Rock Stars vs. Porn Stars: Sex tapes, classroom wizards and city scale acupuncture

Letter of the Week  
I am disappointed with the new Bend Broadband billing method that penalizes customers for their Internet use. One reason I moved to Bend was because they had high speed Internet service. I use the high speed Internet to its fullest. I download media content through my wireless TIVO interface for viewing on my TV, I stream Internet music through our stereo, and I use Skype to web cam my friends and family. Isn't this exactly the type of usage that Bend Broadband fostered with their TV and print ads?
According to you, most Bend Broadband customers (91%) use less than the 10 GB per month. However, isn't the trend towards greater usage? Aren't the people who are simply surfing the web and reading their e-mails likely to start using newer media services? I believe that while I might be "pioneering" uses for the Internet, I am not that far ahead of the majority of customers. Isn't this a step back in technology? Will customers be discouraged from trying new non-Bend Broadband services for fear that they will overuse their service?

2008 recession! Why do companies lay people off and then hire them back two months later? Why would anyone give loyalty to a company when they know at any given moment that they can be cut loose? If a company wants loyalty from their employees then they should inform all personnel that a down time in business is not very far off and hours may have to be reduced. Simple communication is all that need apply here, and then there will not be any further resentment towards that company.
I was recently laid off and had no warning - just pull me into an office and announce, "Sorry dude, we gotta let you go due to lack of work for you." Now that company may say two months later, "We need you since it is now busy," but why would anyone go back knowing how unstable the management is?

I disagree with Peter M. Miller's reasoning for not allowing smoking in parks. Granted, they could and should be considered "healthy" places. However, a far more accurate label would be "public" - as in all-inclusive, everybody has a right to them!
Furthermore, using schools in comparison to public parks is a faulty analogy. Schools are for children. Of course there shouldn't be smoking allowed there (though I do personally believe that a place should be provided for the adults to smoke). Parks are for EVERYBODY. And as much as the anti-smoking fanatics would try to con us into believing that second-hand smoke is harmful, I would think that logic would prevail even to the dimmest of minds that in open-air places, smoke from cigarettes is of no harm at all.

Perhaps the solution to your "space limitation" problem is more obvious to readers than your staff.
I'd like to propose that you consider responding to reader requests.

Enough already about Bachelor. They finally got it right this year.