Slashdot Mirror
Legal Trouble For Multiple ISPs
Ars Technica reports that Comcast has been hit with three new class-action lawsuits due to the company's traffic-shaping practices. "The lawsuits ... ask that Comcast be barred from continuing to violate various state laws, in addition to unspecified damages." Meanwhile, members of the US House Telecommunications Subcommittee have asked Charter Communications' president to stop testing a program which uses Deep Packet Inspection to track the habits of its customers. A number of privacy groups have voiced their support (PDF). As if that weren't enough, it seems the City of Los Angeles is suing Time Warner for fraud and deceptive business practices. The Daily News notes, "... the City Attorney is seeking $2,500 in civil penalties for each violation of the Unfair Competition law as well as an additional $2,500 civil penalty for each violation described in the complaint perpetrated against one or more senior citizens or disabled persons."
If you run from injustice instead of fighting it, guess what, you are going to lose.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
The bandwidth shapers...the crack dealers will destroy themselves.
Is it more just to go after those who CHOOSE to break the law, or those that OPENLY do it because they are big business and feel they can do what they want when they want?
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
You have to pay extra for access to YouTube, UDP traffic, images in HTML, Java Applets, Embedded Flash - and you must accept that we inject some commercials in the pages you visit.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Yeah. OPEC, and prohibitive taxes and restrictions on domestic drilling, plus increased fossil fuels demand from developing nations.
It is because speculative corporations...
No. Speculators perform a valuable function in the free market. You're only looking at one half of the picture (the half that allows you to demonize speculators).
Speculators buy a commodity in the hopes that the price will rise. In doing so, they decrease the supply, thereby further driving up prices. (this is the "bad part" that you've fixated on). However, by driving up prices, they decrease consumption (and *please* don't trot out the "but gas is price inelastic!" argument. It's not).
The part you've neglected to mention is what happens when speculators decide to start selling their stored commodities. When a speculator guesses that scarcity is at its peak, they start selling. This increases the supply, and drives *down* price, and allowing consumption to increase.
A better way to look at speculation is this: Speculators act as "buffers" for supply and demand. They actually smooth out the peaks and valleys of supply and demand. Also, you left out the fact that speculation is *not* a risk-free enterprise. Speculators take considerable risks in storing commodities. If the price decreases, they've lost out! In addition, consider the fact that the rising price in oil incentivizes energy companies to develop alternate forms of energy, and maybe will even help politicians in the thrall of mindless environmentalist special interest groups see the folly of preventing domestic drilling for fossil fuels, and the development of a nuclear energy infrastructure.
If your opinion is that we ought to be consuming less fossil fuels, then speculators are doing you a favor! If your belief is that fossil fuels ought to be cheaper, so we'll use more energy, then why not just advocate for the development of nuclear power, or drilling in ANWR? Why not vocally denounce the unethical price-gouging behavior of OPEC nations? There are a lot more culprits to blame for this than speculators. In fact, they're the least of our worries.
But just because they happen to be making out like bandits right now, they're easy targets for ill-considered and thoughtless rhetoric.
"... the City Attorney is seeking $2,500 in civil penalties for each violation of the Unfair Competition law"
WTF These fines are laughable. In fact we have to rethink our policy on fines. They should be based on a percentage of your gross annual income. This should be for individuals, organizations and corporations. I would be in favor of doing this for something as simple as a parking ticket. The way it is now, the corporate board just treats it as a cost of doing business.
Seriously, how much are the telcoms paying you to make these posts?
There is no reason to get self-righteous about this. It's not as if people go to jail if they choose NOT to buy the service because they dont like the idea of subsidizing heavy users. They as light users don't see noticeable service degradation from heavy users, and they still choose to buy it. there is no "injustice" being perpetrated.
There is NO CREDIBLE REASON to charge for internet like cellphone service. What kind of stockholm syndrom do you have where you can defend this practice?
Does fedex charge by the mile? I contest that people who ship using flat-rate envelopes to the neighboring state are subsidizing people who ship using the same envelopes cross country. Do you see how stupid this sounds?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I think the big fiction is that there has to be a "last mile" monopoly in the first place. That made sense back when a. there was only one telecommunications provider and b. running that last mile was prohibitively expensive. The telcos have been milking that for all it's worth: maybe it is time to eliminate that monopoly and allow some serious competition.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
it's called a republican--corporations have a god given right to march over the "lazy" people who aren't rich--appointed FCC allowing local monopoly frachise agreements. In the majority of areas there are 2 choices, "the cable company" or "the dsl company", assuming both options exist.
telecom lobbies have exercised regulatory capture for at least a decade now, and, while their agendas are much less invasive than the RIAA, have considerably greater lobbying grip on our legislatures.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Without control by government busy-bodies you'd have companies using sawdust as filler in their sausages... Pressing chalk dust into tablets and calling it "aspirin"... Paying children $1/day to work in hazardous conditions... You get the idea.
And without control by government busy-bodies, as we're seeing now, companies will sell you 20 GB/month and call it "unlimited".
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
They actually smooth out the peaks and valleys of supply and demand.
While I agree with you in theory, if you add in leverage and valuation bubble driven lending I'm not so sure it works out that way. The game changes when lending creates money.
If the price decreases, they've lost out!
If the price decreases they go bust and the lender loses out, which apparently translates into the Fed and taxpayers bailing them out. Structured correctly over several deals, most of the speculative profit is retained anyway, and the losses get almost completely socialized.
Supporting the freedom of the market is one thing (and a good thing, IMO), but you also have to realize that certain segments of what we have today is nothing like a free market. The banking industry in combination with fractional reserve lending distorts the effects of what _should_ be rational (and market smoothing) speculation.
It is NOT "their traffic" at all. This is bandwidth that's been SOLD to the customers. It's not like using, say, a school or corporate network where the owner who pays the cost can shape and set policies of use at will.
A paying customer has an absolute right to use what they paid for. Dropping packets, snooping on the flows, overselling their capacity, et cetera are all inexcusable.
Really, with Comcast and Time-Warner, all we need to look at is what these company's core business is. They are content providers whose business model is threatened by the Internet.
Really, they seem to be trying to recreate the "old days" of closed and propreitary services like Compuserve or AOL.
Which has no bearing on the matter whatsoever. Subsidies are wholly unrelated to the problem of physical limitations of last-mile cabling.
Non-sequitur.
Yes, the "school" which rejects empirical evidence in favor of ideologically motivated "deductions". A fringe lunacy even amongst other fundamentalist capitalist lunacies.
Oops. That would not be in line with the Austrian School's main premise that observation and empirical evidence takes a second seat to the priesthood's "deductions". Even you cannot keep these fruit-cakes straight.
Nobel Prize in economics is like the Buttville Chicken Farmers' Award for the longest piss from the roof of Orville's farm. Except that the pissing farmhands cannot cause anywhere near the misery, suffering and death these Nobel "winners" did. Macroeconomics, as a whole, is an exercise in pseudo-scientific shamanism of the highest order. None, I repeat, none of the so-called "models" developed by any of these "schools" have been demonstrated to have even the slightest of predictive powers or most tenuous relationships to reality. Which of course never stops these frauds from pompous posturing and lecturing sanctimoniously.
The last time these Nobel "winners" have tried to apply their oh-so-superior understanding of economics to something practical we ended up with a wee little oopsie called the "Long Term Capital Management" hedge fund. Look it up.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of telco monopolies.
LOL. That is one of the Holy Dogmas of the Capitalist Religion. In practice people trade hoping to receive value equal to that what was paid. Sometimes receiving far less. The extra "value" in excess of the trade itself is supposed to be a systemic property and as such never enters the mind of individual traders. And so the trade would have occurred irrespective of its presence.
This bit of illogical, rabid zealotry is pretty much self defeating. The trade always did and would occur if value of what you pay for is merely equal to what you get.
Say what?! Government is (at least in theor