Wow.... the world is coming to an end!!! Next thing you know this rate-limiting will be blamed for world hunger, drought, earth quakes, and global warming.
I don't like getting my broadband capped either. But this is a little over the top. Don't you think?
Mike
The best place to talk about enterprise networking.
|
|
There's something vaguely familiar about Time Warner's plans
Ever run across a buffet that advertises "all you can eat" but runs out of all the good stuff early in the evening?
Or do you remember that dial-up ISP, years ago, who promised unlimited internet access for $19.99 a month, but had nothing but busy signals when you tried to connect?
What this country needs is laws against misleading advertising with teeth in them. There seem to be such laws in Australia. When my brother, who lives there, on a farm thirty miles from the nearest town and five miles from the nearest sealed road, saw on television an offer from Telstra to deliver a new mobile phone to his front door free of charge, he took them up on it. They initially refused, explaining that the offer only applied in the Sydney Metropolitan area. But when he pointed out that the ad said nothing of the kind, and reviewed the penalties for false advertising, Telstra hired a courier to deliver it. He did compromise a little: the courier balked at the condition of the track in (you need four wheel drive and high ground clearance), so my brother met him at the first gate.
If the U.S. had laws against such deceptive advertising (with a suitable jail terms for executives involved) Time Warner (and others) would behave more responsibly.
Fortunately, the cable network where I live was sold recently by Time Warner. Unfortunately, it was bought by Comcast. I never have used cable as an internet provider: at present I get my home internet connection from Halnet, a non-profit organization which resells AT&T DSL without the mickey-mouse PPPOE (they supply a DSL modem free of charge, and you just plug in an ethernet cable to get a DHCP IP address -- no setup at all) and without the nickel-and-dime add-ons in the bill.
No..laws mean nothing if PEOPLE don't have power
simply put, no.....no law needs to be passed...PEOPLE need to be taught what they can do and do it. But if it were to be a law only state by state NOT nationwide. Good intentions lead to hell.
Greed
I wonder if the ISPs will play both ends off each other...charge the downloader AND the site? Probably. Greed is a slippery slope.
naked selfishness
Seems reasonable that people who use extraordinary amounts of bandwidth should pay in proportion to their usage. As it stands right now, ~0.5% of internet users use ~50% of the bandwidth. If the author had any economic sense, he'd realize that implementing surcharges for excess usage would likely reduce costs for the vast majority of users, and as the costs decreased, spur innovation, not hinder it. No doubt the author opposes this because he belongs to the 0.5% group that is benefiting at everyone else's expense.