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

Robert G. Brown advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org
Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:37:24 -0500


Bruce Smith <bruce@armintl.com> wrote:
....
>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!
OK, that's pretty clear.

>That's usually the way it works, contract or not.
When you rent a DVD, there's a contract.

>>>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.
Yeah, that's a feature you are willing to plunk down bux for, but you get
rather more than that, mostly a selection of home entertainment you would
not get otherwise. The content you get is not yet on "public" TV channels
(with a few exceptions), or have otherwise restricted distribution. 

>> >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
>> claim 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!
But that's the point, you're seeing it now, and you're force-fed the stuff,
now.

>I don't want to pay for a service AND be forced to see ads too.
The world is changing. Folks are always looking for new media to sell stuff.

>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.
That's right.

>>>>The Britsh do this, and have since the 1920's. They collect a license fee
>>>>for operating a RECEIVER...
>>>That's nice, but it's different here, and we are here.
>>...Do you beleive this is a better model, or not as good? Why?
>I don't have enough facts to form an opinion.
OK, that's fine.

>Do they get commercial free TV for the fee?
Yes, the BBC has several channels with entertainment, news, movies, etc.
There are also competitors, commercial channels, but this is a fairly
new phenomena (maybe 20 years or so), and seems to be working out fairly
well. This competitve pressure has often caused the BBC to try new things,
since they're not the only game in town, especially if that town is fairly
big, like London, Conventy, etc. Outside producers also buy bandwidth from
the BBC and do their own thing; CNN International in HQ'ed in London, and
has recently become available all over the UK.

>>>>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.
That's true, we're not going to change anything if it all stops here. We 
may get a few people thinking, and that is a precursor to them actually 
TRYING TO DO something, although just that may be is hard to predict. I'd
like to see what others are considering as these messages are read and 
processed.

>>>>>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....
>I doubt the commercial browsers will.  They'll accept payoffs instead.
Payoffs? In what form? By who? To serve what ends?
Are you suggesting that Proctor and Gamble (for example) would compensate
Microsoft (for example) to NOT block their ads, while everything else (save
other takers) is blocked?

When (not if) this becomes public, you're going to see a firestorm.

>I wouldn't put it past Mozilla ...
The point is that I wouldn't put it past any of them, since the end users have
generally expressed opposition to some of the methods used to promote products
on the net. Any player who does this best and first may gain share among end
users, which is thought of as a universal goal.

>>>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?
See it applied, perhaps with other ideas, to the situations we've touched on 
in this thread.

If the payoff scheme you're suggesting isn't ample evidence of monopoly
control, I don't know what is, especially if it involves pervasive software.

I think we've drifted some from the topic, but into some interesting 
background (in this case). The really pragmatic point here is that
advertising forced on people (on the net, or on DVDs) is very much
less than another potential sale because it violates our expectations
and engenders resistance, to both the medium and the message.

                                                           Regards,
                                                           ---> RGB <---