Comcast does offer bandwidth exceeding that offered for other services I can get in the very affluent area of Johns Creek, GA for a very competitive price. Almost matching what I pay to UVerse. But with Uverse I don't pay anything for my modem each month and there are other fees in terms of cable box rentals that I don't pay.
So in the end I would pay more with Comcast. Cost per MB of available bandwidth when you include the rental fees would cost me more on a monthly basis. I can quote numbers but since they like to geo-price things it would not be applicable outside my area so I did not.
I am not trying to be the voice of reason but I am going play the part on the internet.
The conundrum is that trust is a beast that can not be easily seen or assessed.
We can all arguably agree that the government needs some ability to monitor what is going on in the world and that sometimes that monitoring needs to be kept secret.
We can all arguably agree that privacy is a big concern and that there needs to be some safeguards to prevent abuse.
We can all arguably agree that individual rights should be alway paramount and that there must be a legally valid reason anytime an entity decides to impinge on those rights.
We can all arguably agree that when the balance is tipped either way the best interests of all of us are compromised.
Right now I think it typical over-reaction mentality the government has become or acted more like an over-lord or dictator.
"After Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany in January 1933, he moved quickly to turn Germany into a one-party dictatorship and to organize the police power necessary to enforce Nazi policies. He persuaded his Cabinet to declare a state of emergency and end individual freedoms, including freedom of press, speech, and assembly. Individuals lost the right to privacy, which meant that officials could read people's mail, listen in on telephone conversations, and search private homes without a warrant."
But how did that culture of silence happen? And do we really believe that they believe the dissemination of information will help anyone? Sure if it was high level stuff, but not generic statistics.
What would it matter to security if the NSA says tomorrow that it monitors 500 million communications each day? We would be like WTF? Who is be monitored? Is it me? What would matter would be the political fallout where averagely informed people screaming.
I am also quite skeptical as to why it really even matters in a post Snowden era.
We know they are spying, we know they are asking others to spy on us for the Gov, we know they are doing all of this. We just don't know if they are actually caring about me and looking hard at me.
So the only reason I can think of that they would care about the number of requests being exposed is they are worried about the political fallout when it is found out that they are sending like 5 million a year to each every ISP, Website, hotspot operator, bubba backwoods website.
I think in reality it does not matter except they are worried that people will get mad that they are requesting so much so often.
Any regular reader of Techdirt has read article after article of Property rights being eroded in both the digital and physical realms. This is just another case where a power wants to limit your right to what you own.
WTF? Why should Google care. Their job is to provide search results. If someone searches for something they should provide under their methods what they think is the best result. Legal or otherwise. They are NOT, NOT the arbiter of what is or is not legal. And if they are for some reason required to care then those laws need to be changed.
Sudo-monopolies help no one in a developed system, except those seeking to keep monopoly prices.
Frontier only provided the most basic level and was rewarded for it. But should a paid org be rewarded for providing water and bread while the rest of the country is able to enjoy ham and cheese sandwiches?