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

[Bruce Smith]

> >>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.

My whole point is:

o  I don't mind advertising from places that have value to me.  
o  I don't mind paying for a service that is of value to me.
o  I do NOT want BOTH!

That's usually the way it works, contract or not.

> >> 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!

Maybe . . .

> >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.

Right, I'm paying for no advertising.

> >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.

I don't mind advertising, forced or not, if I'm receiving value and 
I'm not paying any money for the service.

I have to PAY MONEY to buy/rent a DVD.  I don't want advertising there!

I don't want to pay for a service AND be forced to see ads too.

That's all I'm saying.  There is no contract or legal obligation to make
it that way.  That's the way it's usually worked, until now.

> >> 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 don't have enough facts to form an opinion.

Do they get commercial free TV for the fee?

> >>>>>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.

I believe it's futile to discuss them _here_ anyway.

It may be fun (or annoying) but we're not going to change anything here.

> >>>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?

I doubt the commercial browsers will.  They'll accept payoffs instead.

I wouldn't put it past Mozilla ...

> >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....

See what?

--------------------------------------------
Bruce Smith                bruce@armintl.com
System Administrator / Network Administrator
Armstrong International, Inc.
Three Rivers, Michigan  49093  USA
http://www.armstrong-intl.com/
--------------------------------------------