"Internet users have become used to getting things when they want it and how they want it"

Not at all like rich CEOs, no.

Out of curiosity, as a WSJ reader, what do you think of their proposed use of the new Kindle? I can see it being interesting for Times and Globe readers, but it does seem that WSJ readers really want different things out of their paper.

Nobody will pay for content that used to be free.

Says who?

I agree - local papers are the ones most likely to benefit from this approach. Most peoples' hometown news just doesn't merit coverage by the BBC or Washington Post or whatever. The smallest towns might not make quite enough for this - I figure you'd need an electronic subscriber base around 10,000 at $50/year to make it really viable. As more people go online, that's a target easier to reach for more small towns.

The question is what the Wall Street Journal provides that people are paying for. Mr. Murdoch seems to think that people are paying for access to the general newspaper sections that are shared with other papers - global news, national news, op-eds. I strongly suspect that he is wrong, that subscribers are paying primarily for the financial news. If I am right, then this model cannot be easily expanded to other newspapers.

As Clay Shirky argued, the newspaper itself is somewhat misplaced in an era where it is nearly free to copy and distribute information. What's the point of arguing over whether your pig ought to be pink or brown - it still won't fly.

You could be right; I can't find a picture of Klingons from the animated series, and I do remember the ones in the movie being a big deal - I always assumed that it was because so many people didn't watch the animated series.

Yeah, most of the aliens got "facelifts" in the animated series, as I recall.

But even the Linux users I know don't use Boxee. A quick survey of the office just now resulted in zero Linux users who had even heard of Boxee, where everyone here uses either Linux or Mac at home.

(Er, that should have been "has *it*" and "getting *it*". Serves me right for posting before I've had my coffee. The point stands, though - I don't think Boxee is nearly as popular or important as the Slashdot editors seem to think.)

Why is Boxee the real question? I'd never even heard of it until they got blocked by Hulu, I don't know anyone who has one, and nobody I know is even thinking of getting one. Sure it was a lousy decision, but is it really so world-changingly lousy that Slashdot CANNOT EVER post about Hulu without bringing Boxee up?

Nowhere in your writeup do you say whether P2P is actually the problem here. If all you have is a bandwidth graph, then what else is your boss going to do but make assumptions? There are a number of excellent tools on the market to monitor traffic and tell you exactly what services are using how much bandwidth, as well as which individual customers are the largest users of your network. What happens if you implement shaping and packet inspection, then discover that most of your bandwidth is going to people using Hulu and other video sites? I doubt your boss is going to say "turn off the shaping", you'll just wind up adding ever more draconian restrictions.

I agree as well with the people who are saying that this is fighting a losing battle. Your customers' usage patterns are not going to stay the same. They will want to use more bandwidth as time goes on, even if their surfing habits don't change - their favorite sites will include more and more video and Silverlight and all sort of shit, and they will be very angry with YOU if they cannot continue to operate as they have been. Packet-shaping and such tricks will not be sufficient in the long run.

Wait. Does that mean that slashdotters are actually reading the article BEFORE commenting? That can't be right.

I know this is a joke, but I do wonder how many FOIA requests the FBI gets on subjects that they really don't have information on: UFOs, Batboy, etc. Do trash requests like that get counted?

Woah there, let's not get crazy!