Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  alternatives(), 30 Nov 2001 @ 5:27pm

  
  

  Wah!

  Cry me a river. No where is broadband or ANY connectivity needed to exist.
  
  The judge is right...at this time....broadband is not a 'have to have' like gas or electricity.
  
  (Me, I stopped having my 204. network annunced on the backbone because of a screw-up at my (ex)ISP. Guess what? The world has not come to an end, although my e-mail is off and so is my website.)

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Chad, 30 Nov 2001 @ 7:31pm

    
    

    What of those who depend on high-speed internet fo

    They would all be left in the lurch (much as I would be) if they shut off high-speed service, and, as this nation is already in a recession, that would just make things worse.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      alternatives(), 30 Nov 2001 @ 10:24pm

      
      

      Still not a 'treat to health or saftey'

      Again, I'm not seeing how the loss of people's ability to pirate MP'3, spread NIMBA, or host open mail relays is worth a judge forcing the @HOME service to stay running.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Mike (profile), 30 Nov 2001 @ 11:29pm

        
        

        Re: Still not a 'treat to health or saftey'

        The argument is really that it will hurt the economy... which it could. If you believe the claims that broadband access is important to the economy (and it might be, as many people do require it for work), suddenly cutting off 4.1 million homes and businesses could do some major damage. No, maybe not directly related to health and safety, but still a bad situation all around. And, there are plenty of people who use broadband for more than music trading...

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • 

          alternatives(), 1 Dec 2001 @ 12:07am

          
          

          Re: Still not a 'treat to health or saftey'

          If the @HOME can't actually MAKE money with what they are doing, how is providing a service at a loss GOOD for 'the economy'? Arn't the ppl who "need" this low cost service for thier business to succeed built their business on an un-substainable model?
          
          How is forcing suppliers to keep supplying @HOME connectivity good for the economy?
          
          What *WOULD* impress me is if the judge in question HAD @HOME, knew this would take away his home surfing, but said "turn it off".
          
          

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • 

            Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2001 @ 11:55am

            
            

            Re: Still not a 'treat to health or saftey'

            Oh, shut up!

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • 

              Duffman, 1 Dec 2001 @ 5:02pm

              
              

              Re: Still not a 'treat to health or saftey'

              IMHO, I don't think broadband is necessary. I lived quite a while with dialup without feeling like I had really missed anything. I could go back to it now - I'd miss it, but I don't need it. I do agree with Mike that there are legitimate uses for it, and some would be hurt, but I don't believe that it's an essential service, and I don't think that we'll see a return to the dirty thirties due to the collapse of Excite. I know it wasn't said here, but some of the stuff I've seen almost comes out and says that. I did do a little research, however, and found out that businesses did business *before* the internet. Crazy, eh? ;)

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • 

                Ed, 3 Dec 2001 @ 1:52pm

                
                

                Re: Still not a 'treat to health or saftey'

                Broadband internet is about as necessary as cable TV. If your TV cable goes out, you can dig out your rabbit ears and get a few channels in a pinch. Sure, you'll miss The Sopranos, but that's not a life-and-death situation. Similarly, if your cable internet goes out, you can plug in your old modem and dig an AOL disk out of the trash (which I may need to do because I'm one of the ATT@home customers still in the dark right now).
                
                So there's not really a case to be made that broadband internet is necessary for your basic well-being and safety, although it may be some day if Voice-over-IP ever becomes reliable enough to replace your telephone service. Nevertheless, the reason most of us have very few choices for broadband internet and have to deal with morons like AT&T and Excite@Home(*) is because the cable companies have exclusive franchises which they are granted in exchange for things like service guarantees. It is entirely reasonable to insist that they commit to some kind of reliable IP service in exchange for the virtual monopoly on broadband access that they have in many areas.
                
                (*) I'll leave it to others to determine who is to blame for this debacle. As far as I'm concerned, every company that's ever been in the home broadband market has been staffed with equal numbers of morons, whether it's cable, DSL, ISDN, wireless, or satellite.

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  sb, 30 Nov 2001 @ 10:01pm

  
  

  No Subject Given

  ATHM was the biggest scam dotcom stock ever. People just got fooled since it was a real product. NEVER was financially viable. FROM DAY ONE.....
  
  Stock: The VC's manipulated that like conmen. Especialy teh XCIT buyout. Read "internet bubble" by the redherring authors to understand the shady dealing of the keutatsu VC....

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]