No idea why you are painting cable companies as if they are alone in this. DSL shouldn't even be sold anymore, the tech is too old. People might bring up FIOS but then this tech is barely visible considering how many users have access to it. And every major ISP is censoring in one way or another, either by limiting bandwith as if they don't have it, or removing access to usenet etc from their paying customers. We've been lied to by every telco out there, in my area specifically, cable is building out at a great rate while the telco can barely get DSL to customers. Why am I stuck with such old tech? Because the telco here took their tax incentives and wasted them away.
Cable isn't the culprit here, it's every ISP out there that's been lying to their customers for years. Mike On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Tom Piwowar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Recent GGUYS example: While it may seem that peer to peer sharing of > >pirated movies is a victim-less win-win free Xmas gift type of thing, it > >isn't if you look more deeply at the situation. Not only are the > >artists defrauded of their means of income but fellow users of > >broadband often can't reasonably access the service they paid for for > >email and browsing purposes because the movie down loaders figured out a > >new way to hog the vast majority of available bandwidth with bit torrent > >software designed and set with aggressive functional parameters. > > The programming I download via the Internet is either free or paid for. > If I got that content via cable (which I don't) it would have the same > detrimental impact on other cable users as the situation you describe. So > "thinking critically" I observe you painting downloaders with a very > broad brush. > > The problem is not the downloaders. The problem is the liars who run the > cable company. They have under-invested and are pushing a poor technology > that can't carry the content. Instead of fixing it, they lie about what > they are able to deliver and whip up hysteria against peer to peer > sharing. Then they impose caps and are making moves to control the > content on the network. > > If, as you say, the crime is made worse by the asymmetry in power between > parties, then isn't the relationship between a greedy corportaion that > has a local monopoly or near-monopoly vs. individuals and small > businesses similarly asymmetrical? > > > ************************************************************************* > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > ************************************************************************* > -- Make sure you support your local CarbonONset programs! ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
