<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Infinite play</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/11/07/infinite-play-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/11/07/infinite-play-2/</link>
	<description>Same old blog, brand new place</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:24:25 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: John B</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/11/07/infinite-play-2/comment-page-1/#comment-102440</link>
		<dc:creator>John B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:56:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/11/07/infinite-play-2/#comment-102440</guid>
		<description>Doc Searls wrote, &quot;Do we want to light their way or curse their darkness?&quot;

Yes, please. Extra helpings on both!

Frivolity aside, we - everyone connecting via a cable or DSL hardpoint - need to be doing both. 

We need to light their way - show them where and how to make money without killing their golden goose, their servers, their bandwidth, etc. 

We also need to keep kicking those bureaucratic lumps right in the pocketbook whenever there&#039;s a practical chance. It&#039;s about the only stimulus they really respond to, I fear. (And note - practical choice. That is rare, but it does happen - too many monopolies and duopolies out there covering too many square miles, tho&#039;...)

Just my 2c...
-John B</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doc Searls wrote, &#8220;Do we want to light their way or curse their darkness?&#8221;</p>
<p>Yes, please. Extra helpings on both!</p>
<p>Frivolity aside, we &#8211; everyone connecting via a cable or DSL hardpoint &#8211; need to be doing both. </p>
<p>We need to light their way &#8211; show them where and how to make money without killing their golden goose, their servers, their bandwidth, etc. </p>
<p>We also need to keep kicking those bureaucratic lumps right in the pocketbook whenever there&#8217;s a practical chance. It&#8217;s about the only stimulus they really respond to, I fear. (And note &#8211; practical choice. That is rare, but it does happen &#8211; too many monopolies and duopolies out there covering too many square miles, tho&#8217;&#8230;)</p>
<p>Just my 2c&#8230;<br />
-John B</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doc Searls</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/11/07/infinite-play-2/comment-page-1/#comment-101825</link>
		<dc:creator>Doc Searls</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:45:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/11/07/infinite-play-2/#comment-101825</guid>
		<description>Well, Dean, I agree with about 98% of what you&#039;re saying here. We differ in our faith regarding the intransigence of the carriers. I know a number of people (the same handful you know) in the business who get the clues and and see the writing on the wall. There is hope. Maybe not much, but some.

Plus, the fact remains that these are going to become Internet companies whether they like it or not. Do we want to light their way or curse their darkness?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, Dean, I agree with about 98% of what you&#8217;re saying here. We differ in our faith regarding the intransigence of the carriers. I know a number of people (the same handful you know) in the business who get the clues and and see the writing on the wall. There is hope. Maybe not much, but some.</p>
<p>Plus, the fact remains that these are going to become Internet companies whether they like it or not. Do we want to light their way or curse their darkness?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dean Landsman</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/11/07/infinite-play-2/comment-page-1/#comment-101801</link>
		<dc:creator>Dean Landsman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:28:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/11/07/infinite-play-2/#comment-101801</guid>
		<description>There is no real &quot;Triple Play.&quot;  Rather, there is one connectivity instance (hooking up premises) for which users are given three different recurring billable events.  A recurring monthly charge makes sense - after all, they do provide this service.  How they bill for it, however, is another issue.  

When a cable or a fiber service offers TV (aka video from existing networks or channels, formerly known as &quot;TV&quot;), also offers voice (formerly known as phone service), and also offers internet connectivity, these are all merely billable events, all of which come from that original connection of pipe to premises.

The TV service breaks down into subsets of billable events, such as VOD, premium channels, and so on.

The phone service offers premium billing for certain &quot;long distance&quot; events, many of which are running on the net and are actually less expensive than the old paradigm of copper and undersea cable.

The internet is simply basic connectivity, allowing users to join a network of other users enjoying a connection to the backbone.  The upsell here is gigs of use (up or down).

Bottom line: the costs to the companies of providing these services are nowhere near as high as the upsells and events would indicate.  But until competitive offerings are allowed to flourish (and IMHO we can hope but should not set our expectation levels too very high, vis-a-vis the incoming administration), the small group of Big Cos controlling this environment will do all they can to control our connectivity, our access, and their ability to charge us for it on a premium and multiple level and event basis.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is no real &#8220;Triple Play.&#8221;  Rather, there is one connectivity instance (hooking up premises) for which users are given three different recurring billable events.  A recurring monthly charge makes sense &#8211; after all, they do provide this service.  How they bill for it, however, is another issue.  </p>
<p>When a cable or a fiber service offers TV (aka video from existing networks or channels, formerly known as &#8220;TV&#8221;), also offers voice (formerly known as phone service), and also offers internet connectivity, these are all merely billable events, all of which come from that original connection of pipe to premises.</p>
<p>The TV service breaks down into subsets of billable events, such as VOD, premium channels, and so on.</p>
<p>The phone service offers premium billing for certain &#8220;long distance&#8221; events, many of which are running on the net and are actually less expensive than the old paradigm of copper and undersea cable.</p>
<p>The internet is simply basic connectivity, allowing users to join a network of other users enjoying a connection to the backbone.  The upsell here is gigs of use (up or down).</p>
<p>Bottom line: the costs to the companies of providing these services are nowhere near as high as the upsells and events would indicate.  But until competitive offerings are allowed to flourish (and IMHO we can hope but should not set our expectation levels too very high, vis-a-vis the incoming administration), the small group of Big Cos controlling this environment will do all they can to control our connectivity, our access, and their ability to charge us for it on a premium and multiple level and event basis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
