A client could request chunks in order. The issue becomes the latter parts of the file being less available than the earlier parts, especially if people don't watch/download the whole thing, or if they don't seed for very long.
I can't blame people for not seeding much--at least, many people. My ISP (AT&T DSL) has decreased service by adding bandwidth caps and raised rates, to boot. I've never had faster than 5 Mbps/768 Kbps Internet access (poor me), but some people have 30+ Mbps access with multi-megabit upload speeds. Some areas are improving, but others are regressing! Can you imagine if electric or telephone service went down in availability but up in price, long-term? Has that even happened in history?
Oh, and according to City Hall, AT&T (the phone company) is not a utility--it's a "business", so they can do whatever they want.
I played through it one summer with a borrowed disc. Got all the way to the end and couldn't beat that boss lady because my character just couldn't handle it--and I wasn't about to go replay the whole game with a new character just to see if I could beat the boss this time.
People rave about it--ok, it's a cool game. But it definitely got repetitive, the graphics weren't that great, and the combat--well, I'm just not a big fan of dice-based stuff: if I want to play Yahtzee, I'll play Yahtzee.
You mean you never played Dark Forces, Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II, Mysteries of the Sith, or Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast...? JK had an incredible community for years. I ran a clan for 5 years--we had up to 50 members at one point, from all over the world. The level editing and modding community was fantastic, and it's not dead yet. JK2 was not bad, but completely different, being based on the Q3 engine. JK had its own, sector-based (negative space-based editing) engine--such a pleasure to make levels for, unlike brush-based stuff, and simple scripting called Cog. All the tools had low barriers to entry but were still powerful.
I'll jump to one: you belittle others to make yourself feel better because you have low self-esteem. Maybe you'd have better self-esteem if you didn't undermine others'.
Seriously? Stealing? They sell you something and you use it and you're a thief? The MAFIAA must love folks like you. By your logic, if my friend rents a movie and we watch it together, I've stolen the movie because I didn't rent a copy for myself. Good grief, do you know how much money they make selling soft drinks? What if I order a small drink and refill it seven times? Am I a thief for not ordering a large and refilling it twice? Let the seller beware, and let the spender be shrewd. There's nothing dishonest about using what you've paid for! Whose side are you on anyway? What kind of Futurama morality is this? "Shut up and take [more of] my money!"
But intense jobsâ"stressful negotiations or factory work, sayâ"must require some disconnecting during the day?
Yesâ"during longer breaks, but not so much during microbreaks. Also, itâ(TM)s important to note that my studies looked just at regular office jobs, some at a software company and a smaller sample at a consulting firm.
He doesn't define "microbreak" very specifically. Also, since he only looked at a software company and a consulting firm--only office jobs, and only two firms (!)--this isn't really statistically significant. In fact, I can imagine that at many other software companies and consulting firms the environments would be very different, have very different stressors, and could show very different results.
Yep, sad but true. This is why FOSS is so beautiful.
I hesitate to argue that proprietary software is inherently immoral or unethical. I do think that, morally and ethically, I should have full control over the devices I own, and so I should have the full ability to run whatever software I choose. As a user, I should have the freedom to choose FOSS and ignore proprietary software.
But I do fundamentally advocate freedom. Users need not be held hostage by any vendor.
Oh well, boneheaded decisions like those of Adobe will simply highlight the drawbacks of expensive, proprietary software and the advantages of FOSS. I wonder how many new users GIMP will gain because of this. Adobe's already on the way out in the Flash department--if they keep this up, their market share in other areas will also begin to shrink.
I think some regulation is definitely needed. I don't know if I agree with how the regulation is done. I actually think the FCC needs to be a bit more strict with ISPs, because in so many areas these ISPs have virtual monopolies, and they are beginning to seriously abuse them. The days of Earthlink and AOL and localco are long over.
I don't think your assertions are valid.
1. "At the federal level you have very high levels of knowledge and participation..." This begs the question, does the general public really have such high levels of knowledge and participation? Besides, what is this knowledge you refer to? Is it watching CNN or Fox and hearing about the opinion polls of the day? Is it knowing what "the issues" are, and where candidates stand on them? Is it knowing candidates actual voting records? Is it knowing what laws are? Is it knowing court precedents? Is it knowing history? I think your statement is so vague that it's meaningless.
2. "...while at the local level knowledge and participation is down around 20%." Again, there is the issue of how you quantify knowledge. I assume you're measuring participation by voter turnout--but this is a large country, and, assuming your numbers are accurate, I don't think it's reasonable to make such a broad statement. Reality is more nuanced than mere statistics of voter turnout. Besides, what do you mean by "local"? State legislature elections? County and city elections? Again, your assertion is too vague to be meaningful.
3. "For those people involved the local government is far more accessible and changeable than the federal government." This seems to counter your argument that the states should be merged--it's a very strong argument in favor of states' rights and small federal government.
4. "States however seem to combine the worst of both (a) and (b) being neither easily accessible and changeable nor inspiring broad public participation." It seems that by "local" you don't mean "states." However, your assertion that states are not easily accessible is unfounded--not to mention the fact that there are 50 states, and such a broad statement is probably unreasonable.
That they do not inspire broad public participation is probably the most reasonable argument you've made, considering that modern media has "shrunken" the nation and focused upon the national stage, lessening the visibility of local and state issues. Outside of college sports, my impression is that states are not as much a focal point of pride as they once were, and this would extend to enthusiasm for government, as well. However, if this is true--and it's a rather vague, meaningless assertion, anyway--it could actually make states more accessible and changeable, since there would be fewer people to contend with.
5. "As for one step removed, removing the states removes a step."
There is another angle to this that you haven't addressed: that of freedom. Centralizing power in the hands of the federal government does not increase citizens' freedom--it tends to restrict it. It seems to me that it does so by definition, since without states, there is less room for flexibility in laws and regulations--people can't move to a state which has laws they prefer, and they can't lobby for changes that won't also affect all other parts of the country.
Globbing the entire nation into one whole accelerates the trend toward mob rule, the simple majority--it leaves minorities out in the cold (and I don't refer to racial or ethnic minorities, simply those with less popular opinions) . If 60% of citizens want A, and 40% want B, but there room for but one option, the 40% (nearly 120 million people) will suffer. On the other hand, if it's an issue that can vary between states, it gives room for flexibility--it allows for freedom.
This nation was founded upon principles of freedom, and having the states is fundamental to those principles. Removing the states removes a barrier to abolishing our freedoms. As American citizens, we need to fundamentally advocate one thing: freedom.
I guess you're trolling--or maybe you're a Wikipedia editor who's brainwashed himself into saying "citation needed" rather than arguing the issue.:) In saying "citation needed" over and over, when I already pointed out your post which I am referring to, you're confusing the burden of proof--or maybe you're just trolling.
But here, I will quote you and itemize it for you:
"As a denier, you do not understand the difference between local temperature and global mean temperature. You do not understand the difference between climate and weather. Basically, you are extremely ignorant."
1. You label him as a "denier." This is, in effect and intention, an ad hominem and a sort-of reverse appeal to popularity. Instead of arguing the issue logically, you simply label him as a member of the opposing camp, which, of course, "everyone knows" is simply a bunch of ignorant people, and therefore wrong.
2. You make assumptions about his understanding and knowledge. This is also a logical fallacy, because you do not know him--these are unsubstantiated assertions.
3. You conclude by calling him "extremely ignorant." This is simply an ad hominem, and an unfounded one, at that.
In conclusion, your post fails to argue logically. Your assertions are unsupported and your conclusions are unreasonable. You have not discussed the issue itself, nor have you advanced the debate in any way--on the contrary, your personal attacks and divisive labeling and name-calling are one of the biggest problems in the AGW debate. You are acting as part of the problem, not the solution.
I think we're arguing past each other. I'm not saying they should be legally required to do so. I'm saying they should fix the bugs because it's the right thing to do.
I sincerely hope that their customers do indeed take their business elsewhere.
Whew. I'm glad we have states. At least they insulate from a little bit of federal government. The last thing we need is for more centralization of power. Every bit of power that's centralized is a bit of power that's one step further removed from the free citizens from whom the power ultimately flows.
Haha, no, it wasn't apparent to me. I'm also a FOSS proponent.
From a technical perspective, we understand that all software has bugs. However, from a user's perspective--and especially a paying customer's perspective--that a piece of software could make his system vulnerable to hostile takeover is an absolutely unacceptable, inexcusable, fundamental, fatal flaw. It's bad enough that web browsers do this, but at least their entire purpose is to display a variety of often-executable content from unknown sources. For a graphics editor? Absurd.
Houses are inanimate. Computers are programmable machines--they do things--they can be controlled--they can be used against their owners' interests if taken over. If I spend money to buy software or a license to use it or however you want to describe it, it had better not make my computer vulnerable to evil actors! If it does, the vendor had better fix it ASAP! They are responsible!
Whether there is something good, bad, true or false there are people that will attempt to get unfair advantage, but that doesn't mean the vehicle they use is the problem.
You're being illogical again. Your argument is basically, "Since anyone can misuse any cause for their own personal gain, the possibility that someone could be misusing this one is irrelevant." That makes no sense whatsoever.
The fact is that people are misusing this cause, they have been for a long time, and they were preparing it for such before it became popular. This necessarily calls into question all of their claims--it calls for very strict, logical examination of their claims and the facts--it calls for skepticism and distrust (of course, logic demands this of every viewpoint). Yet what I perceive from the AGW movement is largely blind trust--which falls right into the traps of those who are in it for their own gain.
You make many irrational, unsubstantiated assumptions about me. As far as you can reasonably know, I'm just some words on a screen--but you think you know who and where I am and all about the media that's influenced me throughout my life. You seem to think reading a journal makes you an impartial expert. You think you know things that are, by definition, unknowable. You've conned yourself.
This kind of illogical thinking is the crux of the problem with the AGW movement.
I need to cite your labeling, attacking, and insulting? It's in your own post. I'm not lying about it: it's right there in your own post. Who are you talking to?
I'm curious about what you think about the chance that non-commercial infringement is not causing harm but is enlarging the market for works.
Also, if you're right that it doesn't make as much sense to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial infringement anymore, what do you think damages and penalties and laws should be?
It makes no sense, morally or ethically or rationally, to throw millions of people into jail or bankruptcy because they shared/downloaded songs/movies/whatever on P2P/whatever--especially when the plaintiffs are non-person, corporate entities which cannot be prosecuted, fined, or jailed as the human defendants can--and are billion-dollar industries using anti-competitive, anti-cultural practices to hold back cultural and technological progress (contrary to the purpose of copyright), and to squeeze every cent possible out of every theoretical customer in a struggling economy.
In the courtroom, the law may be all that matters. In reality, the situation is far more nuanced. There is no balance of power--it's all in the hands of the corporations and their packs of lawyers and lobbyists. Sadly, we cannot elect representatives who will enact or repeal laws in order to level the playing field (IMO, it's not possible--politicians are either too corruptible or too ignorant).
So what's the answer? Probably the best one is to support Free Culture movements, like Creative Commons, and eschew RIAA/MPAA media. But even so, is it right to criminalize or bankrupt those who do participate in sharing the media created and controlled by these evil, literally inhuman entities?
I just don't understand that. Why don't they either charge you an overage fee or throttle the connection? Or even disable the connection until the next billing period? They have the ability to stop you from using more than they want you to use, automatically. Why force the user to monitor himself and then punish him?
Consider yourself lucky. Where I live, AT&T DSL added a 150 GB data cap and just raised the rate by $3 a month, without increasing speed. I've been here 5 years, and service has decreased while price has increased! The only alternative is the local cable company, which wants $70 a month and won't sell Internet access without cable TV.
Today I called them to complain. They transferred me from El Paso to Pennsylvania to the retention department. The girl in El Paso was very nice; the girl in PA sounded worn out. But she gave me a 33% discount for a year, for no reason other than that I called and someone transferred me to her.
This tells me that they are clearly overcharging everyone. Fewer bytes + more money = ripoff. But they have a virtual monopoly, so they can do whatever they want. My choices are between the lesser of two ripoffs, or no Internet at all.
Oh, and I called city hall and asked to talk to someone about dissatisfaction with the phone utility. I was told that the phone company is not a utility but a "business." (They're the only phone company! Since when is the phone company not a utility?!) Even though AT&T has a business license from the city, they can do whatever they want without oversight.
Sometimes I wonder if the comments about the golden age of the Internet being over are true. Is it really all downhill from here? So much for technological progress.
Does that package cost twice as much also? I find it hard to believe that being upfront with them about how much you use your Internet connection resulted in them making you a better offer, rather than seeing it as an opportunity to justify charging exorbitant rates to a "power user."
Slashdot Mirror
A client could request chunks in order. The issue becomes the latter parts of the file being less available than the earlier parts, especially if people don't watch/download the whole thing, or if they don't seed for very long.
I can't blame people for not seeding much--at least, many people. My ISP (AT&T DSL) has decreased service by adding bandwidth caps and raised rates, to boot. I've never had faster than 5 Mbps/768 Kbps Internet access (poor me), but some people have 30+ Mbps access with multi-megabit upload speeds. Some areas are improving, but others are regressing! Can you imagine if electric or telephone service went down in availability but up in price, long-term? Has that even happened in history?
Oh, and according to City Hall, AT&T (the phone company) is not a utility--it's a "business", so they can do whatever they want.
So much for progress.
What ending? Or which ending?
I played through it one summer with a borrowed disc. Got all the way to the end and couldn't beat that boss lady because my character just couldn't handle it--and I wasn't about to go replay the whole game with a new character just to see if I could beat the boss this time.
People rave about it--ok, it's a cool game. But it definitely got repetitive, the graphics weren't that great, and the combat--well, I'm just not a big fan of dice-based stuff: if I want to play Yahtzee, I'll play Yahtzee.
Did I miss something?
You mean you never played Dark Forces, Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II, Mysteries of the Sith, or Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast...? JK had an incredible community for years. I ran a clan for 5 years--we had up to 50 members at one point, from all over the world. The level editing and modding community was fantastic, and it's not dead yet. JK2 was not bad, but completely different, being based on the Q3 engine. JK had its own, sector-based (negative space-based editing) engine--such a pleasure to make levels for, unlike brush-based stuff, and simple scripting called Cog. All the tools had low barriers to entry but were still powerful.
Ah, nostalgia...
I think it is: http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.4#head-011d0bd1a20451b0e374283b36a71d8e8f5b7ae1
I'll jump to one: you belittle others to make yourself feel better because you have low self-esteem. Maybe you'd have better self-esteem if you didn't undermine others'.
What is a balanced temperature?
Yeah, gotta watch out for those nocturnal mammal keyboard users!
Seriously? Stealing? They sell you something and you use it and you're a thief? The MAFIAA must love folks like you. By your logic, if my friend rents a movie and we watch it together, I've stolen the movie because I didn't rent a copy for myself. Good grief, do you know how much money they make selling soft drinks? What if I order a small drink and refill it seven times? Am I a thief for not ordering a large and refilling it twice? Let the seller beware, and let the spender be shrewd. There's nothing dishonest about using what you've paid for! Whose side are you on anyway? What kind of Futurama morality is this? "Shut up and take [more of] my money!"
Yeah, sure, the reason for all the RIAA/MPAA lawsuits is because of comments on Slashdot...
But intense jobsâ"stressful negotiations or factory work, sayâ"must require some disconnecting during the day?
Yesâ"during longer breaks, but not so much during microbreaks. Also, itâ(TM)s important to note that my studies looked just at regular office jobs, some at a software company and a smaller sample at a consulting firm.
He doesn't define "microbreak" very specifically. Also, since he only looked at a software company and a consulting firm--only office jobs, and only two firms (!)--this isn't really statistically significant. In fact, I can imagine that at many other software companies and consulting firms the environments would be very different, have very different stressors, and could show very different results.
Yep, sad but true. This is why FOSS is so beautiful.
I hesitate to argue that proprietary software is inherently immoral or unethical. I do think that, morally and ethically, I should have full control over the devices I own, and so I should have the full ability to run whatever software I choose. As a user, I should have the freedom to choose FOSS and ignore proprietary software.
But I do fundamentally advocate freedom. Users need not be held hostage by any vendor.
Oh well, boneheaded decisions like those of Adobe will simply highlight the drawbacks of expensive, proprietary software and the advantages of FOSS. I wonder how many new users GIMP will gain because of this. Adobe's already on the way out in the Flash department--if they keep this up, their market share in other areas will also begin to shrink.
I think some regulation is definitely needed. I don't know if I agree with how the regulation is done. I actually think the FCC needs to be a bit more strict with ISPs, because in so many areas these ISPs have virtual monopolies, and they are beginning to seriously abuse them. The days of Earthlink and AOL and localco are long over.
I don't think your assertions are valid.
1. "At the federal level you have very high levels of knowledge and participation..." This begs the question, does the general public really have such high levels of knowledge and participation? Besides, what is this knowledge you refer to? Is it watching CNN or Fox and hearing about the opinion polls of the day? Is it knowing what "the issues" are, and where candidates stand on them? Is it knowing candidates actual voting records? Is it knowing what laws are? Is it knowing court precedents? Is it knowing history? I think your statement is so vague that it's meaningless.
2. "...while at the local level knowledge and participation is down around 20%." Again, there is the issue of how you quantify knowledge. I assume you're measuring participation by voter turnout--but this is a large country, and, assuming your numbers are accurate, I don't think it's reasonable to make such a broad statement. Reality is more nuanced than mere statistics of voter turnout. Besides, what do you mean by "local"? State legislature elections? County and city elections? Again, your assertion is too vague to be meaningful.
3. "For those people involved the local government is far more accessible and changeable than the federal government." This seems to counter your argument that the states should be merged--it's a very strong argument in favor of states' rights and small federal government.
4. "States however seem to combine the worst of both (a) and (b) being neither easily accessible and changeable nor inspiring broad public participation." It seems that by "local" you don't mean "states." However, your assertion that states are not easily accessible is unfounded--not to mention the fact that there are 50 states, and such a broad statement is probably unreasonable.
That they do not inspire broad public participation is probably the most reasonable argument you've made, considering that modern media has "shrunken" the nation and focused upon the national stage, lessening the visibility of local and state issues. Outside of college sports, my impression is that states are not as much a focal point of pride as they once were, and this would extend to enthusiasm for government, as well. However, if this is true--and it's a rather vague, meaningless assertion, anyway--it could actually make states more accessible and changeable, since there would be fewer people to contend with.
5. "As for one step removed, removing the states removes a step."
There is another angle to this that you haven't addressed: that of freedom. Centralizing power in the hands of the federal government does not increase citizens' freedom--it tends to restrict it. It seems to me that it does so by definition, since without states, there is less room for flexibility in laws and regulations--people can't move to a state which has laws they prefer, and they can't lobby for changes that won't also affect all other parts of the country.
Globbing the entire nation into one whole accelerates the trend toward mob rule, the simple majority--it leaves minorities out in the cold (and I don't refer to racial or ethnic minorities, simply those with less popular opinions) . If 60% of citizens want A, and 40% want B, but there room for but one option, the 40% (nearly 120 million people) will suffer. On the other hand, if it's an issue that can vary between states, it gives room for flexibility--it allows for freedom.
This nation was founded upon principles of freedom, and having the states is fundamental to those principles. Removing the states removes a barrier to abolishing our freedoms. As American citizens, we need to fundamentally advocate one thing: freedom.
I guess you're trolling--or maybe you're a Wikipedia editor who's brainwashed himself into saying "citation needed" rather than arguing the issue. :) In saying "citation needed" over and over, when I already pointed out your post which I am referring to, you're confusing the burden of proof--or maybe you're just trolling.
But here, I will quote you and itemize it for you:
"As a denier, you do not understand the difference between local temperature and global mean temperature. You do not understand the difference between climate and weather. Basically, you are extremely ignorant."
1. You label him as a "denier." This is, in effect and intention, an ad hominem and a sort-of reverse appeal to popularity. Instead of arguing the issue logically, you simply label him as a member of the opposing camp, which, of course, "everyone knows" is simply a bunch of ignorant people, and therefore wrong.
2. You make assumptions about his understanding and knowledge. This is also a logical fallacy, because you do not know him--these are unsubstantiated assertions.
3. You conclude by calling him "extremely ignorant." This is simply an ad hominem, and an unfounded one, at that.
In conclusion, your post fails to argue logically. Your assertions are unsupported and your conclusions are unreasonable. You have not discussed the issue itself, nor have you advanced the debate in any way--on the contrary, your personal attacks and divisive labeling and name-calling are one of the biggest problems in the AGW debate. You are acting as part of the problem, not the solution.
Ok, I put up--and now I will shut up. :)
I think we're arguing past each other. I'm not saying they should be legally required to do so. I'm saying they should fix the bugs because it's the right thing to do.
I sincerely hope that their customers do indeed take their business elsewhere.
Anyone who says Microsoft isn't so bad anyone is either a fool or has something to gain from their success.
Whew. I'm glad we have states. At least they insulate from a little bit of federal government. The last thing we need is for more centralization of power. Every bit of power that's centralized is a bit of power that's one step further removed from the free citizens from whom the power ultimately flows.
Haha, no, it wasn't apparent to me. I'm also a FOSS proponent.
From a technical perspective, we understand that all software has bugs. However, from a user's perspective--and especially a paying customer's perspective--that a piece of software could make his system vulnerable to hostile takeover is an absolutely unacceptable, inexcusable, fundamental, fatal flaw. It's bad enough that web browsers do this, but at least their entire purpose is to display a variety of often-executable content from unknown sources. For a graphics editor? Absurd.
Houses are inanimate. Computers are programmable machines--they do things--they can be controlled--they can be used against their owners' interests if taken over. If I spend money to buy software or a license to use it or however you want to describe it, it had better not make my computer vulnerable to evil actors! If it does, the vendor had better fix it ASAP! They are responsible!
Whether there is something good, bad, true or false there are people that will attempt to get unfair advantage, but that doesn't mean the vehicle they use is the problem.
You're being illogical again. Your argument is basically, "Since anyone can misuse any cause for their own personal gain, the possibility that someone could be misusing this one is irrelevant." That makes no sense whatsoever.
The fact is that people are misusing this cause, they have been for a long time, and they were preparing it for such before it became popular. This necessarily calls into question all of their claims--it calls for very strict, logical examination of their claims and the facts--it calls for skepticism and distrust (of course, logic demands this of every viewpoint). Yet what I perceive from the AGW movement is largely blind trust--which falls right into the traps of those who are in it for their own gain.
But you call me the naive one.
You make many irrational, unsubstantiated assumptions about me. As far as you can reasonably know, I'm just some words on a screen--but you think you know who and where I am and all about the media that's influenced me throughout my life. You seem to think reading a journal makes you an impartial expert. You think you know things that are, by definition, unknowable. You've conned yourself.
This kind of illogical thinking is the crux of the problem with the AGW movement.
I need to cite your labeling, attacking, and insulting? It's in your own post. I'm not lying about it: it's right there in your own post. Who are you talking to?
You make some good points.
I'm curious about what you think about the chance that non-commercial infringement is not causing harm but is enlarging the market for works.
Also, if you're right that it doesn't make as much sense to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial infringement anymore, what do you think damages and penalties and laws should be?
It makes no sense, morally or ethically or rationally, to throw millions of people into jail or bankruptcy because they shared/downloaded songs/movies/whatever on P2P/whatever--especially when the plaintiffs are non-person, corporate entities which cannot be prosecuted, fined, or jailed as the human defendants can--and are billion-dollar industries using anti-competitive, anti-cultural practices to hold back cultural and technological progress (contrary to the purpose of copyright), and to squeeze every cent possible out of every theoretical customer in a struggling economy.
In the courtroom, the law may be all that matters. In reality, the situation is far more nuanced. There is no balance of power--it's all in the hands of the corporations and their packs of lawyers and lobbyists. Sadly, we cannot elect representatives who will enact or repeal laws in order to level the playing field (IMO, it's not possible--politicians are either too corruptible or too ignorant).
So what's the answer? Probably the best one is to support Free Culture movements, like Creative Commons, and eschew RIAA/MPAA media. But even so, is it right to criminalize or bankrupt those who do participate in sharing the media created and controlled by these evil, literally inhuman entities?
One thing is clear: the laws are broken.
I just don't understand that. Why don't they either charge you an overage fee or throttle the connection? Or even disable the connection until the next billing period? They have the ability to stop you from using more than they want you to use, automatically. Why force the user to monitor himself and then punish him?
That's very interesting. Have your kids never watched cable or satellite or even OTA TV at a friend's house?
Consider yourself lucky. Where I live, AT&T DSL added a 150 GB data cap and just raised the rate by $3 a month, without increasing speed. I've been here 5 years, and service has decreased while price has increased! The only alternative is the local cable company, which wants $70 a month and won't sell Internet access without cable TV.
Today I called them to complain. They transferred me from El Paso to Pennsylvania to the retention department. The girl in El Paso was very nice; the girl in PA sounded worn out. But she gave me a 33% discount for a year, for no reason other than that I called and someone transferred me to her.
This tells me that they are clearly overcharging everyone. Fewer bytes + more money = ripoff. But they have a virtual monopoly, so they can do whatever they want. My choices are between the lesser of two ripoffs, or no Internet at all.
Oh, and I called city hall and asked to talk to someone about dissatisfaction with the phone utility. I was told that the phone company is not a utility but a "business." (They're the only phone company! Since when is the phone company not a utility?!) Even though AT&T has a business license from the city, they can do whatever they want without oversight.
Sometimes I wonder if the comments about the golden age of the Internet being over are true. Is it really all downhill from here? So much for technological progress.
Does that package cost twice as much also? I find it hard to believe that being upfront with them about how much you use your Internet connection resulted in them making you a better offer, rather than seeing it as an opportunity to justify charging exorbitant rates to a "power user."