XPost: can.internet.highspeed, can.general   
   From: gwelsh@spamcop.net   
      
   Ironically, the "TV tax" debate is a mirror image of the comment that   
   started the "net neutrality" debate in the States, where an executive with a   
   broadband access company (I believe it was BellSouth, or it might have been   
   SBC... in either case now part of AT&T) commented that they, who built the   
   distribution network, should be paid by the people who were making money   
   distributing content through it.  That comment ignored the fact that there   
   would be no reason to build (and charge for) that distribution network if it   
   weren't for the content...   
      
   But I digress.  My point is that:   
    - both systems worked fine - worked best, in fact - for the vast majority   
   of their existences without compensation;   
    - in each case, a different side (content vs. distribution) decided that it   
   was due compensation;   
    - the argument for compensation in both cases boils down to the fact that   
   one side was making more money than the other;   
    - the organizations arguing for compensation are largely responsible for   
   their own situations, having made bad business bets based on hype and a poor   
   understanding of the business they were spending (and borrowing!) to   
   dominate.   
      
   Unfortunately, the one thing you can count on when Canadian do-gooders   
   implement regulations: the people who screwed up, either actively or simply   
   by failing to recognize and adapt to change, will be rewarded and supportde   
   but those who innovated, made the right bet, and succeeded will be   
   penalized.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)