| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (146)

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Drew. I'll be in Somalia. Tell me how North Korea is, okay? Because if you express a preference for big or small government, you therefore automatically adhere to its most vehement extreme!
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:26PM DrewIW said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Internet libertarians are so cute when they're mad.

Please, tell us more about how Glenn Beck is a patriot, and corporations care about consumers :allears:
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Step 1: Strawman. Step 2: Ad hominem attack. Were you going to attempt a thoughtful response with any sort of merit, or are you going to continue childishly caricaturizing your political opponents?
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So wait we are not required to speak in newspeak……

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:25PM DiscordSK said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
(Sorry for double post, original ended up in the wrong spot)

Unfortunately, internet companes currently operate is very similar to airlines. They have a set ammount of bandwidth available. Lets say for the sake of this discussion, a neighbourhood of twenty houses using their internet fully can be covered by the current setup. But there is a problem, there are fourty houses in that neighbourhood. So the company has two options before it, they can either upgrade their network to allow for fourty houses to use that bandwidth to its fullest, or they can just hope nobody notices and sell those fourty families what was only ment for twenty. Well gobless them, broadband companies have picked option two, because it works! Granny Smith is never going to fully use her connection, she pays for enough internet to run a small company but only checks her email once a week. Neither will Ma Parker, banking once a month, spying on her childrens facebook accounts will hardly take up any of those glorious 250gb she paid for. Mr Adams and countless other folk watch porn, but well... his wife is home most evenings so he can't indulge as much as he'd like.

Everything is flowers and sunshine... until...

Along goes Billy Bob, Billy Bob is a gamer, he uses BitTorrents and countless other programs(all legal) and uses EXACTLY what he paid for. The Internet Company screams bloody murder, points their fingers quivering with fury at Billy Bob and declares him an internet hog. They stamp their little feet down, the ground shaking with their pent up frustration and in their wisdom they decide to cap his ability to use what he paid for.

Colorful or not, this my fellow readers is our CURRENT situation. Companies follow money, profits, and couldn't possibly care any less about your rights, what you paid for and what you think you deserve. In areas, and there are alot of them, where there is only ONE broadband option they make whatever rules please them and can change them at whim.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:33PM DrewIW said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
This is not the situation, although it's what ISPs would like you to believe.

The price of developing network infrastructure scales more slowly than the revenues taken in by ISPs. It is, in fact, possible for ISPs to continue to scale up network infrastructure while retaining and growing their customer base, and turning profits.

If this were not possible (and the ISPs are now claiming it isn't), every ISP would be bankrupt.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:25PM Thac0 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Good Job telling gamers about this Seraphina. Its an issue of vital importance to everyone and especially mmo gamers. Anyone who think this ruling couldn't affect them will be upset when their ISP makes MMO traffic cost and extra 30 bucks a month for a premium service because all packets are not equal.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Being apolitical makes reading these comments rather entertaining.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:37PM yeppers said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
You're a little out of touch with reality, Mr. Brennan. For someone who probably doesn't like labels, you managed to put an offensive label on people who have a different political view than you. Double standards are amazing, aren't they?

I, like many, had hoped to read blogs on this site without the political slant sites sometimes like to take. You're okay to write about whatever you want to write about. Just don't be offended if half your readership feels alienated if they're on the opposing slant.

Maybe someone should write a disclaimer that your views don't reflect AOL or Massively? Or maybe I'm out of touch and it does reflect the views of this site. Too bad. Thankfully, we have choices on what we choose to read.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 5:24PM Eamil said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"Maybe someone should write a disclaimer that your views don't reflect AOL or Massively? Or maybe I'm out of touch and it does reflect the views of this site."

Anti-Aliased is an opinion column. It always has been. If memory serves, this isn't the first controversial article she's posted.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 8:47AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
See ya!
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:37PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
"Slandering"? Really? You're sure about that, accusing a public figure of a felony? You have proof, author? I would really like to see your proof of "slandering", a felony, which you accuse Glen Beck and/or all of Fox News.

If you are going to pretend to find a crime in free speech that you disagree with, then yeah, I have a LOT of problems with any sort of government regulation that people like YOU feel is safe. You're quick to baldly accuse Beck of a crime yet are reticent about PROVING your case.

In fact, by accusing him of slander without any proof, you are yourself committing libel. You sure are FAST to commit an apparent CRIME in order to paint an opponent as a criminal himself.

But that never seems to stop you statists. And the rest of your article is obviously just as full of lies as that one false and actionable statement - so I'm not about to support anything someone like you puts up - especially when it has the full force of the government behind it.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:55PM Dezyne said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'm pretty sure slander and libel are both civil matters, and since Mr. Beck is, as you put it a "Public Figure" he cannot be the victim of either.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:40PM DiscordSK said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
DrewIW, I'm fully aware it costs nowhere near as much to upgrade the infastructure as what they claim. But good luck convincing them to do so when their current model works so well. It won't change until either the government steps in and tells them to do so, or there is no other financially viable option.

The problem, as it stands right now(and the point I was trying to make) is they have zero incentive to change anything. They can easily blame individuals for any problems that arise, instead of spending the money on allowing everyone to benefit fully and completely from the services that they pay rather premium fee's for. In their eyes, it remains a last resort.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
One would hope that competition will eventually change that trend.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 5:28PM DiscordSK said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Competition won't since many areas of the US, and if you want to go international Canda really is no better, only have a single broadband provider. With no second option to switch to, alot of people are basiclly forced to agree to whatever rules/limitations are placed on them.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 5:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes thank you Captain Obvious for pointing out to me how things work now, the operative word in my post is "eventually."
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 6:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Ultra-Humanite-

See my post earlier in the thread for why this won't happen.

"There is a reason why utilities (and services like cable tv and internet) are regulated monopolies. It is cost prohibitive and also impractical for there to be direct competition at every home for these services. Imagine your house with 5 cable lines coming into it, 3 electric lines and 2 water lines. That's what would have to happen if there were to be fair competition, every company competing for your business would have to be able to provide you service and you can bet that they won't share infrastructure."

Also, (and someone correct me if I'm wrong on this) but as I understand it there are only a few broadband providers out there like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T etc and the local providers buy their broadband from these larger national companies. So, even if you have Local Company X and Local Company Y and Local Company Z who compete for rates and might be inclined to remove the restrictions, they are all buying their broadband from Big Company A who will impose these kinds of restrictions on them that they are then forced to pass on to you.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 6:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
And clearly things will never change ever.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 8:40AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In Pennsylvania, there is competition between power companies. There is a mandated delivery provider, PPL Electric, which cares for the transmission portion of the electric bill, as well as handling billing, but the actual power generation is handled by different companies.
Reply

Featured Stories

The Daily Grind: Should museums preserve MMOs?

Posted on Oct 1st 2014 8:00AM

Global Chat: Through a monitor, darkly

Posted on Sep 30th 2014 8:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW