|Posted using LJ Talk...
||[Dec. 28th, 2008|05:27 am]
Whenever you read something like "who claim that there will be no real downsides if we allow companies to boost their bottom lines at the expense of consumers." you are reading some delusional socialist who fail to realize that that the entire point of companies is to boost their bottom lines at the expense of consumers. And that we can choose not to the use them. If we can't choose, there are already laws to deal with that.|
Yes, I am looking at you, bit torrent abusing (yeah, you abused my free wifi too) users who want to keep and eat their all you can eat internet cake.
Infrastructure ain't cheap or free.
Ain't nothing wrong with something being at my expense, as long as I consider it worth the expense. :)
On the other hand my cable bill sure isn't worth the expense. Grrr!
I thankfully do not have cable. Hulu and iTunes are my friend. (iTunes is another thing that profits on my expense, and lazyness)
Do you have a choice in cable provider/ISP? If not, that is the problem legislation should aim to fix.
iTunes would be sufficient for me, but doesn't provide all the shows my lady demands. :)
Technically of course I've got several choices in providers...
In theory AT&T has an offering in SF, but the line quality where I am precludes their DSL-based stuff from actually working. There's also another cable reseller which I believe just rents use of Comcast's physical lines for net and TV (Astound), and of course there are satellite options for TV should I wish to use separate providers.
Of course all of them like to obfuscate their pricing structures, throwing out weird tiering, bundling, and limited-time discounts at you so you'll have no idea what you're going to actually pay. I'm not convinced I'd save much $ from any of them until the a-la-carte providers like iTunes are providing serious enough competition that the cable & satellite providers are forced to clarify and reduce their pricing.
Unbundling should be so required. DSL works in SOMA, but then we are so close to the station.
2008-12-28 06:18 pm (UTC)
This can go both ways.
If you are paying for a service, a service that advertises foo mb/sec xfer speeds, I feel that you should be able to use 24/7 foo mb/sec (since that is what you are paying for). Its the ISP's fault if they are selling a foo mb/sec product and dont have a pipe to handle foo mb/sec * number sold. If its shitty for everyone else because I'm using what I paid for, then thats the ISP's fault for either poor planning, deceptive advertising, or both.
Now using a /free/ product has a different outlook. You're expected to use as little as possible because (although a TON of people dont realize this) nothing is free and SOMEONE is footing the bill so you don't have to.
Sure, but that is just false advertisement, or invalid contracts! There already are laws to deal with that.
The real problem with the ISPs filtering and caps are that they are quiet about it. I am okay with limits as long as they are disclosed. Then I can make an informed choice on what ISP to choose.
2008-12-28 06:32 pm (UTC)
For DSL, I've been really really really happy with sonic.net. Small company, no caps, even have an ipv6 tunnel if you really want one.. :)
The free speech ideals are always drowned out by the free beer desire. Just as businesses inevitably drop quality, raise prices, and fuck everyone.
Life is bleak.
When companies do such things, it leaves a gap for other companies to step in and compete with them in that space. Companies will only stagnate and decrease the value of their products when there isn't real competition. Note: Real competition, unlike what's going on with ISPs in the US.
We have a capitalist system for a reason, and adding further control just diminishes the ability for companies to compete.
This flood of "I don't think this is a good idea, so I think we should legislate it!" nonsense has to end. We have laws that apply to all of these things, and we have a (quasi-)free market that allows businesses to compete for your money. We have laws to uphold that -- when there's no competition, contracts are violated, etc --, why not use them? Adding more legislation just undermines the existing laws; people wonder why antitrust violations have no teeth, there's the answer.