The Lesser of Two Evils: ISP Caps or ISP Snooping

I recently read an article posted on PCWorld.com titled "Comcast's Cap May Mean Less Snooping on Your Net Browsing". In it, author Erik Larkin comments on the latest news about Comcast and the bandwidth caps they are starting to enforce on their customers. He states since they have caps, there won't be any reason for them to snoop on the use of your internet traffic because it won't matter. As soon as you hit the cap, you'll be done until next month. Why snoop and shape shift the data if everyone has the same bandwidth to use.

I think there's a few reasons to question whether such a "policy" would happen with Comcast or other ISP's for that matter.

1) ISP's make money off of that data
- Would you give up a revenue stream of around $5 per user?

2) ISP's need the data to market their own products
- We already know other companies pay for the data, why wouldn't Comcast keep the data and figure out how to make it work in their favor. They already get it for free.

3) There are other entities that seem to have "legal" interests tied to the data
- Governments, the RIAA, Hollywood

Although the discussion about whether Comcast will stop snooping because of this cap is interesting, I think it's really missing the bigger picture. The real issue is, the cap is really going to stop consumers from realizing and utilizing the innovative products and tools offered on the internet. Web sites like YouTube and Hulu and Netflix will go unwatched while intensive web programs will go unused. Web based companies will have to adapt, maybe causing quicker sites and less intensive programs, but possibly less quality.

If ISP's like Comcast want to keep consumers happy and continue to promote innovation on the internet, caps need to lifted and the full potential of the internet can finally be realized.

How to Make Friends and Influence Air Travelers

So, I'm currently sitting in the Rochester Airport waiting for a 5PM flight. Now, what do I do with my 4 hours of time before I'm ready to board. I could buy a book or a magazine. I could grab a bite to eat. I could people watch (I don't think I'll ever stop doing that in an airport). Or, I could take my laptop out and get some work done or surf around on the internet.

Here's my dilemma. Why do I need to pay $9.99 for 24 hour time slot to get on their network? I'm not paying for the internet at that point. I'm really just paying for the convenience of using their connection to the internet. As a result, I actually found a wireless network called "linksys". More than likely one of the offices or vendors in the airport have a router opened up.

Right now you're probably thinking I'm either really cheap or I'm stealing internet. Well first, I am cheap. I'm going to look for a bargain when I can. If I really wanted to get on the internet, I'd probably pay the $9.99. On the other hand, why isn't their competition? Why should 1 company have the right to charge? Secondly, I'm not stealing anything. Whoever owns the router decided it wasn't important enough to keep the public off of it.

So vendors, want to get on my "companies I like" list while I'm traveling? Open up your network so I can get on the internet. Even better, let travelers know you have free wi-fi and they just might stop in for a bite to eat. And to the airports who think it's a good idea to sign a monopoly contract with these ISP's. Don't. You'll have happier travelers and less complaints. Trust me.