If the company is mismanaged, has bad policies or has employees that do wrong or bad things, who should be held accountable? Just because the person might want to be helpful, it doesn't change the fact that company is doing something wrong. Should the victim of that bad behavior bear the brunt of it and just accept it as part of normal business? Should they be forced to change their phone number and all the other things that go along with that including updating all their accounts and making sure anyone who might want to contact them for the foreseeable future is aware of the number change. Where does the burden here lie?
If a company is not willing to address problems in their organization in a timely professional manner, then they need to be held accountable and face the consequences for that.
In this case, the person was being harassed. People have a legal right to not be harassed. Harassment is a pretty specific thing with a pretty strict definition. And this definitely falls under that definition. Is it good enough to just say, don't be a dick to people and you probably wont run into these types of issues.
I've heard this nonsense before. There is a big difference between penalizing someone for an honest mistake and holding someone accountable for breaking the law or doing something which was obviously wrong or bad. Screwing over the customer should have consequences. For the business and for the person who is responsible for making the decision to do it.
I work for another company that has been doing this sort of thing for a long time. But instead of laying off employees and bringing on H1B's, they are bringing on recent college graduates that are also only H!B's and then making working conditions unbearable until the old timers here just leave out of frustration. There is such a high turn over rate here that we have all but stopped acknowledging when people leave. I am currently training 2 people and an expecting a third and I have to do this in addition to all other tasks that are assigned to me.
I miss the days when I could go to a first round in-person interview and get the job before walking out of the door. I am looking, but I am not having so much luck.
I think the problem is that many silicon Valley companies are employing these same sorts of strategies. Driving down wages by bringing in H1B's. Its like the management team reads in a business journal how all their competitors are doing this and they think that they have to do it too to keep up with the jones'. I think this is unethical and at worst, probably of questionable legality. theH1b program was designed to provide workers to supplement the workforce here because there weren't enough engineers to fill available positions. Now, the system is being used to replace engineers here with cheaper labor. This is not consistent with the intent of the provisions of H1b.
When you say that PC gamers don't have higher quality hardware, I have to assume you are talking about children.
What do you think is the primary driver for new PC hardware purchases? The answer is games as it has been for at least a decade. People don't buy the newest most expensive hardware to run their word processors on or to watch youtube videos. They don't buy it to run their spreadsheets on or to browse the web. People who are serious PC gamers are the ones that drive the demand for newer and better hardware. Unless you are running some serious server infrastructure out of your home, if you are buying the best and newest hardware, there is a very good chance that it is for gaming.
People that complain that PC gamers don't have better hardware than the current flock of consoles really don't know what they are talking about. It may be that their friends are not as serious about gaming or maybe their friends aren't old enough to have jobs that allow them to be able to afford hardware upgrades. That being said, the last PC I had ran more than 5 years without any hardware changes at all and there was not a moment in time during those 5 years when any available console at the time could keep up with it. I ended up upgrading my system when my GTX280 finally game out.
Not a hater here. For a while I also bought every console that came out. Recently, I decided that since I was hardly playing any console games. My PS3 is mostly a dvd/blueray player and my wife and I played dr mario on the wii-u until we got bored of it. The xbox 360 gets powered one maybe twice a year because one of our friends kids want to play on it. That, in addition to the fiasco around the camera/always on listening devices nonsense that happened at release time solidified the idea that I didn't need the newer generation of consoles.
When i was growing up, it was always referred to as the paradigm of guns vs. butter. Russia was not able to both feed its nation and maintain the increasing size of the military and the military arsenal.
It isn't that we didn't put on a good show. We kept the competition fierce for a while on the amount of nuclear weapons. But Russia basically fell apart from the inside and not really from something that we did.
No, He actually read each one and only took documents which showed that the NSA and the intelligence community was doing things which were illegal, unethical or unconstitutional. He didn't just grab a bunch of random classified secrets and hand them off to a civilian organization with no thought or care at all.
You are thinking of Bradley/Chelsey Manning.
I don't want any of our people to get hurt or die in the process of doing their jobs. What's more important to me is that our people aren't asked to do illegal or unethical things in the first place. This way, we don't run into situations where we have to choose between a bad thing and a worse thing.
He did go through the proper channels. He did bring this to his supervisors. This fact is left out a lot of the discussions.
It is only when he was ignored that he took it a step further. Maybe if more people knew that he actually did try to go through the proper channels first without success, they might have a better understanding of the situation and a better opinion of Snowden.
I don't recall voting for National Security Director. I don't recall voting for domestic spying programs. If you way these systems were put in place by people we elected to represent us in the government, then they are clearly failing to represent us and need to be removed. Since at least 7 or the last 8 presidents we have had have presided over governments where questionable spying has occurred, I'd say the fact that we actually vote for president has only a marginal effect on whether we can be blamed for unethical and unconstitutional domestic surveillance that is going on or has been going on for more than 40 years.
Also, not a millennial. Snowden is a hero to this country. I think when people actually understand what he did and why and the actions he took to get there, they usually agree. Its the people that believe the force fed propaganda from the intelligence agencies are the ones that tend to have an less that stellar view of Snowden.
Agriculture in California happens primarily in the central valley. That is an arid part of the state would pretty much be desert if the water wasn't piped in there. So yea, if they want to claim the groundwater before any other water is piped in then I expect that the central valley will dry up in the next few months and no one will have any water. The reason they have water now is that they are allotted water rights over a certain amount that is piped in from other places.
Free markets would mean that they would get no water and they would have been stupid to create a agricultural business in the desert. Free market is not the answer to every business question.
Laid off workers sometimes get a severance package.
I've know people who opted for a severance package rather than staying with a company. Id rather get some extra money on my way out the door than nothing at all. I'd have to call bullshit on that.
It could be reasonably said that these are symptoms and signs of an encroaching government which in many many cases historically has been the beginnings of a movement of government to an authoritarian government. Do you want until the military is marching in the streets mandating a curfew before saying that maybe whats going on right now is starting to look like we are headed toward that. It may not end there but it can certainly and reasonably be argued that it might be headed in that direction.
You can argue all you want about whether it is a police state or not. I tend to think these are things that are indicative of a police state but not necessarily the definition of one. But the problem here really is that the NSA's charter explicitly forbids them from domestic surveillance. Explicitly. They are using loopholes, questionable workarounds and network routing tricks in order to bypass those explicit restrictions. If that isn't against the law, it is most certainly against the intent and the spirit of the law.
Wrong. His audience is everyone. The intellectual minority and the nerd ragegasm that has been going on since this first happened has had little to no affect on actual policy. The only way these things are going to change is if the public at large understands what is going on. A few intellectuals and a basket of pseudo-intellectuals can easily be ignored and/or silenced. People need to be able to identify with what is going on and understand in a personal way how it affects them personally.
For those of us who do get what is going on, we have already known most of this for the past year and half. In order to get others on board, you need to speak to them in a way they can understand.
If they don't understand what Snowden is telling them well... their fault. Let them face the consequences of their choices. Call it Darwinism or whatever you prefer.
If not enouh people understand this and get on board, then we ALL suffer the consequences. This nonsense isnt going to change from just bit of nerd rage that we have in the community. As any public speaker will tell you, you have to speak to people in a way that they can understand. The point of disseminating information to the public isnt to show them that you know the intricacies of it. It is to get them to understand what it is so they can make educated decisions about it.
You forget that the majority of the population and/or workforce is not involved in IT, computers or information security. they have little if nay understanding of surveillance and governing laws. They probably do not have much reason to ever think about what facebook is doing with their quips and baby pictures. But if you speak to them in a way that they can understand you, then they will more likely share your concern.
A hate crime doesn't prevent you from thinking anything. It prevents you from acting on it and hurting someone based on your own stupidity. A hate crime isn't when you dont like someone and dont open the door for them going into a building. A hate crime is when you hate someone so much that you go and beat the crap out of them or kill them not because of something they did to you but because of things about themselves that they cannot control. like who their parents are, where they were born, or who they choose to love or associate with.
Its really sad when bigots play the victim. Attacking someone over race, sex, orientation only says something bad about you and not about them.
The difference in racial bigotry & homosexual bigotry is the former is forbidden by a matter of law, something the later does not enjoy.
So what you are saying is that you think it is ok to discriminate against someone based on their ethnicity, race, sex, whatever but you dont do it because those are protected groups and it's against the law? Are you one of those people that thinks that anyone who is not religious and does not have gods law to protect them from going out and murdering and raping people at random?
Seriously? The only reason that you don't discriminate is because it's against the law. And then you wonder why we need these laws.
Businesses have the right to refuse service. Is it discrimination if the bank refuses to give a loan to someone who walks in wearing smelly rags pushing a shopping cart?
There are these things called fairness in lending laws. If that smelly dirty bum looking person can prove that they have the financial means to repay that loan, then the bank should and would make a loan to that person. If you are afraid of someone a little smelly, you probably have never come home after working a blue collar job.
You think KKK members would purposely choose to go to a bakery owned by a group they hate and ask them to make a cake depicting that hate? I think your scenarios is pretty ridiculous.
Once again though. a business that serves the public must serve the public. The only exception i can think of here might have to do with being asked to create something that depicts something illegal. an illegal act or an illegal organization.
Public business. serves the public. No exceptions. If you want to make cakes only for your friends, then you can have a private club with membership fees.
YOU CAN NOT HAVE A BUSINESS THAT SERVES THE PUBLIC AND DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC!
They are providing labor to create something for someone elses celebration. What is the celebration was for a divorce? Or what if it was for the celebration of someones successful sex change operation?
Only one of these things is specifically mentioned in the bible and it is definitely a no-no in terms of those religions that we all know we are referring to here. Yet for the idiots who hold these views, its the one cake in this list that they would not think twice before making.
Sure you're celebrating it. You're making a cake to honor it, you're having your bed n' breakfast host it, you're taking pictures to commemorate it (to name a few of the most popular examples that have resulted in lawsuits).
Sure, someone is celebrating. But the baker isn't celebrating anything the wedding. they are only celebrating the money the get for doing the job. The baker is celebrating as much as mcdonalds celebrates that they helped me to celebrate my morning poop after feeding me breakfast.
This is basically what the law says. you can create a private club with private members and you can be as discriminatory or exclusive as you want.
If you have a business that serves the public then it must serve the public at large. this means a business that is registered to serve the public cannot discriminate against anyone in the public.
you want to be an asshole and just have a club with your friends that have the same set of panties twisted in the same style of knot in your pants. Have at it. We can all point at you and laugh when we see you struggling to walk down the street with your mental burdens.
If you are running a company in the public square that serves the public, then you need to grow up and treat every single individual equally.
Comcast has an obligation to their customer to supply them with the amount of bandwidth that the customer has paid for. Comcast doesnt get to choose what the customer uses that bandwidth for. They are only there to sell that bandwidth. If comcast is unable to supply the bandwidth to the customer that they are contractually required to do so, then they are in breach of contract. If they have oversold their bandwidth capacity then they are at fault.
As a customer, I get the bandwidth that i pay for. I don't care how many other people are using the internet or if they are all watching netflix.
breach of contract.
They don't get to turn around and charge netflix now so that netflix customers can get the bandwidth that they've already paid for.
The reality is the comcast wants the ability to throttle netflix because comcast is a media company and a direct competitor to netflix in that market. Then comcast can both keep customers on their non-online cable service plans as well as creating their own online content offerings and force customers to move to their services when the throttling of netflix and other competitors services are so degraded as to make them unusable.
Not really. So My ISP has a contract with me that they can deliver stuff to me at a certain speed. If i am only paying for 14.4k then im going to get netflix at 14.4k regardless of what netflix is able to stream at. If my ISP starts to complain that everyone is using netflix and thus using up their entire pipe, then they have oversold their pipe and infrastructure because they have contracts with customers to be able to provide them a consistent bandwidth. They are never required to give you more than you paid for. They also cant charge you more directly or indirectly by arbitrarily making one web site arbitrarily slower until that website pays them a penalty/fee which they turn around and charge me. If I pay for 20Mb bandwidth, then I should be able to get 20Mb down on anything I want to get from the internet as lon gas the website in question is able to serve their content at that speed. If the ISP can't do that then they are guilty of a breach of contract. The contract with their customers. If the ISP can only guarantee less bandwidth to all their users, then they should only offer contracts for that data rate.
It gets more complicated that that sure. There are more people using the internet at certain times so at times the pipe will be more saturated than at other times. In the end, this is a risk that an ISP takes that they will always be able to provide the amount of bandwidth that that have promised at any time regardless of how many or how few people were using it or what website they are using.
Its like overselling tickets on an airplane because you don't think everyone is going to show up. If those people show up, you have to compensate them because you are not able to honor the contract that you signed with them.
Political Speech is already on the chopping block, but since it is the "evil Republicans", and not the "sweet innocent Democrats" that are pushing it, left wingers are completely silent.
Short sightedness is liberal kryptonite.
Lol.. needed that laugh. its not that the "evil" republicans are pushing it. it's that republicans finally gave up trying to fight it. Even then, i'm not sure its quite that black and white. My guess that as a compromise to get republicans on board, they made sure there were some pretty big loopholes for their corporate constituents included in the bill. I guess we will just have to wait and see. The sweet sweet tasty democrats haven't been exactly perfect on net neutrality either. But they have been much better in terms of understanding the consequences of not having it. Maybe that's just because they generally have a distrust of large powerful corporations. Can't imagine why that is:p
Slashdot Mirror
too many secrets
ill have some of that world peace about now.
If the company is mismanaged, has bad policies or has employees that do wrong or bad things, who should be held accountable? Just because the person might want to be helpful, it doesn't change the fact that company is doing something wrong. Should the victim of that bad behavior bear the brunt of it and just accept it as part of normal business? Should they be forced to change their phone number and all the other things that go along with that including updating all their accounts and making sure anyone who might want to contact them for the foreseeable future is aware of the number change. Where does the burden here lie?
If a company is not willing to address problems in their organization in a timely professional manner, then they need to be held accountable and face the consequences for that.
In this case, the person was being harassed. People have a legal right to not be harassed. Harassment is a pretty specific thing with a pretty strict definition. And this definitely falls under that definition. Is it good enough to just say, don't be a dick to people and you probably wont run into these types of issues.
I've heard this nonsense before. There is a big difference between penalizing someone for an honest mistake and holding someone accountable for breaking the law or doing something which was obviously wrong or bad. Screwing over the customer should have consequences. For the business and for the person who is responsible for making the decision to do it.
I work for another company that has been doing this sort of thing for a long time. But instead of laying off employees and bringing on H1B's, they are bringing on recent college graduates that are also only H!B's and then making working conditions unbearable until the old timers here just leave out of frustration. There is such a high turn over rate here that we have all but stopped acknowledging when people leave. I am currently training 2 people and an expecting a third and I have to do this in addition to all other tasks that are assigned to me.
I miss the days when I could go to a first round in-person interview and get the job before walking out of the door. I am looking, but I am not having so much luck.
I think the problem is that many silicon Valley companies are employing these same sorts of strategies. Driving down wages by bringing in H1B's. Its like the management team reads in a business journal how all their competitors are doing this and they think that they have to do it too to keep up with the jones'. I think this is unethical and at worst, probably of questionable legality. theH1b program was designed to provide workers to supplement the workforce here because there weren't enough engineers to fill available positions. Now, the system is being used to replace engineers here with cheaper labor. This is not consistent with the intent of the provisions of H1b.
When you say that PC gamers don't have higher quality hardware, I have to assume you are talking about children.
What do you think is the primary driver for new PC hardware purchases? The answer is games as it has been for at least a decade.
People don't buy the newest most expensive hardware to run their word processors on or to watch youtube videos. They don't buy it to run their spreadsheets on or to browse the web. People who are serious PC gamers are the ones that drive the demand for newer and better hardware. Unless you are running some serious server infrastructure out of your home, if you are buying the best and newest hardware, there is a very good chance that it is for gaming.
People that complain that PC gamers don't have better hardware than the current flock of consoles really don't know what they are talking about. It may be that their friends are not as serious about gaming or maybe their friends aren't old enough to have jobs that allow them to be able to afford hardware upgrades. That being said, the last PC I had ran more than 5 years without any hardware changes at all and there was not a moment in time during those 5 years when any available console at the time could keep up with it. I ended up upgrading my system when my GTX280 finally game out.
Not a hater here. For a while I also bought every console that came out. Recently, I decided that since I was hardly playing any console games. My PS3 is mostly a dvd/blueray player and my wife and I played dr mario on the wii-u until we got bored of it. The xbox 360 gets powered one maybe twice a year because one of our friends kids want to play on it. That, in addition to the fiasco around the camera/always on listening devices nonsense that happened at release time solidified the idea that I didn't need the newer generation of consoles.
Russia collapsed under its own weight.
When i was growing up, it was always referred to as the paradigm of guns vs. butter. Russia was not able to both feed its nation and maintain the increasing size of the military and the military arsenal.
It isn't that we didn't put on a good show. We kept the competition fierce for a while on the amount of nuclear weapons. But Russia basically fell apart from the inside and not really from something that we did.
No, He actually read each one and only took documents which showed that the NSA and the intelligence community was doing things which were illegal, unethical or unconstitutional. He didn't just grab a bunch of random classified secrets and hand them off to a civilian organization with no thought or care at all.
You are thinking of Bradley/Chelsey Manning.
I don't want any of our people to get hurt or die in the process of doing their jobs. What's more important to me is that our people aren't asked to do illegal or unethical things in the first place. This way, we don't run into situations where we have to choose between a bad thing and a worse thing.
He did go through the proper channels. He did bring this to his supervisors.
This fact is left out a lot of the discussions.
It is only when he was ignored that he took it a step further. Maybe if more people knew that he actually did try to go through the proper channels first without success, they might have a better understanding of the situation and a better opinion of Snowden.
I don't recall voting for National Security Director.
I don't recall voting for domestic spying programs.
If you way these systems were put in place by people we elected to represent us in the government, then they are clearly failing to represent us and need to be removed. Since at least 7 or the last 8 presidents we have had have presided over governments where questionable spying has occurred, I'd say the fact that we actually vote for president has only a marginal effect on whether we can be blamed for unethical and unconstitutional domestic surveillance that is going on or has been going on for more than 40 years.
Also, not a millennial. Snowden is a hero to this country. I think when people actually understand what he did and why and the actions he took to get there, they usually agree. Its the people that believe the force fed propaganda from the intelligence agencies are the ones that tend to have an less that stellar view of Snowden.
Agriculture in California happens primarily in the central valley. That is an arid part of the state would pretty much be desert if the water wasn't piped in there. So yea, if they want to claim the groundwater before any other water is piped in then I expect that the central valley will dry up in the next few months and no one will have any water. The reason they have water now is that they are allotted water rights over a certain amount that is piped in from other places.
Free markets would mean that they would get no water and they would have been stupid to create a agricultural business in the desert.
Free market is not the answer to every business question.
Laid off workers sometimes get a severance package.
I've know people who opted for a severance package rather than staying with a company.
Id rather get some extra money on my way out the door than nothing at all.
I'd have to call bullshit on that.
It could be reasonably said that these are symptoms and signs of an encroaching government which in many many cases historically has been the beginnings of a movement of government to an authoritarian government. Do you want until the military is marching in the streets mandating a curfew before saying that maybe whats going on right now is starting to look like we are headed toward that. It may not end there but it can certainly and reasonably be argued that it might be headed in that direction.
You can argue all you want about whether it is a police state or not. I tend to think these are things that are indicative of a police state but not necessarily the definition of one. But the problem here really is that the NSA's charter explicitly forbids them from domestic surveillance. Explicitly. They are using loopholes, questionable workarounds and network routing tricks in order to bypass those explicit restrictions. If that isn't against the law, it is most certainly against the intent and the spirit of the law.
Wrong. His audience is everyone. The intellectual minority and the nerd ragegasm that has been going on since this first happened has had little to no affect on actual policy. The only way these things are going to change is if the public at large understands what is going on. A few intellectuals and a basket of pseudo-intellectuals can easily be ignored and/or silenced. People need to be able to identify with what is going on and understand in a personal way how it affects them personally.
For those of us who do get what is going on, we have already known most of this for the past year and half. In order to get others on board, you need to speak to them in a way they can understand.
LW-
Here is where I disagree:
If they don't understand what Snowden is telling them well... their fault. Let them face the consequences of their choices. Call it Darwinism or whatever you prefer.
If not enouh people understand this and get on board, then we ALL suffer the consequences. This nonsense isnt going to change from just bit of nerd rage that we have in the community. As any public speaker will tell you, you have to speak to people in a way that they can understand. The point of disseminating information to the public isnt to show them that you know the intricacies of it. It is to get them to understand what it is so they can make educated decisions about it.
You forget that the majority of the population and/or workforce is not involved in IT, computers or information security. they have little if nay understanding of surveillance and governing laws. They probably do not have much reason to ever think about what facebook is doing with their quips and baby pictures. But if you speak to them in a way that they can understand you, then they will more likely share your concern.
A hate crime doesn't prevent you from thinking anything. It prevents you from acting on it and hurting someone based on your own stupidity.
A hate crime isn't when you dont like someone and dont open the door for them going into a building. A hate crime is when you hate someone so much that you go and beat the crap out of them or kill them not because of something they did to you but because of things about themselves that they cannot control. like who their parents are, where they were born, or who they choose to love or associate with.
Its really sad when bigots play the victim. Attacking someone over race, sex, orientation only says something bad about you and not about them.
The difference in racial bigotry & homosexual bigotry is the former is forbidden by a matter of law, something the later does not enjoy.
So what you are saying is that you think it is ok to discriminate against someone based on their ethnicity, race, sex, whatever but you dont do it because those are protected groups and it's against the law? Are you one of those people that thinks that anyone who is not religious and does not have gods law to protect them from going out and murdering and raping people at random?
Seriously? The only reason that you don't discriminate is because it's against the law. And then you wonder why we need these laws.
Businesses have the right to refuse service. Is it discrimination if the bank refuses to give a loan to someone who walks in wearing smelly rags pushing a shopping cart?
There are these things called fairness in lending laws. If that smelly dirty bum looking person can prove that they have the financial means to repay that loan, then the bank should and would make a loan to that person. If you are afraid of someone a little smelly, you probably have never come home after working a blue collar job.
You think KKK members would purposely choose to go to a bakery owned by a group they hate and ask them to make a cake depicting that hate?
I think your scenarios is pretty ridiculous.
Once again though. a business that serves the public must serve the public.
The only exception i can think of here might have to do with being asked to create something that depicts something illegal. an illegal act or an illegal organization.
Public business. serves the public.
No exceptions. If you want to make cakes only for your friends, then you can have a private club with membership fees.
YOU CAN NOT HAVE A BUSINESS THAT SERVES THE PUBLIC AND DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC!
They are providing labor to create something for someone elses celebration.
What is the celebration was for a divorce?
Or what if it was for the celebration of someones successful sex change operation?
Only one of these things is specifically mentioned in the bible and it is definitely a no-no in terms of those religions that we all know we are referring to here.
Yet for the idiots who hold these views, its the one cake in this list that they would not think twice before making.
Sure you're celebrating it. You're making a cake to honor it, you're having your bed n' breakfast host it, you're taking pictures to commemorate it (to name a few of the most popular examples that have resulted in lawsuits).
Sure, someone is celebrating. But the baker isn't celebrating anything the wedding. they are only celebrating the money the get for doing the job. The baker is celebrating as much as mcdonalds celebrates that they helped me to celebrate my morning poop after feeding me breakfast.
This is basically what the law says. you can create a private club with private members and you can be as discriminatory or exclusive as you want.
If you have a business that serves the public then it must serve the public at large. this means a business that is registered to serve the public cannot discriminate against anyone in the public.
you want to be an asshole and just have a club with your friends that have the same set of panties twisted in the same style of knot in your pants. Have at it.
We can all point at you and laugh when we see you struggling to walk down the street with your mental burdens.
If you are running a company in the public square that serves the public, then you need to grow up and treat every single individual equally.
Comcast has an obligation to their customer to supply them with the amount of bandwidth that the customer has paid for. Comcast doesnt get to choose what the customer uses that bandwidth for. They are only there to sell that bandwidth. If comcast is unable to supply the bandwidth to the customer that they are contractually required to do so, then they are in breach of contract. If they have oversold their bandwidth capacity then they are at fault.
As a customer, I get the bandwidth that i pay for. I don't care how many other people are using the internet or if they are all watching netflix.
breach of contract.
They don't get to turn around and charge netflix now so that netflix customers can get the bandwidth that they've already paid for.
The reality is the comcast wants the ability to throttle netflix because comcast is a media company and a direct competitor to netflix in that market. Then comcast can both keep customers on their non-online cable service plans as well as creating their own online content offerings and force customers to move to their services when the throttling of netflix and other competitors services are so degraded as to make them unusable.
Not really.
So My ISP has a contract with me that they can deliver stuff to me at a certain speed. If i am only paying for 14.4k then im going to get netflix at 14.4k regardless of what netflix is able to stream at. If my ISP starts to complain that everyone is using netflix and thus using up their entire pipe, then they have oversold their pipe and infrastructure because they have contracts with customers to be able to provide them a consistent bandwidth. They are never required to give you more than you paid for. They also cant charge you more directly or indirectly by arbitrarily making one web site arbitrarily slower until that website pays them a penalty/fee which they turn around and charge me. If I pay for 20Mb bandwidth, then I should be able to get 20Mb down on anything I want to get from the internet as lon gas the website in question is able to serve their content at that speed. If the ISP can't do that then they are guilty of a breach of contract. The contract with their customers. If the ISP can only guarantee less bandwidth to all their users, then they should only offer contracts for that data rate.
It gets more complicated that that sure. There are more people using the internet at certain times so at times the pipe will be more saturated than at other times. In the end, this is a risk that an ISP takes that they will always be able to provide the amount of bandwidth that that have promised at any time regardless of how many or how few people were using it or what website they are using.
Its like overselling tickets on an airplane because you don't think everyone is going to show up. If those people show up, you have to compensate them because you are not able to honor the contract that you signed with them.
Political Speech is already on the chopping block, but since it is the "evil Republicans", and not the "sweet innocent Democrats" that are pushing it, left wingers are completely silent.
Short sightedness is liberal kryptonite.
Lol.. needed that laugh. :p
its not that the "evil" republicans are pushing it. it's that republicans finally gave up trying to fight it. Even then, i'm not sure its quite that black and white. My guess that as a compromise to get republicans on board, they made sure there were some pretty big loopholes for their corporate constituents included in the bill.
I guess we will just have to wait and see. The sweet sweet tasty democrats haven't been exactly perfect on net neutrality either. But they have been much better in terms of understanding the consequences of not having it. Maybe that's just because they generally have a distrust of large powerful corporations. Can't imagine why that is