I have no problem with ISPs limiting bandwidth. If you incur actual costs to the ISP for extremely high usage, then (assuming it's in the EULA or they've warned you) it's reasonable for them to pass those charges along to you.
I also have no problem with ISPs saying that I can't transmit illegal content. This is an obvious and redundant rule anyway.
I DO have a problem with ISPs saying that I can't put up a server. ISP's use this in an attempt to limit upstream bandwidth. If they put a limit on total upstream bandwidth usage, then why should they dictate that I can't serve? There is no good reason.
The problem is that ISPs are enforcing BOTH bandwidth usage limits and server bans at the same time. There is a good reason to use one or the other. They both are intended to serve the same purpose (limit bandwidth) but target different user profiles. One method may seem more restrictive than the other to a user. It depends on the profile of the user as to which one seems more restrictive.
What I see is a trend to enforce BOTH rules. When I signed up for DSL service 26 months ago, the usage policy stated that they have the rights to impose extra bandwidth charges to a user if the user is notified and given 30 days to either accept the new charges or discontinue service. Serving was not mentioned at all in the agreement. I asked the company representative that was signing me up over the phone, and she explicitly said that no, there were no serving restrictions.
Now the posted usage policy states specific upstream/downstream bandwidth limits per month, and it states that NO servers are allowed. This seems to be the norm now, at least in my neck of the woods. The local cable company (the only real competition) has a similarly restrictive policy.
I still serve. I run an low-usage FTP server that I use to transfer files between the office and home, and to a small circle of friends. I also serve a specific set of 12 mp3s from my favorite band via my FTP server and Napster. The mp3s I serve are completely legal. The band has given permission to distribute these specific 12 mp3s. Rather enlightened of them, isn't it? Here's my shameless plug for them--a wonderful fan page: www.screeming.com
Fortunately for me, my ISP hasn't done anything about my serving..yet. But whether they choose to enforce it or not is not the point. The point is that they should not be allowed to dictate how I use the system. If all ISPs have the same policy in place, then we have no recourse. It won't do any good to switch providers because they all have the same policy. Sure, I can subscribe to a third party web server or FTP server, but what if the server I want to run doesn't fall within this category?
Tell your ISP that usage restrictions are unacceptable. If you're signing up for service, ask about serving restrictions. Tell them you don't like it. The people who sign you up for service DO often pass along comments. If you're switching ISPs, always let your old ISP know why you're canceling.
I'm not sure if this is the company you spoke of, but the technology sounds a lot like that of Microvision, which happens to be Seattle-based.
http://www.mvis.com/
These guys are researching and producing what they call "Virtual Retinal Displays" which project the image directly onto the retina using a low-power laser. I've seen claims that this technology will eventually produce resolutions unlike anything you've seen in conventional displays.
Some other big advantages: The product can be used as a heads-up display (transparent) and the laser-based displays are daylight readable. IBM's TV commercial shows a guy using the display on a park bench, but the small amount of literature I've read from IBM suggests that the display is NOT daylight-readable. Yick! I hope that's not true. As someone pointed out in an earlier post, the display in the commercial also looks nothing like the clunky device that is pictured in the one you've already seen in the news article here:
Microvision appears to be primarily targeting the high-margin markets right now, specifically military, avionics (virtual cockpit), and medical tech. I hope they eventually create a low-cost consumer model based on the same technology. Maybe the current, rather clunky displays from IBM and others will help build the market segment to a volume that makes it possible.
Oh, and will people be willing to use it? Some will be scared to at first, just like some people were afraid to cook with microwave ovens during their introduction. 'nuff said.
On a different note, keep in mind that wearables are not intended to replace desktops. They are intended, like palm organizers, to be used when you can't use a desktop. Coupled with a high-speed portable/wireless internet connection they could make information access a whole lot nicer for some mobile users. Getting a few lines displayed on your web-enabled phone is fine, but if you want to read large documents, I'd prefer the hi-res wearable. If it's made small enough to integrate into the pair of corrective glasses I already wear and if I can afford to actually buy one, then I'll be in heaven.
The interface doesn't have to be as good as the desktop. It might not be useful for what you want to do with it (everything), but it is good enough, even with the existing interfaces, for many tasks. Comparing wearables to desktops is like comparing PDAs to desktops or mice to voice recognition. It shouldn't be done. Remember: think supplement, not replacement.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no problem with ISPs limiting bandwidth. If you incur actual costs to the ISP for extremely high usage, then (assuming it's in the EULA or they've warned you) it's reasonable for them to pass those charges along to you.
I also have no problem with ISPs saying that I can't transmit illegal content. This is an obvious and redundant rule anyway.
I DO have a problem with ISPs saying that I can't put up a server. ISP's use this in an attempt to limit upstream bandwidth. If they put a limit on total upstream bandwidth usage, then why should they dictate that I can't serve? There is no good reason.
The problem is that ISPs are enforcing BOTH bandwidth usage limits and server bans at the same time. There is a good reason to use one or the other. They both are intended to serve the same purpose (limit bandwidth) but target different user profiles. One method may seem more restrictive than the other to a user. It depends on the profile of the user as to which one seems more restrictive.
What I see is a trend to enforce BOTH rules. When I signed up for DSL service 26 months ago, the usage policy stated that they have the rights to impose extra bandwidth charges to a user if the user is notified and given 30 days to either accept the new charges or discontinue service. Serving was not mentioned at all in the agreement. I asked the company representative that was signing me up over the phone, and she explicitly said that no, there were no serving restrictions.
Now the posted usage policy states specific upstream/downstream bandwidth limits per month, and it states that NO servers are allowed. This seems to be the norm now, at least in my neck of the woods. The local cable company (the only real competition) has a similarly restrictive policy.
I still serve. I run an low-usage FTP server that I use to transfer files between the office and home, and to a small circle of friends. I also serve a specific set of 12 mp3s from my favorite band via my FTP server and Napster. The mp3s I serve are completely legal. The band has given permission to distribute these specific 12 mp3s. Rather enlightened of them, isn't it? Here's my shameless plug for them--a wonderful fan page: www.screeming.com
Fortunately for me, my ISP hasn't done anything about my serving..yet. But whether they choose to enforce it or not is not the point. The point is that they should not be allowed to dictate how I use the system. If all ISPs have the same policy in place, then we have no recourse. It won't do any good to switch providers because they all have the same policy. Sure, I can subscribe to a third party web server or FTP server, but what if the server I want to run doesn't fall within this category?
Tell your ISP that usage restrictions are unacceptable. If you're signing up for service, ask about serving restrictions. Tell them you don't like it. The people who sign you up for service DO often pass along comments. If you're switching ISPs, always let your old ISP know why you're canceling.
Chris Marta
I'm not sure if this is the company you spoke of, but the technology sounds a lot like that of Microvision, which happens to be Seattle-based.
http://www.mvis.com/
These guys are researching and producing what they call "Virtual Retinal Displays" which project the image directly onto the retina using a low-power laser. I've seen claims that this technology will eventually produce resolutions unlike anything you've seen in conventional displays.
Some other big advantages: The product can be used as a heads-up display (transparent) and the laser-based displays are daylight readable. IBM's TV commercial shows a guy using the display on a park bench, but the small amount of literature I've read from IBM suggests that the display is NOT daylight-readable. Yick! I hope that's not true. As someone pointed out in an earlier post, the display in the commercial also looks nothing like the clunky device that is pictured in the one you've already seen in the news article here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid _538000/538072.stm
Microvision appears to be primarily targeting the high-margin markets right now, specifically military, avionics (virtual cockpit), and medical tech. I hope they eventually create a low-cost consumer model based on the same technology. Maybe the current, rather clunky displays from IBM and others will help build the market segment to a volume that makes it possible.
Oh, and will people be willing to use it? Some will be scared to at first, just like some people were afraid to cook with microwave ovens during their introduction. 'nuff said.
On a different note, keep in mind that wearables are not intended to replace desktops. They are intended, like palm organizers, to be used when you can't use a desktop. Coupled with a high-speed portable/wireless internet connection they could make information access a whole lot nicer for some mobile users. Getting a few lines displayed on your web-enabled phone is fine, but if you want to read large documents, I'd prefer the hi-res wearable. If it's made small enough to integrate into the pair of corrective glasses I already wear and if I can afford to actually buy one, then I'll be in heaven.
The interface doesn't have to be as good as the desktop. It might not be useful for what you want to do with it (everything), but it is good enough, even with the existing interfaces, for many tasks. Comparing wearables to desktops is like comparing PDAs to desktops or mice to voice recognition. It shouldn't be done. Remember: think supplement, not replacement.