Other responses that netted some notice were that newspapers contained better or
more detailed information than they can get elsewhere, while some older readers
said that newspaper reading had become a habit
Older users said they looked in newspapers for community and regional general
and business news and for obituaries.
I could understand the thoughth behind possibly wanting to slow down illegal downloads and make them less appealing to people but then to decide to slow down YouTube because it eats up bandwidth as well. At what point do they stop?
The decision will allow Internet service companies to block or slow specific sites and charge video sites like YouTube to deliver their content faster to users.
The court ruling, which came after Comcast asserted that it had the right to slow its cable customers’ access to a file-sharing service called BitTorrent,
I don't see a reason why Google shouldn't be sharing some of the millions their making off of YouTube and Google video advertising with service providers considering the amount of resources they are taking up but I do not agree with comcast restricting access to the site as a secondary option.
The court’s ruling could potentially affect content providers like Google, which owns YouTube, a popular video-sharing service. Content providers fear that Internet service companies will ask them to pay a fee to ensure delivery of material like high-definition video that takes up a lot of network capacity.
With what I am reading so far, I think I would rather wait for the HP Slate rather than rushing out to purchase an Ipad. I think this was a very clever marketing technique by HP.
Companies always complain about competition when it's too late and they've already missed the band wagon. These other companies have had chances even if it was small and incremental to make improvements to their broadband offerings and they chose not too. They also had an opportunity to bid for this stimulus money and unfortunately they did not receive it. If they had they would not be complaning right now.
These local phone and cable companies fear that they will have to compete with
governmentsubsidized broadband systems, paid for largely with stimulus dollars. If the
taxpayer-funded networks siphon off customers by offering lower prices, private companies might be
less likely to upgrade their lines, endangering jobs and undermining the stimulus plan's goals,
they warn.
this is similar to Googles plan to introduce gigabit service to smaller cities on a limited scale to see if the results are profitable. I will be interesting to see if these underdeveloped areas really do take advantage of this service or if it will be lost on them.
Many existing systems, they note, lack the capacity to meet mush
rooming demand for bandwidth. The new, stimulus-funded networks
will provide far more-robust connections - many of them offering speeds of up to 100 megabits or
even 10 gigabits per second to schools, libraries and other "anchor institutions." That's 20 to
2,000 times faster than the DSL and cable wires linking most U.S. homes.