
>
>putting a web based business owned by someone else at a disadvantage,
>or 
>out of business, in favor of a competing web based business owned by
>the 
>internet carrier.
>
>If a Comcast owned video rental download business had to compete fairly
>
>with Netflix, or with a company which might become the next Netflix, 
>rather than loading the outside customer with extra charges to avoid 
>fatally slow delivery of its products, this would encourage innovation 
>rather than stifle it. /Allowing/ ISP manipulation of the speed and
>time 
>delay of its service on the basis of /who/ the customer is, would 
>effectively stifle /anyone other than/ Comcast, AT&T, etc. from being 
>able to create innovative products.
>
>Almon Strowger's funeral home business suffered when his competitor's 
>wife became the town telephone operator and switched funeral customers 
>to her husband's business.  He invented the rotary dial and stepper 
>switch to fix that problem.  Let's continue to honor his memory.
>
>Allan Richardson
>
>On 3/9/2015 12:00 PM, ale-request at ale.org wrote:
>> Send Ale mailing list submissions to
>> 	ale at ale.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> 	http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> 	ale-request at ale.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> 	ale-owner at ale.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Ale digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>     1. Re: Republicans? ?Internet Freedom Act? would wipe out net
>>        neutrality | Ars Technica (Damon L. Chesser)
>>     2. Re: Republicans? ?Internet Freedom Act? would wipe out net
>>        neutrality | Ars Technica (DJ-Pfulio)
>>     3. Re: Republicans? ?Internet Freedom Act? would wipe out net
>>        neutrality | Ars Technica (Paul Cartwright)
>>     4. Re: Republicans? ?Internet Freedom Act? would wipe out net
>>        neutrality | Ars Technica (DJ-Pfulio)
>>     5. Re: Republicans? ?Internet Freedom Act? would wipe out net
>>        neutrality | Ars Technica (Jim Kinney)
>>     6. Re: Republicans? ?Internet Freedom Act? would wipe out net
>>        neutrality | Ars Technica (Solomon Peachy)
>>     7. Re: Republicans? ?Internet Freedom Act? would wipe out net
>>        neutrality | Ars Technica (Robert Reese)
>>     8. Re: Republicans? ?Internet Freedom Act? would wipe out net
>>        neutrality | Ars Technica (Robert Reese)
>>     9. Re: Republicans? ?Internet Freedom Act? would wipe out net
>>        neutrality | Ars Technica (Robert Reese)
>>    10. Re: Republicans? ?Internet Freedom Act? would wipe out net
>>        neutrality | Ars Technica (Paul Cartwright)
>>    11. Re: Republicans? ?Internet Freedom Act? would wipe out net
>>        neutrality | Ars Technica (Brian Mathis)
>>    12. Re: Linux-like gui text editor for MacOS? (Chad Huneycutt)
>>
>>
>>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 12:16:51 -0400
>> From: "Damon L. Chesser" <damon at damtek.com>
>> To: ale at ale.org
>> Subject: Re: [ale] Republicans? ?Internet Freedom Act? would wipe out
>> 	net neutrality | Ars Technica
>> Message-ID: <54FC75F3.7030200 at damtek.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
>>
>> Like the other poster, I don't see a monopoly.  I jump from comcast
>to
>> AT at T as it suites me.  I could go dish if I want.  You can go digital
>TV
>> over the air with a very minimal investment for 100% free delivery. 
>Of
>> course, I don't subscribe to ANYBODIES tv content, only Internet
>> service.  But seeing as how  you can watch so much junk on the
>Internet,
>> via smart TVs, via providers like Crackle, HBO, Hulu, etc, where is
>the
>> monopoly?
>>
>> Does not Comcast have a right to say who will use their circuit and
>for
>> how much?  And your contract with Hulu has nothing to do with Hulo's
>> contract with Comcast.  Don't like them?  Dump them.  Here is a news
>> flash:  Cable TV is a dying bread as more and more people cut the
>wire.
>>
>> As more and more people cut the wire, the costs keep getting added to
>> the less and less and the profits are actually rising with a
>decreasing
>> subscriber base.  It's crazy.  smaller and smaller groups say they
>> "NEED" the tv cable and there is  no way around it.  News flash: 
>stop
>> watching cable TV and the need for paying for less goes away.  NO
>> federal law required.  No dualopoly, or "open market" required. 
>People
>> just are not using cable any more and the market is going away.
>>
>>
>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-19/u-s-pay-tv-subscriptions-fall-for-first-time-as-streaming-gains
>>
>> and I totally fail to see how separating out "content providers" from
>> "creators" would do anything other than make it more expensive to
>> "create content".
>>
>> If you don't like them, don't pay for them.  That is what I do and it
>is
>> working quite well, for me.  I only pay for Internet service and I
>jump
>> ship at the tiniest provocation on to the next provider.
>>
>>
>> On 03/08/2015 10:57 AM, Pete Hardie wrote:
>>> Comcast being ISP and content creator is part of the problem.  They
>>> will prioritize their content over someone else's ,and since they
>have
>>> a monopoly on delivery, it is de facto unfair
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Byron Jeff
>>> <byronjeff at mail.clayton.edu <mailto:byronjeff at mail.clayton.edu>>
>wrote:
>>>
>>>      On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 07:41:27AM -0400, DJ-Pfulio wrote:
>>>      > I lived in Houston before moving here - not in a baby-bell
>area.
>>>      My phone was
>>>      > $11/month.  Moved to Smyrna - BellSouth - $26/month.
>>>      >
>>>      > 'nuff said.
>>>      >
>>>
>>>      Standard land line. How quaint!
>>>
>>>      VOIP and Google Voice has deregulated this market already. I
>have a
>>>      Callcentric DID with E911 service for $4.50 a month. Incoming
>>>      calls routed
>>>      in via GV. By virtualizing my home number, I never have to
>worry
>>>      about that
>>>      number being tied to a particular provider ever again. If I
>ever
>>>      give up my
>>>      AT&T cell service, I'll do exactly the same with my cell
>number.
>>>
>>>      > Don't get me started about power issues where I lived in
>Houston.
>>>      >
>>>      > Comcast needs to be broken up, but not in the same way that
>AT*T
>>>      was. More like
>>>      > how natural gas has been deregulated in Georgia.
>>>
>>>      There isn't a direct correlation between the two. The primary
>>>      difference is
>>>      the fact that natural gas is exactly the same no matter who's
>>>      marketing it.
>>>      However with digital content, each provider offers different
>>>      content that
>>>      has to be delivered. Comcast has comcast only content that
>neither
>>>      Charter,
>>>      AT&T, or Dish offers. So instead of GNG, which can centralize
>all gas
>>>      delivery operations for every marketer using the same
>>>      infrastructure, in
>>>      your proposed scenario each provider would have to have a
>>>      connection to the
>>>      head end of the delivery provider and the delivery provider
>would
>>>      have to
>>>      carry enough bandwidth to deliver every content providers
>content
>>>      at the
>>>      same time.
>>>
>>>      Don't you think there will be a cost attached to that? One of
>the
>>>      reasons I
>>>      finally turned off my natural gas service was the fact that GNG
>was
>>>      charging me nearly $40/month simply for the priviledge of
>>>      providing gas to
>>>      my meter. No matter if it's 1 therm or 100, the base delivery
>and
>>>      tax was a
>>>      $40+ base. Can you imagine how much a centralized content
>delivery
>>>      provider
>>>      would charge simply for access?
>>>
>>>      How exactly is the market closed? Right now I can get Comcast
>(which I
>>>      would never do, long story), AT&T UVerse, Dish, and DirectTV.
>In
>>>      fact in
>>>      the last 5 years I've had service with each of the above and
>>>      except for
>>>      Dish I've kicked each and every one of them to the curb at one
>>>      point in
>>>      time or another. There's nothing to preclude Verizon or Google
>from
>>>      entering the fray.
>>>
>>>      Comparing digital content delivery to natural gas deregulation
>is
>>>      an apples
>>>      to gorillas argument, seems to me.
>>>
>>>      BAJ
>>>
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      > On 03/07/2015 04:24 PM, Jim Lynch wrote:
>>>      > > The Judge made my life harder.  Before his ruling, I picked
>up
>>>      the phone and
>>>      > > called AT&T when the network wasn't working. It got fixed.
>>>      Afterwards, I
>>>      > > called AT&T and after a bit, they told me it wasn't their
>>>      problem, so I called
>>>      > > Racal Milgo and guess what?  It wasn't their problem
>either.
>>>      It took 2x 3x
>>>      > > maybe 4x the amount of time to get the network back.
>>>      > >
>>>      > > Progress...
>>>      > > On 03/07/2015 04:14 PM, James Taylor wrote:
>>>      > >> Now you're making us all feel old....
>>>      > >> -jt
>>>      > >
>>>      > _______________________________________________
>>>      > Ale mailing list
>>>      > Ale at ale.org <mailto:Ale at ale.org>
>>>      > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>>      > See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>>>      > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>>
>>>      --
>>>      Byron A. Jeff
>>>      Chair: Department of Computer Science and Information
>Technology
>>>      College of Information and Mathematical Sciences
>>>      Clayton State University
>>>      http://faculty.clayton.edu/bjeff
>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>      Ale mailing list
>>>      Ale at ale.org <mailto:Ale at ale.org>
>>>      http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>>      See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>>>      http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Pete Hardie
>>> --------
>>> Better Living Through Bitmaps
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ale mailing list
>>> Ale at ale.org
>>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>http://www.avast.com
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ale mailing list
>Ale at ale.org
>http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20150309/9489fb76/attachment.html>


More information about the Ale mailing list