Stop. You have reached the end of the internet
Well, not really, but you will be cut off if you’re a Comcast customer and you use more than 250gb of bandwith per month. This means that almost no normal user will have a problem. Except, of course, Scott Greenfield, who uses about 3 trillion GB of bandwith everyday.
Unlike Appellate, who is okay with it, I think it’s silly.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on August 29, 2008 at 4:58 pm, and is filed under asides. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 2 years ago
Net Neutrality is a HUGE issue. It’s unfortunate that people are so clueless as to what’s really going on.
As a result, the internet will go the way of the radio, the phone, the TV…..
Tim Berners Lee, the inventor of the web, has blogged about this issue on his own blog and has linked to a couple of other bloggers blogs that wrote extensively as well.
I just hope people wake up before it’s too late.
about 2 years ago
Anti-corporate industrial complex as I am, that IS an awful lot of data for the normal residential user. Sheesh, I live on the internet and I don’t use anywhere near that. I can’t even SEE the limit from where I am.
Btw, I hated Comcast as a cable television provider. Hate Time Warner, too. Prices too high and the selection is poor.
about 2 years ago
Commenters above: A policy like this is actually good for free speech. Comcast is saying: we will not decide which kinds of content are more worthy, but we are providing you with a supply of something and that supply is limited.
Comcast, in the past was toying with the idea of discriminating on the basis of content-type. This made a lot of people angry, and it seems that Comcast has reversed course here.
If you really want to use that much, which no normal consumer would, there are other services that will give you more bandwidth. But Comcast is not marketing this product towards people with that high bandwidth demands.
So, Lil Spicey, what the heck is wrong with setting an HONEST and reasonable limit? This is sort of like going to a gas station and being told a price per gallon. Sure it is high, but once you pay for it, you can go wherever you want.
It is a lot better than being told “We can provide you with the gas, but we will cut it off if you start using it in ways we don’t really like.”
about 2 years ago
S.cotus,
The issue is deeper than your post. The information on this issue is plastered all over the net for anyone who cares to dive in a bit deeper…..
I simply will agree to disagree with your position and wish you well.
about 2 years ago
What’s a “bandwidth”?
Seriously, if I understand the net neutrality concern properly, the problem is a slippery slope argument, that once the providers assert the authority to impose limits, even though the particular limit may be reasonable in itself, it opens the door to further limits and increased control over content.
In fact, this is happening in New York, where our AG is obtaining consent decrees from providers to deny access to kiddy porn websites. Certainly, no reasonable person can argue that people have a right to see illegal images, right? But it’s just a hop, skip and jump to foreclosing access to websites promoting seditious thought.
While the slippery slope argument is an example of a logical fallacy, that doesn’t mean that it can’t happen. When Tim Berners Lee gave the internet to the world as a gift, it was with the understanding that no government or corporation would impose limits, and that the only limit would be the internal pressure of the users themselves. It was an idyllic notion, and it appears that it is not to be.