Add your comments
DLS Archives
May 2012
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Essential Windows Apps | Do Not Track | Microsoft Office | SayNow | LibreOffice | Zeam Android Launcher | Dead Space iPhone | Firefox 4 Mobile | Firefox 4 Release | PlayStation iPhone App | Excel Tips | Android Launcher | Google One Pass | Dead Space | Google Cloud Print | Songbird for Android | NBA Jam | Internet Explorer 9 | Windows 7 Connector for Mac | Office Mac 2011 | IE9 RC
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
(Unverified)Aug 16th 2007 11:28AM
What they need to do is make the ISP divulge strict terms of what constitutes "abuse" of the "unlimited" service, and stop using weasel words like "at our sole discretion". If they said "averaging more than 500MB/hour downstream over more than 24 hours" (or whatever) in the contract, users would have the choice of watching less content or paying for a higher allotment. "Net Neutrality" would only cut off options -- ISPs would be forced to stop offering "unlimited" service, or would have to use even more weasel words and arbitrarily cap accounts, or start charging insane amounts of money. If the law only forces full disclosure, people can make informed decisions about what kind of Internet access suits them best.
Just my 2 cents.