Since virtually none exist because of illegal behavior, you shouldn't be so surprised or indignant that many folks choose to get around them.
I'll avoid the "monopoly" argument even though I agree with you that what they did and ARE doing is wrong -- because I don't think it's what we are discussing.
Put simply, two wrongs don't make a right. I am neither surprised NOR indignant that, as you say, many choose to "get around [their contracts]". Nor do I think I have the right to break a contract I sign. I *AM* surprised that so many people are UPSET and ANGRY that a company wishes to enforce a contract entered freely by both parties.
Sure, it sucks to be stuck with Verizon. It also sucks to be an ISP who sees HUGE usage spikes during peek hours (which cost them a small fortune).
Seems that too many people want business service at consumer prices.
Isn't it more like renting a huge garage and being told that you are only allowed to keep one car in it, if you want to park more cars you will have to pay extra (for space you are already renting..). (After all, I'm not using three times as much bandwidth as a regular user just because I have three computers connected to the internet..)
I used the "mustang" statement as an illustration of cost/affordability and weither I had a right to something I can't afford.
As far as your analogy, it assumes that bandwidth is like static space -- it's not. An ISP contract which limits the number of machines which can use it's service are based on the assumption that 2 or more machines will use MORE bandwidth than 1 ALWAYS -- even in the FAR end of this argument where only ONE computer is used at a time. Why? A simple example would be some lazy user who has multiple PCs in his house. He's less likely to walk from the bedroom to which ever computer is in the house to look up some IMDB info. Yes, I agree. THIS particular example is VERY minor.
What we need to keep in mind is that there is NO WAY that an ISP can provide a dedicated connection at advertised bandwidth for EVERY USER a the cost they provide them. NO WAY. Ever check out the cost of a fractional T1? The way they get around that is (A) limit upstream and (B) oversell service (on the assumption that ALL users wont be using the system at once -- a VALID assumption in my opinion). If we REALLY want to expect to see affordable broadband, we need to be willing to live with many of these restictions. Honestly, why is this unreasonable? Especially when the provider is up-front with the restrictions?
Also, your driver's license analogy is poor. There are legal differences between a "social contract" and a legally binding contract. Besides, if I were to exceed the speed limit, I would suffer the ramifications if I did (i.e., a ticket and possible jail time depending on how great the violation was). Not to mention the increase to car insurance... (note that I neither verified nor denied your assumption -- mostly as it doesn't matter in this discussion).
You might want to check out this site Particularly "Attacking the person". Tossing out logical fallacies is not the best way to make your point.
Also, your driver's license analogy is poor. There are legal differences between a "social contract" and a legally binding contract. Besides, if I were to exceed the speed limit, I would suffer the ramifications if I did (i.e., a ticket and possible jail time depending on how great the violation was). Not to mention the increase to car insurance... (note that I neither verified nor denied your assumption -- mostly as it doesn't matter in this discussion).
You might want to check out this site Particularly "Attacking the person". Tossing out logical fallacies is not the best way to make your point.
The additional fee for extra machines may be beyond what they can afford
Sorry to be blunt, but so what? A 1966 Ford Mustang in mint condition is beyond what I can afford -- doesn't mean I have the right to have one. I guess I'll just need to keep my Toyota pick-up.
they may not be using any additional bandwidth, meaning the extra cost to the ISP is zero
I seriously question your argument. *IF* they are connecting with an EXTRA computer, they *ARE* in fact using bandwidth they they didn't agree to pay for. If you are suggesting that only one computer is used at a time, I can see that argument. But if only ONE computer is being used at a time, there would be no need to worry about this method of detection as it will ONLY show one computer, right? BOTH wouldn't be connected to the gateway at the same time, right?
Personally, I blame the FCC for allowing this to happen. But that's just me.
I dont agree. It's not your local ISPs fault that there aren't multiple providers in your area (assuming we are talking about you) or multiple service options. If there was enough money to be made in an area, there would most likely be more providers.
In the end, it's the end user who signs the contract. If they don't like it, they dont need to sign it. Don't you see any problems signing a contract with the INTENT of breaking it to save money? I don't see anything but a poor rationalization in your arguement suggesting that it's not *YOUR* fault that you NEED to break your contract -- it's the community -- or the draconian requirements (which you never needed to sign, by the way).
Why is it a big deal for some company (broadband provider) whose ToS contract up-front says only X number of machines can use this connection or else additional fees apply to expect their customers to comply with the terms of their contract?
If you want 10 machines to share an internet connection, sign up with a company which doesn't care or charge for how many computers share the connection OR pay for the additional machines for ISPs who do.
It's interesting to note that this would only ID the number of machiens behind NAT boxes -- not those using proxy servers (a la squid). At least from what I read...
Who said the U.S. (I assume you meant U.S. when you said "America") was a Democracy? "...to the flag and to the *REPUBLIC* for which it stands..." (pledge).
My guess would be that they dont want the bad publicity should some fool decide to be a "test pilot" for this "prototype".
Besides, why would someone WANT to fly this? It would be cool if it was like the 3rd or 4th generation COMMERCIAL version. At least the likelyhood of faulty engineering would be less of a possibility (i.e. they worked out the kinks). But a prototype? I'm all for being a beta tester for software or even hardware. Just not for something that could reach terminal velocity.
...please forgive the penmanship. Hodges` hand was still smoking when I started the sketch, I hurried somewhat, as he was pleading to go to the horse doctor.
Glitch to Hodges: "You knew this job was dangerous when you took it, Fred".
I know that's the "popular" Heinlein favorite. Mine is "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". That was just a damn fun (and thought provoking) book for me. Don't get me wrong, "Stranger" is great. I would just rank it a wee bit below "Moon".
And god help me, I also like (gasp) L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth (NOT the movie) and the Mission Earth series. Those were great stories (regardless of the scientology/anti-shrink propoganda).
Reading the article about Nissan v Nissan would tell you some of Nissan Motors' arguments were:
"We registered nissancomputer.com and offered it to him for free," and "If Uzi Nissan was using nissancomputer.com, there would not be a lawsuit."
Using that same argument, why cant Nissan Motors just use nissanmotors.com?
This is silly. I would understand if his business was "Joe Smith's Computers" and he used nissan.com. I also don't think he should be responsible for drones who type up "nissan.com" in their browsers hoping to find Nissan Motors -- let them discover [yahoo, google, lycos, whatever].
Maybe... just MAYBE 1.8 Ghz with win98 or linux or whathaveyou is fast enough. I STILL use my old p166 for the majority of my "work" related activities (email, word processing, etc), I doubt I'm going to find an app any time soon that wont run well on my 1.8 Ghz monster. Bet my p166 is still chugging along 5 years down the road, too.
We had a similar problem at a historic landmark that was also a working court-house. Our solution was mounting relays on the ceiling and using IR transmitters.
It was also only a single floor building.
Short-story: It worked and was damn expensive -- but would be considered too slow by todays standards. I wouldn't doubt that stragically placed 802.11 repeaters/bridges and 802.11 nics would work nicely. Might even be about the same cost (once inflation is figured in)
I admin a network of around 50 machines, 3 servers (one is a monster dedicated SQL DB) and a number of nework printers.
I don't NEED a hugely powerful computer to admin the network. My workstation is a PII-400. If I need more, I take over one of the servers. The ONLY reason MY system has a sound card in it is because I bought it personally and installed it myself. It's mine. I don't NEED it to work. I wouldn't expect my employeer to buy me a radio.
The POWERFULL workstations actually ended up going to the data-entry people -- due mostly to the proprietary softwares ungodly hardware requirements.
Even the owner of the company is running a Celeron 333 (granted -- with a 19in flatscreen -- he has limited desk space and frequently views NASTY huge spreadsheets). It more than meets his needs and recognizes that he doesn't NEED more (at least yet).
His assistant has the most powerful workstation (even more-so than our servers). Thats due to her needing to do various publishing requirements (Adobe not only COSTS alot, it REQUIRES a lot to use efficently).
The oldest/slowest machines are used by the M.D.s who do nothing but read a report and click one of two buttons (release or re-submit). P100s here.
If I had mod points right now and there was a +1 "Well Said" I would gladly mod you up. It takes good character to ENGAGE in a discussion AS a discussion -- not as a battle.
OR he could be venting obvious frustration at the open-source shills who do nothing but bad mouth anyone who has anything positive to say about non-open source material. Read further up this thread -- I see a "short-sighted knuckle- draggers" term being tossed around to emphesize THEIR frustration from the other end. At least the parent didn't post anonymously.
I'll agree that "name calling" can be annoying -- it doesn't invalidate the points made by the parent.
Could someone politely mod this flamebait? thanks in advance
Why? Because you disagree? I was THIS CLOSE (holding index and thumb as close together as possible) to modding it as insightful myself. I felt stronger that I should address your complaint instead as it may influence others.
The original poster is quite accurate, if a little "sharp" and makes a very good point and cites examples. There's nothing wrong if the "standard" of anything has a patent and somebody feels the need for royalties. I, myself, am still undecided as to the validity of this current claim. So, again, I ask: Why flaimbait? Politely or otherwise?
Slashdot Mirror
Put simply, two wrongs don't make a right. I am neither surprised NOR indignant that, as you say, many choose to "get around [their contracts]". Nor do I think I have the right to break a contract I sign. I *AM* surprised that so many people are UPSET and ANGRY that a company wishes to enforce a contract entered freely by both parties.
Sure, it sucks to be stuck with Verizon. It also sucks to be an ISP who sees HUGE usage spikes during peek hours (which cost them a small fortune).
Seems that too many people want business service at consumer prices.
-jhon
As far as your analogy, it assumes that bandwidth is like static space -- it's not. An ISP contract which limits the number of machines which can use it's service are based on the assumption that 2 or more machines will use MORE bandwidth than 1 ALWAYS -- even in the FAR end of this argument where only ONE computer is used at a time. Why? A simple example would be some lazy user who has multiple PCs in his house. He's less likely to walk from the bedroom to which ever computer is in the house to look up some IMDB info. Yes, I agree. THIS particular example is VERY minor.
What we need to keep in mind is that there is NO WAY that an ISP can provide a dedicated connection at advertised bandwidth for EVERY USER a the cost they provide them. NO WAY. Ever check out the cost of a fractional T1? The way they get around that is (A) limit upstream and (B) oversell service (on the assumption that ALL users wont be using the system at once -- a VALID assumption in my opinion). If we REALLY want to expect to see affordable broadband, we need to be willing to live with many of these restictions. Honestly, why is this unreasonable? Especially when the provider is up-front with the restrictions?
What stones am I casting?
Also, your driver's license analogy is poor. There are legal differences between a "social contract" and a legally binding contract. Besides, if I were to exceed the speed limit, I would suffer the ramifications if I did (i.e., a ticket and possible jail time depending on how great the violation was). Not to mention the increase to car insurance... (note that I neither verified nor denied your assumption -- mostly as it doesn't matter in this discussion).
You might want to check out this site Particularly "Attacking the person". Tossing out logical fallacies is not the best way to make your point.
-jhon
What stones am I casting?
Also, your driver's license analogy is poor. There are legal differences between a "social contract" and a legally binding contract. Besides, if I were to exceed the speed limit, I would suffer the ramifications if I did (i.e., a ticket and possible jail time depending on how great the violation was). Not to mention the increase to car insurance... (note that I neither verified nor denied your assumption -- mostly as it doesn't matter in this discussion).
You might want to check out this site Particularly "Attacking the person". Tossing out logical fallacies is not the best way to make your point.
I seriously question your argument. *IF* they are connecting with an EXTRA computer, they *ARE* in fact using bandwidth they they didn't agree to pay for. If you are suggesting that only one computer is used at a time, I can see that argument. But if only ONE computer is being used at a time, there would be no need to worry about this method of detection as it will ONLY show one computer, right? BOTH wouldn't be connected to the gateway at the same time, right?
I agree. So it's not just you. -Jhon
I dont agree. It's not your local ISPs fault that there aren't multiple providers in your area (assuming we are talking about you) or multiple service options. If there was enough money to be made in an area, there would most likely be more providers.
In the end, it's the end user who signs the contract. If they don't like it, they dont need to sign it. Don't you see any problems signing a contract with the INTENT of breaking it to save money? I don't see anything but a poor rationalization in your arguement suggesting that it's not *YOUR* fault that you NEED to break your contract -- it's the community -- or the draconian requirements (which you never needed to sign, by the way).
-jhon
Why is it a big deal for some company (broadband provider) whose ToS contract up-front says only X number of machines can use this connection or else additional fees apply to expect their customers to comply with the terms of their contract?
If you want 10 machines to share an internet connection, sign up with a company which doesn't care or charge for how many computers share the connection OR pay for the additional machines for ISPs who do.
It's interesting to note that this would only ID the number of machiens behind NAT boxes -- not those using proxy servers (a la squid). At least from what I read...
-jhon
Who said the U.S. (I assume you meant U.S. when you said "America") was a Democracy? "...to the flag and to the *REPUBLIC* for which it stands..." (pledge).
Think "mob rule" works? I dont.
-Jhon
My guess would be that they dont want the bad publicity should some fool decide to be a "test pilot" for this "prototype".
Besides, why would someone WANT to fly this? It would be cool if it was like the 3rd or 4th generation COMMERCIAL version. At least the likelyhood of faulty engineering would be less of a possibility (i.e. they worked out the kinks). But a prototype? I'm all for being a beta tester for software or even hardware. Just not for something that could reach terminal velocity.
-jhon
Glitch to Hodges: "You knew this job was dangerous when you took it, Fred".
-jhon
And god help me, I also like (gasp) L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth (NOT the movie) and the Mission Earth series. Those were great stories (regardless of the scientology/anti-shrink propoganda).
-jhon
Follow the link in the article. Fat Wallet says they are going to pull the price listings as demanded because they can't afford a legal battle.
"Rights", "fair use" or whatever don't really mean anything if wont be exercised out of fear of a costly legal battle.
-jhon
Reading the article about Nissan v Nissan would tell you some of Nissan Motors' arguments were:
"We registered nissancomputer.com and offered it to him for free," and "If Uzi Nissan was using nissancomputer.com, there would not be a lawsuit."
Using that same argument, why cant Nissan Motors just use nissanmotors.com?
This is silly. I would understand if his business was "Joe Smith's Computers" and he used nissan.com. I also don't think he should be responsible for drones who type up "nissan.com" in their browsers hoping to find Nissan Motors -- let them discover [yahoo, google, lycos, whatever].
-jhon
Maybe... just MAYBE 1.8 Ghz with win98 or linux or whathaveyou is fast enough. I STILL use my old p166 for the majority of my "work" related activities (email, word processing, etc), I doubt I'm going to find an app any time soon that wont run well on my 1.8 Ghz monster. Bet my p166 is still chugging along 5 years down the road, too.
-jhon
I'm sorry you decided to post anonymously. You made some good points. I hope you get modded up.
My older buying habits were the opposite of yours (buying little to no CDs due to the cost and not wanting to spend that much for a single song).
However, like you, P2P has allowed me to "try before I buy". 3 or more years ago, I bought 3 CDs any given year. Now? Now I average about 1 a month.
I would be interested to see which buying trend is more common (your MORE to LESS or my LESS to MORE).
-jhon
We had a similar problem at a historic landmark that was also a working court-house. Our solution was mounting relays on the ceiling and using IR transmitters.
It was also only a single floor building.
Short-story: It worked and was damn expensive -- but would be considered too slow by todays standards. I wouldn't doubt that stragically placed 802.11 repeaters/bridges and 802.11 nics would work nicely. Might even be about the same cost (once inflation is figured in)
-jhon
Very well put.
I admin a network of around 50 machines, 3 servers (one is a monster dedicated SQL DB) and a number of nework printers.
I don't NEED a hugely powerful computer to admin the network. My workstation is a PII-400. If I need more, I take over one of the servers. The ONLY reason MY system has a sound card in it is because I bought it personally and installed it myself. It's mine. I don't NEED it to work. I wouldn't expect my employeer to buy me a radio.
The POWERFULL workstations actually ended up going to the data-entry people -- due mostly to the proprietary softwares ungodly hardware requirements.
Even the owner of the company is running a Celeron 333 (granted -- with a 19in flatscreen -- he has limited desk space and frequently views NASTY huge spreadsheets). It more than meets his needs and recognizes that he doesn't NEED more (at least yet).
His assistant has the most powerful workstation (even more-so than our servers). Thats due to her needing to do various publishing requirements (Adobe not only COSTS alot, it REQUIRES a lot to use efficently).
The oldest/slowest machines are used by the M.D.s who do nothing but read a report and click one of two buttons (release or re-submit). P100s here.
Spend where it's NEEDED.
Found it:
Here!
-jhon
Been there, done that. GOTTA be a better way to check for stuff thats been reposted.
-jhon
If I had mod points right now and there was a +1 "Well Said" I would gladly mod you up. It takes good character to ENGAGE in a discussion AS a discussion -- not as a battle.
-jhon
I'll agree that "name calling" can be annoying -- it doesn't invalidate the points made by the parent.
-jhon
The original poster is quite accurate, if a little "sharp" and makes a very good point and cites examples. There's nothing wrong if the "standard" of anything has a patent and somebody feels the need for royalties. I, myself, am still undecided as to the validity of this current claim. So, again, I ask: Why flaimbait? Politely or otherwise?
-jhon
Do we still have the right to remain .... silent? Or will that right now cost us royalties? At least until silence is in the public domain?
-jhon
Right here.
-jhon
Smokers? People buying stamps? "Vending machine" does not equal "Candy machine".