They're trying to say that "cable" is not just TV?
Not sure that they understand the difference between the "internet" (Dr. Evil voice), and "Television" (again, best read with Dr. Evil voice).
Just because both come to a location via a "cable" (Dr. Evil again), does not make them "the same thing."
News. Social media. Video chat. Original programming. They're all brought to you by cable, every day, everywhere, on just about any device.
I'm not sure I have ever met anyone who is dense enough to not know the difference between television and the internet. Are they trying to say that they must be bundled?
Since Americans are accustomed to paying for what they use, some broadband providers are developing usage plans that promote fairness by asking high capacity Internet users to shoulder a greater proportionate share of network costs. But instead of applauding increased consumer choice and common sense pricing, some critics want to force average users to pay a flat fee akin to a universal service, no matter if they are an occasional visitor or frequent super user.
Fairness? If it were fair, you'd charge a base price for a reasonable speed that didn't totally suck, and the "casual surfer" who used less than 1GB/mo. would pay $10/mo.
According to Cisco, bandwidth demand will grow four-fold in the next three years alone.
And? It hasn't done this (and more) in the past?
But broadband capacity isnt an infinite resource. Rather, it is a feat of human engineering that was and remains expensive to build, maintain and expand.
Yeah, um, it's been covered pretty well by many ISPs over the years.
...Sell a jet, and stop crying about it. If you can't keep up the "speed" of the connection, build the infrastructure behind everything to handle it better FIRST, and then worry about the speed. This shouldn't be anything to cry about.
Some great info here: