Thus spoke aichpvee:
"DSL is still more expensive than cable unless you have a landline already. Home telephone service is around 40$/month here, which would make DSL (assuming I could get 32$/month anyway, which seems low) that would put me at over 70$. Compared to cable which is under 60$ and comes with "free" basic cable, since there's no way not to pay for that too.
I've already got a cellphone and don't have any use for a landline. Maybe if the DSL providers were actually any better than comcast (local cable monopoly), but until they are it's not worth the extra cash."
Actually, Verizon _does_ offer DSL without a landline. I don't know about any price differentials for those who have a landline, but I don't recall having seen one. On the other hand, Comcast will let you have Internet access only. (Remember, the cable line goes from the wall outlet to either the set-top box, the modem/router/gateway, or even both. It's why they include a line splitter in their start-up packages.) The difference is about $15-20 per month.
So, the cable company penalizes you for not buying other services from them, while the phone companies do not. (At least in my area. As always, YMMV.)
I used to work for Bell Atlantic.net, the pre-cursor to Verizon Online. We used to get comments all the time from disenchanted users who would point out to us that we advertised unlimited usage. We then had to explain that it was actually unlimited access, e.g., meaning you could access any time of the day, 24 x 7. Bear in mind, when broadband first started, many ISPs limited your access time to a set number of hours, usually 150, which worked out to an average of 5 hours per day. So the "unlimited" applied to your online time being unmetered. The Terms of Service for just about any ISP, which most users don't read any more than they read the EULAs for software installs, clearly give most of the rights to the ISP.
Unlimited never meant you could use your access account for anything you wanted.
Comcast's Terms of Use are available here: http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp. Section vii: restrict, inhibit, or otherwise interfere with the ability of any other person, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to use or enjoy the Service, including, without limitation, posting or transmitting any information or software which contains a worm, virus, or other harmful feature, or generating levels of traffic sufficient to impede others' ability to send or retrieve information; and Section xxii: interfere with computer networking or telecommunications service to any user, host or network, including, without limitation, denial of service attacks, flooding of a network, overloading a service, improper seizing and abuse of operator privileges and attempts to "crash" a host;
I could see where, if Comcast wanted to, they could legitimately cut your service off using either of these clauses by claiming your use of a torrent program interfered with other users on their system.
Slashdot Mirror
Thus spoke aichpvee: "DSL is still more expensive than cable unless you have a landline already. Home telephone service is around 40$/month here, which would make DSL (assuming I could get 32$/month anyway, which seems low) that would put me at over 70$. Compared to cable which is under 60$ and comes with "free" basic cable, since there's no way not to pay for that too.
I've already got a cellphone and don't have any use for a landline. Maybe if the DSL providers were actually any better than comcast (local cable monopoly), but until they are it's not worth the extra cash."
Actually, Verizon _does_ offer DSL without a landline. I don't know about any price differentials for those who have a landline, but I don't recall having seen one. On the other hand, Comcast will let you have Internet access only. (Remember, the cable line goes from the wall outlet to either the set-top box, the modem/router/gateway, or even both. It's why they include a line splitter in their start-up packages.) The difference is about $15-20 per month.
So, the cable company penalizes you for not buying other services from them, while the phone companies do not. (At least in my area. As always, YMMV.)
I used to work for Bell Atlantic.net, the pre-cursor to Verizon Online. We used to get comments all the time from disenchanted users who would point out to us that we advertised unlimited usage. We then had to explain that it was actually unlimited access, e.g., meaning you could access any time of the day, 24 x 7. Bear in mind, when broadband first started, many ISPs limited your access time to a set number of hours, usually 150, which worked out to an average of 5 hours per day. So the "unlimited" applied to your online time being unmetered. The Terms of Service for just about any ISP, which most users don't read any more than they read the EULAs for software installs, clearly give most of the rights to the ISP.
Unlimited never meant you could use your access account for anything you wanted.
Comcast's Terms of Use are available here: http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp. Section vii: restrict, inhibit, or otherwise interfere with the ability of any other person, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to use or enjoy the Service, including, without limitation, posting or transmitting any information or software which contains a worm, virus, or other harmful feature, or generating levels of traffic sufficient to impede others' ability to send or retrieve information; and Section xxii: interfere with computer networking or telecommunications service to any user, host or network, including, without limitation, denial of service attacks, flooding of a network, overloading a service, improper seizing and abuse of operator privileges and attempts to "crash" a host;
I could see where, if Comcast wanted to, they could legitimately cut your service off using either of these clauses by claiming your use of a torrent program interfered with other users on their system.
As always, YMMV