"That's why the ISP will usually have a clause in their contract saying that they can cut you off pretty much without reason. It gives them a legal "out" to get rid of those customers who bought an "unlimited" account expecting it to actually *be* unlimited, while preserving the letter of the contract, since while you were still using the service you were not limited in its use."
This is a very important point you have made. This is the exact reason there is even an issue at all with this. Unfortunately, I think it will take a major class-action lawsuit to actually do something about this.
Ah, finally, a Slashdotter willing to have an intelligent, point by point discussion. Alright, continuing then.
"You are not using the service the same as Johnny. THerefore, you are expecting GREATER service than Johnny, since Johnny is using the service within the standard limits of common sense. Johnny uses it one month at a high level, and you use it for 12. This is NOT the same service."
I never said I was using the service the SAME as Johnny. However, I did say I was using the same service as Johnny. While the wording is slightly different, the meaning is COMPLETELY different. I pay the same as Johnny, I am on the same plan as Johnny. My point was that it doesn't matter how much or how little we use the service if we are both signed up for "unlimited" service. It is my legal right to use the service in an "unlimited" fashion as it was advertised. Standard limits of common sense have no place in this contract, simply because of the wording of the advertisement. While I apologize at having to argue semantics, that is where the real problem lies. Advertising law is very strict on terminology. If an ISP claims "unlimited", well, it means exactly that, and common sense does not belong in the equation.
"This is how EVERY ISP works. None of them will ever be able to provide you with unlimited 1.5Mbps access 24-7 without limitations. "
It does not really matter if that is how every ISP works. If that is the case, they are all in violation of the law. I can understand if they can't provide that level of service at that cost. However, what I cannot understand is why they feel they are legally allowed to advertise the way they do if they have no intention of providing the advertised service. The excuse of "but everybody else is doing it" doesn't cut it in the court of law.
"If you download porn 24-7, when do you have time to WATCH all that porn. A lot of people who use these connections like this confuse "can" and "need". They go beyond what they even WANT, and even if it does everything they possibly think of, they go out and find new things to do JUST SO THEY CAN USE THEIR BANDWIDTH.
They're like that guy who eats ALL the free food in the break room. Hey, it was there, right? But he forgets that it's there for everyone, and not just him.
"
Your last argument has no justification whatsoever. It is not the ISPs (or anybody elses for that matter) place to question whether I can or cannot use the content I have transferred to my computer. The terms "can" and "need" have no business at all in this discussion, because it is not the ISPs place to determine the importance of the content being transferred, or the amount of it. If I feel it is important enough to download the content through the ISP, whom I have signed a contract with to provide me with unlimited service, then that is all that matters, end of story. Your comparison to the guy eating the free food does not really fit into this discussion. No legally binding contract has been signed, no money has changed hands, and he has every right to eat all of the food. There may be social consequences, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Signing up with an ISP offering "unlimited" service in absolutely no way obligates me to 'leave some for the others'. When the term unlimited is used, I can use as much as I want. Period.
I feel that where we are failing to connect on this issue is the debate of legal vs moral issues. And if this situation were indeed similar to your free food in the break room example, I would most certainly side with you. As would anybody who read and understood the Tragedy of the Commons. However, once legally binding contracts, and legal terminology enter the fray, the argument becomes a purely legal one. The courts do not care whether or not it is morally right to hog the bandwidth. They care whether or not the ISP is legally obligated to provide me with "unlimited" service as per the terms of their advertisement.
Now, you are correct that "access" and "bandwidth" are not the same things. I have never argued they were. The problem lies with ISPs who do not specify between the two in their advertisements and simply state "unlimited service", or something equally vague.
So, since people are invariably going to post about where they think this is all headed, I decided to make a nice little thread where people can all post their thoughts about the following:
Where do you think the music industry is headed in the near future? How about the not-so-near future? And i'm not just talking about the labels, I mean technologically too. What other sorts of revolutions do people think might occur, similar to how Napster revolutionized the distribution system?
"Having seen a lot of feedback here, I'm not sure that I understand what it is that people want. Here are the things that people have said: "Don't offer speed if you can't deliver" and "don't offer unlimited if you can't deliver". Let's take a look at the way that most ISPs work, and then address those."
While your post was informative, you failed to address the issue of 'don't offer unlimited if you can't deliver'. What the vast majority of slashdotters are upset about is the fact that this is false advertising. Personally, we could give two flying fucks whether or not the ISP can handle the constant usage. Our beef is with the fact that we are paying for a service that is not giving us what was advertised.
"As an ISP, I'd prefer to be able to use my discretion in this situation rather than hear the "told you so" of users crying about "lax enforcement of rule".
As an ISP's customer, I'd prefer to be able to know EXACTLY what my limits were, so that I can use the service to its full potential. I do not want my ISP deciding that since Johnny is doing work for a school project, he can use more bandwidth, but since I'm looking at pr0n I can't.
I do not want my ISP deciding whether or not what I use the internet for is 'acceptable' or not. If I am paying the same amount as Johnny who is doing a school project, I DEMAND equal service. Now, whether I choose to use that service or not is my decision, as it is Johnny's as well, but I do NOT want to be treated differently if I use the service to its fully advertised potential.
Got a problem with that? Perhaps the ISP should then do some legal research into the Truth in Advertising laws. I have no pity for any company who's falty business plan revolves around 'expectations of usage' of its customers. Not my fault your business plan can't make you money, and I will not suffer because of it.
Now, I apologize if this post seemed like a bit of a rant. It was a rant though. While I can sympathize with you in your position, realize that customers should not be feeling sorry for companies. That is the way business works.
"The fact that they are lying is really not a relevant point."
Actually, you are very VERY wrong. Lying about what you are advertising is an extremely relevant point because there are laws covering truth in advertising in place to prevent customers from being screwed over by people who lie about what they sell.
While I applaud you for running a legit business, I would highly recommend you read up on the law regarding truth in advertising.
"Who in hell has time to *use* all that downloaded material? How many movies can you watch in a month? How much music can you listen to? How much software do you need, or can you even use? How much porn?
With this kind of gluttony, one might wonder what this stuff is really being used for -- redistribution, perhaps?"
And here is the point that I go ballistic over. It is NOBODIES business whether or not I can use all of the downloaded material. Nor is it their business what I do with it afterwards (unless of course I am violating the law). This is not an issue of what is being done with the content, but rather, whether or not the service given lives up to the advertised claims.
Not only that, but I'd also like an explanation as to why I should pity an ISP who has a failing business plan. Oh, wait wait, I got it, this is corporate America, where companies have a constitutional right to make a profit.
What I find disturbing is that ISPs may start monitoring my activity if they believe I am involved in "illicit activity". But if they do that, that opens them to a whole boatload of problems. So ISPs, listen up, either leave me the fuck alone and don't make assumptions about what I'm doing online and take action based on those assumptions, or get ready to lose a lot more money to the RIAA and such once they want you to start monitoring EVERYBODY for "illicit activity".
I work in marketing and advertising, and as such, I'm well aware of all the ads out there that attack people's body image. Now, partly because of this, and partly because overweight people are just unnattractive in general (if you don't believe me, ask Darwin), women tend not to go for these overweight people unless they have something to compensate *cough*money*cough*.
Now, that being said, if kids start retreating to video games more and more, and gaining more weight, it doesn't take a psychologist to figure out that women will be less attracted to them. So, I see a couple of things that might happen. First, these people might realize it on their own, and might take up these sports to help themselves lose weight to get the hot girls. Second, I think you might need to make an attempt to push the health benefits of the sports, either directly (you lose weight) or indirectly (girls like guys who play these sports, because they're not fat).
I know thats kind of shady, but I guess its for peoples health in the long run. Also, try holding events with many hot girls, guys will flock to them. And there ARE girls out there who kick butt at the sports you carry equipment for. Find them, and have them team up with guys.
If you have any other questions I'd be happy to answer them.
"FWIW, a troll in the eye of the beholder is flamebait, or at least deathbait, with the beholder's 13-level "Finger of Death" ray causing at least 3d6+13 HP damage to a 6d8+36 troll (_Monster Manual_ v3.5 pp26-7, 247)."
And yet nobody ever mistakes a D&D geek. BTW, beholders were a LOT nastier in 1st ED;)
"It's a little scary, though, that the east Asian countries are developing their own track of OSes with which we in the west may have to learn to deal."
Yeah well, it looks like everybody except Japan is going to be screwed in the future as everything is going to be displayed in constantly scrolling backwards kanji/kana if the Matrix is anything to go by.
I, like many of us am extremely upset at their choice of distribution of the trailer. As someone posted, why the hell try to limit distribution of an advertisement? So! With that being said, was anybody here able to find an email address to inform them of their mistake? I looked but was unable to find one.
"Swapping and trading DNA over the net, that's the ticket!"
While I couldn't help but laugh at your post, I also couldn't help but think of the serious truth it may hold. Imagine how the music world got flipped upside down by Napster and its ilk. Now we're seeing those 3D printers get cheaper and more powerful, they can even print electronic circuits now. How long before blueprints are traded over P2P and you simply download them and print out your new iPod?
But this REALLY gets interesting once gene therapy becomes mainstream. Imagine downloading some open source gene therapy off the net, and using it to add a glowing bioelectric, subdermal watch to your wrist? Now, the risks are very great with this, but the potential is there.
Man I love thinking about these possibilities, I just wish I had a job that paid me to think these things through.
"Which advertisers want to target a demographic so cheap that they won't buy a computer, and so "behind the times" that they already don't have a computer? Seriously. What are they thinking? "
Many people on here have made your first argument, however, I feel that it doesn't necessarily hold up. On Slashdot, computers are obviously a priority for many. But imagine if you would, a household with some financial problems, who aren't incredibly tech savvy, who want a computer, but don't have the money to spend on it because its not as important to them as a car, or a place to live, etc. Because of their financial situation, they are probably a prime demographic for the types of ads they will likely be shown. You know, car loans, home financing crap, work from home, etc.
Now, the second part, well, I think everybody here on Slashdot knows at least one person who is completely computer illiterate, who has ordered something from spam or a popup because they didn't know any better. So to answer your question of 'what are they thinking?', they are thinking that this audience doesn't know computers well enough to stay away from all their advertising. They think these people will buy into it because they have not been exposed to the bombardments of ads on the net and developed an immunity to them.
Security Expert: "Oh, so um, you claim malicious linux users who you wanted to sue are DDoSing your servers Mr. McBride? Well, let me get out my laptop and check it out."
*boots up linux distro of choice*
"Nope, doesn't look like it was that at all, sorry!"
While everybody is making the Win98 is dead jokes, keep in mind that this is not totally a negative thing for M$. Make no mistake, they WILL attempt to spin it in such a way as to try to make you buy an upgrade to WinXP because of the retirement. Resistance is futile.
Right, if our government did it, when they monitored the noise pollution, they'd also monitor all conversations and store them in their databases./tinfoilhat.
You know, reading this blurb....was I the only one here who couldn't help but wonder by the end of reading the blurb...."what kind of gun did he pull?"
"all that's needed to remove the particles from the body are a magnet housed in a handheld unit and a small, dual-channel shunt inserted into an arm or leg artery.'"
Oh....so tto remove the toxins all that you need to do is get a handheld magnet unit and stab a straw into your arm or leg artery to suck all the toxins out through. This will go over real well with consumers! I'm looking to invest, whats their ticker symbol?!
" Linus, as awesome as I thought he was before, has definitely risen from "personal hero" to "demigod."
Personally, I would think it would be cooler if he became a demilich. Just think of all the evil things he could do to Darl then! (Runs back to his DM screen.)
Slashdot Mirror
This is a very important point you have made. This is the exact reason there is even an issue at all with this. Unfortunately, I think it will take a major class-action lawsuit to actually do something about this.
"You are not using the service the same as Johnny. THerefore, you are expecting GREATER service than Johnny, since Johnny is using the service within the standard limits of common sense. Johnny uses it one month at a high level, and you use it for 12. This is NOT the same service."
I never said I was using the service the SAME as Johnny. However, I did say I was using the same service as Johnny. While the wording is slightly different, the meaning is COMPLETELY different. I pay the same as Johnny, I am on the same plan as Johnny. My point was that it doesn't matter how much or how little we use the service if we are both signed up for "unlimited" service. It is my legal right to use the service in an "unlimited" fashion as it was advertised. Standard limits of common sense have no place in this contract, simply because of the wording of the advertisement. While I apologize at having to argue semantics, that is where the real problem lies. Advertising law is very strict on terminology. If an ISP claims "unlimited", well, it means exactly that, and common sense does not belong in the equation.
"This is how EVERY ISP works. None of them will ever be able to provide you with unlimited 1.5Mbps access 24-7 without limitations. "
It does not really matter if that is how every ISP works. If that is the case, they are all in violation of the law. I can understand if they can't provide that level of service at that cost. However, what I cannot understand is why they feel they are legally allowed to advertise the way they do if they have no intention of providing the advertised service. The excuse of "but everybody else is doing it" doesn't cut it in the court of law.
"If you download porn 24-7, when do you have time to WATCH all that porn. A lot of people who use these connections like this confuse "can" and "need". They go beyond what they even WANT, and even if it does everything they possibly think of, they go out and find new things to do JUST SO THEY CAN USE THEIR BANDWIDTH. They're like that guy who eats ALL the free food in the break room. Hey, it was there, right? But he forgets that it's there for everyone, and not just him. "
Your last argument has no justification whatsoever. It is not the ISPs (or anybody elses for that matter) place to question whether I can or cannot use the content I have transferred to my computer. The terms "can" and "need" have no business at all in this discussion, because it is not the ISPs place to determine the importance of the content being transferred, or the amount of it. If I feel it is important enough to download the content through the ISP, whom I have signed a contract with to provide me with unlimited service, then that is all that matters, end of story. Your comparison to the guy eating the free food does not really fit into this discussion. No legally binding contract has been signed, no money has changed hands, and he has every right to eat all of the food. There may be social consequences, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Signing up with an ISP offering "unlimited" service in absolutely no way obligates me to 'leave some for the others'. When the term unlimited is used, I can use as much as I want. Period.
I feel that where we are failing to connect on this issue is the debate of legal vs moral issues. And if this situation were indeed similar to your free food in the break room example, I would most certainly side with you. As would anybody who read and understood the Tragedy of the Commons. However, once legally binding contracts, and legal terminology enter the fray, the argument becomes a purely legal one. The courts do not care whether or not it is morally right to hog the bandwidth. They care whether or not the ISP is legally obligated to provide me with "unlimited" service as per the terms of their advertisement.
Now, you are correct that "access" and "bandwidth" are not the same things. I have never argued they were. The problem lies with ISPs who do not specify between the two in their advertisements and simply state "unlimited service", or something equally vague.
Where do you think the music industry is headed in the near future? How about the not-so-near future? And i'm not just talking about the labels, I mean technologically too. What other sorts of revolutions do people think might occur, similar to how Napster revolutionized the distribution system?
Discuss.
While your post was informative, you failed to address the issue of 'don't offer unlimited if you can't deliver'. What the vast majority of slashdotters are upset about is the fact that this is false advertising. Personally, we could give two flying fucks whether or not the ISP can handle the constant usage. Our beef is with the fact that we are paying for a service that is not giving us what was advertised.
"As an ISP, I'd prefer to be able to use my discretion in this situation rather than hear the "told you so" of users crying about "lax enforcement of rule".
As an ISP's customer, I'd prefer to be able to know EXACTLY what my limits were, so that I can use the service to its full potential. I do not want my ISP deciding that since Johnny is doing work for a school project, he can use more bandwidth, but since I'm looking at pr0n I can't.
I do not want my ISP deciding whether or not what I use the internet for is 'acceptable' or not. If I am paying the same amount as Johnny who is doing a school project, I DEMAND equal service. Now, whether I choose to use that service or not is my decision, as it is Johnny's as well, but I do NOT want to be treated differently if I use the service to its fully advertised potential.
Got a problem with that? Perhaps the ISP should then do some legal research into the Truth in Advertising laws. I have no pity for any company who's falty business plan revolves around 'expectations of usage' of its customers. Not my fault your business plan can't make you money, and I will not suffer because of it.
Now, I apologize if this post seemed like a bit of a rant. It was a rant though. While I can sympathize with you in your position, realize that customers should not be feeling sorry for companies. That is the way business works.
Actually, you are very VERY wrong. Lying about what you are advertising is an extremely relevant point because there are laws covering truth in advertising in place to prevent customers from being screwed over by people who lie about what they sell.
While I applaud you for running a legit business, I would highly recommend you read up on the law regarding truth in advertising.
And here is the point that I go ballistic over. It is NOBODIES business whether or not I can use all of the downloaded material. Nor is it their business what I do with it afterwards (unless of course I am violating the law). This is not an issue of what is being done with the content, but rather, whether or not the service given lives up to the advertised claims.
Sorry, no pity from me.
Now, that being said, if kids start retreating to video games more and more, and gaining more weight, it doesn't take a psychologist to figure out that women will be less attracted to them. So, I see a couple of things that might happen. First, these people might realize it on their own, and might take up these sports to help themselves lose weight to get the hot girls. Second, I think you might need to make an attempt to push the health benefits of the sports, either directly (you lose weight) or indirectly (girls like guys who play these sports, because they're not fat).
I know thats kind of shady, but I guess its for peoples health in the long run. Also, try holding events with many hot girls, guys will flock to them. And there ARE girls out there who kick butt at the sports you carry equipment for. Find them, and have them team up with guys.
If you have any other questions I'd be happy to answer them.
And yet nobody ever mistakes a D&D geek. BTW, beholders were a LOT nastier in 1st ED ;)
Yeah well, it looks like everybody except Japan is going to be screwed in the future as everything is going to be displayed in constantly scrolling backwards kanji/kana if the Matrix is anything to go by.
While I couldn't help but laugh at your post, I also couldn't help but think of the serious truth it may hold. Imagine how the music world got flipped upside down by Napster and its ilk. Now we're seeing those 3D printers get cheaper and more powerful, they can even print electronic circuits now. How long before blueprints are traded over P2P and you simply download them and print out your new iPod?
But this REALLY gets interesting once gene therapy becomes mainstream. Imagine downloading some open source gene therapy off the net, and using it to add a glowing bioelectric, subdermal watch to your wrist? Now, the risks are very great with this, but the potential is there.
Man I love thinking about these possibilities, I just wish I had a job that paid me to think these things through.
Many people on here have made your first argument, however, I feel that it doesn't necessarily hold up. On Slashdot, computers are obviously a priority for many. But imagine if you would, a household with some financial problems, who aren't incredibly tech savvy, who want a computer, but don't have the money to spend on it because its not as important to them as a car, or a place to live, etc. Because of their financial situation, they are probably a prime demographic for the types of ads they will likely be shown. You know, car loans, home financing crap, work from home, etc.
Now, the second part, well, I think everybody here on Slashdot knows at least one person who is completely computer illiterate, who has ordered something from spam or a popup because they didn't know any better. So to answer your question of 'what are they thinking?', they are thinking that this audience doesn't know computers well enough to stay away from all their advertising. They think these people will buy into it because they have not been exposed to the bombardments of ads on the net and developed an immunity to them.
I hope this answers your question.
Thats my thought exactly. Whats to stop a child from covering his face, holding up a picture of someone elses face, or something like that?
Security Expert: "Oh, so um, you claim malicious linux users who you wanted to sue are DDoSing your servers Mr. McBride? Well, let me get out my laptop and check it out."
*boots up linux distro of choice*
"Nope, doesn't look like it was that at all, sorry!"
*evil snicker*
I can just picture some kid, mouse still clutched in his hand, as a SWAT team member points a gun at him.
Man I need to lay off the CS.
Oh....so tto remove the toxins all that you need to do is get a handheld magnet unit and stab a straw into your arm or leg artery to suck all the toxins out through. This will go over real well with consumers! I'm looking to invest, whats their ticker symbol?!
Personally, I would think it would be cooler if he became a demilich. Just think of all the evil things he could do to Darl then! (Runs back to his DM screen.)
I'll start the Sourceforge project now.