So it will work fine on my mum's new MacBook and my Linux box then?
A) They say they are working on Linux and Mac support so they are either lying or telling the truth. Assuming they are telling the truth then what's your beef? The fact that the OS with >85% market-share was the first one they released the product for? Would you have focused your R&D dollars on releasing it for Linux or Mac first in their shoes?
B) How is it the fault of Netflix if the studios/copyright holders refuse them a license for digital distribution UNLESS the resulting distribution medium imposes DRM? Blame the studios and not Netflix.
What I find interesting is that the US Post Office has suffered in silence for 2 years
I find it unlikely that they are "suffering". In fact, it's probably in the best interests of the Post Office to work with Netflix to find a solution to this and keep them around. After all, how many new businesses are there that rely on the good ole post office as a cornerstone of their business model? Not many I'd suspect....
So why not have unrestricted downloads of content from the ISP's servers when purchased.
Because the typical bottleneck with a DOCSIS network is not the ISP edge, but the DOCSIS nodes themselves. Allowing someone to have full access to all of the bandwidth (even if the source of that download was within the ISPs network) would harm the other users in the neighborhood.
If your ping times went from 60ms to 300ms would you really care if the source of your neighbors download that was killing your node was local to the ISP or not?
So it was not just tactics in that case, but treachery
Treachery, like most things, depends on your vantage point. To most Japanese, the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was probably a sound tactical decision. To most Americans it was a treacherous sneak attack that included the worst kind of duplicity (they attacked while engaged in peace negotiations) imaginable.
And agriculture of that quality arose where there were good, domesticatible plants which could be spread over wide areas of similar climate - easy in an east-to-west land mass like Europe; hard in a north-to-south land mass like the Americas
Well, the north-to-south argument is a unique one that I haven't heard before. It still baffles me that no civilization arose in what is now the United States -- the US has built an empire on the resources of the New World (including New World crops like corn).
That said, I'm going to check out your book the next time I'm down at the library:)
his is like passing a law requiring the electric company to turn you in should they discover marijuana growing in your backyard when they check the meter!
Somebody who notices weed growing in your backyard and who doesn't report it probably hasn't committed a crime. Somebody who notices you murdering your wife through that open window and who doesn't report it has committed any number of crimes, potentially all the way up to manslaughter or murder (depraved indifference).
Likewise, if through normal administrative activities, you discover something on your network that could harm (or is harming) another human being, you probably have a duty to report it under existing law. You don't get to turn a blind eye to somebody else being harmed or placed in danger.
(Of course all of the above only proves that this new law is pointless posturing -- you are already obligated under existing law to report stuff like this that has the potential to harm another human being)
I'm not angry.... don't know what in my post you read as anger. My original reply was because I took exception to the GPs statement that Venus is the most "Earth-like" planet in the solar system. It's nothing of the kind.
I'd leap at the chance for us to establish outposts or colonies on Venus. I'd probably even volunteer to go. Given the constraints on technology though I just don't see it happening first. Would you agree that with enough funding we could probably establish a foothold on Mars or Luna with existing technology? Can the same be said about Venus?
Hence the rapid decline of Switzerland, that stagnant, impoverished backwater, once they gave up aggressively colonising non-European continents.
And what's your point? That you don't NEED to colonize to survive? For better or worse the European colonization of the Americas spread Western civilization to the New World. It probably saved Democracy in the Old World -- what happens without Canada troop contributions to the Commonwealth and without American intervention in either World War?
And Switzerland? Pa-lease. They owe their survival as much to mountainous terrain (easy to defend) as they do to neutrality and isolationism. Ask any of the neutral countries invaded by Nazi Germany how well it worked out for them. The Swiss are just lucky enough not to be located on any natural invasion routes between major powers.
Smallpox and other Old World diseases played a very large part in the downfall of the peoples of the New World, but I don't think it was the ONLY part.
than by the Spaniards' superior tech
Actually, I wasn't making the argument that they were wiped out by superiror technology. It's probable that the Romans would have been able to crush most (all?) of the tribes and powers of the New World without superiror technology. Which New World civilization discovered anything remotely resumabling Western military science? Rome had orginized armies over 2,000 years ago that would have made short work of the wandering tribes of the New World.
Europeans dominated the world had more to do with geography and resources (mineral, animal, and vegetable)
The New World isn't rich in mineral resources? And geography? Europe's geography didn't protect it from numerous invasion attempts over the years. If anything, geography enabled the tribes of the New World to survive a lot longer then they otherwise would have.
The beast of burden argument is an interesting one though. One wonders how European history would have evolved without the horse. Still, why did no power in the New World discover gunpowder? Or military science? Or medicine? Where were the explorers from the New World? The scientists? The philosophers?
I'm sure the "victors write the history" syndrome explains away some of that. But how come there were no New World equivalents of Julius Ceaser, Issac Newton, Plato, Socrates, Hippocrates, Themistocles (just to name a few of the military men, scientists and philosophers responsible for Western Civilization). They can't all have been forgotten by history.
Not quite. The Roman legal system survives in almost every non-Anglosphere nation. Elements of their language survive to this day. Roads and aqueducts they built are still used. Most of the planets are named after their Gods. They civilized large tracts of Europe and (along with the Greeks before them) set the stage for Western Civilization to dominate the World.
The wandering tribe? Still around.
Which wandering tribe is still around that hasn't been influenced by civilization? Which wandering tribe isn't part of a larger nation-state (albeit with varying forms of autonomy)?
That the human-sacrificing Aztecs were not the only peoples that the Spaniards raped and stole from, as you and others here have suggested.
Where did I suggest that the Aztecs were the only people attacked by the Spanish?
The gist of my post is the fact that if the Aztecs (and other peoples of the New World) had bothered researching military science and gunpowder they probably wouldn't have been quite as easy to conquer.
What in that link disproves my statement that we could establish outposts on Luna and Mars with existing technology but not Venus?
Do we have "cloud flyers" that could fly around Venus at 50km of altitude? Do we have the technology to terraform the planet in a reasonable amount of time?
I'm not trying to be a nay-sayer. Just pointing out that in spite of all the advantages (closer to Earth with more launching windows, gravity almost the same as Earth), Venus is probably still out of reach with existing technology. And it's nowhere near "Earth-like" as the GP suggested.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
If you believe that the future of the human race lies in the stars, then I don't see how you can say that Space Exploration isn't in the best interests of the United States, i.e: "general Welfare".
Lest we forget, that the Dinosaurs died out because they lacked a Space Program.
Troll? Yeah, the parent disagreed with Ron Paul. OMG, mod him troll!
Take his exact same points and change the name from "Ron Paul" to "Hillary Clinton" or "George Bush" and it would probably have gotten a +5 insightful.
C'mon people! I like the guy too (he'd get us out of Iraq and end the War on Drugs), but let's not pretend that the Libertarians don't have disagreeable parts of their platform as well. I'm not sure I could vote for him even if he won the Republican nomination (which is a long shot) because I don't agree with all of his views.
Ron Paul's biggest asset, IMHO, is that you know where he stands. I disagree with a lot of his views but I respect him for having the balls to lay them out for me all the while knowing that most Americans will probably disagree with everything he has to say. He isn't the stereotypical politician relying on polls to make up his mind as to where he stands on an issue.
A culture of machismo where the first thing Spanish explorers did when they reached the New World was rape women and steal?
Maybe if they had spent less time sacrificing humans and more time researching things like gunpowder they wouldn't have been rolled over by the Spanish.
Yeah, it sucks what happened to the people of the New World, but that's how history works. I hear a lot of people whining about the raw deal that the Native Americans/Aztecs/etc got. I don't hear anybody pointing out the raw deal that the Celts got (brutally conquered by Rome). I don't anybody pointing out the raw deal that the Jews got (brutally conquered by just about everybody, including Rome). How about the various peoples conquered by Alexander the Great? How about the Greek city states that the Persians put to the torch during their campaigns?
In fact, come to think of it, the various peoples of the New World would probably have been equally as easy for the Romans to conquer as they were for the Spanish and British. The Romans understood military science. No wandering tribe can stand up against an organized military force. And it's not our fault that the peoples of the New World never bothered to research military science and gunpowder.
Try playing Civ2 without researching any of the military technologies and see what happens.
I doubt it, since the main advantage to Hubble isn't that it is closer to the objects it is viewing
Actually a better spot for viewing would be one of the Lagrangian points. A huge portion of the sky is blocked from Hubble's field of view by the Earth. No way around that with an object in low Earth orbit.
Presumably an object in orbit of Luna would suffer the same drawback. The far side of the moon might be useful for a future RF telescope though -- as it would serve to block a lot of the RF generated by humans.
I'd rahter see NASA spending their money on Venus, the most earth-like and habitable planet in our solar system aside from Earth itself.
If by "Earth-like and habitable" you mean an average surface temperature of 480C, an atmosphere consisting of 96.5% CO2 and surface atmospheric pressures 92 times greater then Earth, then yes, Venus is "Earth-like and habitable".
It's somewhat possible for us to establish manned outposts on Luna and Mars with current technology, assuming the political will to do so existed. Can you really say the same for Venus?
but the equivalent of buying the right to distribute that song. When you purchase an album it does not give you the right to give it out to people, it just gives you the right to listen to it
As a legal argument I'd agree with that. However, don't we still have one problem?
Its also not unconceivable that the record companies lost that much money from her actions either, especially if she was one of the first to make it available for download
And therein lies my problem with this. How can they prove how much they lost when they can't even prove how many people (if any) downloaded those songs from her? What if they lost nothing because nobody downloaded from her? Doesn't the plaintiff in a lawsuit usually have to prove how much damage, if any, they've suffered?
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a big chunk of Verizon owned by Vodafone?
A big chunk of Verizon Wireless is owned by them, not Verizon itself.
Wikipedia is your friend: Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon Communications and Vodafone Group, with 55 and 45 percent ownership respectively.
So yeah, Vodafone owns 45% of it. But Verizon has majority ownership and control. It's a good relationship for Vodafone in that they get dividends from Verizon Wireless. It's a bad relationship in that they are completely at the mercy of Verizon management as to what those dividends are. It also doesn't work out very well for them that Verizon operates CDMA and is thus incompatible with roaming from Vodafones European Customers -- so they wind up paying AT&T and T-Mobile USA for that instead.
Vodafone tried to get out of the relationship by buying the old AT&T Wireless (presumably after getting AT&T Wireless they would have sold their stake in VZW), but was outbid by what was then called Cingular. Verizon has also repeatedly offered to buy Vodafones shares -- but Vodafone has always declined to sell them (and has even offered to buy out Verizon's shares).
I don't buy that. It was the smaller outfits (Qwest and T-Mobile) that declined to take part in the NSA Call Database, while AT&T and Verizon were only too happy to fork over everything.
In fact, I'd make the case that larger companies are easier to "bully", in that they probably have Government contracts and a vested interest in not pissing the Government off.
the GAIM/Pidgin guys will never ever be able to provide same functionality MSN provides
And I hate to say this, but this is one area where I've had better luck with closed-source software then open source. Pidgin (and GAIM) has never worked right for me. Random crashes in the older versions have been replaced by strange bugs -- like people disappearing out of my contact list even though they are signed on, strange connection issues with MSN, etc, etc.
Trillian Basic has worked out a lot better for me on Windows then Pidgin. And I've tried almost every version of Pidgin as they are released. I'd much prefer to use Pidgin, but hey, Trillian is better then the native clients....
In any case, I agree with you. IM is useful for person to person messages. IRC is useful for large conversations and meeting new people. They serve different objectives and the parent is completely wrong in assuming that IM is innovative while IRC stagnates.
When you are talking about DOCSIS 2.0 you are talking about only 8MHz of ~1GHz available bandwidth. TV channels are outside of this band
Uhh, no, they aren't. Your DOCSIS networks can't use all 1Ghz of that coax plant because most of it is being used for analog cable channels. Some is also being used by digital channels. What's left can be used for DOCSIS networks.
I don't like Comcast (or Verizon) either, but DOCSIS is still a flexible technology. Without DOCSIS I'd be getting 56kb (that's 7kB)
Hey, I love my cable connection too. And I've never had any problems from Time Warner. There's been months where I've downloaded hundreds of gigabytes and maxed out my upload the whole while. Never heard a peep from them.
A properly engineered DOCSIS network shouldn't have capacity issues. Yet it's Comcast we see taking steps to reduce bandwidth consumption -- not Verizon.
do FiOS nodes contain huge 2000 port patch panels? No! you don't get your own dedicated fiber all the way to the node. It likely goes from the node out to splitters/taps etc. not that different than cable
It is different from cable. One single fiber serves a max of 32 locations, typically less. So, no, you don't have a dedicated last mile all the way back to the CO (you do with DSL/POTS service, albeit copper and slower).
But compared to cable? That single fiber can haul 1.2GBit/s on the upstream and 2.4GBit/s on the downstream (with GPON). That's shared with no more then 32 customers. A DOCSIS 2.0 network by contrast provides for 42.88Mbit/s downstream and 30.72Mbit/s upstream per channel. How many channels they can put on a single node depends on what else they are doing (i.e: how many analog channels, how many digital channels, etc, etc) with their HFC network. In any case, the typical DOCSIS node has at least a few hundred homes on it -- upwards of two thousand at times.
What do you think is better? 2.4GBit/s down w/1.2GBit/s up shared with 32 locations or 42.88MBit/s down/30.72MBit/s up shared with hundreds of locations?
Slashdot Mirror
A) They say they are working on Linux and Mac support so they are either lying or telling the truth. Assuming they are telling the truth then what's your beef? The fact that the OS with >85% market-share was the first one they released the product for? Would you have focused your R&D dollars on releasing it for Linux or Mac first in their shoes?
B) How is it the fault of Netflix if the studios/copyright holders refuse them a license for digital distribution UNLESS the resulting distribution medium imposes DRM? Blame the studios and not Netflix.
I find it unlikely that they are "suffering". In fact, it's probably in the best interests of the Post Office to work with Netflix to find a solution to this and keep them around. After all, how many new businesses are there that rely on the good ole post office as a cornerstone of their business model? Not many I'd suspect....
Because the typical bottleneck with a DOCSIS network is not the ISP edge, but the DOCSIS nodes themselves. Allowing someone to have full access to all of the bandwidth (even if the source of that download was within the ISPs network) would harm the other users in the neighborhood.
If your ping times went from 60ms to 300ms would you really care if the source of your neighbors download that was killing your node was local to the ISP or not?
Treachery, like most things, depends on your vantage point. To most Japanese, the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was probably a sound tactical decision. To most Americans it was a treacherous sneak attack that included the worst kind of duplicity (they attacked while engaged in peace negotiations) imaginable.
And agriculture of that quality arose where there were good, domesticatible plants which could be spread over wide areas of similar climate - easy in an east-to-west land mass like Europe; hard in a north-to-south land mass like the AmericasWell, the north-to-south argument is a unique one that I haven't heard before. It still baffles me that no civilization arose in what is now the United States -- the US has built an empire on the resources of the New World (including New World crops like corn).
That said, I'm going to check out your book the next time I'm down at the library :)
Somebody who notices weed growing in your backyard and who doesn't report it probably hasn't committed a crime. Somebody who notices you murdering your wife through that open window and who doesn't report it has committed any number of crimes, potentially all the way up to manslaughter or murder (depraved indifference).
Likewise, if through normal administrative activities, you discover something on your network that could harm (or is harming) another human being, you probably have a duty to report it under existing law. You don't get to turn a blind eye to somebody else being harmed or placed in danger.
(Of course all of the above only proves that this new law is pointless posturing -- you are already obligated under existing law to report stuff like this that has the potential to harm another human being)
I'm not angry.... don't know what in my post you read as anger. My original reply was because I took exception to the GPs statement that Venus is the most "Earth-like" planet in the solar system. It's nothing of the kind.
I'd leap at the chance for us to establish outposts or colonies on Venus. I'd probably even volunteer to go. Given the constraints on technology though I just don't see it happening first. Would you agree that with enough funding we could probably establish a foothold on Mars or Luna with existing technology? Can the same be said about Venus?
And what's your point? That you don't NEED to colonize to survive? For better or worse the European colonization of the Americas spread Western civilization to the New World. It probably saved Democracy in the Old World -- what happens without Canada troop contributions to the Commonwealth and without American intervention in either World War?
And Switzerland? Pa-lease. They owe their survival as much to mountainous terrain (easy to defend) as they do to neutrality and isolationism. Ask any of the neutral countries invaded by Nazi Germany how well it worked out for them. The Swiss are just lucky enough not to be located on any natural invasion routes between major powers.
Smallpox and other Old World diseases played a very large part in the downfall of the peoples of the New World, but I don't think it was the ONLY part.
than by the Spaniards' superior techActually, I wasn't making the argument that they were wiped out by superiror technology. It's probable that the Romans would have been able to crush most (all?) of the tribes and powers of the New World without superiror technology. Which New World civilization discovered anything remotely resumabling Western military science? Rome had orginized armies over 2,000 years ago that would have made short work of the wandering tribes of the New World.
Europeans dominated the world had more to do with geography and resources (mineral, animal, and vegetable)The New World isn't rich in mineral resources? And geography? Europe's geography didn't protect it from numerous invasion attempts over the years. If anything, geography enabled the tribes of the New World to survive a lot longer then they otherwise would have.
The beast of burden argument is an interesting one though. One wonders how European history would have evolved without the horse. Still, why did no power in the New World discover gunpowder? Or military science? Or medicine? Where were the explorers from the New World? The scientists? The philosophers?
I'm sure the "victors write the history" syndrome explains away some of that. But how come there were no New World equivalents of Julius Ceaser, Issac Newton, Plato, Socrates, Hippocrates, Themistocles (just to name a few of the military men, scientists and philosophers responsible for Western Civilization). They can't all have been forgotten by history.
Not quite. The Roman legal system survives in almost every non-Anglosphere nation. Elements of their language survive to this day. Roads and aqueducts they built are still used. Most of the planets are named after their Gods. They civilized large tracts of Europe and (along with the Greeks before them) set the stage for Western Civilization to dominate the World.
The wandering tribe? Still around.Which wandering tribe is still around that hasn't been influenced by civilization? Which wandering tribe isn't part of a larger nation-state (albeit with varying forms of autonomy)?
Where did I suggest that the Aztecs were the only people attacked by the Spanish?
The gist of my post is the fact that if the Aztecs (and other peoples of the New World) had bothered researching military science and gunpowder they probably wouldn't have been quite as easy to conquer.
And your point is, what, exactly?
What in that link disproves my statement that we could establish outposts on Luna and Mars with existing technology but not Venus?
Do we have "cloud flyers" that could fly around Venus at 50km of altitude? Do we have the technology to terraform the planet in a reasonable amount of time?
I'm not trying to be a nay-sayer. Just pointing out that in spite of all the advantages (closer to Earth with more launching windows, gravity almost the same as Earth), Venus is probably still out of reach with existing technology. And it's nowhere near "Earth-like" as the GP suggested.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
If you believe that the future of the human race lies in the stars, then I don't see how you can say that Space Exploration isn't in the best interests of the United States, i.e: "general Welfare".
Lest we forget, that the Dinosaurs died out because they lacked a Space Program.
Troll? Yeah, the parent disagreed with Ron Paul. OMG, mod him troll!
Take his exact same points and change the name from "Ron Paul" to "Hillary Clinton" or "George Bush" and it would probably have gotten a +5 insightful.
C'mon people! I like the guy too (he'd get us out of Iraq and end the War on Drugs), but let's not pretend that the Libertarians don't have disagreeable parts of their platform as well. I'm not sure I could vote for him even if he won the Republican nomination (which is a long shot) because I don't agree with all of his views.
Ron Paul's biggest asset, IMHO, is that you know where he stands. I disagree with a lot of his views but I respect him for having the balls to lay them out for me all the while knowing that most Americans will probably disagree with everything he has to say. He isn't the stereotypical politician relying on polls to make up his mind as to where he stands on an issue.
Maybe if they had spent less time sacrificing humans and more time researching things like gunpowder they wouldn't have been rolled over by the Spanish.
Yeah, it sucks what happened to the people of the New World, but that's how history works. I hear a lot of people whining about the raw deal that the Native Americans/Aztecs/etc got. I don't hear anybody pointing out the raw deal that the Celts got (brutally conquered by Rome). I don't anybody pointing out the raw deal that the Jews got (brutally conquered by just about everybody, including Rome). How about the various peoples conquered by Alexander the Great? How about the Greek city states that the Persians put to the torch during their campaigns?
In fact, come to think of it, the various peoples of the New World would probably have been equally as easy for the Romans to conquer as they were for the Spanish and British. The Romans understood military science. No wandering tribe can stand up against an organized military force. And it's not our fault that the peoples of the New World never bothered to research military science and gunpowder.
Try playing Civ2 without researching any of the military technologies and see what happens.
I don't buy that. Does that mean I can sue the person who almost ran me over because I could have been harmed?
Actually a better spot for viewing would be one of the Lagrangian points. A huge portion of the sky is blocked from Hubble's field of view by the Earth. No way around that with an object in low Earth orbit.
Presumably an object in orbit of Luna would suffer the same drawback. The far side of the moon might be useful for a future RF telescope though -- as it would serve to block a lot of the RF generated by humans.
If by "Earth-like and habitable" you mean an average surface temperature of 480C, an atmosphere consisting of 96.5% CO2 and surface atmospheric pressures 92 times greater then Earth, then yes, Venus is "Earth-like and habitable".
It's somewhat possible for us to establish manned outposts on Luna and Mars with current technology, assuming the political will to do so existed. Can you really say the same for Venus?
The parent would have been better off saying that it's opaque to UVC. UVA and UVB make it through in varying amounts.
What's wrong with being stoned? ;)
but the equivalent of buying the right to distribute that song. When you purchase an album it does not give you the right to give it out to people, it just gives you the right to listen to itAs a legal argument I'd agree with that. However, don't we still have one problem?
Its also not unconceivable that the record companies lost that much money from her actions either, especially if she was one of the first to make it available for downloadAnd therein lies my problem with this. How can they prove how much they lost when they can't even prove how many people (if any) downloaded those songs from her? What if they lost nothing because nobody downloaded from her? Doesn't the plaintiff in a lawsuit usually have to prove how much damage, if any, they've suffered?
A big chunk of Verizon Wireless is owned by them, not Verizon itself.
Wikipedia is your friend: Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon Communications and Vodafone Group, with 55 and 45 percent ownership respectively.
So yeah, Vodafone owns 45% of it. But Verizon has majority ownership and control. It's a good relationship for Vodafone in that they get dividends from Verizon Wireless. It's a bad relationship in that they are completely at the mercy of Verizon management as to what those dividends are. It also doesn't work out very well for them that Verizon operates CDMA and is thus incompatible with roaming from Vodafones European Customers -- so they wind up paying AT&T and T-Mobile USA for that instead.
Vodafone tried to get out of the relationship by buying the old AT&T Wireless (presumably after getting AT&T Wireless they would have sold their stake in VZW), but was outbid by what was then called Cingular. Verizon has also repeatedly offered to buy Vodafones shares -- but Vodafone has always declined to sell them (and has even offered to buy out Verizon's shares).
I don't buy that. It was the smaller outfits (Qwest and T-Mobile) that declined to take part in the NSA Call Database, while AT&T and Verizon were only too happy to fork over everything.
In fact, I'd make the case that larger companies are easier to "bully", in that they probably have Government contracts and a vested interest in not pissing the Government off.
And I hate to say this, but this is one area where I've had better luck with closed-source software then open source. Pidgin (and GAIM) has never worked right for me. Random crashes in the older versions have been replaced by strange bugs -- like people disappearing out of my contact list even though they are signed on, strange connection issues with MSN, etc, etc.
Trillian Basic has worked out a lot better for me on Windows then Pidgin. And I've tried almost every version of Pidgin as they are released. I'd much prefer to use Pidgin, but hey, Trillian is better then the native clients....
In any case, I agree with you. IM is useful for person to person messages. IRC is useful for large conversations and meeting new people. They serve different objectives and the parent is completely wrong in assuming that IM is innovative while IRC stagnates.
Uhh, no, they aren't. Your DOCSIS networks can't use all 1Ghz of that coax plant because most of it is being used for analog cable channels. Some is also being used by digital channels. What's left can be used for DOCSIS networks.
I don't like Comcast (or Verizon) either, but DOCSIS is still a flexible technology. Without DOCSIS I'd be getting 56kb (that's 7kB)Hey, I love my cable connection too. And I've never had any problems from Time Warner. There's been months where I've downloaded hundreds of gigabytes and maxed out my upload the whole while. Never heard a peep from them.
A properly engineered DOCSIS network shouldn't have capacity issues. Yet it's Comcast we see taking steps to reduce bandwidth consumption -- not Verizon.
It is different from cable. One single fiber serves a max of 32 locations, typically less. So, no, you don't have a dedicated last mile all the way back to the CO (you do with DSL/POTS service, albeit copper and slower).
But compared to cable? That single fiber can haul 1.2GBit/s on the upstream and 2.4GBit/s on the downstream (with GPON). That's shared with no more then 32 customers. A DOCSIS 2.0 network by contrast provides for 42.88Mbit/s downstream and 30.72Mbit/s upstream per channel. How many channels they can put on a single node depends on what else they are doing (i.e: how many analog channels, how many digital channels, etc, etc) with their HFC network. In any case, the typical DOCSIS node has at least a few hundred homes on it -- upwards of two thousand at times.
What do you think is better? 2.4GBit/s down w/1.2GBit/s up shared with 32 locations or 42.88MBit/s down/30.72MBit/s up shared with hundreds of locations?