>This news kind of stinks, but I think they are just formalizing the
>policy that they've been using. Big-time downloaders have been harassed
>by Comcast for a long time.

Yes, and they are currently challenging the FCC rule concerning their
"disruption of service" model of bandwidth control:

http://www.betanews.com/article/Comcast_challenges_FCCs_authority_in_sanction_appeal/1220631576

I believe this is MUCH better than throttling or denying service for certain
applications, since this is at least transparent. I remember Comcast
qualifying that their service is "unlimited", so the hidden throttling was
particularly unfortunate policy (at least for consumers).

Plus, in a capitalist market, assuming that competition is viable, consume
choices should result in fair market prices based on the value of the
service (assuming no price setting and that economic fundamentals are
correct).

Oddly enough, my intuition tells me that the decision to cap at 350GB/month,
which seems like quite a lot of bandwidth, is only a stone's throw away from
effecting consumer's by turning into an increase in monthly charges based on
bandwidth usage. I.e., I think the internet is going to be more expensive
within a couple years. Competition is still an issue insofar that no one has
the infrastructure to provide high-speed internet access like Comcast.

But data makes fools of us all. We'll just have to wait and see. Surely
enough, if Comcast is enacting a policy, it must have enough significance to
them as a business to make up for some of the significant negative reaction
it will generate. "Rogue" users (e.g., armchair proteomics subscribers or
anyone eating up > 250GM/month) might be a "burden" on their bandwidth
(though, at $60/month, its hard to imagine how they cannot manage their
resources to provide sufficient bandwidth for everyone), but I suspect that
this might be a way to enact a new pay model that is more likely to generate
better profits.


B

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Jayson Falkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> This news kind of stinks, but I think they are just formalizing the
> policy that they've been using. Big-time downloaders have been harassed
> by Comcast for a long time.
>
> Alas, it seems armchair Proteomics will no longer be practical for the
> average Comcast customer.
>
> Jayson
>
> James A Hill wrote:
> > Our lobby group in Washington isn't doing a very good job... o wait...
> > nevermind.
> >
> > Augie
> >
> >     ----- Original Message -----
> >     *From:* Bryan Smith <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >     *To:* ProteomeCommons.org Tranche Dev
> >     <mailto:proteomecommons-tranche-dev@googlegroups.com>
> >     *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2008 6:22 PM
> >     *Subject:* Comcast 250MB monthly limit starting October 1
> >
> >     Have you heard about the new Comcast limit?:
> >
> >     http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080829/wr_nm/comcast_internet_dc
> >
> >     This could pose a problem for armchair Proteomics. For example,
> >     downloading our three largest projects would come close to
> >     exceeding (or would exceed) this limit.
> >
> >     In contrast:
> >     * 50,000 MP3s could be downloaded, assuming 5MB/CD.
> >     * 357 (700MB) CDs worth of data would barely make it under the limit.
> >
> >
> >     Cheers,
> >     Bryan
> >
> >
> >     >
>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"ProteomeCommons.org Tranche Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to 
proteomecommons-tranche-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/proteomecommons-tranche-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to