Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Bruce Pinsky]

Jack Bates wrote:
> Dan Hollis wrote:
>
> > Using the law to defend deceptive business practices. Makes perfect 
> > sense.
> It's either that or start charging the customer's what it really costs. 
> They've been so happy to get away from that. Large networks have cut 
> their rates based on oversell so that mid-sized networks could cut their 
> rates, so that small networks could cut their rates, so that @home can 
> have service for $50/mo. If @home uses full bandwidth, and each of the 
> networks steps up to meet the bandwidth, either a) @home gets billed no 
> less than 4 times as much or b) any network that doesn't step up pricing 
> goes into Chapter 11. In addition, it's questionable if the overall 
> network infrastructure can handle that amount of throughput. 1.5Mb/s to 
> the house sounds so wonderful, but at $50/mo, it's not really feasible 
> without a lot of oversell. People traditionally base oversell per 
> computer connection (taken from dialup overselling).
>
> I disagree with the method, but who am I to say someone else's business 
> plan is faulty and they shouldn't be allowed to enforce it?
Then charge what it really costs.

Look, I'm buying transit from an ISP.  You know, moving bits.  This kind 
of legislation is as absurd as telling me what devices I'm allowed to 
view my DVD's on, listen to my CD's on, or how I should watch a movie 
because it happens to come on a little silver disk vs a dark stream of tape.

If ISPs have to resort to these kind of tactics to preserve "value" of 
their services, perhaps they need to find a way to offer more "value" 
than they do today.

As for the security aspects, I have privacy of communication when I put 
a letter into an envelope.  Just because I'm communicating 
electronically doesn't mean I've abdicated that right.

==========
bep