Comments on: Bandwidth Cap Worries http://techliberation.com/2008/08/30/bandwidth-cap-worries/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: bandwidth - StartTags.com http://techliberation.com/2008/08/30/bandwidth-cap-worries/comment-page-1/#comment-65930 bandwidth - StartTags.com Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:25:06 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=12342#comment-65930 <p>[...] Metering: The End of the World As We Know It ...Cable TV companies move to charge by bandwidth use.Bandwidth Cap Worries Technology Liberation FrontSusan Crawford worries about the implications of Comcast's bandwidth cap: ... The company is not [...]</p> [...] Metering: The End of the World As We Know It …Cable TV companies move to charge by bandwidth use.Bandwidth Cap Worries Technology Liberation FrontSusan Crawford worries about the implications of Comcast's bandwidth cap: … The company is not [...]

]]> By: George Ou Sets the Record Straight on Bandwidth Usage Caps http://techliberation.com/2008/08/30/bandwidth-cap-worries/comment-page-1/#comment-61020 George Ou Sets the Record Straight on Bandwidth Usage Caps Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:51:51 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=12342#comment-61020 <p>[...] Bandwidth Cap Worries (by Tim Lee) [...]</p> [...] Bandwidth Cap Worries (by Tim Lee) [...]

]]> By: occupational safety health http://techliberation.com/2008/08/30/bandwidth-cap-worries/comment-page-1/#comment-58859 occupational safety health Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:56:39 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=12342#comment-58859 <p><strong>occupational safety health...</strong></p> <p>Demonstration of successful implementation of OHSAS 18001 management system can be used by companies to assure their interested parties that an appropriate OH&S management system is in place. This OHSAS standard is based on the methodology known as Pla...</p> occupational safety health…

Demonstration of successful implementation of OHSAS 18001 management system can be used by companies to assure their interested parties that an appropriate OH&S management system is in place. This OHSAS standard is based on the methodology known as Pla…

]]> By: DW http://techliberation.com/2008/08/30/bandwidth-cap-worries/comment-page-1/#comment-65053 DW Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:13:50 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=12342#comment-65053 <p>The reason you don't see a problem is because you don't understand it. Backbone providers already charge for bandwidth. You use more you pay more. The reason most people don't see this charge is that their ISPs cover it for the monthly fee, and most people never go over the average that would cause the ISPs to pay more than they are for X amount of people. What Comcast wants to do is sub sell bandwidth to its customers to make even more money from them other than their monthly bill. 250GB is nothing for one month. I'm a photographer and in my business, which is a good example, I upload 30MB files and larger by the 10 even 100s weekly. At a modest 30MB a file, 1000 files would be 30GB. I can do that in less than a day if I reset my web host and need to upload all the files again. What we need to do is get to a point, with Federal help if needed, to have all the bandwidth we need. This in turn will allow more technology to be shared on the internet and increase progress in those areas. Throttles back, holding back, cutting back is no way to progress into the future technologically. Also, if there is enough bandwidth for all people all the time, there is no incentive to charge more. That would be artificially limiting a commodity that is neither scarce or expensive to create (see fiber optics).</p> The reason you don't see a problem is because you don't understand it. Backbone providers already charge for bandwidth. You use more you pay more. The reason most people don't see this charge is that their ISPs cover it for the monthly fee, and most people never go over the average that would cause the ISPs to pay more than they are for X amount of people. What Comcast wants to do is sub sell bandwidth to its customers to make even more money from them other than their monthly bill. 250GB is nothing for one month. I'm a photographer and in my business, which is a good example, I upload 30MB files and larger by the 10 even 100s weekly. At a modest 30MB a file, 1000 files would be 30GB. I can do that in less than a day if I reset my web host and need to upload all the files again. What we need to do is get to a point, with Federal help if needed, to have all the bandwidth we need. This in turn will allow more technology to be shared on the internet and increase progress in those areas. Throttles back, holding back, cutting back is no way to progress into the future technologically. Also, if there is enough bandwidth for all people all the time, there is no incentive to charge more. That would be artificially limiting a commodity that is neither scarce or expensive to create (see fiber optics).

]]> By: DW http://techliberation.com/2008/08/30/bandwidth-cap-worries/comment-page-1/#comment-61805 DW Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:13:50 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=12342#comment-61805 <p>The reason you don't see a problem is because you don't understand it. Backbone providers already charge for bandwidth. You use more you pay more. The reason most people don't see this charge is that their ISPs cover it for the monthly fee, and most people never go over the average that would cause the ISPs to pay more than they are for X amount of people. What Comcast wants to do is sub sell bandwidth to its customers to make even more money from them other than their monthly bill. 250GB is nothing for one month. I'm a photographer and in my business, which is a good example, I upload 30MB files and larger by the 10 even 100s weekly. At a modest 30MB a file, 1000 files would be 30GB. I can do that in less than a day if I reset my web host and need to upload all the files again. What we need to do is get to a point, with Federal help if needed, to have all the bandwidth we need. This in turn will allow more technology to be shared on the internet and increase progress in those areas. Throttles back, holding back, cutting back is no way to progress into the future technologically. Also, if there is enough bandwidth for all people all the time, there is no incentive to charge more. That would be artificially limiting a commodity that is neither scarce or expensive to create (see fiber optics).</p> The reason you don't see a problem is because you don't understand it. Backbone providers already charge for bandwidth. You use more you pay more. The reason most people don't see this charge is that their ISPs cover it for the monthly fee, and most people never go over the average that would cause the ISPs to pay more than they are for X amount of people. What Comcast wants to do is sub sell bandwidth to its customers to make even more money from them other than their monthly bill. 250GB is nothing for one month. I'm a photographer and in my business, which is a good example, I upload 30MB files and larger by the 10 even 100s weekly. At a modest 30MB a file, 1000 files would be 30GB. I can do that in less than a day if I reset my web host and need to upload all the files again. What we need to do is get to a point, with Federal help if needed, to have all the bandwidth we need. This in turn will allow more technology to be shared on the internet and increase progress in those areas. Throttles back, holding back, cutting back is no way to progress into the future technologically. Also, if there is enough bandwidth for all people all the time, there is no incentive to charge more. That would be artificially limiting a commodity that is neither scarce or expensive to create (see fiber optics).

]]> By: DW http://techliberation.com/2008/08/30/bandwidth-cap-worries/comment-page-1/#comment-57134 DW Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:13:50 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=12342#comment-57134 <p>The reason you don't see a problem is because you don't understand it. Backbone providers already charge for bandwidth. You use more you pay more. The reason most people don't see this charge is that their ISPs cover it for the monthly fee, and most people never go over the average that would cause the ISPs to pay more than they are for X amount of people. What Comcast wants to do is sub sell bandwidth to its customers to make even more money from them other than their monthly bill. 250GB is nothing for one month. I'm a photographer and in my business, which is a good example, I upload 30MB files and larger by the 10 even 100s weekly. At a modest 30MB a file, 1000 files would be 30GB. I can do that in less than a day if I reset my web host and need to upload all the files again. What we need to do is get to a point, with Federal help if needed, to have all the bandwidth we need. This in turn will allow more technology to be shared on the internet and increase progress in those areas. Throttles back, holding back, cutting back is no way to progress into the future technologically. Also, if there is enough bandwidth for all people all the time, there is no incentive to charge more. That would be artificially limiting a commodity that is neither scarce or expensive to create (see fiber optics).</p> The reason you don't see a problem is because you don't understand it. Backbone providers already charge for bandwidth. You use more you pay more. The reason most people don't see this charge is that their ISPs cover it for the monthly fee, and most people never go over the average that would cause the ISPs to pay more than they are for X amount of people. What Comcast wants to do is sub sell bandwidth to its customers to make even more money from them other than their monthly bill. 250GB is nothing for one month. I'm a photographer and in my business, which is a good example, I upload 30MB files and larger by the 10 even 100s weekly. At a modest 30MB a file, 1000 files would be 30GB. I can do that in less than a day if I reset my web host and need to upload all the files again. What we need to do is get to a point, with Federal help if needed, to have all the bandwidth we need. This in turn will allow more technology to be shared on the internet and increase progress in those areas. Throttles back, holding back, cutting back is no way to progress into the future technologically. Also, if there is enough bandwidth for all people all the time, there is no incentive to charge more. That would be artificially limiting a commodity that is neither scarce or expensive to create (see fiber optics).

]]> By: Adam Thierer http://techliberation.com/2008/08/30/bandwidth-cap-worries/comment-page-1/#comment-56059 Adam Thierer Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:11:40 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=12342#comment-56059 <p>Some more sensible thinking on the subject by CNet's Peter Glaskowsky here:<br><br><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13512_3-10031116-23.html">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13512_3-10031116-23.html</a></p> Some more sensible thinking on the subject by CNet's Peter Glaskowsky here:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13512_3-10031116-23.html

]]> By: kdonovan11 http://techliberation.com/2008/08/30/bandwidth-cap-worries/comment-page-1/#comment-56058 kdonovan11 Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:24:38 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=12342#comment-56058 <p>Isn't the answer to your last question come from the nature of the application Comcast is allowing? VoIP is an Internet application (IP) whereas cable TV isn't. Don't they 1. have different rules and 2. different norms. VoIP are packets that should be treated equally (in the view of many, including Crawford); cable is not.</p> Isn't the answer to your last question come from the nature of the application Comcast is allowing? VoIP is an Internet application (IP) whereas cable TV isn't. Don't they 1. have different rules and 2. different norms. VoIP are packets that should be treated equally (in the view of many, including Crawford); cable is not.

]]>