In other news, shares of Alcoa are through the roof as hedge fund managers shift their portfolio to capitalize on the jump in demand for tinfoil hats....
I disagree, in both this instance and in the case of Net Neutrality, the hear of the issue is the profit motives of the cable companies working against the interests of the consumer. To me, it's part of the same issue, namely that we need to fix the broadband industry by introducing competition somehow. I believe one way to do that is to regulate them in much the same way AT&T was broken up in 1984. In particular, forcing them to lease their lines at a regulated wholesale rates seems like a good start. I believe this would introduce competition and bring down the cost of internet service provision in much the same way as telecom regulations introduced new long distance competitors and dropped the price of long distance like a lead balloon. It is unfortunate that regulation might be required, but they obviously don't want to really compete with each other. I live in Los Angeles -- one of the most densely populated and urban areas of the United States -- and I have only one option if I want more than 5mpbs. Additionally, the cost of the same broadband connection has doubled in ten years. It's bullshit.
Here is a hint, no politician needs to do anything, the people need to stand up for themselves.
Pft. Ninja please. I'd like to see you stand up against the legal department of Comcast or Time Warner. Also, an additional way that this might be connected to Net Neutrality is that stories about Jeremy Zielinski might well be suppressed by our news conduit i.e., our cable internet connection or perhaps NBC Universal / Comcast declines to ever report about this lawsuit (or any similar class action lawsuit). Should you choose to do so, it's a LOT easier to manipulate public opinion when you control the communication tubes. Personally, I sincerely hope that something (anything!) is done about these cable cos, some of the most hated companies in the world.
Also, the telcos and cable companies are often regulated by the state public utilities commissions. If more people complained about them to these regulatory agencies who do have competent jurisdiction at the moment and held the asshole ISPs to their words with lawsuits over unfair business and deceptive business practices, the entire fight for Net Neutrality would not exist.
You have so much faith in the wherewithal of your average consumer to mount and sustain a legal fight against one of the largest corporate entities in the US. I find this absurdly optimistic and would suggest that you, sir, are the ass.
OK you guys are right. I am certainly aware that big cable has purchased all of *my* Demotard reps (Adam Schiff, B. Boxer, D. Feinstein) and have written them all nasty letters about it. It was not my intention to single out the Republitards, but rather to draw attention to what I consider a lamentable political development relating to internet issues, namely that the R-tards claim a pro-business mandate and are spouting a variety of discouraging sentiments. I say it's likely to be partisan partly because Demotards are arguably pro-consumer and pro-regulation when they are not having their palms greased whereas Republitards are pro-big-business and anti-regulation. Apologies for being inarticulate, I'm angry about the lack of competition in this industry.
I'm fully aware that cablecos are paying my (democratic) elected reps, Adam Schiff, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein. I have, in fact, written them letters (both email and snail mail) lambasting them for being tools of the cable industry. Now that the Republitards have taken the Senate and are spewing all kinds of anti-net-neutraliy rhetoric, I think we can expect a poor outcome for consumers hoping for some relief.
Which brings me to my main point: we need to financially support Jeremy Zielinski so that we can set a good precedent.
I believe it will be partisan largely because of GOP backlash against Obama's recent net neutraility statement. There are a lot of incoherent statements coming from the GOP that sound like blanket "hands off" statements. I'm extremely skeptical they'll have a 'hands off' attitude about net neutrality and then suddently introduce some pro-consumer protections. Not gonna happen.
And I think we all know how Mr. Zielinski's court case will turn out when TW's massive legal power comes to bear on him. Without fear of a powerful legal or legislative entity, TW has no incentive to treat consumers fairly. In fact, the ease with which they augment their profit with these unfair (and illegal) fees is disincentive to treat any customer fairly. I could be wrong, but I have almost no faith at all in the existing legal system to check the abuses of cablecos and telcos.
What "law has been on the books?" If a law applies here, it has been flagrantly violated for a long time. As has been abundantly pointed out in this thread, law or no law, the enormous power of the cablecos compared to individual consumers has meant that no meaningful legal action can take place to defend consumers against this vile behavior. This is precisely the kind of villainy and abuse that regulation solves effectively.
My point about the Republitards is that their opposition to net neutrality is likely to put them in the pro-cableco camp so the prospect of any legislation hampering the cablecos' evil behavior is a long shot.
Try keeping politics out of places it doesn't belong.
Try realizing that politics has a profound impact on business. Also: lose the imperative tone, your argument will be better received.
I believe it is in our best interest to help this guy who is suing the evil bastards. Obviously the Republitards are going to side with big cable so it's up to us to defend ourselves. It is critical to set the right precedent in court or cablecos will walk all over us forever.
1) the very idea that they "were" engineered some time in the past is part of that dinosaur thinking that needs to be eradicated. Networks should be upgraded, we shouldn't be held back by old tech.
2) pay the fucking money then. It's a big market and these companies have been returning profit margins of 8-10% for a good long time. A fraction of those margins would easily find upgrades.
3) Yes but IPTV provides the choice and flexibility people demand. Additionally, peering (which Netflix offered but was refused) and P2P technologies (viciously attacked by ISPs) help to mitigate inefficiencies. CableCos have roundly rejected reasonable solutions to protect their doomed business model.
4) "That's how we've always done it" is a terrible excuse for anything and if we adopt that attitude we can kiss innovation goodbye. Also, cablecos did NOT build the internet as I know it. I used to connect via dial up from a small company called shore.net to an internet developed through government and academic research. Businesses were latecomers. As for how it will be better, just take a look at the long distance market after AT&T broke up. The cost of phone service dropped like a stone.
5&6) and cable companies raise their rates all the time because there is no competition. The difference is that you can drop netflix and use iTunes or Amazon Prime or something else or nothing at all. I have no choice but to use a cable company for my home because they are literally the only company offering the speed I need.
What reeks in this is that the cablecos have not just the ability to restrict my information sources but incentive as well because doing so will force me to get my news and vital information from their old dinosaur sources like NBC news, etc.
Bullshit. Google wants more people to be connected because they make money off ads, not the connection. If a house is streaming 4 times as many youtube streams, they are showing 4 times as many ads.
Cable companies are dinosaurs clinging to an old model.
Yeah Eric is just worried everyone will encrypt their gmail so google can't read it any more and target their ads. If everyone starts guarding their privacy, google's business model starts to look much less attractive.
"If you scare everyone about the snooping, we can't keep snooping on everyone."
Just wait til the internet hive mind evolves. A little bit of right wing facism for some genocide and extermination of minorities, prisoners, and the poor. Then they'll wind up the left-wing nanny state factor gradually to slowly erode any concept of privacy, individualism, liberty, or meritocracy. Nobody will know it's happening, they'll all be grooving out to Nicki Minaj, Justin Beiber, Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, Kesh, Katy Perry, Rihanna, One Direction, Korn, uhh.....or watching 'Real Housewives.'
In your analysis, you seem to have overlooked the incredible reproductive advantage of being part of a society that exercise geopolitical might (e.g., US, Europe, Russia) versus being in a nation that does not exercise such might (e.g., Afghanistan, Sudan). I would also disagree with your assessment that women do not sexually favor dominant men. Dominance today doesn't necessarily mean a punch-resistant face, but women most definitely sexually favor men with who are dominant physically, intellectually, and especially financially. Women might coo and empathize with a guy who gets punched, but I don't think they'll feel compelled to have sex with him.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come now. You can hardly blame folks with autism-spectrum disorders for failing to comprehend the social implications of their actions.
In other news, shares of Alcoa are through the roof as hedge fund managers shift their portfolio to capitalize on the jump in demand for tinfoil hats....
Yes, it's next-level vaporware.
This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
I disagree, in both this instance and in the case of Net Neutrality, the hear of the issue is the profit motives of the cable companies working against the interests of the consumer. To me, it's part of the same issue, namely that we need to fix the broadband industry by introducing competition somehow. I believe one way to do that is to regulate them in much the same way AT&T was broken up in 1984. In particular, forcing them to lease their lines at a regulated wholesale rates seems like a good start. I believe this would introduce competition and bring down the cost of internet service provision in much the same way as telecom regulations introduced new long distance competitors and dropped the price of long distance like a lead balloon. It is unfortunate that regulation might be required, but they obviously don't want to really compete with each other. I live in Los Angeles -- one of the most densely populated and urban areas of the United States -- and I have only one option if I want more than 5mpbs. Additionally, the cost of the same broadband connection has doubled in ten years. It's bullshit.
Here is a hint, no politician needs to do anything, the people need to stand up for themselves.
Pft. Ninja please. I'd like to see you stand up against the legal department of Comcast or Time Warner. Also, an additional way that this might be connected to Net Neutrality is that stories about Jeremy Zielinski might well be suppressed by our news conduit i.e., our cable internet connection or perhaps NBC Universal / Comcast declines to ever report about this lawsuit (or any similar class action lawsuit). Should you choose to do so, it's a LOT easier to manipulate public opinion when you control the communication tubes. Personally, I sincerely hope that something (anything!) is done about these cable cos, some of the most hated companies in the world.
Also, the telcos and cable companies are often regulated by the state public utilities commissions. If more people complained about them to these regulatory agencies who do have competent jurisdiction at the moment and held the asshole ISPs to their words with lawsuits over unfair business and deceptive business practices, the entire fight for Net Neutrality would not exist.
You have so much faith in the wherewithal of your average consumer to mount and sustain a legal fight against one of the largest corporate entities in the US. I find this absurdly optimistic and would suggest that you, sir, are the ass.
OK you guys are right. I am certainly aware that big cable has purchased all of *my* Demotard reps (Adam Schiff, B. Boxer, D. Feinstein) and have written them all nasty letters about it. It was not my intention to single out the Republitards, but rather to draw attention to what I consider a lamentable political development relating to internet issues, namely that the R-tards claim a pro-business mandate and are spouting a variety of discouraging sentiments. I say it's likely to be partisan partly because Demotards are arguably pro-consumer and pro-regulation when they are not having their palms greased whereas Republitards are pro-big-business and anti-regulation. Apologies for being inarticulate, I'm angry about the lack of competition in this industry.
Mod parent up. If you are on the side of big business and big money, you have to use social issues to get votes.
I'm fully aware that cablecos are paying my (democratic) elected reps, Adam Schiff, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein. I have, in fact, written them letters (both email and snail mail) lambasting them for being tools of the cable industry. Now that the Republitards have taken the Senate and are spewing all kinds of anti-net-neutraliy rhetoric, I think we can expect a poor outcome for consumers hoping for some relief.
Which brings me to my main point: we need to financially support Jeremy Zielinski so that we can set a good precedent.
I believe it will be partisan largely because of GOP backlash against Obama's recent net neutraility statement. There are a lot of incoherent statements coming from the GOP that sound like blanket "hands off" statements. I'm extremely skeptical they'll have a 'hands off' attitude about net neutrality and then suddently introduce some pro-consumer protections. Not gonna happen.
And I think we all know how Mr. Zielinski's court case will turn out when TW's massive legal power comes to bear on him. Without fear of a powerful legal or legislative entity, TW has no incentive to treat consumers fairly. In fact, the ease with which they augment their profit with these unfair (and illegal) fees is disincentive to treat any customer fairly. I could be wrong, but I have almost no faith at all in the existing legal system to check the abuses of cablecos and telcos.
My point about the Republitards is that their opposition to net neutrality is likely to put them in the pro-cableco camp so the prospect of any legislation hampering the cablecos' evil behavior is a long shot.
Try keeping politics out of places it doesn't belong.
Try realizing that politics has a profound impact on business. Also: lose the imperative tone, your argument will be better received.
I am one of these people. Can we crowdfund this dude?
Can we reliably identify him and crowdfund him? He MUST win.
Is this not the very definition of deceptive business practices? There are supposedly laws against it.
Well said! I believe it is our sacred duty to support this noble David against the evil Goliath or we can all suffer forever.
I believe it is in our best interest to help this guy who is suing the evil bastards. Obviously the Republitards are going to side with big cable so it's up to us to defend ourselves. It is critical to set the right precedent in court or cablecos will walk all over us forever.
1) the very idea that they "were" engineered some time in the past is part of that dinosaur thinking that needs to be eradicated. Networks should be upgraded, we shouldn't be held back by old tech. 2) pay the fucking money then. It's a big market and these companies have been returning profit margins of 8-10% for a good long time. A fraction of those margins would easily find upgrades. 3) Yes but IPTV provides the choice and flexibility people demand. Additionally, peering (which Netflix offered but was refused) and P2P technologies (viciously attacked by ISPs) help to mitigate inefficiencies. CableCos have roundly rejected reasonable solutions to protect their doomed business model. 4) "That's how we've always done it" is a terrible excuse for anything and if we adopt that attitude we can kiss innovation goodbye. Also, cablecos did NOT build the internet as I know it. I used to connect via dial up from a small company called shore.net to an internet developed through government and academic research. Businesses were latecomers. As for how it will be better, just take a look at the long distance market after AT&T broke up. The cost of phone service dropped like a stone. 5&6) and cable companies raise their rates all the time because there is no competition. The difference is that you can drop netflix and use iTunes or Amazon Prime or something else or nothing at all. I have no choice but to use a cable company for my home because they are literally the only company offering the speed I need. What reeks in this is that the cablecos have not just the ability to restrict my information sources but incentive as well because doing so will force me to get my news and vital information from their old dinosaur sources like NBC news, etc.
Bullshit. Google wants more people to be connected because they make money off ads, not the connection. If a house is streaming 4 times as many youtube streams, they are showing 4 times as many ads. Cable companies are dinosaurs clinging to an old model.
I'd be willing to bet that the point of the article in the OP was so that everyone would click on the link and have new malware installed.
Yeah Eric is just worried everyone will encrypt their gmail so google can't read it any more and target their ads. If everyone starts guarding their privacy, google's business model starts to look much less attractive. "If you scare everyone about the snooping, we can't keep snooping on everyone."
Dude, the Space Jam website is still up: http://www2.warnerbros.com/spa...
Yeah! Just more proof that electric cars will never catch on in the United States.
That makes no sense at all. There are probably more jews in Los Angeles than in Tel Aviv.
If we had a cheaper option on hand we'd be doing it by now!
How do you figure? I'd say that's a tautology, but it can't be because it's just not true.
Just wait til the internet hive mind evolves. A little bit of right wing facism for some genocide and extermination of minorities, prisoners, and the poor. Then they'll wind up the left-wing nanny state factor gradually to slowly erode any concept of privacy, individualism, liberty, or meritocracy. Nobody will know it's happening, they'll all be grooving out to Nicki Minaj, Justin Beiber, Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, Kesh, Katy Perry, Rihanna, One Direction, Korn, uhh.....or watching 'Real Housewives.'
Mod parent up.
In your analysis, you seem to have overlooked the incredible reproductive advantage of being part of a society that exercise geopolitical might (e.g., US, Europe, Russia) versus being in a nation that does not exercise such might (e.g., Afghanistan, Sudan). I would also disagree with your assessment that women do not sexually favor dominant men. Dominance today doesn't necessarily mean a punch-resistant face, but women most definitely sexually favor men with who are dominant physically, intellectually, and especially financially. Women might coo and empathize with a guy who gets punched, but I don't think they'll feel compelled to have sex with him.