It will if "your worst" = gouging them + bending them + blow torching them + disposing of each platter in separate locations (assuming multiple platters)
If there is someone/some-state willing to spend the money and time required to recover data from that then 1) they are welcome to it, 2) *I* have the money to spend to further erradicate the platters (read: melt them to slag or use a degauser).
DING DING DING... an on-going storage solution will be regularly "refreshed" as it grows. My storage server currently has 3 drives in it (2x2gb + parity). As my storage needs grow I will add newer/bigger drives to expand capacity. Once I hit the servers drive count limit (20 data + 1 parity) I'll start replacing the smallest/oldest drives with newer/bigger drives. As old drives fail (and data is protected via parity), I will replace it with a newer/bigger drives.
That parity protected data storage is then coupled with regular external drive backups of my most critical data (ie home videos and photos, not my torrents). That external drive will some day be too small. When that happens I can put it into long tern storage, and then start with a newer, bigger drive. That drive will back up everything, not just new stuff, so that even if that old external were to fail / become unsupported (and I plan to occasionally revalidate that drive) I still have the data backed up on a "modern" storage solution.
Finally, if I'm really worried, that is what "cloud" is becoming good for. In my case it is an FTP server I have access to on a server that happens to be on the other side of the country. They maintain their own backups and refresh hardware as it fails / becomes obsolete. But absent having your own hosted servers I know there are plenty of free/cheap cloud solutions out there that will provide the same off-site protection.
For my "important data" I just don't ever see the desire to "archive" in the traditional sense where I put something away never to look at it again except in 30 years when I'm old and gray. So my storage solutions don't ever need to be static for that long, they will just grow and refresh as time goes on.
"What you post on Facebook or whatever is PUBLIC. It's viewable by anyone with a web browser."
True indeed. But lots of "public" information is still not information that potential employers should (should = we as a society agree as a matter of polite society) nor are allowed (allowed = we as a society agree as a matter of law).
Don't quite see the connection? Ok let me ask you this. Before social media, would you think it ok for an employer to hire a P.I. to investigate you? Ignoring jobs requiring security where they do infact do that using a government "P.I." Even if that P.I. got the exact same social media available info by say, rumaging through your legally "public" trash? Following you to your local watering hole to observe your behavior? See what Church, or politcal groups you belong to?
If you said yes you think that would have been OK, then we are done talking because then you are at least being intellectually honest. On the other hand, if you think that would perhaps not be OK, then I ask you, "What is the difference?" Just because social media has made it easier and cheaper does not change the idea that it is wrong for a company to go digging into your personal life (note I didn't say private) about topics which have no bearing on your work performance. That is as opposed to credit and criminal past when applying for certain positions of public trust.
My real problem with this issue is this part, "...then whines about not getting that professional job they want because they aren't professional." Of course I'm not "being professional", it is my "personal" life. Note that I'm not pointing a finger at you, I'm pointing it at the issue... you are merely stating the issue.
Now of course don't think I don't understand how the thought process works... it is now public info and your public info can be linked to your job which can be linked ot your employer which can make the employer look Bad(tm). But what ever happened to the old standard disclaimers like, "The opinions expressed personal and do not reflect the opinions of XYZ Incorporated." I mean really, it is an unfortunate reality but people do end up thinking to themselves, "gee this person is a complete idiot when he is out partying, so he can't possibly be trusted to perform his job at XYZ Inc."
Except the problem is that simply isn't true, or at least it isn't a causal relationship. How do I know? Because before social media we had plenty of idiots being idiots "in private" who then went on to magically perform their professional responsibilities without a hitch. Their idocy simply never gained wide spread publicity. Similarly, in the new world of social media, there are plenty of people who keep a "clean profile" who are complete sociopaths in the real world.
So to my OP, obviously I agree, they are taking the wrong approach to HR, and yes someone who posts questionable stuff on their profile, is in fact an idiot, but only because of the idiodic stuff they did. The fact that it is then somehow taken to imply they are unable to be professional at work simply does not follow.
Of course coming full circle I have to admit that KNOWING this stuff will be held against you, you are then in fact an idiot for posting it;-)
Final note: Someday we will have a presidential race where all of the candidates had a social network profile when they were young... as in young enough to not have been careful what they posted. In fact someday, there will be a race where more than one candidate had naughty pictures posted. That is the day when everyone will stop stressing about how horrible it is that people are posting such "scandelous stuff" such as drinking a lot and passing out, or consenting nudity.
I work with one. She has lined her daughter's bedroom in copper. The only thing that stops me is she works for me and I work for the government and would get in trouble if I did (unprofesssional bla bla bla hostile work environment bla bla bla). But oh boy I wish I could. If nothing else, maybe I can tell her I turned one on in my office that only goes as far as my door so she can stopwalking in unannounced and unwelcome to bore me with stories about her levitation classes, astrology lectures, essential oil mixtures, and her "healer" boyfriend.
I was just camping just slightly north of the middle of that area this weekend. Hiking Seneca Creek to the water fall and walking through the Sinks of Gandy (love that cave). Sure explains why there is no cell signal for a LONG time as we drove out of the mountains except for one place. The top of Spruce Knob at the observation tower gets Verizon (HTC Incredible) and Sprint (HTC EVO) signal at about 2 bars. No data, but you can do voice.
I ahve often wondered why this is not an option. I would certainly not want to lose the ability to immediatly stream something. For a PC/Xbox/PS3 obviously there is the HD and since most ROKU boxes and Blu-Ray players have a USB port it should be simple enough for the user to add enough storage via thumbdrive to make this happen.
The concern for the studios will be piracy which of course is 1) already a problem that this will not excaserbate and 2) fixable using encryption on the saved stream. Yes I know the encryption will get broken, but that is no different than how it is now with streaming and they can make themselves feel warm and fuzzy "knowing" they change the encryption via OTA updates.
Actually, rereading it... it *is* ambiguous. What "happens to be illegal"? DPI or WhatsApp? In fact, assuming, from that sentance, that DPI is the illegal activity would likely be the wrong conclusion. Most geeks just assumed DPI was the subject illegal activity because we are trained to thikn that way. It would have been more clear had the sentance read:
"it has now been revealed that they have apparently employed deep packet inspection (DPI), which happens to be illegal in the Netherlands, to monitor customers' use of WhatsApp (and also VoIP services)"
or the more direct
"it has now been revealed that they have apparently employed deep packet inspection (DPI) to monitor customers' use of WhatsApp (and also VoIP services). DPI happens to be illegal in the Netherlands."
Not to mention failing to adhere to the EULA is NOT ILLEGAL!!! It is a breach of contract, but it is not illegal. If it were illegal then it wouldn't need to be in the EULA since...well... its already illegal.
Yes I'm being trite... but in this war of words it is important that we don't let the various MAFIAA's (I consider an ISP like this part of the same group), twist the narrative so that people think using a new technlogy that they *don't like* is the same as doing something illegal.
DING DING DING... I don't even allow my BR player to connect to the net. The only reason it is even hooked to my network is to stream movies off my computer. And the only reason I own a BR player is because my DVD player broke so I needed something new to play DVD's. As I researched about 6 months ago it became clear that 1) decent, non-commodity, DVD players now cost more than I was willing to pay and 2) for about the same price, I could get a decent DVD-upscalling BR player that ALSO could stream my x264 mkv files (my old DVD could not stream x264 nor could any new ones I found). So it seemed like a no brainer to just go BR even though I hate the idea that Sony gets the royalty.
Now that I have a BR player I pay the extra $5 for Netflix BR discs but I certianly don't make rental decisions based on BR and I will *NEVER* buy a BR disc. Hell I don't buy DVD's anymore either. Why would I when I have Netflix.
And I have two friends that are veterinarians here in the Northen Virginia area that both have 15 mile 1 year non-competes. 15 Miles might not seem like much but here in NoVA 15 miles can turn your *average* 45 minute commute into a 2 hour commute. That is a tough pill to swallow even if you're trying to get away from an employer who is bordering on illegal employment practices.
Oh for the record, Vets are NOT high -level execs / paid vast sums of money.
Add to that is the concept of logic and reason which are applied to scientific "faith".
Unlike say, when a friend of mine tells me a story about how her 2yo daughter climbed out and fell out of her highchair onto the floor hitting her head and having to go to the hospital. BUT, then she adds, "the high chair didn't fall on top of her,"... wait for it... "god was really looking out for her."
Really? REALLY?!?!? Perhaps god could have oh, I don't know... STOPPED HER FROM FALLING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Or how about this for a real brain-masher, how do you know god didn't PUSH your daughter onto the floor, but decide that the heavy thing falling on her would have been taking it too far. Perhaps it seemed like a good way to make you think god wasn't a complete prick? You know because he wanted to "test you" since god does, "work in mysterious ways"
I brag that I haven't bought a CD or DVD in years because I pay for my content via things like Pandora and Netflix. My desire to posses media via media purchase or pirate ended around 2002/2003 and as such I haven't bought or downloaded anything since then. In many ways I'm the MAFIAA's worst nightmare because they simply can't dream of a world where their product (and to be clear their product is not music or movies, it is entertainment) is not a limited quantity over which they have dominant market control.
Buried in there is another concept: there was a tipping point at which either music became so lame, or I became too apathtic, that I didn't even think it was worth pirating no less purchasing. But I never was one of those "music is my life" type of people so there is every chance that I just don't "get it" anymore if I ever did [shrug]. As for movies, I used to copy rented VHS in college mostly because I had this obsession with building a collection. Those tapes have all be tossed and I stopped buying DVD's
Now what I do about TV shows that are either censored in the US (BBCA) or get skipped by my DVR because of schedule conflicts is a completely different story >;-) But I do my best to get anything I can via my DVD vice BT if for no other reason than it is just easier.
Repeat after me: you are wrong. Content can most certainly determine classification with no regard to the method. Troop movements (dates, locations) aren't classified because of the source, but because if the enemy knows the info they can act. What you are thinking about is intelligence data which is *typically* classified due to the source because it might give the enemy clues about how to prevent further intel gathering. But sometimes, the over riding concern still is letting the enemy know that we know it at all, and not how we know it. Other things like weaknesses in weapon systems, Tactics Techniques and Procedurs (TTP) are also classified because of the content and not some "method of acquisition".
I guess this just begs the question: when will editors start hanging out their own shingle to perform fee-for-service editing or royalty based work. Whatever they charge it is likely to cost the author less and yet make them more. Quality editors will command more $$$ by virtue of the reputation of the books them have worked on while others will of course charge less. Same can be said for PR firms. Basically the entire publishing "thing" could become an ala cart afair... which as many have already commented on, is where the music industry is headed.
While I appreciate the joke, Cowboys vs Aliens really is a decent idea that is different than so many of the other [fictional genre X] v. [fictional genre Y] ideas out there. Every movie I can think of that that deals with alien invasion takes place in the time frame the movie is made (ie the present) or some non-specific future. This is a different take, call it a Sci-Fi Period Piece even. What would it look like if aliens invaded during the wild west? I think, if done right, this could be really good. That is as opposed to some of your ideas, and ones that were actually made, that couldn't be made into a quality movie even with unlimited funds and no profit motive.
Now, as to your ideas, I think Matrix v. Inception would be brilliant if for no other reason than the real life Troll Wars that would follow;-) Now THAT is a movie I would pay full price and buy the popcorn to see.
See, I KNEW I was helping win the environmental battle by NOT recycling ANYTHING. The faster we run out of it the faster we can't pollute the environment with it. It all makes perfect sense now. Thank you for opening my eyes.
First off let me say that in general I agree with your assesment. However I am then left to wonder what ATT's response would be when asked to answer to your accusation. Playing devil's advocate in my own head I'm left wondering if my version of how they might explain it away might actually be valid. so here is my thought:
Hypothetical response to congressional inquiry, "First I'd like to thank the Chairmen and the committe for allowing me to address this very important issue. Chairmen, you are correct that we are not capping usage of services we provide while imposing a cap on data from other services that are transiting our section of the internet roadways. The explanation is simple. The fees for our services, like the $5.99 paid for a PPV movie, offset the cost of the extra bandwidth they consume. To look at it another way, consumers of competing services can also have 'unlimited bandwidth' if they pay for it, or if those other services subsidize their use of our bandwidth to deliver their product. The way that bandwidth is paid for right now is via cap-overage-fees. In fact, we believe it would be unethical for us to charge an overage fee on top of the $5.99 PPV movie fee... we'd be charging them twice for the same thing. Now we know that would be wrong."
I can see congress buying it and not really understanding things like peering agreements. But in some way I can't really argue with it when it comes to what the customer is paying. In a world of pure motives, the idea that the bandwidth cost of a PPV movie is embedded into the price of the PPV makes sense. And any bandwdith you consume that isn't ammortized into their own services (such as surfing HULU) then falls under the normal pricing plan we have now.
And yet I'm still annoyed by it because we don't live in a pure world and they are trying to double and triple charge us for the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
It will if "your worst" = gouging them + bending them + blow torching them + disposing of each platter in separate locations (assuming multiple platters)
If there is someone/some-state willing to spend the money and time required to recover data from that then 1) they are welcome to it, 2) *I* have the money to spend to further erradicate the platters (read: melt them to slag or use a degauser).
DING DING DING ... an on-going storage solution will be regularly "refreshed" as it grows. My storage server currently has 3 drives in it (2x2gb + parity). As my storage needs grow I will add newer/bigger drives to expand capacity. Once I hit the servers drive count limit (20 data + 1 parity) I'll start replacing the smallest/oldest drives with newer/bigger drives. As old drives fail (and data is protected via parity), I will replace it with a newer/bigger drives.
That parity protected data storage is then coupled with regular external drive backups of my most critical data (ie home videos and photos, not my torrents). That external drive will some day be too small. When that happens I can put it into long tern storage, and then start with a newer, bigger drive. That drive will back up everything, not just new stuff, so that even if that old external were to fail / become unsupported (and I plan to occasionally revalidate that drive) I still have the data backed up on a "modern" storage solution.
Finally, if I'm really worried, that is what "cloud" is becoming good for. In my case it is an FTP server I have access to on a server that happens to be on the other side of the country. They maintain their own backups and refresh hardware as it fails / becomes obsolete. But absent having your own hosted servers I know there are plenty of free/cheap cloud solutions out there that will provide the same off-site protection.
For my "important data" I just don't ever see the desire to "archive" in the traditional sense where I put something away never to look at it again except in 30 years when I'm old and gray. So my storage solutions don't ever need to be static for that long, they will just grow and refresh as time goes on.
Hmmm in retrospect, had I paid enough attention to the fact that you wrote both of those posts, I might have caught the implied . My apologies.
So no one should ever do anything that might ever make anyone angry? Good luck with that.
"What you post on Facebook or whatever is PUBLIC. It's viewable by anyone with a web browser."
True indeed. But lots of "public" information is still not information that potential employers should (should = we as a society agree as a matter of polite society) nor are allowed (allowed = we as a society agree as a matter of law).
Don't quite see the connection? Ok let me ask you this. Before social media, would you think it ok for an employer to hire a P.I. to investigate you? Ignoring jobs requiring security where they do infact do that using a government "P.I." Even if that P.I. got the exact same social media available info by say, rumaging through your legally "public" trash? Following you to your local watering hole to observe your behavior? See what Church, or politcal groups you belong to?
If you said yes you think that would have been OK, then we are done talking because then you are at least being intellectually honest. On the other hand, if you think that would perhaps not be OK, then I ask you, "What is the difference?" Just because social media has made it easier and cheaper does not change the idea that it is wrong for a company to go digging into your personal life (note I didn't say private) about topics which have no bearing on your work performance. That is as opposed to credit and criminal past when applying for certain positions of public trust.
My real problem with this issue is this part, "...then whines about not getting that professional job they want because they aren't professional." Of course I'm not "being professional", it is my "personal" life. Note that I'm not pointing a finger at you, I'm pointing it at the issue ... you are merely stating the issue.
Now of course don't think I don't understand how the thought process works ... it is now public info and your public info can be linked to your job which can be linked ot your employer which can make the employer look Bad(tm). But what ever happened to the old standard disclaimers like, "The opinions expressed personal and do not reflect the opinions of XYZ Incorporated." I mean really, it is an unfortunate reality but people do end up thinking to themselves, "gee this person is a complete idiot when he is out partying, so he can't possibly be trusted to perform his job at XYZ Inc."
Except the problem is that simply isn't true, or at least it isn't a causal relationship. How do I know? Because before social media we had plenty of idiots being idiots "in private" who then went on to magically perform their professional responsibilities without a hitch. Their idocy simply never gained wide spread publicity. Similarly, in the new world of social media, there are plenty of people who keep a "clean profile" who are complete sociopaths in the real world.
So to my OP, obviously I agree, they are taking the wrong approach to HR, and yes someone who posts questionable stuff on their profile, is in fact an idiot, but only because of the idiodic stuff they did. The fact that it is then somehow taken to imply they are unable to be professional at work simply does not follow.
Of course coming full circle I have to admit that KNOWING this stuff will be held against you, you are then in fact an idiot for posting it ;-)
Final note: Someday we will have a presidential race where all of the candidates had a social network profile when they were young ... as in young enough to not have been careful what they posted. In fact someday, there will be a race where more than one candidate had naughty pictures posted. That is the day when everyone will stop stressing about how horrible it is that people are posting such "scandelous stuff" such as drinking a lot and passing out, or consenting nudity.
I work with one. She has lined her daughter's bedroom in copper. The only thing that stops me is she works for me and I work for the government and would get in trouble if I did (unprofesssional bla bla bla hostile work environment bla bla bla). But oh boy I wish I could. If nothing else, maybe I can tell her I turned one on in my office that only goes as far as my door so she can stopwalking in unannounced and unwelcome to bore me with stories about her levitation classes, astrology lectures, essential oil mixtures, and her "healer" boyfriend.
I was just camping just slightly north of the middle of that area this weekend. Hiking Seneca Creek to the water fall and walking through the Sinks of Gandy (love that cave). Sure explains why there is no cell signal for a LONG time as we drove out of the mountains except for one place. The top of Spruce Knob at the observation tower gets Verizon (HTC Incredible) and Sprint (HTC EVO) signal at about 2 bars. No data, but you can do voice.
I ahve often wondered why this is not an option. I would certainly not want to lose the ability to immediatly stream something. For a PC/Xbox/PS3 obviously there is the HD and since most ROKU boxes and Blu-Ray players have a USB port it should be simple enough for the user to add enough storage via thumbdrive to make this happen.
The concern for the studios will be piracy which of course is 1) already a problem that this will not excaserbate and 2) fixable using encryption on the saved stream. Yes I know the encryption will get broken, but that is no different than how it is now with streaming and they can make themselves feel warm and fuzzy "knowing" they change the encryption via OTA updates.
But Netflix streaming over BT would certainly make it hard for the ISP's to justify continued throttling.
Actually, rereading it ... it *is* ambiguous. What "happens to be illegal"? DPI or WhatsApp? In fact, assuming, from that sentance, that DPI is the illegal activity would likely be the wrong conclusion. Most geeks just assumed DPI was the subject illegal activity because we are trained to thikn that way. It would have been more clear had the sentance read:
"it has now been revealed that they have apparently employed deep packet inspection (DPI), which happens to be illegal in the Netherlands, to monitor customers' use of WhatsApp (and also VoIP services)"
or the more direct
"it has now been revealed that they have apparently employed deep packet inspection (DPI) to monitor customers' use of WhatsApp (and also VoIP services). DPI happens to be illegal in the Netherlands."
Not to mention failing to adhere to the EULA is NOT ILLEGAL!!! It is a breach of contract, but it is not illegal. If it were illegal then it wouldn't need to be in the EULA since .. .well ... its already illegal.
Yes I'm being trite ... but in this war of words it is important that we don't let the various MAFIAA's (I consider an ISP like this part of the same group), twist the narrative so that people think using a new technlogy that they *don't like* is the same as doing something illegal.
And the ACLU will surely do that as soon as their FOIA request is fulfilled. Oh wait ... its being stonewalled I forgot.
DING DING DING ... I don't even allow my BR player to connect to the net. The only reason it is even hooked to my network is to stream movies off my computer. And the only reason I own a BR player is because my DVD player broke so I needed something new to play DVD's. As I researched about 6 months ago it became clear that 1) decent, non-commodity, DVD players now cost more than I was willing to pay and 2) for about the same price, I could get a decent DVD-upscalling BR player that ALSO could stream my x264 mkv files (my old DVD could not stream x264 nor could any new ones I found). So it seemed like a no brainer to just go BR even though I hate the idea that Sony gets the royalty.
Now that I have a BR player I pay the extra $5 for Netflix BR discs but I certianly don't make rental decisions based on BR and I will *NEVER* buy a BR disc. Hell I don't buy DVD's anymore either. Why would I when I have Netflix.
And I have two friends that are veterinarians here in the Northen Virginia area that both have 15 mile 1 year non-competes. 15 Miles might not seem like much but here in NoVA 15 miles can turn your *average* 45 minute commute into a 2 hour commute. That is a tough pill to swallow even if you're trying to get away from an employer who is bordering on illegal employment practices.
Oh for the record, Vets are NOT high -level execs / paid vast sums of money.
MOD PARENT UP!!! Seriously, that is an excellent example.
Add to that is the concept of logic and reason which are applied to scientific "faith".
Unlike say, when a friend of mine tells me a story about how her 2yo daughter climbed out and fell out of her highchair onto the floor hitting her head and having to go to the hospital. BUT, then she adds, "the high chair didn't fall on top of her," ... wait for it ... "god was really looking out for her."
Really? REALLY?!?!? Perhaps god could have oh, I don't know ... STOPPED HER FROM FALLING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Or how about this for a real brain-masher, how do you know god didn't PUSH your daughter onto the floor, but decide that the heavy thing falling on her would have been taking it too far. Perhaps it seemed like a good way to make you think god wasn't a complete prick? You know because he wanted to "test you" since god does, "work in mysterious ways"
I brag that I haven't bought a CD or DVD in years because I pay for my content via things like Pandora and Netflix. My desire to posses media via media purchase or pirate ended around 2002/2003 and as such I haven't bought or downloaded anything since then. In many ways I'm the MAFIAA's worst nightmare because they simply can't dream of a world where their product (and to be clear their product is not music or movies, it is entertainment) is not a limited quantity over which they have dominant market control.
Buried in there is another concept: there was a tipping point at which either music became so lame, or I became too apathtic, that I didn't even think it was worth pirating no less purchasing. But I never was one of those "music is my life" type of people so there is every chance that I just don't "get it" anymore if I ever did [shrug]. As for movies, I used to copy rented VHS in college mostly because I had this obsession with building a collection. Those tapes have all be tossed and I stopped buying DVD's
Now what I do about TV shows that are either censored in the US (BBCA) or get skipped by my DVR because of schedule conflicts is a completely different story >;-) But I do my best to get anything I can via my DVD vice BT if for no other reason than it is just easier.
Repeat after me: you are wrong. Content can most certainly determine classification with no regard to the method. Troop movements (dates, locations) aren't classified because of the source, but because if the enemy knows the info they can act. What you are thinking about is intelligence data which is *typically* classified due to the source because it might give the enemy clues about how to prevent further intel gathering. But sometimes, the over riding concern still is letting the enemy know that we know it at all, and not how we know it. Other things like weaknesses in weapon systems, Tactics Techniques and Procedurs (TTP) are also classified because of the content and not some "method of acquisition".
grrr wasn't logged in when I posted this.
I guess this just begs the question: when will editors start hanging out their own shingle to perform fee-for-service editing or royalty based work. Whatever they charge it is likely to cost the author less and yet make them more. Quality editors will command more $$$ by virtue of the reputation of the books them have worked on while others will of course charge less. Same can be said for PR firms. Basically the entire publishing "thing" could become an ala cart afair ... which as many have already commented on, is where the music industry is headed.
While I appreciate the joke, Cowboys vs Aliens really is a decent idea that is different than so many of the other [fictional genre X] v. [fictional genre Y] ideas out there. Every movie I can think of that that deals with alien invasion takes place in the time frame the movie is made (ie the present) or some non-specific future. This is a different take, call it a Sci-Fi Period Piece even. What would it look like if aliens invaded during the wild west? I think, if done right, this could be really good. That is as opposed to some of your ideas, and ones that were actually made, that couldn't be made into a quality movie even with unlimited funds and no profit motive.
Now, as to your ideas, I think Matrix v. Inception would be brilliant if for no other reason than the real life Troll Wars that would follow ;-) Now THAT is a movie I would pay full price and buy the popcorn to see.
See, I KNEW I was helping win the environmental battle by NOT recycling ANYTHING. The faster we run out of it the faster we can't pollute the environment with it. It all makes perfect sense now. Thank you for opening my eyes.
First off let me say that in general I agree with your assesment. However I am then left to wonder what ATT's response would be when asked to answer to your accusation. Playing devil's advocate in my own head I'm left wondering if my version of how they might explain it away might actually be valid. so here is my thought:
Hypothetical response to congressional inquiry, "First I'd like to thank the Chairmen and the committe for allowing me to address this very important issue. Chairmen, you are correct that we are not capping usage of services we provide while imposing a cap on data from other services that are transiting our section of the internet roadways. The explanation is simple. The fees for our services, like the $5.99 paid for a PPV movie, offset the cost of the extra bandwidth they consume. To look at it another way, consumers of competing services can also have 'unlimited bandwidth' if they pay for it, or if those other services subsidize their use of our bandwidth to deliver their product. The way that bandwidth is paid for right now is via cap-overage-fees. In fact, we believe it would be unethical for us to charge an overage fee on top of the $5.99 PPV movie fee ... we'd be charging them twice for the same thing. Now we know that would be wrong."
I can see congress buying it and not really understanding things like peering agreements. But in some way I can't really argue with it when it comes to what the customer is paying. In a world of pure motives, the idea that the bandwidth cost of a PPV movie is embedded into the price of the PPV makes sense. And any bandwdith you consume that isn't ammortized into their own services (such as surfing HULU) then falls under the normal pricing plan we have now.
And yet I'm still annoyed by it because we don't live in a pure world and they are trying to double and triple charge us for the same thing.
wow my first troll moderation. I'm so honored. Since I wasn't trolling I also am amused. I guess it *is* true that disagree=troll ;-)