First off, Comcast has the resources to allow non discriminatory internet access and still provide the same quality product. Secondly, even if the resources were limited, there are better ways to go about solving the problem than discriminatory packet handling.

You can't guarantee anything. Hell, one could argue that a packaged internet already exists. Currently, if you're a Time Warner customer, there are sites in existence on the internet you are unable to access! Sure the package is infinity minus one, but it's still a package of sites excluding others. Well wait a second, why would anyone do that?! Because there are limited options. The only truly viable competitor to cable with similar up and downstream transfer rates is FIOS, and that certainly isn't everywhere. Thus many, including myself, are stuck with cable.

If more sites begin adopting this principle, all the sudden you will quickly find a packaged internet at your doorstep. I won't even get into the Wireless spectrum, where the only way we ever get full internet access is Net Neutrality. At least in that space there does exist some network issues that make net neutrality a problem, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be the end goal.

You don't know that, of course.


Perhaps. Hey, guess what, it's a free country. Switch to a different ISP.

I call bullshit. Care to show some proof?


Oh, so you want something that's comparable to Comcast in speed, just not Comcast. Here I thought no other alternatives existed.


We've been there. Consumers didn't want that. Let's move on from that useless argument, shall we?

I should also add here that I totally understand and agree with a point I feel you're trying to make: ISP's don't have unlimited capacity

I get it, and I don't doubt it's validity. Where I get very upset is when ISP's do very stupid things to protect their business model:

- Unlawfully imposing a blind cap on consumers, then when the user violates this mysterious cap, kicking them off the network and denying them the ability to get back on.
- Supplying a cap of a specific capacity, while still providing now visibility for users as to how much they use.

Cap's on usage are great, but they're a shortsighted solution to the problem at hand. Even worse is monkeying with internet traffic in a discriminatory manner while your customer has no clue why or how it's happening. It's devious, and it's flat out wrong.

Comcast turned a PROFIT of $772 million dollars in the FIRST QUARTER of this year. They are raking in money, and can easily afford to upgrade their infrastructure. Instead, they are posturing, along with Verizon, against the government, trying to get Uncle Sam to foot the bill via subsidies to upgrade their network.

Yeah, I don't like them, and I like even less the politicians that support them as opposed to their constituents.

If you're a Time Warner customer, you are unable to access http://www.espn360.com. ESPN, in their greed for money, charges ISP's to carry their service.

Many newspapers are considering adopting the same business model, as well as many other media companies. Mark Cuban has been pushing this for years. If this business model catches on, it will drastically change the way ISPs charge consumers.

I know it seems like the internet is stable, and will remain as is, but trust me, the internet is very new and the regulatory battle hasn't even begun. Not you, nor I can say with any confidence how it will look even a decade from now.

One thing's for certain, Comcast has no incentive to improve it's network unless it's regulated to do so. It has no competition, and thus will continue to rake in money until forced to do otherwise.

OK, so you dislike it. Deal with it (or don't - switch to a provider that doesn't have caps). It's not illegal. And by the way it has nothing to do with Net Neutrality either.

Where did I say that I support Comcast's and Verizon's attempts to get the government to pay for infrastructure upgrades?

By the way, Google's profit for the first two quarters of this year was $3 billion. If you have a problem with Comcast lobbying the government for handouts, then you should have even more of problem with Google doing it.

Except that the Net Neutrality argument has nothing to do with Comcast. It's about unnecessary government regulation.

Ah, so it's not Time Warner blocking the site. Sorry, don't see what the problem is. espn360 wants to only be available to certain users? Let them. They have to pay the bills somehow.

Are you seriously suggesting that the government mandates to Disney to make ESPN360 available to everyone? Out of curiosity, what do you think will happen next?

You keep saying this, but it's obviously not true. There are many other options available; you just not to use them because you like Comcast's speed. Which goes against your argument that they don't upgrade their infrastructure.

The path this argument has wandered down, I suppose, is fairly trivial.

You hit the proverbial nail on the head each time you mention a consumers option to switch, but you don't fairly account for a lack of competition. For me, because of my internet usage habits, I need high up and down stream limits. Only FIOS and Cable offer what I need. FIOS, unfortunately, is not offered where I live. Of course, I could move to an area it IS available, and that's the long term plan, but for now, it's not an option. For me, all there is is Comcast, and I know many people in the same situation.

The argument is a bit trivial because, in the end, Comcast will meet its end exactly as you say: via consumer choice. FIOS, and it's snail like rollout, will eventually provide competition in most densely populated areas. Comcast, it's reliance on copper, and it's horrid consumer practices, will fade away in the same vein of AOL and 56k dial up.

Comcast's impending death however, doesn't make net neutrality any less important.




If you want to charge for content on the internet, by all means, do so. Put up a site, charge a membership fee, and let the users flood in if your content is deemed worthy. But disallowing a user who wants to pay for your content simply because of their ISP? No way.

It's good. I've got my fingers crossed that MS is going to work the kinks out of Windows 95 anyday, and then I can make the plunge to the next OS.

Anybody see the revolutionizing wearable Sixth Sense technology? It would basically replace the cell phone and you would have your computer anywhere without even taking it out of your briefcase. It's a lot like what Tom Cruise does at the beginning of Minority Report.

http://blog.ted.com/2009/03/sixth_sense_demo.php

The camera and clock part are kinda cool.

The BN ebook reader looks a lot nicer than the kindle. Visually at least.

I got a BlackBerry Bold as my work phone recently. Very happy with it.

HTC Hero has Android in it? Should be good. But all the people who I've seen use Androind have said that they still like iPhone better.

I say go for it.

Supposedly new macbooks and imacs tomorrow. We'll see. Don't they usually do them with big fanfare and a speech? And that would take time to arrange so it seems out of character to just dump them out there. So I'm not sure how true those rumors are.

I want the Droid phone. I'll even switch to Verizon.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/173927/v ... _army.html

It does look cool, though I'm more of a Hero fan.

The latest 27-inch iMac looks insane, and Wall-mountable too. Apple just keeps producing great products one after another. Should've definitely bought at $80 when it's hurt by the Jobs rumor that had nothing to do with the products.

lolol

Those people are tools.

The iPhone is literally garbage outside of music and a few apps.

Oh, Windows 7 is infinitely better than Vista, that's for sure.

Droid looks promising but its annoying that motorola does not put decent amount of storage like N900/iphone etc. I would prefer a phone with minimum 8GB storage plus a microsdhc expansion slot.

I like Maemo a lot but N900 is too bulky. I heard with Maemo 6, nokia will release n920 with capactive touchscreen.

But I am sure it will be never be there in either TMo/AT&T though you could buy it unlocked and take one of TMO's Project Dark plans.

The biggest problem I see with Android phones is the lack of onboard storage to match the iPhone, that and the lack of a simple syncing application ala iTunes. The only downside IMO to the iPhone is it's lack of concurrent applications and no Google Voice application.

Everything else is about equal, and while Android is the best Mobile OS, the iPhone is still the best complete phone on the market.

Storage is definitely not an issue for me. I don't plan on using it as a music player, and if I did - guess what, I can expand it to 16 gigs with a card.

By the way, Droid will have a 16GB card pre-installed.