I can fill in a few of the details people seem to be debating. Our company currently subscribes via Hood Canal Communications. We have a block of 16 static IPs and the fiber connection comes to our business at 100mb, though we typically see about 5mb/s to the internet. Keep in mind that I don't know that our connection is the limiting factor in that.
While I agree that the bandwidth cap might discourage home users, it still makes great sense for business users. The cap is set at 5GB (that's gigabytes, no matter what the website says) and our service is not affected if we go over the limit--our checkbooks, however, are. We pay a rate of $2.20 for each GB after the 5 GB limit. Consider the amount of data we can send for the same price as our (now backup) T1:
$900 for the old connection - $40 for the first 5GB = $860
$860 / $2.20 per GB = 390GB
390GB Extra + 5GB Included = 395GB monthly
We can deal nearly 400GB monthly for the same price as our old connection. If I recall correctly, we paid the PUD $200 to bring the fiber from the road to our building and we pay something like $5 monthly for each of our IPs (except one, which obviously is included with the base price).
We're extremely happy with the service and frankly I'm amazed that a county as rural as Mason has such great internet access. It's far better than is available just 30 minutes away in Olympia, WA.
Plenty of people whine about MP3 being inferior quality, and no match for a CD. I can't hear the difference, TBH - and if MP3 is so poor, why are the RIAA and co so worried about Napster? Similarly, if analogue TV is so crap, WTF have we all been paying money for it all these years?!
I think your logic is off here. There is an important difference between the advent of digital TV and MP3: MP3 is not intended to supercede CD sound; digital TV is designed to be far better quality than traditional TV broadcasts. MP3 (as I see it) is simply a more portable format than CD--the files are smaller for use with more portable devices.
As far as "if analogue TV is so crap, WTF have we all been paying money for it all these years?!", the answer is simple: There wasn't a better alternative. When black/white TV was introduced, there were few (if any) complaints about picture quality--there were simply no other options. Yet by modern standards, the quality is unacceptable.
So in conclusion, my problem with DTV is in the control that corporations (I hate when people rag on "big evil corporations" without reason, but that's another story) have over how I use my TV. The format itself promises far greater entertainment value than traditional analog broadcasts.
Having copy protection built into PCs seems like disabling the floppy drive on a computer: the software manufacturers should be responsible for keeping their property secure; not the hardware manufacturers.
Recently, my Diablo CD has gotten so scratched, it occasionally boots me out with a blue screen and instructs me to insert my CD. I made a copy of it so that I could continue to play the game.
Clearly there are valid, legal uses for copying software (be it TV, CD, etc) and consumers shouldn't have to bend over backwards to take advantage of the technology they're paying for.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree that the bandwidth cap might discourage home users, it still makes great sense for business users. The cap is set at 5GB (that's gigabytes, no matter what the website says) and our service is not affected if we go over the limit--our checkbooks, however, are. We pay a rate of $2.20 for each GB after the 5 GB limit. Consider the amount of data we can send for the same price as our (now backup) T1:
$900 for the old connection - $40 for the first 5GB = $860
$860 / $2.20 per GB = 390GB
390GB Extra + 5GB Included = 395GB monthly
We can deal nearly 400GB monthly for the same price as our old connection. If I recall correctly, we paid the PUD $200 to bring the fiber from the road to our building and we pay something like $5 monthly for each of our IPs (except one, which obviously is included with the base price).
We're extremely happy with the service and frankly I'm amazed that a county as rural as Mason has such great internet access. It's far better than is available just 30 minutes away in Olympia, WA.
I think your logic is off here. There is an important difference between the advent of digital TV and MP3: MP3 is not intended to supercede CD sound; digital TV is designed to be far better quality than traditional TV broadcasts. MP3 (as I see it) is simply a more portable format than CD--the files are smaller for use with more portable devices.
As far as "if analogue TV is so crap, WTF have we all been paying money for it all these years?!", the answer is simple: There wasn't a better alternative. When black/white TV was introduced, there were few (if any) complaints about picture quality--there were simply no other options. Yet by modern standards, the quality is unacceptable.
So in conclusion, my problem with DTV is in the control that corporations (I hate when people rag on "big evil corporations" without reason, but that's another story) have over how I use my TV. The format itself promises far greater entertainment value than traditional analog broadcasts.
Recently, my Diablo CD has gotten so scratched, it occasionally boots me out with a blue screen and instructs me to insert my CD. I made a copy of it so that I could continue to play the game.
Clearly there are valid, legal uses for copying software (be it TV, CD, etc) and consumers shouldn't have to bend over backwards to take advantage of the technology they're paying for.