A contradiction in ISP policy

[Bong]

I think the fact that high quality live video of Iran games is available is definately a good thing.

but it is a contradiction to equate "zero profit" with believing that "watching Iranian football is EVERY Iranians right".

(1) If "right" here means that every iranian who can pay by creditcard has the right to watch, then the statement is a tautology.

(2) If "right" means that every Iranian despite circumstance should be able to watch the game once he is online, then the statement is simply false and "zero profit" is irrelevant.

I don't expect many people here to care what my opinion is, but i have been throughly disappointed with ISP becoming more exclusive for those who provide payment. Having advertistments to support the site is a good drive, because it doesnt make the site inaccesible to others (although I know that it is difficult to find sponsors). But even though selling video feeds is for "non-profit" purpose, I personally feel hurt by it. I myself dont have a creditcard and I cannot pay for a game. One reason I have always come to ISP is because I thought it is a place with free access where monetary relations don't determine treatment, unlike many other Iranian sites. Now that is different...but even if I did have a creditcard, I would have still been disappointed.

I realize my opinion probably wont make a difference, but I personally believe that accessibility is far more important than quality or non-profitablity. Religious institutions also claim to be "non-profit"...but the monetary relation so prevailant in many of them frequently overshadow higher declared principles. Methodology often is more deterministic of ones behavior than intended purpose. It was for this reason that socrates always believed that his students should never be allowed to compensate him in any monetary or physical way...lest that complicate their exchange of ideas. This ideal very much impressed socrates' student plato...and today we therefore call free conversation "platonic" relationships. I have always thought that the internet is a good place for this type of relationships between people, and i thought ISP was an example of that. I am reconsidering ISP in that catagory right now.

But the most simple way of considering the methodological implications of the pay-to-view system is to think what kind of institutional incentives will there be to increase accessibility if ISP is being rewarded for exculsivity? Its not a matter of being "non-profit" or not...its a simply a question of how institutional structure can blind principle. For me personally, ISP's quality was always a secondary consideration than its openess and accessibility. For this reason i prefered it over PFDC.

I think toofan's website however, clearly still keeps up to the ideal of internet accessibility, and I praise him for that...

 

[Bache Tehroon]

Bongjan,

I read your post. I truely understand what you had in your mind when you typed it up and I think you tried your best to express yourself, however I must admit, it did sound a bit disappointing when read for the first time.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with you. I leave you with a simple question:

With over 3000 members who are mostly just visitors and not posters, $0 budget and high bandwidth prices, what would your approach be if you wanted to provide live broadcast of Team Melli games?

Your answer will definitly be taken into consideration and discussed by us.

I welcome all other members to participate in this discussion and tell us exactly how we can make sure a NON-PROFIT organization like ISP can deliver you the best for the least.

Please be factual and honest. Do not jump on BONG or ME for starting this. Let's make this a constructive thread.

Thank you,

BT

 

[Farbod (ADC)]

I understand your concern Bong, and I understand BT's response as well. I think the use of small payments to both limit and fund the streaming and downloading of games and highlights is a necessary evil. Obviously ISP and PW are not taking advantage of this, I told a few of my friends (NON ISP members) about the ability to watch the game for $3 and they stared at me in disbeleif. They thought it would be more like $30 or something. The use of credit cards is not really the choice of ISP, its basically the easiest and most convenient form of payment over the internet. Mailing in cash would be extremely inconvenient for all parties.

In a perfect world accessibility wouldnt have to become somewhat exclusive, but compared to most services around the net (ISP is not just a community, but a service provided by many generous people) its not only inexpensive but extremely convenient and simple.

Bong... I understand ur gripe, please PM me and I will try to help you, I have a paypal account and if you cannot watch a game or need highlight access I am more than willing to help.

 

[pendar]

I'm just gonna throw my two cents here. I strongly disagree with you Bong, and I don't see any reason to be disappointed.

You would have had a point if the video feeds didn't cost ISP anything. But when they actually cost so much, expecting ISP to provide free feeds is not right. Afterall, they're not running a charity here.

All the stuff that used to be free (posts, news, etc.) still are!! Video feeds are new additions, so you're not being deprived of a service you used to receive, so again, I don't see reason to be disappointed.

Finally, I think the fact that ISP is even providing live video feeds now is something we should be extremely thankful for. Until a year ago, there was pretty much NO means for us to get high quality feeds ANYWHERE. Besides, the fee they charge is so ridiculously low (and I hope it stays that way) that I don't see how you can complain. (Compare with rival sites' prices).

Anyway, I'm not an ISP staff, nor am I completely happy with the way they have been running ISP and I think there's much room for improvement, but regarding the video feeds, I'm just happy they're offering them and that the prices are so low.

 

[Bong]

BT jan,

its not a matter of there being a "right" way. Its just a matter of deciding between two principles: (1) high-quality or (2) accessibility. I personally admire the ideal of interent accessibility. So if you were to choose (2) over (1), i guess you would have to sacrifice (1)...thats what socrates did for example, or I had an econ professor who didnt like the idea of students having to buy his books, so he sacrificed a deal in which his publishers would have invested more money in distributing his books, with an inferior deal in which he was also allowed to put his books online.

http://www.sfu.ca/~boland

but the "contradiction" is not in whether you decide (1) or (2) ...it is the statement made which I criticized. The statement has a contradiction...and I thought highlighting the contradiction was seminal in illuminating the crossroad.

 

[Behrang(ISP)]

Bong excuse me for my ignorance but I’m still not sure what you are trying to prove here or what the point of your message is? Maybe I’m thick (most people will agree) or maybe I’m just dumb (others may also agree) but if you think ISP is making any money by doing what it is you are wrong.

We have started to run ads on our site and our estimate right now is that at most we will make around $150.00. Some may think that is enough but to let you know we spend close to double that just for hosting on the site. To stream live games or any event, we have to pre pay for the amount of connections (hence why we have a sign up). This means if only 30 people pay and we have pre paid for 50 connections we eat the cost of 20 people…

For us this has not been a big deal as we want to provide for you and everyone else as much as we can. But if you are expecting to get something for free then your not. If that upsets you then I’m sorry. Like I said earlier, maybe I’m not getting your point and if that is the case then break it down for me… I’m a bit slow at times.

 

[Bong]

I understand your concern Bong, and I understand BT's response as well. I think the use of small payments to both limit and fund the streaming and downloading of games and highlights is a necessary evil. Obviously ISP and PW are not taking advantage of this, I told a few of my friends (NON ISP members) about the ability to watch the game for $3 and they stared at me in disbeleif. They thought it would be more like $30 or something. The use of credit cards is not really the choice of ISP, its basically the easiest and most convenient form of payment over the internet. Mailing in cash would be extremely inconvenient for all parties.

In a perfect world accessibility wouldnt have to become somewhat exclusive, but compared to most services around the net (ISP is not just a community, but a service provided by many generous people) its not only inexpensive but extremely convenient and simple.

Bong... I understand ur gripe, please PM me and I will try to help you, I have a paypal account and if you cannot watch a game or need highlight access I am more than willing to help.

AliDaeiClone jan,

you are very kind. But actually I know people with creditcards who I pay to sometimes to buy me stuff on the internet. So I dont need to disturb you. I made the example of myself because I thought it would be dishonest if I didnt. If for example I did have a credit card, I might not have thought about the adverse implications of accessibility in this case...so the reason I mentioned that was to make public my vested interest.

But my main reason for writing was to highlight that whether we realize it or not, ISP as an institution is at a crossroad. As i said, the seminal question to ponder is to consider whether an institution which is being rewarded for exclusivity will have incentives to increase accessibility?

 

[Bong]

Bong excuse me for my ignorance but I’m still not sure what you are trying to prove here or what the point of your message is? Maybe I’m thick (most people will agree) or maybe I’m just dumb (others may also agree) but if you think ISP is making any money by doing what it is you are wrong.

We have started to run ads on our site and our estimate right now is that at most we will make around $150.00. Some may think that is enough but to let you know we spend close to double that just for hosting on the site. To stream live games or any event, we have to pre pay for the amount of connections (hence why we have a sign up). This means if only 30 people pay and we have pre paid for 50 connections we eat the cost of 20 people…

For us this has not been a big deal as we want to provide for you and everyone else as much as we can. But if you are expecting to get something for free then your not. If that upsets you then I’m sorry. Like I said earlier, maybe I’m not getting your point and if that is the case then break it down for me… I’m a bit slow at times.

behrang jan,

I tried my best to write it as simple as I could. But I agree that you didnt get the essence of my message. If you did, you wouldnt bring up the fact that the costs are twice the sponsorship and so on...because that is not releavent to the issue i tried to highlight. I just meant to say that you are at a methodological crossroad whether you realize it or not.

 

[Arian(ISP)]

Bong jon, I will not write very philosophically. I will put it in very simple terms. It costs this site to provide live streaming for each user. The least you could do is to pay your share to access this service. What you are saying sounds like I want to have free access to food but I don't like to pay for it! Go to a supermarket and try that. We are not giving you snacks, this is a whole meal. We are investing in new technologies to provide people with better services. Please don't except us to go broke over something which we do with love and passion. It is our duty to serve you to the best of our abilities and we would really love to give everyone free access, trust us, but it costs us, so I think it is fair if people took responsibility and helped us with this adventure.

 

[shawshank]

Bong jan, if I was in your position I would think exactly the same. It's not really a matter of greed coming over the site or anything.

Now if you really want to see an Iran game or something, I can certainly always help you out and for the Iran games I always go out and put my status to super-seeder in seeding Iran full game torrents by Toofan.

Running a server is hard specially when you are dealing with videos cause the sizes could be huge. Now when you have more traffic , it means more bandwith so it just gets to a point that we cant pay for that bandwith out of our pocket (well the admins can't, i'm only 15). Running a server is really hard and when traffic highers I swear to god you must be very rich to keep it running without making ppl pay. btw, streaming has same case as highlights server.

In the end, considering the expenses we're not making any profit.
We provide important game's goals for free, we provide major events clips for free, WE ALLOW ANY VIDOES TO BE POSTED ON OUR SITE FOR FREE and we (at least I) help out in keeping free things running (torrent).

 

[Bong]

Bong jan, if I was in your position I would think exactly the same. It's not really a matter of greed coming over the site or anything.

Now if you really want to see an Iran game or something, I can certainly always help you out and for the Iran games I always go out and put my status to super-seeder in seeding Iran full game torrents by Toofan.

Running a server is hard specially when you are dealing with videos cause the sizes could be huge. Now when you have more traffic , it means more bandwith so it just gets to a point that we cant pay for that bandwith out of our pocket (well the admins can't, i'm only 15). Running a server is really hard and when traffic highers I swear to god you must be very rich to keep it running without making ppl pay. btw, streaming has same case as highlights server.

In the end, considering the expenses we're not making any profit.
We provide important game's goals for free, we provide major events clips for free, WE ALLOW ANY VIDOES TO BE POSTED ON OUR SITE FOR FREE and we (at least I) help out in keeping free things running (torrent).

shawshank jan,
thanks for the clarifications. However, I never said or implied that "greed was coming over" to the site. I just wished to highlight the institutional implications of good intentioned decisions being made.

I clearly understand the rationale for pay-to-view in the case of video and thank you for the additional clarification of the immense costs. Furthermore, I dont think that it will be "wrong" for ISP to be exclusive in some ways, but I personally admire internet accessibility and always thought ISP was a clear example of that. I didnt mean to insult anybody or say that they were wrong...i just wanted to highlight the "methodological crossroad" that has been encounted because of pay-to-view.

 

[Pooya]

Dear Bong : i can assure you PW/ISP is not making a $ from all this, Shawshank and Behdad spend hours in making videos, i spend lot of time in improving the quality of the Stream, we all do that with passion and the love we have for Iran and Iranians, but we are all Students, we donate our time, and as much as we can our money. but you do the math, 3000 members, and each stream cost US 3$ and paypal charge us .25 Cent, so we charge you 3.25. now if a bussiness owner is willing to sponser us, then i will gladly make everything free. i would love that, but since no one is helping us, believe it or not, we get 27 CLICKS a day from google ads ! and we have over 100 users visiting us everyday ! this is indeed very sad. how much does it cost a user to click on google ad? NOTHING ! afew seconds of his/her time ! yet no one is doing it ! you seem to be a very logical person, so please explain us how can we offer something for free when we are getting charged and no one is backing it up?
please use simple words !

 

[Bong]

Dear Bong : i can assure you PW/ISP is not making a $ from all this, Shawshank and Behdad spend hours in making videos, i spend lot of time in improving the quality of the Stream, we all do that with passion and the love we have for Iran and Iranians, but we are all Students, we donate our time, and as much as we can our money. but you do the math, 3000 members, and each stream cost US 3$ and paypal charge us .25 Cent, so we charge you 3.25. now if a bussiness owner is willing to sponser us, then i will gladly make everything free. i would love that, but since no one is helping us, believe it or not, we get 27 CLICKS a day from google ads ! and we have over 100 users visiting us everyday ! this is indeed very sad. how much does it cost a user to click on google ad? NOTHING ! afew seconds of his/her time ! yet no one is doing it ! you seem to be a very logical person, so please explain us how can we offer something for free when we are getting charged and no one is backing it up?
please use simple words !

pooya jan,
everything you said is right. But I never disputed any of that. Your question... "so please explain us how can we offer something for free when we are getting charged and no one is backing it up?"

the answer to it is that you CANNOT!

its really very simple, either ISP forgoes something because it cannot make it accessible to all, or it doesnt! I dont think either way is good or bad, I am just highlighting the dilemma...thats all.

There is no contradiction if you guys decide to have some exclusive services. There is only a contradiction if you do so, but think that ISP is completely accessible to all. As I have said previously in this tread, my purpose was only to illuminate the institutional crossroad. You have to consider carefully, because just as you and many others who work selflessly on the "supply side" have said, the costs are substantial in the video operations. But PRECISELY because they are, in the long-run, you guys have to consider how much the economics of the pay-to-view operations will affect the accessibility logic of ISP. Will ISP have an incentive to be accessible down the road when it is being rewarded for being exclusive? Its a methodological question.

Now...when i say "incentive" and "rewarded" I dont mean anybody is profiting monetarily. But it is a fact that ISP as a non-profit institution will be gaining moneywise....and that is not a bad thing! All that I am saying is how will the monetary relationship effect long-term institutional logic? I am highlighting the grey areas for the longrun....I know the people running ISP are only giving and not taking anything monetarily and that pay-to-view was devised with all the good intentions.

 

[Farsi Zaban]

Dear Bong, I see and accept your point, but...
While ISP has been very inclusive in allowing a wide range of people to express their opinions I hope you realize that that in praticality the theory of including everyone is no feasable. ISP has not been inclusive in allowing spammers to promote their products, ISP has also no been inclusive in allowing people to promote racist/hurtful agenda. The reality is that ISP has to be exclusive to maintain order on the message board. They have never denied the fact that this is a moderated message board.

Now as far as your problem with the particular services ISP/Persianway have been providing there are a couple of things to consider.

1 is that It is really not economically possible for ISP to provide these services for free. The costs will simply be staggering. Specially in a protocol such streaming media it is really impossible to provide these service without access to massive financial resources. Not even government supported institutions like Irna and IRIB are able to provide a reliable service for that purpose. Bandwidth is costly. Just imagine hunderds of people trying to access a rich stream at the same time. That takes more bandwidth than one can even imagine. Traditional ftp/http downloads are different because you don't have the problem of gazillions of people trying to access files at the same time. So that's the first thing to consider.

People really won't pay if they don't need these services, and those who use them will not pay unless they are granted access. So ISP really has no choice but to provide these media the way it does today. That's the 2nd point to consider.

3rd point is that As shawshank said, ISP unlike PFDC has not forbidden people to post video clips and torrents. Toofan is freely posting his videos on ISP without receiving any threats. ISP will not force people to use these services.

Now I do have a couple of suggestion as to what ISP can do in order to make sure people don't feel excluded.

1. People who pay will no receive any special treatment. If they will face consequences for breaking the rules. They will be banned and if they are banned their money will be refunded for any type of service they have paid for.

2. ISP/Persianway could perhaps grant a certain slot to people who are unable to pay. ISP could perhaps grant 5 free slots for each game. If there are a total of 50 slots, 45 people will pay some 30 odd cents more to provide for the costs of 5 free slots. Those 5 people will be chosen at random.

 

[Pooya]

Bong : i understand , ok next question
what is wrong in making it accessible to those who got a Credit card and can pay the small charge? and for others well not much we can do, its the reality of life !

 

[Pooya]

bytheway bong, are you from Vancouver? i noticed you linked to SFU website !

 

[Bong]

Bong : i understand , ok next question
what is wrong in making it accessible to those who got a Credit card and can pay the small charge? and for others well not much we can do, its the reality of life !

pooya jan,

I think you replied to this before i made my final editing to the my last reply.

There is nothing wrong! I have no complaints other than personal regrets that all the services of my beloved ISP isnt completely accessible...the reason I bring it up is because I personally prize the idea of accessibility for non-profit media. Im just trying to highlight the consequences...especially in the future when the economics of pay-to-view might weigh heavily into ISP's institutional logic.

BTW, yes....I live in vancouver! and I am having a pre-noroz party at my house and I'd be delighted if you could come....check your PM

 

[Bong]

Dear Bong, I see and accept your point, but...
While ISP has been very inclusive in allowing a wide range of people to express their opinions I hope you realize that that in praticality the theory of including everyone is no feasable. ISP has not been inclusive in allowing spammers to promote their products, ISP has also no been inclusive in allowing people to promote racist/hurtful agenda. The reality is that ISP has to be exclusive to maintain order on the message board. They have never denied the fact that this is a moderated message board.

Now as far as your problem with the particular services ISP/Persianway have been providing there are a couple of things to consider.

1 is that It is really not economically possible for ISP to provide these services for free. The costs will simply be staggering. Specially in a protocol such streaming media it is really impossible to provide these service without access to massive financial resources. Not even government supported institutions like Irna and IRIB are able to provide a reliable service for that purpose. Bandwidth is costly. Just imagine hunderds of people trying to access a rich stream at the same time. That takes more bandwidth than one can even imagine. Traditional ftp/http downloads are different because you don't have the problem of gazillions of people trying to access files at the same time. So that's the first thing to consider.

People really won't pay if they don't need these services, and those who use them will not pay unless they are granted access. So ISP really has no choice but to provide these media the way it does today. That's the 2nd point to consider.

3rd point is that As shawshank said, ISP unlike PFDC has not forbidden people to post video clips and torrents. Toofan is freely posting his videos on ISP without receiving any threats. ISP will not force people to use these services.

Now I do have a couple of suggestion as to what ISP can do in order to make sure people don't feel excluded.

1. People who pay will no receive any special treatment. If they will face consequences for breaking the rules. They will be banned and if they are banned their money will be refunded for any type of service they have paid for.

2. ISP/Persianway could perhaps grant a certain slot to people who are unable to pay. ISP could perhaps grant 5 free slots for each game. If there are a total of 50 slots, 45 people will pay some 30 odd cents more to provide for the costs of 5 free slots. Those 5 people will be chosen at random.

Farsi Zaban,

very nice post. Everything you say is right, but then again, its all about understanding the consequences of the decisions. My specualtion is that monterary exclusivity is different than other forms of exclusivity that you highlighted (for example having to register and so on). Thats in fact what Scorates the great teacher thought. His lessons where exclusive to the people who came to the exact locations he taught, but never exclusive moneywise... so when i say exclusive, I mean moneywise....i dont consider if someone has to register, or has access to the internet or not.

now as i have said it before, it is perfectly fine if ISP wants to be exclusive in some ways. All I wish to do is to highlight the possible long-term institutional consequences...

 

[Mehran(ISP)]

behrang jan,

I tried my best to write it as simple as I could. But I agree that you didnt get the essence of my message. If you did, you wouldnt bring up the fact that the costs are twice the sponsorship and so on...because that is not releavent to the issue i tried to highlight. I just meant to say that you are at a methodological crossroad whether you realize it or not.

Bong jan,

if having a credit card is the problem here am sure we can work something out with Pouya where you can send him a check for a package of games and just mail it to him. Otherwise the $3 barely pays for the bandwith space to stream the games.

 

[Babak G]

Bong,

3$ to watch a high quality feed of a game on the internet in the day when football clubs are starting to do the same but at a higher cost isnt that bad.

Plus one more thing,most ppl will have access to watch Iran's matches on tv.it will be rare circumstances that will cause some not to be able to watch.This service is largely for that 10% of ppl who want to watch it but dont have anywhere to watch,and that point 3 bucks aint much is it?