the tindog coffeehouse

The mainstream press is finally starting to catch on to the broadband caps issue.

It’s about time.

The phone company, Frontier Communications Corp., is one of several Internet service providers that are moving to curb the growth of traffic on their networks, or at least make the subscribers who download the most pay more. This could have consequences not just for consumers — who would have to learn to watch how much data their Internet use entails — but also for companies that hope to make the Internet a conduit for movies and other content that comes in huge files.

Meanwhile, ISPs such as AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast are starting to get behind the push for P4P as a way to reduce the load on their networks while speeding up traffic. (Overview of P4P here.) That’s good news.

Previously:
Metered broadband: An experiment
Bandwidth experiment, day 2: Throttled?
Metered broadband vs. cloud computing

I can accept a certain amount of advertising on any website. Fine. I accept your ads in return for free content or a free service. But everyone has their limits. Put popup ads on your site, and I’m simply going to block them. Put up blinking or animated banners or ads that make noise, and with the help of Adblock Plus I’ll block those too.

Those who have succumbed to the siren song of social networking sites like Facebook have to accept that while web advertising is sometimes annoying, it’s either that or pay for the right to “poke” your casual acquaintences. Again, fine. Put some relevant text-based ads in an outside column or at the top of the page, I may even glance at them once in a while. But use your friends as a medium to spam you? I’m not OK with that.

CNET’s Caroline McCarthy discusses Facebook’s new “Engagement Ads” initiative in which interactive (intrusive?) targeted ads are delivered to users’ profiles. Users are encouraged to comment on the ads, give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, or become a fan of the product. Any of those actions, naturally, then show up in all their friends’ news feeds.

Continue reading…

I’m only at the end of the 2nd day of my month-long metered bandwidth experiment, and I’ve already exceeded the 5 GB usage cap being imposed by New York ISP Frontier Communications (not my ISP, thankfully).

What pushed me over the limit? Well, on Friday I remotely connected to my computer for maybe about 30 minutes. I also downloaded audio podcasts using Juice, video podcasts using Miro, and did some general browsing. Today I downloaded some YouTube videos, downloaded a few trial programs, and uploaded the YouTube FLV videos to Media-Convert.com to convert them to a different format.

Combined, those activities over two days amounted to a total of 8 GB of total usage. And keep in mind that’s only activity from my computer, not including Christy’s or the girls’ computers or any other Internet-connected device we may have (such as the Wii).

Continue reading…

Om Malik has taken issue with ISPs (and the FCC) over the emerging trend of metered broadband Internet access. Currently, most cable Internet and DSL accounts allow for unlimited usage, but ISPs such as AT&T and Comcast are hoping to place a monthly usage limit in the plans, gouging charging customers for any overages (similar to most cell phone plans).

He states:

While 5 GB [the limit imposed by New York ISP Frontier] looks pretty sizable – Comcast claims that their average broadband subscriber only uses 2 GB per month – in reality, it’s nothing. It’s essentially two movies in HD. Once you go over the limit, the meter ticks over faster than a San Francisco taxicab. That would limit the amount of Internet a consumer can use on a daily basis, thereby limiting the amount of time people spend on Facebook, MySpace, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo or any one of numerous services.

The situation would be no different than the early days of dial-up, when the pain of dialing up prevented us from being always on the network. When broadband came along, things changed, for usage of services like Google skyrocketed, Skype came along and YouTube became part of our lives.

Continue reading…

Yes, I know I’m getting a little preachy here, but hear me out.

There were a couple of related stories that were published recently that I think are important to mention. One was an AP story about free speech on the Internet and how companies such as Yahoo and Google sometimes impose arbitrary limitations on that freedom. The other was a story on Ars Technica about the recent amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, an amendment that not only grants telcos immunity for aiding in government wiretapping, but also gives the federal government much broader eavesdropping powers, allowing them to wiretap at will with almost no judicial oversight.

We’re at a point in history where our desire for certain freedoms and civil liberties and our use of the Internet for the exponential flood of information are often at odds with one another. We want to be freely connected to the world, yet even online, there are limits to those freedoms.

Continue reading…

A new poorly-worded Texas law now (possibly) requires computer repair shops to obtain a private investigator’s license in order to do their jobs (a process that requires either a criminal justice degree or a 3-year apprenticeship under a licensed P.I.).

Depending on how the law in interpreted, anyone in Texas who performs any kind of data analysis in the course of fixing a computer must have a P.I. license or face a $4000 fine, a year in jail, and a $10,000 civil penalty. Simple hardware repairs, such as swapping out memory or a power supply, would not require a license, but anyone who has done any kind of computer repair work knows that such repairs are only a small part of the job.

Continue reading…