Comments Posted By CosmoReaxer
Displaying 1 To 5 Of 5 Comments

HUGH HEWITT: KOOL AID DRINKER OR SAGE OF SAGES?

I'm going with Kool Aid drinker. Hugh's got a great show, but he views politics through rose-colored (which I guess does mean red) glasses. It's not just this post, which is indeed ludicrous -- seriously, competitive in Florida? without a candidate change? seriously! -- but a whole line of pronouncements, especially including his absurd complacency in the face of Harriet Miers' nomination. Hugh can be a very sharp thinker, but his partisanship unfortunately gets in the way of him always being so.

Comment Posted By CosmoReaxer On 10.05.2006 @ 09:52

NET NEUTRALITY: A REAL CONCERN OR LIBERAL SCHEMING?

Alexandra, the telecoms have already agreed not to block sites. There was much whining from the anti-corporate left until they did, and now they're still whining, natch.

The thing about if you have content, you want it on all the networks. Conversely, owning a network or broadband is that you want the best content on it. If a company was to degrade service, it would be at their own financial peril. And if they did anyway, there are other broadband options, and with more investemnt there are going to be more options not far down the road.

Comment Posted By CosmoReaxer On 2.05.2006 @ 18:08

Tom's got it right here.

I concur that the highway analogy is inapt, but if we are going to use it, let's point out a way that it works against Andy's (and so far, Rick's) argument. Think of the 18-wheelers who have to pay higher taxes to drive on the same highway you do. Why? They're heavier, do more damage to the highway, basically they're using the resources more than you or me.

So why don't those who use more bandwith pay more? After all, bandwidth is getting tighter and tighter, and as Adam Penenburg (he's the guy who caught Stephen Glass) in Slate earlier this year, 80% of traffic now is P2P file sharing.

Shouldn't they pay for it? Or, the telecoms want Google and Yahoo to pay for it. Either way, right now you're subsidizing the tiny percentage of people who use a lot more bandwidth than most of us.

And one more on the highway comparison. The Internet is many networks, not one. It is much more redundant than the national highway system. The analogy isn't very good. But that doesn't mean I won't use it against itself!

Plus, I'd think twice before agreeing with Jane Hamsher on anything.

And Rick, my gratitude. That quote wasn't calling YOU a street protester, it was another commenter.

Comment Posted By CosmoReaxer On 2.05.2006 @ 17:53

THIEVES IN THE NIGHT

Tony, gimme a break, dude. If you're such a hardcore right-winger, what's with this "people vs. the powerful" rhetoric?

Not that the powerful should be allowed to screw the people, of course... but that you, like Rick, have jumped to the conclusion that

This has been covered for weeks on Digg, and it's pretty clear if you take a moment to read more: This is the cable and telcos vs. the online content providers like Amazon and Yahoo. It's not about the corporations trying to keep the little guy down, it's about the corporations fighting with other corporations about whether to move certain packets (basically, video and VoIP) over the net faster than other packets (less intense, non-streaming info, i.e. e-mail and the web).

That's it. This is what you're shrieking like an anti-capitalist street protester about?

Left-wing bloggers are up in arms, making fools out of themselves, calling this the "end of the internet," and I am disappointed to see the conservative blogosphere fall for the doomsday hype.

Comment Posted By CosmoReaxer On 27.04.2006 @ 10:26

Oh no... they want to make money?? How dare they!!

Seriously, what? What's supposed to happen if the telecoms win? What's their narrow vision?

I think you've been reading too many left-wing blogs.

Comment Posted By CosmoReaxer On 27.04.2006 @ 08:05


 


 


Pages (1) : [1]


«« Back To Stats Page