you only need a union when the self interest motivated actions of individuals is insufficient. In 99% of cases, it isn't, self interest takes care of it. The sole reason breaking net neutrality is even a possibility is because there is insufficient competition in the broadband space. What is *supposed* to happen is people see this as an opportunity, enter the market and offer competitive rates/services/whatever. The fact that this isn't happening is evidence that dirty tricks are going on. That's what the legislation should be focusing on, removing the dirty tricks and increasing competition.
Yeah, I've learnt this, posting to this.. I live in Australia and have about a 100 suppliers available to me. the US is fucked, and no amount of regulation is going to help you. Not that kind of regulation anyway. Your government needs to force the current big players to open their architecture and provide competitive prices. I guess you folks learnt nothing from the Ma Bell incident. Sigh, history repeats.
Yeah, sorry, the market was ruined by the consumers, not the producers. If you don't demand competition, then don't be surprised when producers don't compete. Go ask an Indian how many monopoly products he bought last year. Shit, we don't even haggle in the western world anymore - it's considered rude. Where's the US version of whirlpool? Exactly how much effort have you put into finding the best price, on any product, in the last week? And don't go blaming the marketing and the slick advertising... you let it get this bad. Now you're crying to the government for regulation.
Last I heard, the vast majority of people were saying "screw broadband" and sticking with dialup.. maybe breaking net neutrality will be the last nail in the coffin.
This is why we don't need these laws in Australia.. we have competition. Maybe the US should do something about that, instead of trying to pass regulations. Personally, I thought it was the american way and Australia was just copying.. guess I was wrong.
ISPs have been attempting to charge upstream for access to their network since the commercial Internet began. They've all met a resounding answer from the content providers: fuck off or we will block you. Who do you think has more to lose, Google being blocked by even the biggest ISP in the US (leaving the thousands of others with millions of users visiting their site daily) or the ISP being blocked by Google (pretty much all of who's customers would subsequently quit and find another provider). This whole net neutrality bill is bogus as we don't need laws to enforce what is the status quo. The only thing we need to watch is any laws that try to make it hard for upstream to retaliate against ISPs who try to break net neutrality.
Ya know what you should do about that? Start your own. And don't give me any of this shit about having to lay cables or whatever, get your local government to declare that the current provider must open their infrastructure so you can compete with them. This is what happened in Australia and we have a thriving broadband market.
It seems to strange to me that the US has become the land of the monopolies and very few people stand up and declare that it aint right.
If you happen to be in that situation, I have one suggestion for you: get out now. No matter what you are paying, it is guarenteed to be too much. No competition, no chance you're getting a good deal.
Maybe they do where you live, but most parts of the world, they have these laws that prevent price fixing, and companies actually compete for the customer's business. Of course, if you have any evidence of price fixing, maybe you shouldn't be talking to me, maybe you should be talking to a lawyer, cause you could have some sweet class action lawsuit payout coming. But I think you don't.
Similarly, if you're so sure that ISPs are price fixing, in clear violation of the law, then why bother supporting a new law? Won't they just break that one too?
My friend sends me a link to a clip on Google Video. I go to the link, get my clip and laugh at the money drinkin' its own urine, or whatever. Google gets a bill from my Internet service provider for bandwidth usage. Google rips up the bill and tells my ISP to go fuck themselves. My ISP reduces the available bandwidth to connections to Google's ip range.
Great, so then what happens?
My friend sends me another link to a clip on Google Video. I go to the link and discover that the clip is too slow (or completely blocked). I moan to my ISP that I can't play these important movie clips from Google Video. My ISP tells me that I can't play them because Google hasn't paid their bandwidth charges. I tell my ISP to go fuck themselves and switch to a provider that honours net neutrality. Everyone else does this too because we really like Google Video.
And there goes the backhanded stupidity caused by ISPs temporarily forgetting that we, the consumers, control exactly how much money they make.
It's pretty obvious isn't it? The wind knocked over one of the stones. One of the Druids came back and told a few of his mates over a beer. The word got around and people figured the sky was falling, so they ran for the hills.
And with absolutely no evidence either way, that story is as good as any other.
No, that isn't the case. If I develop an application using mysql (open source edition) and then decide I want to ship with mysql (proprietary edition) I can do that. If I develop a virtual application using VirtualBox (open source edition) and then decide I want to ship with VirtualBox (proprietary edition), I can do that. Trolltech is the odd one out.
Heh, you're obviously new to Trolltech licensing. They're the only company in the world that puts restrictions on what you can do before they'll license you their software. From the FAQ:
Can we use the Open Source Edition while developing our non-opensource application and then purchase commercial licenses when we start to sell it?
No. Our commercial license agreements only apply to software that was developed with Qt under the commercial license agreement. They do not apply to code that was developed with the Qt Open Source Edition prior to the agreement. Any software developed with Qt without a commercial license agreement must be released as Open Source software.
- source. They've dug themselves a nice little hole and all they've got to fill it is absurdity.
way more off the shelf software and games available for it,
Depends what shelf you're talking about. I go to EB and my local supermarkets and I'm sorry to say that the PC gaming section is getting smaller and smaller every week. I wouldn't be surprised if it completely disappears and the token space goes to the Mac games section.
Yeah, see, when I say Apple don't sell software, I mean that in the same sense as when I say Microsoft doesn't write open source. Sure, Microsoft has an open source project or two, but it's not their core business. The do that shit so you'll buy more of their core products.
They go to the judge and ask for a discovery warrant. The only evidence they need to show is that you are running their software and may not have valid licenses. 99% of the time this is a report from an ex-employee. The security guard at the door would be breaking the law if he didn't let them in. And they have the right to use force. This is in the UK and most the rest of the world. Typically they get the local law enforcement to help them.. it adds some officialness.
Heh, have you heard of Trolltech's licensing policies? They license on a per-developer basis. You actually have to give Trolltech the names of your developers.. and licenses are not transferable. If the developer leaves, the license is void (the developer doesn't take the license with him, it just ends) and you get no refund for the remaining period. Mind you, Trolltech are unusual (that's putting it nicely).
Slashdot Mirror
you only need a union when the self interest motivated actions of individuals is insufficient. In 99% of cases, it isn't, self interest takes care of it. The sole reason breaking net neutrality is even a possibility is because there is insufficient competition in the broadband space. What is *supposed* to happen is people see this as an opportunity, enter the market and offer competitive rates/services/whatever. The fact that this isn't happening is evidence that dirty tricks are going on. That's what the legislation should be focusing on, removing the dirty tricks and increasing competition.
Yeah, I've learnt this, posting to this.. I live in Australia and have about a 100 suppliers available to me. the US is fucked, and no amount of regulation is going to help you. Not that kind of regulation anyway. Your government needs to force the current big players to open their architecture and provide competitive prices. I guess you folks learnt nothing from the Ma Bell incident. Sigh, history repeats.
As if that wouldn't elicit the exact same response.
Yeah, sorry, the market was ruined by the consumers, not the producers. If you don't demand competition, then don't be surprised when producers don't compete. Go ask an Indian how many monopoly products he bought last year. Shit, we don't even haggle in the western world anymore - it's considered rude. Where's the US version of whirlpool? Exactly how much effort have you put into finding the best price, on any product, in the last week? And don't go blaming the marketing and the slick advertising... you let it get this bad. Now you're crying to the government for regulation.
Last I heard, the vast majority of people were saying "screw broadband" and sticking with dialup.. maybe breaking net neutrality will be the last nail in the coffin.
I have the choice of about 100 different DSL providers.. and I live in an outward suburb of the second smallest city in Australia.
This is why we don't need these laws in Australia.. we have competition. Maybe the US should do something about that, instead of trying to pass regulations. Personally, I thought it was the american way and Australia was just copying.. guess I was wrong.
ISPs have been attempting to charge upstream for access to their network since the commercial Internet began. They've all met a resounding answer from the content providers: fuck off or we will block you . Who do you think has more to lose, Google being blocked by even the biggest ISP in the US (leaving the thousands of others with millions of users visiting their site daily) or the ISP being blocked by Google (pretty much all of who's customers would subsequently quit and find another provider). This whole net neutrality bill is bogus as we don't need laws to enforce what is the status quo. The only thing we need to watch is any laws that try to make it hard for upstream to retaliate against ISPs who try to break net neutrality.
Ya know what you should do about that? Start your own. And don't give me any of this shit about having to lay cables or whatever, get your local government to declare that the current provider must open their infrastructure so you can compete with them. This is what happened in Australia and we have a thriving broadband market.
It seems to strange to me that the US has become the land of the monopolies and very few people stand up and declare that it aint right.
If you happen to be in that situation, I have one suggestion for you: get out now. No matter what you are paying, it is guarenteed to be too much. No competition, no chance you're getting a good deal.
I'd respond to your points, but you're so ill-mannered that to do so would be just encouraging more of your kind.
Maybe they do where you live, but most parts of the world, they have these laws that prevent price fixing, and companies actually compete for the customer's business. Of course, if you have any evidence of price fixing, maybe you shouldn't be talking to me, maybe you should be talking to a lawyer, cause you could have some sweet class action lawsuit payout coming. But I think you don't.
Similarly, if you're so sure that ISPs are price fixing, in clear violation of the law, then why bother supporting a new law? Won't they just break that one too?
If that happens, we've got a lot bigger problems than net neutrality.
here's how I see it...
My friend sends me a link to a clip on Google Video.
I go to the link, get my clip and laugh at the money drinkin' its own urine, or whatever.
Google gets a bill from my Internet service provider for bandwidth usage.
Google rips up the bill and tells my ISP to go fuck themselves.
My ISP reduces the available bandwidth to connections to Google's ip range.
Great, so then what happens?
My friend sends me another link to a clip on Google Video.
I go to the link and discover that the clip is too slow (or completely blocked).
I moan to my ISP that I can't play these important movie clips from Google Video.
My ISP tells me that I can't play them because Google hasn't paid their bandwidth charges.
I tell my ISP to go fuck themselves and switch to a provider that honours net neutrality.
Everyone else does this too because we really like Google Video.
And there goes the backhanded stupidity caused by ISPs temporarily forgetting that we, the consumers, control exactly how much money they make.
It's pretty obvious isn't it? The wind knocked over one of the stones. One of the Druids came back and told a few of his mates over a beer. The word got around and people figured the sky was falling, so they ran for the hills.
And with absolutely no evidence either way, that story is as good as any other.
No, that isn't the case. If I develop an application using mysql (open source edition) and then decide I want to ship with mysql (proprietary edition) I can do that. If I develop a virtual application using VirtualBox (open source edition) and then decide I want to ship with VirtualBox (proprietary edition), I can do that. Trolltech is the odd one out.
then, as soon as you were ready to distribute it, create a closed, proprietary fork using the closed-source version of Qt.
At which point Trolltech will refuse to license you their closed-source version of Qt.
Weird.
No. Our commercial license agreements only apply to software that was developed with Qt under the commercial license agreement. They do not apply to code that was developed with the Qt Open Source Edition prior to the agreement. Any software developed with Qt without a commercial license agreement must be released as Open Source software.
- source. They've dug themselves a nice little hole and all they've got to fill it is absurdity.
way more off the shelf software and games available for it,
Depends what shelf you're talking about. I go to EB and my local supermarkets and I'm sorry to say that the PC gaming section is getting smaller and smaller every week. I wouldn't be surprised if it completely disappears and the token space goes to the Mac games section.
Yeah, see, when I say Apple don't sell software, I mean that in the same sense as when I say Microsoft doesn't write open source. Sure, Microsoft has an open source project or two, but it's not their core business. The do that shit so you'll buy more of their core products.
*cough*
They go to the judge and ask for a discovery warrant. The only evidence they need to show is that you are running their software and may not have valid licenses. 99% of the time this is a report from an ex-employee. The security guard at the door would be breaking the law if he didn't let them in. And they have the right to use force. This is in the UK and most the rest of the world. Typically they get the local law enforcement to help them.. it adds some officialness.
Heh, have you heard of Trolltech's licensing policies? They license on a per-developer basis. You actually have to give Trolltech the names of your developers.. and licenses are not transferable. If the developer leaves, the license is void (the developer doesn't take the license with him, it just ends) and you get no refund for the remaining period. Mind you, Trolltech are unusual (that's putting it nicely).
In a totalitarian regime, sure.
Yeah, no. The BSA does more work internationally, where piracy in business settings is more common place.
I hear ya about RTFA.