Around here we have three choices for broadband service - DSL, cable and satellite. DSL came first and so that's the one I signed up with. When the others came along it didn't seem worth the bother to swtich, though I'm often told that cable is faster and cheaper. Inertia never seemed like a very good reason for sticking with the DSL, but until now it was all I had.
My new reason for not switching to cable is outlined in this Boston Globe article. Cable companies are cancelling broadband service of heavy internet users. They say that the heavy use of one household can degrade the service of many users in the area, so it's worth alienating a few customers to make many more happy.
Two things strike me here. First, these heavy users aren't running businesses or massively popular web servers or anything else extraordinary. They are just taking full advantage of some of the many things we can do on the internet these days - downloading movies (legally), video chats, and other high-bandwidth activities. There are many business models being developed which revolve around some of these activities, and count on a critical mass of people having broadband available. If cable companies are going to cancel the broadband of people using these new internet services, where will that leave the businesses?
The other thing that strikes me is this. Whenever I've tried to argue against cable internet based on the notion that cable users share their "pipe" with neighbors, I've been told that I don't understand how it works. Seems now that I did understand all along.
I'm sticking with my DSL.
