I’m still sticking to my point though. After all, why would they use their own money to buy bandwidth throttling technology if they can let their customers pay for it by slightly increasing their prices?

This makes Comcast look like they’re trying to do something about piracy, but what about all those Linux ISOs? (Yes, I know that this sounds like a lame excuse. I’m one of the few people that actually download these things. If anything at all.)

Quoted from the article: “Fortunately there’s some more good news though, and that is that Comcast is paying big bucks for this technology.”

That’s no good news at all. Think about it for a second: who ends up paying for all that stuff? That’s right: the consumer does.

The good news out of that is that other companies won’t have the money to do what Comcast has done. So for those with a different ISP, there’s less of a chance that they will experience the same issues.

comcast is not the “only known ISP throttling downloads”… maybe the only one in the US, but rogers cable in canada also throttles bittorrent.

I’m sure there are a lot of providers who are actually doing this, but people are only noticing it with the bigger ones right now. I’m sure this has opened a big can of worms though.

That’s no good news at all. Think about it for a second: who ends up paying for all that stuff? That’s right: the consumer does.

The article was in the Chicago Sun-Times but the lady and the incident were in BRISTOW, Va.

That’s funny- although most newspapers have around the nation sections.