trucmuche4 -
If you don't know what HDCP is, then why are you trying to make a counterpoint about it? Very hypocritical of you don't you think? Say you invested in a large and costly 30-inch LCD, like me. I bought my Dell WFP3008 in 2006. It does not have HDCP support. Consequently, I cannot use it to watch high definition movies that I've bought. Now I have to go out and buy a new HDCP LCD and toss my un-obsoleted 30-inch LCD because pirates have caused companies to make HDCP, thus affecting me, the honest customer?
On to caps. What I say doesn't make sense to you because you don't have a clue about what net neutrality is. I have been involved with net neutrality for over 3 years, speaking to many content producers about the negative impact of net neutrality:
Google, Microsoft, Valve, and many other content producers. They're all against capping because it puts a major stop block on new types of services: media streaming, software distribution, cloud computing.
Maybe if you think about these services for a moment, then you would have an understanding of what it is I'm talking about.
Quote :Imposing a cap on d/l limits doesn't restrict you in any shape or form about what you want to consume, just about the quantity. That's very much like the cellphone plan I pay for.
Wow... just wow. I'd like to prove you wrong. I use Steam to buy, download and play my games--like many here. Instead, I'm going to have to decide not to buy games on Steam anymore and go out to a store and pick them up instead because I also watch movies online too, and I will have to choose whether I watch movies or buy/play games online. Is that about making a decision about what I consume versus how much? I've just made a decision about WHAT I will consume.
How we got to having many of the great online services that we do today, was because of the lack of caps. Please, study tech trends and service development strategies of content producers before you make such a sliding-slope attempt to discredit me.
Make sure you've done at least the amount of research I have into this topic--3 years of working closely with companies and analysts on net neutrality.
/ Tuan
It is unfortunate that you seem to have not only missed, but completely misunderstood, the point of my comment and that you added some more of what I was criticizing in the first place : self-righteousness. What makes you think that you're so much better than everyone else that you do not need to explain, demonstrate and provide arguments for the point of view you are putting forward?
I don't know where you saw that I was trying to make a counterpoint about HDCP. This affirmation of yours is ridiculous. I clearly said I didn't know about HDCP and didn't understand how it prevented a person like me from enjoying them. I said that because you wrote in your article : "Not only is HDCP an invasive technology that kills the enjoyment of movies for enthusiasts, it does nothing to stop pirates. We all know this to be true." Well clearly, we don't all know this to be true, me being the first. I'm sorry I'm not as educated about the issue as others could be! However, you seem to assume that everybody does because you didn't explain, educate or argument in any shape or form about the issue. Therefore, as a reader, I can only assume that you think that you're so awesome that everything you write must be believed without question. Now, I might be ignorant about HDCP and many other topics but wouldn't make me downright dumb if I were to believe people who write like you do, without justifying anything? If it is so obvious that HDCP is bad news for movie enthusiasts, it shouldn't be hard for you to include in your article at least a line on why you think it to be so instead of just making such a bold statement as "We all know this to be true.".
Next you go on to say that I don't have a clue about what net neutrality is. Well, that of course, is another laughable statement that is aimed at destroying my credibility instead of addressing the more important issue of actually debating my opinion. You don't know who I am, on what basis could you claim my ignorance? Ha! But of course, I must be ignorant because I do not agree with you, I do not know anything because I dared voicing an opinion opposed to yours. Anyway, since it seems that have been misunderstood on download caps, here is my opinion explained in another way:
As I understand it :
1) The trend is currently that web users are accessing more data than ever, may it be websites loaded with more graphics/videos/applets, exchanging and/or downloading of files (purchased or not). This is an upward trend, users access more data than they used to and less than they will be.
2) Another trend is that web users require more speed as they are now accessing media that ideally would be transmitted in almost real-time such as movies, TV shows, radio, A/V chat, etc. Online gaming also requires this.
3) There is an increasing number of web users around the world.
4) Current infrastructure does not allow for the current number of web users, let alone an increasing number, to continue exchanging more data, faster, forever. Network capacity is limited, not infinite.
As I see it, it follows that if an increasing amount of people exchange an increasing amount of data at increasing speeds, improvement must be made to infrastructure in order to keep everyone happy. Now my big question is : who will pay for it?
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought ISPs owned the infrastructure that's distributing this data all round the globe. They're the one that invest in it and hook us up to the internet.
Now instead of throwing sophisms at me, why don't you answer the following questions : How will ISPs, or, who will, pay for those required infrastructure improvements if ISPs do not charge those who use it? How is charging proportionally to the amount of data downloaded unfair? Why should speed be the only criterion for an internet plan?
Those are the questions I was raising in my post, on top of criticizing your article for not being educative enough and the poor quality of argumentation.
I do not understand how it can be argued that a user who is d/l 1GB at a speed of 10Mb/s puts the same strain on the network in a month that someone who d/l 400GB at 10Mb/s. Why should user 1 pay the same price as user 2? Because they have access to the same speed?
I'm sorry Mr. Nguyen but your "because I say so" just won't cut it.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram