• Comcast may meter the Internet too. This I can guarantee. Someday the Internet will be metered just like water.
  • Intel is pumping the Atom chip.
  • Microsoft LIVE seems to be dead. Or at least it is a bad brand.
  • Look for IE8 beta 2 in August.
  • Bill Gates refuses to leave company.
  • Walmart is going to revive and promote Blu-ray. Someone has to do it.
  • Microsoft offered Yahoo $40 in Jan. of 2007. What??
  • Russians are behind the bot attacks coming from China.

click ► to listen:


Right click here and select ‘Save Link As…’ to download the mp3 file.

  1. B. Dog says:

    The PS3 has Blu-Ray. Wal Mart is giving $100 gift cards the PS3 this week, and all Blu-ray players including the PS3 next week. Best Buy is matching the deal this week. Well, it’s something to spend that free tax back money on.

  2. Mister Ketchup says:

    PS3 is the best way to get Blu-Ray, if you need it and don’t know how to download. Be sure not to leave the PS3 on though, it draws more power than a refrigerator.

  3. tdkyo says:

    I have a gut feeling that this metering is to be trialed on cable internet service providers. I don’t think DSL/Satellite would buy into such crap, because they can claim that they are offering unlimited access while the cable guys are not.

    That’s my idealistic guess though.

  4. OvenMaster says:

    #3: Guess again… Verizon is considering metering service: http://tinyurl.com/4e9q87

  5. As for metered Internet usage I’d still bet on the market. Metering is needed if technology used is outdated and can’t match the demand. In such case, provider(s) will come out of woodworks and steal the market from the outdated services.
    Examples from all around the world prove that business can profitably offer unlimited service at better speeds and lower cost than it is typical in the USA today.
    So, mistake in JCD logic is that the present situation is broken due to few heavy users when instead it is broken at the outdated providers.

  6. ECA says:

    mETERED SERVICE ONLY shows THAT THE CURRENT System is OLD, and restricted in the first place.

    The Telco has only set for a Certain amount of USAGE, and still have not caught up with the 1995 BOOM of the internet. and the BOOM is expanding.

    the main problems come with the design of the telco, and the setup of PHONE service, and the MAIN backbone in the USA is the TELCO.

    1. the telco BEFORE 93-95 was setup for 6% usage, that only 6% of ANYONE would be on the phone in a day.
    2. After 95, that USAGE went to 60-80%, and its still growing with the advent of HIGHSPEED, and server farms.
    3. Phones were setup as a SERIAL format..If you dont understand this structure, I dont need to tell you its complicated.
    4. Up to the recent years the ONLY availability of ANY high speed access was TELCO or SHORTWAVE.
    Fiber was being laid but NOT VERY fast. And AFTER it was down, they had to put in NEW. the one installed wasnt ENOUGH.

    Now they are looking to charge you MORE, for what they dont have. This is like CELLPHONES, and the OLD days..

  7. Lou Minatti says:

    I never understood Microsoft LIVE. It’s like so many other Microsoft initiatives. Remember that stupid and annoying Passport thing? Silverlight will also join them in the Microsoft graveyard.

  8. Grandpa says:

    LIVE! Oh those are the games I don’t buy because they charge you an additional fee to play them online. Yes, now I remember.

  9. andy says:

    return of the modem tax?

  10. andy says:

    return of the modem tax?

  11. hulber says:

    The telco businesses want to be able to charge more than the monthly fee to most customers. Think text messaging and per minute phone rates. For internet people are not paying flat rate and that’s it. They need to grow their revenue and profit per customer.

  12. JimD says:

    Telcos want to IMPOSE METERED SERVICE to drive customers to PAY-PER-VIEW VIDEO, as those with unlimited internet service can download large video files with p2p clients and don’t need to pay x dollars per view !!! However both Hollywood and the Telco are IN CAHOOTS TO KILL UNTIMED ACCESS AND THROTTLE BROADBAND ACCESS, SO THEY WILL BE THE “PROVIDER OF CHIOCE (NO CHOICE REALLY)” !!! It’s just the SAME OLD TELCO MONOPOLY – LOUSY SERVICE, HIGHEST PRICES !!!

  13. jbellies says:

    shaw.ca, one of the two major cable internet companies (the other is rogers) in Canada, has been limiting internet usage for at least 7 years. Whether you have the “lite” speed or the “high” speed internet, if you go much above 60 GB in one month, you get a phone call…

  14. Richard says:


    The metaphor for broadband if it was water would be:
    Sometimes the water comes out of the tap looking nice and clean.
    Sometimes the water comes out of the tap brown and smelly.
    No matter how the water looks and smells, you have to boil it for ten minutes to kill anything nasty.

    You cannot do metering when the bits are not all quality bits.

  15. Ron says:

    Metering is ridiculous. It doesn’t cost an ISP any more money for someone downloading 40GB a day versus someone only downloading 115kb a day.

    The only difference is that if the two above are on the same node, the person at 115kb may not see the same speed/load times if he’s at a different (read lower) bandwidth capped tier.

    The only cost to the isp is having enough fiber in place (which it already is) and activating that fiber. That cost is already more than covered in current pricing.

    Should you pay less if you’re using the internet less? No. Mainly because, at any time your usage can and will increase.

    The whole water analogy is lazy and stupid. You’re not paying for water. You’re paying for infrastructure and cleaning services.

    In the case of the isp, there’s no cleaning service costs. Mainly because in this case cleaning = censorship.

    Also, in the case of infrastructure, there’s so much dark fiber that this cost is close enough to nothing as to be NOTHING.

    So, there are no water main breaks. There’s no sanitation fees. There’s mainly node costs and setup. That’s already covered in current pricing.

    Paying less because you use less is a novel idea, but in the end is foolish. Everyone will always use more and data is not a finite resource like water or oil could be.

    Paying less for less bandwidth makes absolutely no sense. It’s not a real commodity that spoils, gets old, or wears out and has to be replaced.

    Dvorak is an idiot for even making this case.

    He seems to think that it’s good in that everyone will pay less excpet the “hogs”. Which just shows his completely uninformed opinion on the matter.

    The only entity that wins in a tiered environment, where the internet is concenrened, is the ISP.

    The tiered bandwidth does not alleviate slowdowns. It does not increase overall bandwidth available as the only thing that does is faster pipes/more nodes (in the case of cable). It simply allows the isp to make more money as bandwidth usage will only increase.

    Making more money is an isp’s (like comcast, cox, timewarner, etc.) only interest like any other company out there. The need increased cash flow to increase stock prices, etc.

    If you think it’s about providing fair access to the internet, you too are a fool.

  16. techydude says:


    i’m really surprised at how bone-deaded people on the “data is free, why should i pay more if i double my consumption compared to 12 months ago?” argument are, it’s laughably myopic self-centric reasoning that ignores the fact that not just you, but huge numbers of internet users are doing the same.

    THINK about what that implies for infrastructure growth requirements to meet that demand. but your customers aren’t paying any more for it!

    i mean, really? have you ever thought about what’s involved in building network infrastructure, and then needing to expand it when users make your bandwidth utilisation curves go exponential with the rapid rise of video over IP (a technology that inherently consumes 10x as much data as music, for example, regardless of whether that data is legally sourced, or shared via P2P)?

    your unmetered data paradigm worked for a long time, not just because most data was located in the USA, but moreso because bandwidth consumption followed a more linear/less exponential growth curve (than it has for the last few years) that can much more easily be factored into “pay according to speed, not data” plans.

    when your costs (routers, fiber, staff) grow expenentially to support that growth in bandwidth consumption, but your customer revenue isn’t, then you need to scratch your head and say “how can we fund this growth?”.

    their fist answer was the Net Neutrality debate, and thankfully you (Americans) managed to squash that for the ridiculousness that it was – can you imagine what would become of all the sites you know & love now that deliver large bandwidth, who are still in their own struggle to find viable business models, if they also ahd to pay $1/GB sending it to you!??!

    but the ISP’s problem remained. so they started looking around at what some other parts of the world are doing, and learned that places which metered data weren’t remotely having this problem. their income grew according to consumer’s usage. whey weren’t afraid of their customers!

    the majority of ISP customers will likely not be impacted too much (financially) by metering of data. a truly competitive market will ensure that it’s as low as it can be. and don’t be scared by the cost numbers you see in other countries. other countries have the financial burden of 50+% of their data coming from the USA over expensive submarine cables where competition is (also) lacking.

    you crow about a lack of competition in the domestic ISP space, with too few access options available in a given locale. and you want more data, without paying any more.

    what entrepreneurial ISP wishing to offer service in more areas would find that an attractive viable prospect?!?

    i give up on this issue, you can lead a horse to water, but if it prefers to drink battery acid, so be it. but Dvorak’s right – metered data is almost inevitable (unless something decidedly unfair and stupid like Net Neutrality BS actually happened).


Bad Behavior has blocked 11943 access attempts in the last 7 days.