But heavier vehicles, which get worse gas mileage, also damage the roads more, so there is still a very clear case for gas taxation.
What if those heavier vehicles use hybrid or electric engines? Why should an owner of a Honda Civic Hybrid pay less than the owner of a regular Honda Civic? The Hybrid is heavier and battery disposal causes pollution.
In a perfect world, I could see this as a reasonable solution. But in reality, it would cost far much to implement in a way which didn't allow abuse to be worth the minimal benefit. Maybe in 5, 10, or however many years, when a significant portion of traffic is using gasoline-free engines. Of course, then you could just tax based on vehicle registration.
No way. You get way more bang for your buck making calls.
Add in a $10/call fine, and suddenly it's not cost effective.
As it turns out the law doesn't apply to solely intrastate campaigns, and the $11,000 figure that was quoted is only the maximum. So it turns out to just be shitty reporting by Slashdot, not a shitty rule.
Depends on your idea of fair. The federal government already taxes gasoline. Some people feel that the state tax should be based on road usage, not pollution.
If I sign up for the list (which I did), I am stating an unwillingness to deal with a telemarketer already - they haven't lost a potential sale, because there is no way I'd buy from one anyway, and if anything they've saved their call center a bit of time and abuse.
Of course the same argument could be used for making Slashdot ads optional.
Seriously, I can't think of a single thing that the government has done in the last year to improve quality of life as much as this new reg.
Well, they invaded Iraq and sent gasoline prices from $2.00 to $1.30. That improved my quality of life a hell of a lot more than this DNC list will.
Don't forget, this law doesn't apply to businesses which don't make interstate calls, and doesn't apply to "long-distance phone companies and airlines, and insurance companies operating under state regulations." It's a good law, but it's not great. In fact, depending what information I have to give the federal government to get on the list, I probably won't even bother signing up for it.
I don't mean to imply that it's an accident. Just that the person doesn't realize how serious the penalties are. I don't think we should go around bankrupting every company or person just for making a few phone calls. That seems excessive to me. Likewise $11,000 per call seems excessive to me. Should we really be charging Joe's Service Shop $11 million just because they called 1000 local residents to inform them of their special price on oil changes? I don't know the specifics of the rule but if I were drafting a law I'd only give such excessive fines to willful infringers.
As for your speculation that it's not like mandatory drug sentences, the way I read it there is no judicial discretion involved. You make 1000 calls, unless the prosecutor wants to make a deal, you owe $11 million.
I think the intent is whether the ISP's server does the majority of the data transfer.
Really? I think the intent is to make the maximum number of people possible guilty, this way the ISP can kick off anyone for any reason they can come up with, and then point to some ridiculous provision like that one.
I expect it generally gets enforced like the Calif. sales tax law vs garage sales: if you have the occasional garage sale, the franchise tax board isn't interested in chasing after you for the sales tax. But if you do it for a living, then they want their cut.
I bet it's more like the New Jersey speeding laws. If you're black, or otherwise not liked by the officer, then you get arrested. If you're white, or related to an officer, you get off with a warning.
Of course with ISPs it's probably not a black/white thing. It's more about how often you complain about their shitty service.
Anyway, just like telephone solicitations, there are degrees. If there's a single incident does that mean you should leave forever? What about the kids? Likewise if there's a single call from a company, and they offer you an amazing deal, why shouldn't you take it? Yeah, there's the trust issue, but let's say they don't ask you for any credit card numbers or SSN or anything.
Selling stuff on eBay might be directed toward making a profit as well, so what's the difference? It doesn't say anything about amount of use. It just says "use."
How about spending the revenue from the fines on a series of public-service announcements and ads reminding people that the best prevention for these things is for them to produce no results?
Please... Don't we have enough lies on the television. Smoking pot causes terrorism and signing up for free newspaper trials causes telephone solicitation! Maybe we should have a commercial about how staying with abusive husbands causes spousal abuse too.
The best prevention is a strictly enforced law.
The big problem with spam, telemarketers, et al is that every now and then someone actually does buy something and encourages them.
No, the big problem with spam, telemarketers, et al is that they're annoying! The reason they exist is not because someone buys something. The reason they exist is because there's a new idiot looking to make money fast born every minute.
If they don't follow the law now, why will they follow it in the future.
Because this law is much easier to enforce. Either your number is on the list, or it isn't. There's no "hang up before someone asks to be put on the list." There's no argument about whether or not you're on the list. There's no playing games with different companies selling information to each other. There's no questions of jurisdiction with calls made across state lines. All companies are affected.
From an enforcement standpoint, if you get a call (after three months or whatever it takes for them to read it), you report it.
Here's the thing. You set up the list. Then you advertise the fact that you have the list. Then you set up a mechanism to have people report violations. Then set up an investigation team to investigate these reports. Hire a bunch of agents to make arrests and provide them with guns and bullet-proof vests. Now hire the lawyer to do the prosecution and all the appeals. Now hire another lawyer to get a garnishment or lien or whatever it takes to collect the money. Then you can have the $11,000.
I don't have a problem with this law. But only if it pays for itself. I'm not willing to have my taxes go up just so I have a few less hangups on my answering machine.
Also, $11,000 isn't too bad, but $11,000 per call is just ridiculous.
That's not what it says. It says "This service cannot be used for any enterprise purpose whatsoever whether or not the enterprise is directed toward making a profit." It doesn't say anything about hosting or not. If it did, then P2P would likely be fine, since it's not hosting.
Slashdot Mirror
But heavier vehicles, which get worse gas mileage, also damage the roads more, so there is still a very clear case for gas taxation.
What if those heavier vehicles use hybrid or electric engines? Why should an owner of a Honda Civic Hybrid pay less than the owner of a regular Honda Civic? The Hybrid is heavier and battery disposal causes pollution.
In a perfect world, I could see this as a reasonable solution. But in reality, it would cost far much to implement in a way which didn't allow abuse to be worth the minimal benefit. Maybe in 5, 10, or however many years, when a significant portion of traffic is using gasoline-free engines. Of course, then you could just tax based on vehicle registration.
No way. You get way more bang for your buck making calls.
Add in a $10/call fine, and suddenly it's not cost effective.
As it turns out the law doesn't apply to solely intrastate campaigns, and the $11,000 figure that was quoted is only the maximum. So it turns out to just be shitty reporting by Slashdot, not a shitty rule.
The gas tax already encourages density. The property tax also does this.
Depends on your idea of fair. The federal government already taxes gasoline. Some people feel that the state tax should be based on road usage, not pollution.
If you are so stupid as to disturb 1000 random people, you deserve to be bankrupted.
That is where you and I disagree.
No, but you can sue for actual damages under tort law. And you'll probably get it tripled for punitive damages.
Of course your actual damages are what, $0.10?
If I sign up for the list (which I did), I am stating an unwillingness to deal with a telemarketer already - they haven't lost a potential sale, because there is no way I'd buy from one anyway, and if anything they've saved their call center a bit of time and abuse.
Of course the same argument could be used for making Slashdot ads optional.
Of course, by doing so you'd be committing a federal offense.
More power to ya if you feel like risking getting your ass thrown in federal prison.
Seriously, I can't think of a single thing that the government has done in the last year to improve quality of life as much as this new reg.
Well, they invaded Iraq and sent gasoline prices from $2.00 to $1.30. That improved my quality of life a hell of a lot more than this DNC list will.
Don't forget, this law doesn't apply to businesses which don't make interstate calls, and doesn't apply to "long-distance phone companies and airlines, and insurance companies operating under state regulations." It's a good law, but it's not great. In fact, depending what information I have to give the federal government to get on the list, I probably won't even bother signing up for it.
Copyright shouldn't last even 5 years, let alone 50. This proposal treats a heart-attack with a band-aid.
At $11,000 a call it is the only deterrent to these pests large enough to take those whose time they waste seriously.
I'd say $10 a call would be equally effective as a deterrent. Either way it's a losing proposition.
It should be $11,000 + being flogged and pilloried.
I'd say $10,000 + $1/call.
I don't mean to imply that it's an accident. Just that the person doesn't realize how serious the penalties are. I don't think we should go around bankrupting every company or person just for making a few phone calls. That seems excessive to me. Likewise $11,000 per call seems excessive to me. Should we really be charging Joe's Service Shop $11 million just because they called 1000 local residents to inform them of their special price on oil changes? I don't know the specifics of the rule but if I were drafting a law I'd only give such excessive fines to willful infringers.
As for your speculation that it's not like mandatory drug sentences, the way I read it there is no judicial discretion involved. You make 1000 calls, unless the prosecutor wants to make a deal, you owe $11 million.
I think the intent is whether the ISP's server does the majority of the data transfer.
Really? I think the intent is to make the maximum number of people possible guilty, this way the ISP can kick off anyone for any reason they can come up with, and then point to some ridiculous provision like that one.
I expect it generally gets enforced like the Calif. sales tax law vs garage sales: if you have the occasional garage sale, the franchise tax board isn't interested in chasing after you for the sales tax. But if you do it for a living, then they want their cut.
I bet it's more like the New Jersey speeding laws. If you're black, or otherwise not liked by the officer, then you get arrested. If you're white, or related to an officer, you get off with a warning.
Of course with ISPs it's probably not a black/white thing. It's more about how often you complain about their shitty service.
I'm not. People make mistakes. This particular one is quite minor.
What's a SPOUCE?
Anyway, just like telephone solicitations, there are degrees. If there's a single incident does that mean you should leave forever? What about the kids? Likewise if there's a single call from a company, and they offer you an amazing deal, why shouldn't you take it? Yeah, there's the trust issue, but let's say they don't ask you for any credit card numbers or SSN or anything.
Selling stuff on eBay might be directed toward making a profit as well, so what's the difference? It doesn't say anything about amount of use. It just says "use."
How about spending the revenue from the fines on a series of public-service announcements and ads reminding people that the best prevention for these things is for them to produce no results?
Please... Don't we have enough lies on the television. Smoking pot causes terrorism and signing up for free newspaper trials causes telephone solicitation! Maybe we should have a commercial about how staying with abusive husbands causes spousal abuse too.
The best prevention is a strictly enforced law.
The big problem with spam, telemarketers, et al is that every now and then someone actually does buy something and encourages them.
No, the big problem with spam, telemarketers, et al is that they're annoying! The reason they exist is not because someone buys something. The reason they exist is because there's a new idiot looking to make money fast born every minute.
If MCI hires an Indian telemarketing company to call me did MCI break this law?
Of course they did.
It seems some people need a push or are too lazy to go the story and check things out.
I'm sure these same people will be too lazy to sign up for the DNC list too.
Don't think about it as losing a pool of people to be marketed to. Think about it as gaining a sucker-list.
If they don't follow the law now, why will they follow it in the future.
Because this law is much easier to enforce. Either your number is on the list, or it isn't. There's no "hang up before someone asks to be put on the list." There's no argument about whether or not you're on the list. There's no playing games with different companies selling information to each other. There's no questions of jurisdiction with calls made across state lines. All companies are affected.
From an enforcement standpoint, if you get a call (after three months or whatever it takes for them to read it), you report it.
Here's the thing. You set up the list. Then you advertise the fact that you have the list. Then you set up a mechanism to have people report violations. Then set up an investigation team to investigate these reports. Hire a bunch of agents to make arrests and provide them with guns and bullet-proof vests. Now hire the lawyer to do the prosecution and all the appeals. Now hire another lawyer to get a garnishment or lien or whatever it takes to collect the money. Then you can have the $11,000.
I don't have a problem with this law. But only if it pays for itself. I'm not willing to have my taxes go up just so I have a few less hangups on my answering machine.
Also, $11,000 isn't too bad, but $11,000 per call is just ridiculous.
No it isn't. You can pay to have them stop sending you crap. That's not opt-out.
That's not what it says. It says "This service cannot be used for any enterprise purpose whatsoever whether or not the enterprise is directed toward making a profit." It doesn't say anything about hosting or not. If it did, then P2P would likely be fine, since it's not hosting.
Have any of these schemes worked in the past?
Well, there's distributed.net, which is still working.
That policy is pretty ridiculous. It makes it illegal to sell items on eBay, for instance. I doubt many other ISPs are that bad.