"It was as if the "review" was written by an overeager child - nothing remotely reputable in it. Please folks. Anyone using that many quotation marks can't seriously be expected to be anything other than a rabid fan."
As a long time AICN reader, who stopped reading it a while ago, I would say your first impression is quite accurate. The writing is terrible. The reviews are often either gushing or caustic. Harry can be an ametuerish fanboy.
Now wrap your melon around this: People Like It, though I can't decide if it is despite or because of those reasons. My personal opinion is that, like slashdot, much of the traffic is there for the TalkBack.
But aren't you talking about two different "the government" as if they are the same? Doesn't the local government grant the monopoly, and still have the ability to impose shared access on the cable company? The story is that the fedral court is finding that the fedral law doesn't change this.
You've got it completely backwards. That is exactly what a competetitor CANNOT do. Unless other laws direct it to, a cable company does NOT have to sell bandwidth to a competitor. They can dictate that they are only selling single user connections of up to 1Mbps (with no guaranteed minimum speed) and that you may not share or resell this bandwidth. They can also say "you may not run any servers of any kind" and decide not to provide fixed IP addresses. No competition means they don't have to give good service, they only sell what they want to.
Slashdot Mirror
"It was as if the "review" was written by an overeager child - nothing remotely reputable in it. Please folks. Anyone using that many quotation marks can't seriously be expected to be anything other than a rabid fan." As a long time AICN reader, who stopped reading it a while ago, I would say your first impression is quite accurate. The writing is terrible. The reviews are often either gushing or caustic. Harry can be an ametuerish fanboy. Now wrap your melon around this: People Like It, though I can't decide if it is despite or because of those reasons. My personal opinion is that, like slashdot, much of the traffic is there for the TalkBack.
Well, if it was in a movie, then it must be true.
But aren't you talking about two different "the government" as if they are the same? Doesn't the local government grant the monopoly, and still have the ability to impose shared access on the cable company? The story is that the fedral court is finding that the fedral law doesn't change this.
You've got it completely backwards. That is exactly what a competetitor CANNOT do. Unless other laws direct it to, a cable company does NOT have to sell bandwidth to a competitor. They can dictate that they are only selling single user connections of up to 1Mbps (with no guaranteed minimum speed) and that you may not share or resell this bandwidth. They can also say "you may not run any servers of any kind" and decide not to provide fixed IP addresses. No competition means they don't have to give good service, they only sell what they want to.
But then who would protect you? Your legislators?