[KLUG Advocacy] Re: And the Spam Wars continue...

[Robert G. Brown]

>Quite possibly.  Or maybe we have different points.
Then please make yours, clearly, unless you already have. I'd like to 
see what other points of view we have on this mailing list.

>> >But there is a difference.  I've already PAID my hard earned MONEY to
>> >rent or purchase the DVD.  That fee should exempt me from having to
>> >watch the advertising too.
>> Quite an assumption you're making here!
>I don't think so!
I do! :)

>>Specifically, I'm referring to the notion that you pay once, and are
>>then exempted from paying again, or perhaps that you pay money to exempt
>>you from watching advertising. Nothing of the sort happens most of the time.
>It happens ALL the time.
No, it does not, You end up paying to become part of an audience that
is the target of a lot of advertising.

>> You bought your televison, and then you "have to" watch advertising on
>> that, all the time... even ads for other televisions! Do you want to be
>> exempted from this? How? The broadcast medium is non-selective, newer
>> media are not.
>Sure I bought my TV, just like I bought my PC.  That has nothing to do
>with it.
Well, you were the one crowing about spending your "hard earned money" on
something, and then getting unconditionally shilled for it. I merely wrote
to that point.

>When I watch "free" broadcast TV, I expect to see commercials.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere (maybe)... we're dealing with expectations!

>When I watch HBO/Showtime/MAX/Stars/... premium channels, that I PAY
>for, I expect to watch commercial free, and it happens all the time!
>I'm currently watching the movie "Ali" on Max, and I haven't seen a
>commercial since it started two hours ago.
That's right, but trivial... it's part of the contract you're party to,
and part of a contract HBO and Charter is party to.

>When I rent or buy a a VCR _tape_ I expect to watch commercial free, and
>it has been that way for DECADES that I've been renting videos.  If
>there is a commercial in the beginning, the fast forward button has
>always worked.  

>Until now, when some DVD makers decided to make me pay AND watch
>commercials.  If that gave me some advantage over VCR tapes, like
>cheaper prices, then I'd be more accepting, but they don't seem to be
>any cheaper.

Ah, so you don't like this business of being forced to watch advertising. I
calim that few other do, either.

>> The Britsh do this, and have since the 1920's. They collect a license fee
>> for operating a RECEIVER (something hardly mentioned in US law); it's about
>> $170/year per household or business. In exchange for they get the BBC (which
>> is funded from license fees, even if the viewers aren't watching the BBC)
>> a commercial-free government service.
>That's nice, but it's different here, and we are here.
A content-free response. Do you beleive this is a better model, or not as
good? Why?

>>I'm sure you don't prefer that. I don't. I prefer the NPR/PBS model (actually
>>originated by Lewis Hill, with Pacifica, in the late 1940's) where the 
>>viewers pay for the station operation, and have some voice in what is
>>broadcast.
>In some ways it's the same.  PBS stations begging for money between
>shows isn't much different than broadcasting commercials.  Just more
>direct and to the point.
Well, the "begging" wasn't part of the model. It's quite different, since
outside of fundraising periods, these stations are really quite free of
any shilling. Moreover, the method by which funds are raised gives them
editorial independence, which is pretty important if they are gathering
news, either locally or nationally.

>>>>>I've always figured this is better than the alternative.  I don't want
>>>>>to pay a subscription fee to every web site I visit for information. 
>>>>I'd MUCH rather see a banner ad on their web pages.
>>>>I agree, but hold out that while banner ads are not great, they are better
>>>>than paying for every site. Still, we can look for better models for 
>>>>this.
>>>Then start looking!  That'd be great!
>>Um, this thread, or my postings have been doing that, sans any need for 
>>cheerleading or gainsaying.
>I'm sure all the network / media executives on this list will get right
>at it.   :-)
Your tone suggests that it is futile to discuss these things.

>>>But what happens when the next release of Mozilla/Netscape/IE/Opera/...
>>We have two conflicting commercial interests here; perhaps they need to get
>>together and discuss things. On one hand we have the folks who want to use
>>the Internet as an advertising medium, and the other we have software devel-
>>opers who want to serve the needs and interests of their users, and are mo-
>>tivated by competitive pressure to do so.
>I doubt the commercial browsers would do that, but Mozilla may be a
>different story since it's "open" ...
You doubt they would do what?

>As long as we keep the monopolies from taking control, the users should
>end up deciding in the end by their actions.
Can we apply this generally true statement to this situation? Let's see 
this....
							Regards,
							---> RGB <---