Just make sure you are downloading those movies from Concast and NOT their competitors otherwise they "could" terminate your internet access for using it too much.
They have caps which vary from region to region. I've spoken with people who download 600 Gigs a month with no issues. Then there are those who have downloaded under 100 Gigs and were terminated for using it too much (despite the fact that they signed up with "unlimited use for a flat monthly fee").
That's actually not universally true. I've sat in a lot of meetings with very senior, very well paid people (and their associated lawyers) and have heard them literally say "we wouldn't be breaking the law, but it wouldn't look good in the press". Many companies value their image and reputation extremely highly and doing something which leads to the company being embarassed, even if it's 100% legal, would be a firing offence.
I agree. There are some companies who do care and have stepped up to meeting their customers needs. Unlike some companies, there are organizations who really care about their reputation.
For example, Qwest, while not the best example (I've heard the stories about them too), for me at least heard about my problems with Concast terminating my families Internet service for using it too much (yeah, crazy huh??). They were planning on installing a DSLAM in our area but not until much later in 2007. I notified them of what Concast was doing in my neighborhood and spoke with the City Council and our Mayor about it.
Well what do you know. They pushed it up several months so we were without Internet access for only a couple of months.
Again, I know I know. I've heard the stories and realize Qwest has issues to deal with also. But this isn't bad and their customer service has been outstanding since we switched to them. Hell, now they are talking about running fiber to the home in my area.
Can't say I have much to complain about other than I'm still waiting for that fiber drop guys;D
Freedom of speech is a nice thing, but in real word people don't say to employers what they think if it means they lose their jobs. Goverment mostly protects citizens being harassed by goverment itself, but it does very little if private citizen limits other persons freedom of speech or goverments agencies as employer do it.
Or lets phrase that again. Yes, anyone can say anything and freedom of speech is almost without limits. But no law guarantees using that right won't have consequences like losing your job or business. On private or public sector.
Which is probably why the Founding Fathers used aliases when submitting letters to papers to get their points across to the masses. Another reason it's imperative that anonymity be preserved to protect people and their opinion.
A very good point. Normal backing-up is permitted under "fair use". However, if the directory holding all these "backups" is shared with millions over the Internet:
As it actually stands the defendant isn't being sued over CD ripping, but for placing files in a shared directory.
then it is no longer "fair use", and RIAA is right to come guns-a-blazing.
However backing up under "fair use" for personal use in a non shared directory is covered I believe. At least that is my understanding what the Supreme Court was trying to convey. You have the right to a backup copy of your media.
You make a compelling argument there. Death (not deth) threats should always be taken seriously regardless if it's anonymous or not. This should have been investigated and the poster taken to the looney house.
[1] Just in case you're American, she was a former prime minister of Pakistan[2] [2] It's near India.
Thanks for the Geography lesson. Believe it or not, some of us have moved past Geography 101
I guess American's no longer have the monopoly on arrogance. Pity. It's spreading.
Oh come on, the pyramids on the dollar bill is obviously fair use: parody! I mean, look at the giant floating eyeball on top of it! I roll over with laughter every time I see that thing...
I wonder if Latin America can claim prior art...
Or will they simply sue ancestors of the Aztec and Mayans:D
I don't know where it came from, but this idea that Clinton is socialist is hilarious. By any sane standard, she's a far-right conservative except on one or two points.
I don't know where you are getting your information but she votes like a liberal.
Perhaps you care to clarify / qualify your statement? I'd love to learn how you came to this conclusion.
Not in a capitalist society. See, capitalism really is the best system since supply and demand rules. We'll use a lot less gasoline when it costs $25/gallon because we simply won't be able to afford it anymore so we'll have to find alternatives or use public transit.
But then again can we afford public transit since they will also have the same problems with supply and demand as we do.
Sure they have more bargaining power which reduces the price but it's not as significant as people think. I've seen it with our buses and trains. Prices go up for everybody including public transit.
The money you pay for is *not* for the content itself, it is for the *right* to use the content on that specific physical piece of media. Akin to not buying the road, but purchasing (through fees and testing) the license to use the road with your car. You can't drive your car where it is not allowed (think: tarmac), and you can't drive on the road, things you are not allowed to drive (think: firetruck).
On that specific physical piece of media?
You're joking right? Last I read, the Supreme Court said we have the right to make personal archival copies of our media. so if the original breaks, are we not allowed to use the archival copy??
The RIAA at times has said ripping music to your IPOD/MP3 player is fair use (then recanted then repeated then recanted...). So which is it?
The laws are obviously screwed up. Congress needs to get a grip and fix it. Believe it or not, there are people out there trying to not break the law and deserve their rights to be respected as well.
Uh, why ? It's not like price discrimination is an uncommon market phenomenon...
So which version would YOU purchase if you wanted to run say Half Life 2, Counter Strike Source and Team Fortress 2?
Basically something that requires a lot of horse power on the video end of things? People don't know and Microsoft advocates I've run into are just as confused.
Don't forget the birth of online services. Like Quantum Link. I wonder what ever happened to them . .
They morphed into another well known online service called AOL. Seriously.
I was a moderator with Quantum Link and for every hour I was online helping people I received two hours of free online time. It was a cool gig. Then I was told they are switching to AOL and I was asked if I wanted to be a moderator and declined. It took a lot of time and I had other things to work on. Oh and the hours I saved couldn't be transfered to AOL for some bizzare reason. Oh well..
Realistically, this is expected but not necessarily a big deal; had the DOJ presented some new argument here - one which was more powerful than the existing arguments - that would have been problematic. Here, they've done little more than endorse the existing arguments.
I know this is off topic BUT I began thinking about my situation. If I take Concast to court for terminating my Internet Account by the same argument, since it's hard to determine actual damages, I can pull a number out of thin air???
Cool:D
FYI.. in a nutshell, the company terminated the accounts of several people on my neighborhood for using the Internet too much but refused to say what that number is (how much is too much??). They've done this across the Salt Lake Valley and still refuse to state what is acceptable use.
Oh and yes, the advertisement DID say we had "Unlimited use for a flat monthly fee". Bait and switch / False Advertising basically.
I just find it strange an organization can just "guess" at their damages.
The only potential saving grace is that they keep lowering the bar on what constitutes a criminal offense, so maybe someday just about everyone in the country will have a criminal record and it will all even out.
Because Comcast throttles BitTorrent, and the pirate kiddies can't tell the difference between the right to free speech and the ability to steal. It's pretty sad.
Actually it felt like you were trolling since 99.99% of all Comcast customers are using the network as Comcast intended. Just ask Comcast:-)
Oh and I didn't see in the article anything about piracy.
If you get a typical home user account, you're paying less than people used to pay for modem access. You can't expect to get 8Mbps 24/7 for that. You know that.
If you want 24/7 full bandwidth usage, there are other pricing plans that give you that. Expect to pay 2-3x as much.
Uhh.. actually that's not accurate. When we were terminated by Comcast for using the Internet too much, we were told we could upgrade to a business plan. Well we did and that relationship lasted about 10 minutes. We were turned off.. again.
I spent three weeks going through their piss poor customer service and management. It must be good to have a monopoly in my area since several other's in my neighborhood have been terminated also. We're all on DSL now. Not Comcast speeds (Brian Roberts even admitted they don't have any competition anywhere which is true).
I finally get a hold of "Sarah" in Sandy Utah. She's in their escalation department. Apparently they want to sell us their commercial package. I was quoted up to $10,000 to install the line and up to $2,000 a month.
Not exactly 2-3x's a regular residential account I'd say.
The only alternative to Comcast where I live is 1.5 mbit/sec DSL, although 3 mbit/sec is supposed to be coming soon, and from multiple providers. I'll get to pick among providers and service plans. When that happens: goodbye Comcast. I need you about as much as I need a major music studio.
While 1.5 Meg DSL isn't Comcast speeds, the good side is... it's not Comcast either. Now that it's been about a year since Comcast terminated my Internet access for "Using the unlimited use for a flat monthly fee" too much, I qualify to sign up with them again. Any takers on whether I will sign up with an abusive company?::grinz:: Not likely. In fact I resubscribed to the "Do No Call" telephone list just in case Comcast thinks it's ok to call me with their telemarketers. I'm just waiting for the first one. I'll have them in small claims court so fast it will make their heads spin. We don't have a relationship period. So any calls will go to court.
Us "heavy internet users" are also known as "the computer guys in the family". AKA the people all those email-checkers go to for technology advice.
If comcast starts losing all of its geek users, it will soon find itself losing its profit cows as well when we tell them a better ISP to use.
BTW, anyone know a better ISP to use? Fucking monopolies.
Cox Communications has been rated the top US Cable / Internet company for the last several years. Oh and they used to hide things like what's acceptable use and how much you can download monthly until customers rebelled and forced the company to come clean.
I suspect Comcast is next on the "come clean" block.
t's 21st century business, kids. Get used to it. The best way to stick it to these companies is, unfortunately, to keep paying them and be right on the edge of what they allow you to do, like a kid causing just enough trouble in class to piss off the teacher but not enough to get sent to the office.
Uhh.. you don't know what the edge of acceptability is and it changes from region to region. One region it's ok to download 200, 300, 400 Gigs or more while in another you're a bandwidth hog. The detractors say they are glad you are not "their" neighbor and conveniently forget to mention what they think it acceptable. Of course they won't answer it either. Personally I believe they are shills for Comcast but that's my belief.
In my opinion, the best way to stick it to them is to demand the Government allow the free market into the Cable and Internet market. I've spoken with my City Council and members of the Utah legislature. They are mostly clueless. One city council woman said there was satellite and wireless available. I asked if it was comparable to Comcast's service. Of course she didn't know... or didn't want to answer the question.
If we had the free market in this area it would crush Comcast. They either would be forced to compete on a level playing field, or file for Bankruptcy. I'm fine with either scenario.
Comcast sells the Internet, not some Internet like service. Their willful failure to deliver reliably might not sit well with local regulators either. At minimum, they should be forced to be honest and up front about their tampering with P2P applications before you purchase their service. and where there are no other options because of Comcasts government granted monopoly, there should be a way around it.
Try telling that to Comcast. They "claimed" we were using the Internet too much but refused to reveal what their bandwidth consumption limits were. Only that we had to "drastically" reduce our usage. They quoted two different numbers of what our usage had been for the month of December 2006. So which is it?
I think they are just making crap up on the spot. That our usage with P2P and other protocols was far less than they were willing to admit. Hell, I even asked how I could validate their numbers. You can't of course. Just... trust us yeah that's it. We couldn't do anything bad to you right:D
The company is soo used to lying it's second nature. At least that's my experience with them thus far. So now I'm blogging about it to get the word out. What's funny is Comcast is making my job soo easy and even providing fuel for the fire. I've been pushing for Network Neutrality and a fiber Infrastructure since then (going back to February 2006). It would allow a free market to dictate who's business succeeds and who's dies. The only way they are doing so well is their Government granted monopoly. If it wasn't for that, Concast would have serious issues when it came to their stockholders:-)
You had a bad contract and company, was it some 8(a)? I have had two contracts that ended like that but the contracts had a 30 day pay/warning, in addition to the 2 weeks final warning from the company ; however the HR offices worked with me to get me a new job.
To be honest I don't recall but I did notice the company went out of business some years ago so I chalk it up to a bad company taking bad contracts.
Fortunately I have skills in a variety of fields and was able to get working in a couple weeks.
Slashdot Mirror
Just make sure you are downloading those movies from Concast and NOT their competitors otherwise they "could" terminate your internet access for using it too much.
They have caps which vary from region to region. I've spoken with people who download 600 Gigs a month with no issues. Then there are those who have downloaded under 100 Gigs and were terminated for using it too much (despite the fact that they signed up with "unlimited use for a flat monthly fee").
Sucks I know but it's what Concast does. Sad huh.
That's actually not universally true. I've sat in a lot of meetings with very senior, very well paid people (and their associated lawyers) and have heard them literally say "we wouldn't be breaking the law, but it wouldn't look good in the press". Many companies value their image and reputation extremely highly and doing something which leads to the company being embarassed, even if it's 100% legal, would be a firing offence.
;D
I agree. There are some companies who do care and have stepped up to meeting their customers needs. Unlike some companies, there are organizations who really care about their reputation.
For example, Qwest, while not the best example (I've heard the stories about them too), for me at least heard about my problems with Concast terminating my families Internet service for using it too much (yeah, crazy huh??). They were planning on installing a DSLAM in our area but not until much later in 2007. I notified them of what Concast was doing in my neighborhood and spoke with the City Council and our Mayor about it.
Well what do you know. They pushed it up several months so we were without Internet access for only a couple of months.
Again, I know I know. I've heard the stories and realize Qwest has issues to deal with also. But this isn't bad and their customer service has been outstanding since we switched to them. Hell, now they are talking about running fiber to the home in my area.
Can't say I have much to complain about other than I'm still waiting for that fiber drop guys
Most of my fireballs have involved Windows.
;-)
Fireballs?
You were thinking chairs when you said that right?
Freedom of speech is a nice thing, but in real word people don't say to employers what they think if it means they lose their jobs. Goverment mostly protects citizens being harassed by goverment itself, but it does very little if private citizen limits other persons freedom of speech or goverments agencies as employer do it.
Or lets phrase that again. Yes, anyone can say anything and freedom of speech is almost without limits. But no law guarantees using that right won't have consequences like losing your job or business. On private or public sector.
Which is probably why the Founding Fathers used aliases when submitting letters to papers to get their points across to the masses. Another reason it's imperative that anonymity be preserved to protect people and their opinion.
A very good point. Normal backing-up is permitted under "fair use". However, if the directory holding all these "backups" is shared with millions over the Internet:
As it actually stands the defendant isn't being sued over CD ripping, but for placing files in a shared directory.
then it is no longer "fair use", and RIAA is right to come guns-a-blazing.
However backing up under "fair use" for personal use in a non shared directory is covered I believe. At least that is my understanding what the Supreme Court was trying to convey. You have the right to a backup copy of your media.
SPOILERS: Your favorite distro isn't the best.
;-)
Actually mine was... until Novell bought them out
Anonymous deth threats have no more credibility.
Tell that to Benazir Bhutto[1].
You make a compelling argument there. Death (not deth) threats should always be taken seriously regardless if it's anonymous or not. This should have been investigated and the poster taken to the looney house.
[1] Just in case you're American, she was a former prime minister of Pakistan[2]
[2] It's near India.
Thanks for the Geography lesson. Believe it or not, some of us have moved past Geography 101
I guess American's no longer have the monopoly on arrogance. Pity. It's spreading.
Oh come on, the pyramids on the dollar bill is obviously fair use: parody! I mean, look at the giant floating eyeball on top of it! I roll over with laughter every time I see that thing...
:D
I wonder if Latin America can claim prior art...
Or will they simply sue ancestors of the Aztec and Mayans
I don't know where it came from, but this idea that Clinton is socialist is hilarious. By any sane standard, she's a far-right conservative except on one or two points.
I don't know where you are getting your information but she votes like a liberal.
Perhaps you care to clarify / qualify your statement? I'd love to learn how you came to this conclusion.
Thanks
Not in a capitalist society. See, capitalism really is the best system since supply and demand rules. We'll use a lot less gasoline when it costs $25/gallon because we simply won't be able to afford it anymore so we'll have to find alternatives or use public transit.
But then again can we afford public transit since they will also have the same problems with supply and demand as we do.
Sure they have more bargaining power which reduces the price but it's not as significant as people think. I've seen it with our buses and trains. Prices go up for everybody including public transit.
The money you pay for is *not* for the content itself, it is for the *right* to use the content on that specific physical piece of media. Akin to not buying the road, but purchasing (through fees and testing) the license to use the road with your car. You can't drive your car where it is not allowed (think: tarmac), and you can't drive on the road, things you are not allowed to drive (think: firetruck).
On that specific physical piece of media?
You're joking right? Last I read, the Supreme Court said we have the right to make personal archival copies of our media. so if the original breaks, are we not allowed to use the archival copy??
The RIAA at times has said ripping music to your IPOD/MP3 player is fair use (then recanted then repeated then recanted...). So which is it?
The laws are obviously screwed up. Congress needs to get a grip and fix it. Believe it or not, there are people out there trying to not break the law and deserve their rights to be respected as well.
But the version game is unacceptable.
Uh, why ? It's not like price discrimination is an uncommon market phenomenon...
So which version would YOU purchase if you wanted to run say Half Life 2, Counter Strike Source and Team Fortress 2?
Basically something that requires a lot of horse power on the video end of things? People don't know and Microsoft advocates I've run into are just as confused.
Soon come the day when, we can finally arrest people, before they realise that they're going to do something criminal.
Like raise taxes?
Don't forget the birth of online services. Like Quantum Link. I wonder what ever happened to them . .
They morphed into another well known online service called AOL. Seriously.
I was a moderator with Quantum Link and for every hour I was online helping people I received two hours of free online time. It was a cool gig. Then I was told they are switching to AOL and I was asked if I wanted to be a moderator and declined. It took a lot of time and I had other things to work on. Oh and the hours I saved couldn't be transfered to AOL for some bizzare reason. Oh well..
Those were the days.
I think they probably built it to be their new customer complaints manager.
;-)
You realize this isn't something new. Robots have filled those positions at Comcast for years.
Someday the rest of the world will notice and copy them... unless they have a patent on it of course
Realistically, this is expected but not necessarily a big deal; had the DOJ presented some new argument here - one which was more powerful than the existing arguments - that would have been problematic. Here, they've done little more than endorse the existing arguments.
:D
I know this is off topic BUT I began thinking about my situation. If I take Concast to court for terminating my Internet Account by the same argument, since it's hard to determine actual damages, I can pull a number out of thin air???
Cool
FYI.. in a nutshell, the company terminated the accounts of several people on my neighborhood for using the Internet too much but refused to say what that number is (how much is too much??). They've done this across the Salt Lake Valley and still refuse to state what is acceptable use.
Oh and yes, the advertisement DID say we had "Unlimited use for a flat monthly fee". Bait and switch / False Advertising basically.
I just find it strange an organization can just "guess" at their damages.
The only potential saving grace is that they keep lowering the bar on what constitutes a criminal offense, so maybe someday just about everyone in the country will have a criminal record and it will all even out.
Hopefully someday this will include politicians.
Because Comcast throttles BitTorrent, and the pirate kiddies can't tell the difference between the right to free speech and the ability to steal. It's pretty sad.
:-)
Actually it felt like you were trolling since 99.99% of all Comcast customers are using the network as Comcast intended. Just ask Comcast
Oh and I didn't see in the article anything about piracy.
It's pretty sad.
If you get a typical home user account, you're paying less than people used to pay for modem access. You can't expect to get 8Mbps 24/7 for that. You know that.
If you want 24/7 full bandwidth usage, there are other pricing plans that give you that. Expect to pay 2-3x as much.
Uhh.. actually that's not accurate. When we were terminated by Comcast for using the Internet too much, we were told we could upgrade to a business plan. Well we did and that relationship lasted about 10 minutes. We were turned off.. again.
I spent three weeks going through their piss poor customer service and management. It must be good to have a monopoly in my area since several other's in my neighborhood have been terminated also. We're all on DSL now. Not Comcast speeds (Brian Roberts even admitted they don't have any competition anywhere which is true).
I finally get a hold of "Sarah" in Sandy Utah. She's in their escalation department. Apparently they want to sell us their commercial package. I was quoted up to $10,000 to install the line and up to $2,000 a month.
Not exactly 2-3x's a regular residential account I'd say.
The only alternative to Comcast where I live is 1.5 mbit/sec DSL, although 3 mbit/sec is supposed to be coming soon, and from multiple providers. I'll get to pick among providers and service plans. When that happens: goodbye Comcast. I need you about as much as I need a major music studio.
... it's not Comcast either. Now that it's been about a year since Comcast terminated my Internet access for "Using the unlimited use for a flat monthly fee" too much, I qualify to sign up with them again. Any takers on whether I will sign up with an abusive company? ::grinz:: Not likely. In fact I resubscribed to the "Do No Call" telephone list just in case Comcast thinks it's ok to call me with their telemarketers. I'm just waiting for the first one. I'll have them in small claims court so fast it will make their heads spin. We don't have a relationship period. So any calls will go to court.
While 1.5 Meg DSL isn't Comcast speeds, the good side is
Us "heavy internet users" are also known as "the computer guys in the family". AKA the people all those email-checkers go to for technology advice.
If comcast starts losing all of its geek users, it will soon find itself losing its profit cows as well when we tell them a better ISP to use.
BTW, anyone know a better ISP to use? Fucking monopolies.
Cox Communications has been rated the top US Cable / Internet company for the last several years. Oh and they used to hide things like what's acceptable use and how much you can download monthly until customers rebelled and forced the company to come clean.
I suspect Comcast is next on the "come clean" block.
t's 21st century business, kids. Get used to it. The best way to stick it to these companies is, unfortunately, to keep paying them and be right on the edge of what they allow you to do, like a kid causing just enough trouble in class to piss off the teacher but not enough to get sent to the office.
Uhh.. you don't know what the edge of acceptability is and it changes from region to region. One region it's ok to download 200, 300, 400 Gigs or more while in another you're a bandwidth hog. The detractors say they are glad you are not "their" neighbor and conveniently forget to mention what they think it acceptable. Of course they won't answer it either. Personally I believe they are shills for Comcast but that's my belief.
In my opinion, the best way to stick it to them is to demand the Government allow the free market into the Cable and Internet market. I've spoken with my City Council and members of the Utah legislature. They are mostly clueless. One city council woman said there was satellite and wireless available. I asked if it was comparable to Comcast's service. Of course she didn't know... or didn't want to answer the question.
If we had the free market in this area it would crush Comcast. They either would be forced to compete on a level playing field, or file for Bankruptcy. I'm fine with either scenario.
Comcast sells the Internet, not some Internet like service. Their willful failure to deliver reliably might not sit well with local regulators either. At minimum, they should be forced to be honest and up front about their tampering with P2P applications before you purchase their service. and where there are no other options because of Comcasts government granted monopoly, there should be a way around it.
:D
:-)
Try telling that to Comcast. They "claimed" we were using the Internet too much but refused to reveal what their bandwidth consumption limits were. Only that we had to "drastically" reduce our usage. They quoted two different numbers of what our usage had been for the month of December 2006. So which is it?
I think they are just making crap up on the spot. That our usage with P2P and other protocols was far less than they were willing to admit. Hell, I even asked how I could validate their numbers. You can't of course. Just... trust us yeah that's it. We couldn't do anything bad to you right
The company is soo used to lying it's second nature. At least that's my experience with them thus far. So now I'm blogging about it to get the word out. What's funny is Comcast is making my job soo easy and even providing fuel for the fire. I've been pushing for Network Neutrality and a fiber Infrastructure since then (going back to February 2006). It would allow a free market to dictate who's business succeeds and who's dies. The only way they are doing so well is their Government granted monopoly. If it wasn't for that, Concast would have serious issues when it came to their stockholders
Must be what they mean by "It's Comcastic!!"
You had a bad contract and company, was it some 8(a)?
I have had two contracts that ended like that but the contracts had a 30 day pay/warning, in addition to the 2 weeks final warning from the company ; however the HR offices worked with me to get me a new job.
To be honest I don't recall but I did notice the company went out of business some years ago so I chalk it up to a bad company taking bad contracts.
Fortunately I have skills in a variety of fields and was able to get working in a couple weeks.
In other words, always buy one size larger than you expect to fit. Also, always try the pants on before buying.
:D
Microsoft frowns on that too. They call it piracy.