Legality: Was Comcast/etc....

[Bradley Miller]

At 01:22 PM 1/25/02 -0600, Marvin Bellamy wrote:
>I think that there's a case here.  Comcast provides a service to a 
>point, your modem.  After that, it's yours to use.  If I split my phone 
>line (not a separate jack), and and run a line to my kitchen, SWB can't 
>charge me.  The service is the same.  The difference being SWB service 
>is based on a static account; Comcast is bandwidth.  If I have problems 
>with my ISP, I WILL take this court.  It's just like SWB/DSL capping 
>mail server and newsgroup bandwidth and reselling that bandwidth to 
>other customers.

It's like Apples/Oranges here.  Telephone is still only able to be used by
one person . . . but think about it.  Local telephone call is under my
basic rate but if I want to call California or China . . .

TV way of looking at things is also flawed -- providing the signal doesn't
impose a burden if you switch on multiple TV's.  In the good old days,
telephones caused a burden on a phone system.  Just ask someone about
having an old analog phone with a few others . . . they would barely ring
if you had a lot of phones on the line.   The model changed when phones
went state of the art and were basically less of burden on phone circuitry.   

Ok -- here's a thought.  If bandwidth "CAN'T" be consumed, then why do we
pay for video rentals?   Does watching a movie or having pay-per-view
consume the movie?   We are paying for the privilege of watching what
someone came up with and we choose to watch.  (And in the case of the "Fast
and the Furious" . . . I could have torched a few George Washingtons for
more pleasure.)   

-- Bradley Miller