The end of the Internet as we know it has arrived. Comcast has confirmed the long-standing rumor that they would implement a 250GB monthly bandwidth cap.
This may be a “generous” cap, depending on how you look at it, but if duplicated by the other broadband ISPs, it spells the end of high bandwidth video sites, backup services, teleconferencing, and anything else that uses significant bandwidth, which is everything nowadays.
Continue reading ›
I was watching the Democractic National Convention speeches on their website and I realized that the quality of the Silverlight video was much better than the blurry, low resolution, basic cable signal I get on my TV. I’ve thought in the past that a time would come where I could simply get rid of cable service all together and rely on my broadband Internet connection for all my video needs. It seems like that time may be now. The quality of online video has come a long, long way since I encountered my first Real video broadcasts in high school.
Unfortunately, if the big ISPs have their way and succeed in implementing bandwidth caps, they will kill online video. But, that’s the point.
I’ve witnessed the evolution of the ISP market since the late 90s. Back then, there were many dial-up ISPs all competing with each other. It got so bad that we even had at least one free service. But, as broadband penetration increased, the dial-up ISPs were crowded out.
Now, we have an effective duopoly in most markets, with one cable and one phone company. They both now offer video and VOIP service in addition to broadband Internet access. So, they have every incentive to do whatever they can to avoid letting their Internet division canabalize their TV and phone divisions. One way to do that is to limit bandwidth to the point where their separate TV and VOIP services seem like a deal compared to the overage charges incurred in going beyond the meager proposed caps.
The upshot of this change is that broadband in the U.S. is slow and expensive compared to other OECD countries. Capitalism at work.
Everyone has opinions, but not everyone thinks very deeply about what kinds of opinions they hold. I strive to uphold the principle of strong opinions, weakly held while it sometimes seems that most of the rest of the population believes in strong opinions, strongly held or conversely, weak opinions, weakly held.
Weak opinions lead nowhere. The holder is unmotivated to develop strong supporting arguments and therefore the soundness of such opinions are suspect. You can’t learn much from someone with such opinions. I find people who hold very many weak opinions to be rather apathetic and irritating. I actually don’t encounter too many of these types of people. Maybe I am just lucky?
However, strong opinions that are held dogmatically are just about as useless as weak opinions. Such opinions have ossified and are immune to reason or counter-evidence. People holding very many such opinions can be merely annoying or occasionally very destructive if they have power to implement their views and their views turn out to be wrong. I regularly encounter people holding such opinions. These types of people are epitomized by the guests and hosts of the Sunday morning talk shows.
Strong opinions that are weakly held are what should be sought. They inspire one to develop strong arguments that are open to modification or even falsification as new evidence dictates. In order to develop and continusouly test such opinions, one needs to be well informed about the subject matter, as well as know how to properly interpret and reason about relevant data.
Continuously testing your opinions is hard work and it must be done with discipline, everyday, if one is to avoid slipping into dogmatism. Unfortunately, I don’t think our educational system does a good job of teaching people how to do this or how to even recognize the difference between a well supported opinion and a superficial one. That’s why, to this day, I consider Pete Amato’s Critical Reasoning course to be the most important course of my undergraduate college career and one that I always implore new students to take seriously.
Striving for strong opinions, weakly held will make you a better thinker. Question everything, seek empirical evidence to resolve disputes, and be your own harshest critic. Once the principle is internalized, you begin to see the world differently and it can be a revelatory experience. Of course, that’s just my opinion.
Yesterday, I received my paperback copy of Dreaming in Code from Scott Rosenberg as part of a free paperbacks for bloggers promotion. I read the hard-cover edition when it was first released, but it has been a while and my original copy is now in the hands of a colleague. So, I will be re-reading this fantastic book this week and writing a more formal review as soon as I am done.
If you haven’t read it yet, you really should. The digressions into software engineering history alone are reason enough to read the book. The Chandler part of the story may strike some as a cautionary tale of what not to do when developing new software, but I found it an accurate description of the kinds of unexpected issues and challenges that crop up in any large software project.
Go out and get a copy from your local library or buy the new paperback today. It is a great read.
I didn’t have the same reaction as Lou, of The Cost of Energy blog, did upon reading this article by Bill McKibben. In fact, I got a bit annoyed by it. It’s not that I disagree with the immensity of the problem or even some of the suggestions for tackling it. It’s that McKibben comes off as a bit self-righteous to me.