<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Value subtraction</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/</link>
	<description>Same old blog, brand new place</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:17:54 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: home value report</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/comment-page-1/#comment-86135</link>
		<dc:creator>home value report</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:39:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/#comment-86135</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve got cox cable with no funny business.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve got cox cable with no funny business.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/comment-page-1/#comment-80942</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:18:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/#comment-80942</guid>
		<description>My guess is that they want to compete with FIOS and ultimately when are consistently using large amounts (which their infrastructure might not support as well as Verizon&#039;s)  they want to be the low cost / low bandwidth competitor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My guess is that they want to compete with FIOS and ultimately when are consistently using large amounts (which their infrastructure might not support as well as Verizon&#8217;s)  they want to be the low cost / low bandwidth competitor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Max</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/comment-page-1/#comment-80816</link>
		<dc:creator>Max</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 02:33:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/#comment-80816</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been a comcast customer for years now, they don&#039;t block port 80 (or port 25 inbound).  Having said that they charge a lot, are slower than fios, and have pretty bad customer service</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been a comcast customer for years now, they don&#8217;t block port 80 (or port 25 inbound).  Having said that they charge a lot, are slower than fios, and have pretty bad customer service</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gregory Y</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/comment-page-1/#comment-80115</link>
		<dc:creator>Gregory Y</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:11:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/#comment-80115</guid>
		<description>Lucky are those who have a choice. Where I am, the Comcast is the only broadband option.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lucky are those who have a choice. Where I am, the Comcast is the only broadband option.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Everett</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/comment-page-1/#comment-80113</link>
		<dc:creator>Everett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:27:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/#comment-80113</guid>
		<description>While anecdotal (Google) evidence suggests that this is not universally the case, Comcast does not block port 80 for my home IP.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While anecdotal (Google) evidence suggests that this is not universally the case, Comcast does not block port 80 for my home IP.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Warot</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/comment-page-1/#comment-80088</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Warot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:19:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/#comment-80088</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t like the hypocrisy inherent in saying &quot;unlimited&quot; when they really mean &quot;a big number we&#039;re not willing to commit to&quot;.

I&#039;m a Comcast customer at home, and while it&#039;s not unlimited, now I know what the limit is, and I&#039;ll be far less afraid of bumping into it. This gives me some freedom that I didn&#039;t have before, and that&#039;s a good thing.

Business has to make money, and metered internet is a fair way to do it, as long is it&#039;s transparent. So for $50/month or so I get to have a continuous flow of 750,000 bits/second.  More than enough to do video streaming to someone else in the world.

My 1993 prediction published in Boardwatch is a bit late, and a bit overpriced, but we&#039;re there. We can do full time video over the net for $20 (with inflation) per month.   Whoooooo Hoooo!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t like the hypocrisy inherent in saying &#8220;unlimited&#8221; when they really mean &#8220;a big number we&#8217;re not willing to commit to&#8221;.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m a Comcast customer at home, and while it&#8217;s not unlimited, now I know what the limit is, and I&#8217;ll be far less afraid of bumping into it. This gives me some freedom that I didn&#8217;t have before, and that&#8217;s a good thing.</p>
<p>Business has to make money, and metered internet is a fair way to do it, as long is it&#8217;s transparent. So for $50/month or so I get to have a continuous flow of 750,000 bits/second.  More than enough to do video streaming to someone else in the world.</p>
<p>My 1993 prediction published in Boardwatch is a bit late, and a bit overpriced, but we&#8217;re there. We can do full time video over the net for $20 (with inflation) per month.   Whoooooo Hoooo!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Flip</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/comment-page-1/#comment-79919</link>
		<dc:creator>Flip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:40:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/#comment-79919</guid>
		<description>&quot;So then, why bother? Why give customers one more reason not to use Comcast?&quot;

They have been under fire for not having a published cap while turning off customers who have gone over the secret cap. So now they are publishing it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;So then, why bother? Why give customers one more reason not to use Comcast?&#8221;</p>
<p>They have been under fire for not having a published cap while turning off customers who have gone over the secret cap. So now they are publishing it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/comment-page-1/#comment-79877</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:51:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/09/01/value-subtraction/#comment-79877</guid>
		<description>Currently Earthlink does not block port 80.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Currently Earthlink does not block port 80.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
