Irresponsible? No more irresponsible than a local "all you can eat" restaurant "crying foul" if 5 out of 100 guests were to eat 50% of the food served. All the while, slowing down service for the rest of the guests. Would it be that 'evil' for the restaurant to ask guests who have had one serving already to go to the back of the line when two people present themselves at the buffet at the same time?
Zero limits may be allowable for a period of time but when restaurant traffic is increasing by 40% every year, eventually Mom & Pop will have to place limits or "cry foul". This isn't irresponsible, it's very reasonable. The amount of money they are making is irrelevant. They are trying to maintain quality of service for their guests and they're not about to double the size of their restaurant for the greedy 5% when they can place reasonable limits on them. Of course there has to be transparency but an asterisk will do if we're only talking about 5% here. I don't need to visit an "All you can eat but you can't shove stuff into your Purse" restaurant. An "All you can eat(*) " restaurant will do. Of course if something isn't actually unlimited it has to be mentioned somewhere. No one would argue that the contrary is acceptable. I do find it surprising that you would call bandwidth limits irresponsible though. I'd say the 5% using 50% and expecting to get away with it forever is irresponsible. Even disrespectful. If you wouldn't do it to a Mom & Pop business, why would you do it to a large corporation? On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Jay, what you have to realize is that these aren't false limits. In > > fact, bandwidth limits are usually false in the other sense. They > > limits purposely allow for too much bandwidth knowing that not all > > users will reach the limits or at least not all at the same time. > > you are correct Patrick. very good point. > Lets put aside Network Neutrality, discussion around monopolies and > vertical integration. > > US broadband providers have advertised "unlimited" bandwidth. > "Hey we got a great deal...please use Cable and not DSL" (or vice versa) > Then when 5% of their users actually do the all you can eat, they cry foul. > This is HUGELY irresponsible on their part. > > These companies need to not blame their users, or punish everyone by > limited certain technologies. > If they cant offer unlimited bandwidth, then they should openly > advertise the actual limits that we are purchasing so we can make > informed choices as consumers. So far, its only secrets that the > public must uncover themselves through independent tests. > > As Charles Hope (and Canadian Charles) advocate, this will allow > competition to rise...and consumers to support the businesses they > want. > Companies that blame their customers are creating their own demise. > Like RIAA suing their music fans. > even if you think you're right, you're wrong. > > > Jay > > -- > http://jaydedman.com > 917 371 6790 > Professional: http://ryanishungry.com > Personal: http://momentshowing.net > Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman > RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 >
