arstechnica.com — "Now is not the time... to engage in a debate about the need for net neutrality obligations," Time Warner Cable tells the FCC. But why not, other than the fact that TWC is taking a beating over bandwidth caps?
Apr 15, 2009 View in Crawl 4
badqatApr 15, 2009
Wait...does TWC run the show, or does the FCC? Because I think TWC is very confused about their role, and they'd be best off to shut up and provide their customers decent service.
dougman82Apr 16, 2009
So the problem for you is profit margins? In a free market, it doesn't matter one iota what kind of profit margins are obtained through the sale of some item. The market will set the price that people are willing to pay.The real issue is that in their attempts to maximize their profits, they might end up screwing us all over with a very restrictive service. And since they effectively have a monopoly in some areas, the consumer would have little choice but to accept such restrictive services.
barakApr 17, 2009
This is yet another example of the government making a private company richer; This might as well be graft gone wrong. The private company thinks it can publicly buy off the FCC like it did when it got the infrastructure payment.If this were truly public infrastructure, the government would pay contractors to build the cables to the homes and set up a public-run company to own the cables between the ISP's and the public. They would still contract out who was the ISP aka backbone access, but companies would have to compete to provide access to the rest of the internet. Consumers pay the ISP, who pays a smaller amount to the city for access to its customers and repairs.This way, actual price competition could be sustained, the infrastructure could be maintained, and the government perform its only duty which is to provide market services which are critical to ensuring life and liberty (freedom and choice and fair competition) but which are unprofitable or unethical to perform privately (i.e. justice, regulatory agencies, infrastructure etc).
lolwutpearApr 17, 2009
No comments about the thumbnail yet?
Closed AccountApr 20, 2009
Ok, there's a lot of misinformation here. WPA was not "cracked". There was a trivial demonstration of someone cracking a password something like "0123456789". If you use a 32+-character random password, you're fine. There's also a very minor flaw in TKIP, the only protocol supported in WPA1, but you can't really -do- anything meaningfully malicious with it - certainly not get on the network or decrypt any traffic.Regarding those saying "WPA2 is more secure", that is a nonsensical statement. WPA2 is like USB 2.0 - it supports USB 1 speed, but also adds another layer with more modern functionality. WPA2 supports TKIP - the exact same standard supported by WPA1 - but also adds another protocol, AES. It is true that TKIP was designed to be compatible with old hardware and that AES is redesigned from the ground up to be a better standard, but neither have been "cracked", neither are inherently insecure, and both are fine with a good enough password.Don't take information from random people on Digg as the complete truth - that especially includes the people above, and it also includes me. Research it yourself if you are concerned, and if you have a wireless network, you should be.
michuhsuhApr 22, 2009
DSL isn't available in all areas or in every building. And in my areas it's still more expensive than DSL per mbps. They still didn't implement a data cap here but I'm already looking to switch based on the ridiculously unreliable service I'm getting, only thing is that for my neighbors, the DSL connection is even worse.
ccantwell6Apr 29, 2009
Don't we the taxpayers have some sort of ownership of the framework that all telecommunication companies use to sell service back to us? The internet stems from early military satellite systems that talked to each other, all funded with tax dollars. Any thoughts?