Because content providers aren't asking consumers "please do this, because if you do, we will do something nice for you". They are bypassing the consumer and are asking the government to give them lawful access to privately owned consumer electronics in order to disable perfectly legal functionality. They want to exercise these powers without any indication that the functionality in question is being abused.
They are doing this despite the fact that their "studies" are flawed, and are essentially a mix of guesswork and made-up stuff. They are doing this despite the evidence that suggests that "analog-hole" piracy is a minuscule source of pirated content.
FTFA:
"That is because this type of piracy largely does not exist. Most movie piracy occurs before the studios release the movies on home video, much of it through the motion picture studios and their contractors - a fact that studios hide."
Now, why would content providers go to the government repeatedly for powers that they know will not advance the cause of fighting piracy?
Yeah, things are a lot different now. Of course, you have to understand that they got along very well and did a lot of business together. I'm pretty sure he gave her a heads-up it was coming, and that she knew it was intended for her amusement. Still, not something I'd do these days.
1) Make a list of all porn sites / web pharmacies / other dubious entities being "promoted" with the spam.
2) Use your new botnet to initiate DDoS against said entities.
3) ???
4) Profit!!! Or just laugh your ass off at the irony.
I used to work for a computer distributor back in the mid-1990's. One of our VARs received a whole bunch of defective Seagate SCSI drives in a single shipment. He RMA's most of them, but he sent one to his sales rep personally, with a bullet hole through it. It was all in good fun, and she kept the disk on a shelf in her cubicle as a sort of trophy. I can't recall if the Seagate rep ever got to see it, though.
Yeah, well when you're a monopoly, different rules apply. By doing this, Apple only affects a tiny percentage (hackintosh hackers) of a small segment of the market (intersection of OSX fans and netbook owners/buyers). If MS did what you say, they would affect a large percentage (AMD64 owners/buyers) of most of the market (Windows users/buyers). That, and the fact that MS is not a hardware player in that market, so it is to their benefit to run on anything and everything, rather than their own proprietary HW..
Now, for a more accurate comparison, take a look at the Xbox 360. MS is a competitor in the market rather than a monopolist dominating it, and the hardware and software are truly bundled. I haven't tried hacking it myself, but I'd be surprised if MS included any 3rd-party drivers or CPU support in the software on the Xbox. They don't intend for it to be decoupled, and they don't license the software that way. Where is the lawsuit over that?
I wonder if Google could argue that by not using robots.txt, Murdoch had essentially given permission to have his sites searched and indexed. Or, more likely, his sites probably do use a robots.txt file, but only forbid searching certain sections (ie, archives where nothing changes, therefore no reason to waste bandwidth), in which case the appearance that permission was granted would be much more compelling.
I still think that the contract they negotiated indicates the kind of response they expected, but even if they initially assumed it would be a flop, the data usage metrics for the new users should have been a red flag for them a couple years ago. Even if they didn't know what they were getting into, they should have been able to figure it out pretty quickly.
I have no doubt that the cable companies want all/most of us to accept the habit of paying ever increasing amounts for content, and I also have no doubt that they are worried that the free-as-in-beer (or close to it) access that today's generation has to lots of content is in conflict with the consumer behavior they want. That seems to be the bit that Techdirt latched onto. While it doesn't feel nice to hear that as a consumer, it's not exactly anything new.
Someone has to get paid, otherwise there would be little/no content. The way I read this, the exec realizes that the internet has fundamentally changed the game about where people go for entertainment, and hence who gets part of that revenue stream. He goes on to say that if cable doesn't change their practices, internet-based services will eat their lunch.
I was all ready to pop out a funny, pithy comment like "Cable Consumer Suggests Changing Cable Exec", but decided to RTFA (yeah, stupid me, here, let me turn in my geek card...), when I realized that it's just a bunch of manufactured hype. The Techdirt article that the Slashdot article is based on is based on is a piece of crap. Here's a link to the original article rather than the Techdirt regurgitation.
I get the feeling this guy is being quoted somewhat out of context. Techdirt goes on a rant about how the cable companies need to develop new business models, not just beat up consumers. From a quick glance at the www.broadcastingcable.com article, it appears that he's saying that if cable doesn't evolve their business models, they'll bet run over by internet-based content providers. The original article discussed targeted ad content and better-than-Nielsen viewing measurement as future directions cable could move in to improve their business model. So, yeah, the Techdirt guy has his head up his ass.
Now, with that being said, I'm sure that whatever "new" business models the cable companies dream up will largely consist of overcharging consumers, providing crappy service, and extending DRM tentacles into everything they touch, and hence won't really be seen as a win here on Slashdot, and certainly won't be all that different from their current customer abuse.
That's a nearly 5000 percent increase, not a 5000 fold increase. Yes, 5000% is still a lot of growth, but it is two orders of magnitude less than you perceive it to be. (5000% increase = 50-fold increase)
In answer to your question of how to plan for huge growth, there were several factors they should have paid better attention to.
1) Exclusivity. they knew getting into this deal that iPhones would grab a huge user base, which is why they negotiated an exclusive contract. Conclusion: More users = more traffic.
2) Design. The iPhone is designed to leverage a 3g data network.
Conclusion: More iPhones = more traffic per user than other cell phones.
3) History. IPhones have been out for what, 2 1/2 to 3 years? Presumably, they are able to look at traffic on a per-user basis and conclude that average iPhone users consume X mbits of bandwidth. Multiply that by your sales figures, and subtract that from your current capacity. Project your results out a year or so. Wherever you have a deficit, you need to ramp up your coverage. Conclusion: Someone's not paying very close attention in the Planning Department while Sales is still cashing customers' checks.
I think you're right, but why include all the ISPs in the transit path?. Maybe next they'll mandate deep packet inspection... that way the ISPs will know what they're carrying.
In a million years when it finally happens, someone will post an article and everyone else will collectively roll their eyes "Didn't we see this already, about a million years ago? WTF's with all the dupes?"
Not immediately, but I could see a creep in that direction. This law appears relatively narrow in its focus (only related to SIPC fraud), but mind-bogglingly wide in its scope (Any Internet service provider that... transmits, routes, provides connections for, or stores any material containing any misrepresentation (of the SIPC) shall be liable for any damages...)
I think Obama would target Fox News before the GOP though.
Duh, you forgot the most important part: liability!
Any Internet service provider that, on or through a system or network controlled or operated by the Internet service provider, transmits, routes, provides connections for, or stores any material containing any misrepresentation (of the SIPC) shall be liable for any damages caused thereby, [emphasis mine] including damages suffered by the SIPC, if the Internet service provider...is aware of facts or circumstances from which it is apparent that the material contains a misrepresentation.
Dude, if we could get the ISPs to pay us for everything that ever goes wrong on the Internet, think of how much money we could make!
Slashdot Mirror
Because content providers aren't asking consumers "please do this, because if you do, we will do something nice for you". They are bypassing the consumer and are asking the government to give them lawful access to privately owned consumer electronics in order to disable perfectly legal functionality. They want to exercise these powers without any indication that the functionality in question is being abused.
They are doing this despite the fact that their "studies" are flawed, and are essentially a mix of guesswork and made-up stuff. They are doing this despite the evidence that suggests that "analog-hole" piracy is a minuscule source of pirated content. FTFA:
"That is because this type of piracy largely does not exist. Most movie piracy occurs before the studios release the movies on home video, much of it through the motion picture studios and their contractors - a fact that studios hide."
Now, why would content providers go to the government repeatedly for powers that they know will not advance the cause of fighting piracy?
You are in violation of my patent for posting a condemnation of software patents.
Do you suppose "You're" and "brillant" were intentionally used for irony?
Nice try, young man, but you can't fool me. It's hypervisors all the way down.
Nope. Turns out that when you figure what Bill's time is worth, it's cheaper to have someone with a H1B visa do it.
Yeah, things are a lot different now. Of course, you have to understand that they got along very well and did a lot of business together. I'm pretty sure he gave her a heads-up it was coming, and that she knew it was intended for her amusement. Still, not something I'd do these days.
1) Make a list of all porn sites / web pharmacies / other dubious entities being "promoted" with the spam.
2) Use your new botnet to initiate DDoS against said entities.
3) ???
4) Profit!!! Or just laugh your ass off at the irony.
1 = 0.9 only for very small values of 1.
I used to work for a computer distributor back in the mid-1990's. One of our VARs received a whole bunch of defective Seagate SCSI drives in a single shipment. He RMA's most of them, but he sent one to his sales rep personally, with a bullet hole through it. It was all in good fun, and she kept the disk on a shelf in her cubicle as a sort of trophy. I can't recall if the Seagate rep ever got to see it, though.
How many rootkits were running around back then?
I'd be tempted to shoot the computers.
Yeah, well when you're a monopoly, different rules apply. By doing this, Apple only affects a tiny percentage (hackintosh hackers) of a small segment of the market (intersection of OSX fans and netbook owners/buyers). If MS did what you say, they would affect a large percentage (AMD64 owners/buyers) of most of the market (Windows users/buyers). That, and the fact that MS is not a hardware player in that market, so it is to their benefit to run on anything and everything, rather than their own proprietary HW..
Now, for a more accurate comparison, take a look at the Xbox 360. MS is a competitor in the market rather than a monopolist dominating it, and the hardware and software are truly bundled. I haven't tried hacking it myself, but I'd be surprised if MS included any 3rd-party drivers or CPU support in the software on the Xbox. They don't intend for it to be decoupled, and they don't license the software that way. Where is the lawsuit over that?
I wonder if Google could argue that by not using robots.txt, Murdoch had essentially given permission to have his sites searched and indexed. Or, more likely, his sites probably do use a robots.txt file, but only forbid searching certain sections (ie, archives where nothing changes, therefore no reason to waste bandwidth), in which case the appearance that permission was granted would be much more compelling.
I still think that the contract they negotiated indicates the kind of response they expected, but even if they initially assumed it would be a flop, the data usage metrics for the new users should have been a red flag for them a couple years ago. Even if they didn't know what they were getting into, they should have been able to figure it out pretty quickly.
Legalize and regulate marijuana and I'll respect those regulations, otherwise they can fuck off too.
WTF are these guys smoking, anyway?
Well, if they were hanging out with you we'd know what they were smoking, wouldn't we? ;)
I have no doubt that the cable companies want all/most of us to accept the habit of paying ever increasing amounts for content, and I also have no doubt that they are worried that the free-as-in-beer (or close to it) access that today's generation has to lots of content is in conflict with the consumer behavior they want. That seems to be the bit that Techdirt latched onto. While it doesn't feel nice to hear that as a consumer, it's not exactly anything new.
Someone has to get paid, otherwise there would be little/no content. The way I read this, the exec realizes that the internet has fundamentally changed the game about where people go for entertainment, and hence who gets part of that revenue stream. He goes on to say that if cable doesn't change their practices, internet-based services will eat their lunch.
I was all ready to pop out a funny, pithy comment like "Cable Consumer Suggests Changing Cable Exec", but decided to RTFA (yeah, stupid me, here, let me turn in my geek card ...), when I realized that it's just a bunch of manufactured hype. The Techdirt article that the Slashdot article is based on is based on is a piece of crap. Here's a link to the original article rather than the Techdirt regurgitation.
I get the feeling this guy is being quoted somewhat out of context. Techdirt goes on a rant about how the cable companies need to develop new business models, not just beat up consumers. From a quick glance at the www.broadcastingcable.com article, it appears that he's saying that if cable doesn't evolve their business models, they'll bet run over by internet-based content providers. The original article discussed targeted ad content and better-than-Nielsen viewing measurement as future directions cable could move in to improve their business model. So, yeah, the Techdirt guy has his head up his ass.
Now, with that being said, I'm sure that whatever "new" business models the cable companies dream up will largely consist of overcharging consumers, providing crappy service, and extending DRM tentacles into everything they touch, and hence won't really be seen as a win here on Slashdot, and certainly won't be all that different from their current customer abuse.
That's a nearly 5000 percent increase, not a 5000 fold increase. Yes, 5000% is still a lot of growth, but it is two orders of magnitude less than you perceive it to be. (5000% increase = 50-fold increase)
In answer to your question of how to plan for huge growth, there were several factors they should have paid better attention to.
1) Exclusivity. they knew getting into this deal that iPhones would grab a huge user base, which is why they negotiated an exclusive contract. Conclusion: More users = more traffic.
2) Design. The iPhone is designed to leverage a 3g data network. Conclusion: More iPhones = more traffic per user than other cell phones.
3) History. IPhones have been out for what, 2 1/2 to 3 years? Presumably, they are able to look at traffic on a per-user basis and conclude that average iPhone users consume X mbits of bandwidth. Multiply that by your sales figures, and subtract that from your current capacity. Project your results out a year or so. Wherever you have a deficit, you need to ramp up your coverage. Conclusion: Someone's not paying very close attention in the Planning Department while Sales is still cashing customers' checks.
I think you're right, but why include all the ISPs in the transit path?. Maybe next they'll mandate deep packet inspection ... that way the ISPs will know what they're carrying.
In a million years when it finally happens, someone will post an article and everyone else will collectively roll their eyes "Didn't we see this already, about a million years ago? WTF's with all the dupes?"
Ethiopia is going to end up being Africa's equivalent o ... Madagascar for Africa.
Circular reference is circular.
Not immediately, but I could see a creep in that direction. This law appears relatively narrow in its focus (only related to SIPC fraud), but mind-bogglingly wide in its scope (Any Internet service provider that ... transmits, routes, provides connections for, or stores any material containing any misrepresentation (of the SIPC) shall be liable for any damages ...)
I think Obama would target Fox News before the GOP though.
Reading the bills doesn't matter if the Congresscritters don't understand the implications of what they are doing.
Any Internet service provider that, on or through a system or network controlled or operated by the Internet service provider, transmits, routes, provides connections for, or stores any material containing any misrepresentation (of the SIPC) shall be liable for any damages caused thereby , [emphasis mine] including damages suffered by the SIPC, if the Internet service provider...is aware of facts or circumstances from which it is apparent that the material contains a misrepresentation.
Dude, if we could get the ISPs to pay us for everything that ever goes wrong on the Internet, think of how much money we could make!
How about SAFE? I like "SAFE" as an acronym. It makes me feel like they are doing something to protect me. SIPC (something) Fraud (something else)?
Stupid Accounting Fraud Enactment?