I pay $60/ month for Comcast cable modem. I have no rights. If I don't like it, I can yell at Comcast, I can complain to the FCC, or I can leave.
If I'm unhappy with the phone company, I can complain to the public utility commission. The phone company is still regulated. They have a lot more rules. They have to compete, and allow competition.
The cableTV company signs a charter with the city, but they don't really have to compete. They're granted a local monopoly. If you think someone will listen to your gripes about the cable company monopoly and actually do something about it, you've got another thing coming. I'd LOVE to see the cableTV companies compete like the phone companies. I guarantee that prices would come down, services would increase, and the cableTV companies would actually do something to retain you as a customer.
It'll never happen. Comcast/TimeWarner have too many lobbyists. They'll say that this will hurt jobs, etc. No politician wants to hear that they were responsible for jobs lost.
CableTV also claims that satellite is competition.
Frankly, I think satellite has twice the picture quality as Comcast digital cable. It's amazingly better. Cable sucks. Cable modem is nice, but I don't get a choice for my ISP.
DSL, I can choose from more than 20 ISPs. I can choose several companies to provide my DSL line, even though the copper is still owned (for the most part) by the local incumbent phone company.
Corporate politics? Corporate politics are a symptom, not the cause.
The real reason is the way our politicians are rewarded for what they do and don't do. We gave them this power. They are allowed to do everything they do. As a result of this, politicians want to stay in power as long as possible.
They'll do anything they can to stay in power. Lie, cheat, and steal. Tax everyone to death, then blame the other political party.
Meanwhile, lobbyists throw polling data and dangle carrots in front of them all day long.
Agendas (and speeches) are continuously updated based on polling. (Will this ruin my political career?)
Lobbyists should have some restrictions.
Lobbyists have to register. Groups can't have more than X number of lobbyists (less than 10).
Lobbyists have to deposit money used with the IRS. They have to file a form everytime they spend money on anything. All meetings between lobbyists and public officials are a matter of public record. Meetings will be recorded and all meetings need to be open to the public.
Anyone or any group caught violating the rules gets suspended. Phone calls, emails, letters, packages are recorded.
I'm tired of 1/2 of the legislation coming from bedroom dealings in the DC suburbs.
You want to be a politician, you give up your privacy. You want to be a lobbyist? You give up your privacy. Completely. For as long as you "choose" to serve.
Dear Stratton Scalvos,
Pull out your checkbook, build it the way you want it, and see what happens.
Verisign, the company that just tried to pull some chicanery on people who can't type, and wreaked havoc on a lot of spam filters?
Verisign, the same company that repeatedly transfers domain name control to anyone who can use a fax machine?
Hey everyone, Stratton Scalvos says that we need to commercialize DNS servers. What do you think?
Who would run these servers? Microsoft?
How about the government?
How about the oil companies?
Better yet, let's have an auction, like wireless bandwidth. Soon, we'd have foreign companies owning everything.
I'll bet these people drive cars. In fact, I'll wager that they don't always obey the speed limit, or they don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign. Driving a car is one of the riskiest things you can do.
To me, it seems that people are selective about what they worry about. They want the freedom to go out and risk their lives (and others) on the highways, yet they want to complain about the possible risk of wi-fi to their kids.
I wonder if any of these parents smoke? Do they eat fast food? Drink alcohol? Do they work out? What kind of fertilizer and/or pesticides do they use around the house?
Shine a light on a cockroach, the cockroach goes the other way. Surround a cockroach with light, and there's no place to hide.
Put virus-writers on milk cartons, my bet is that they won't do it again. They don't want to get stoned by an impassioned mob.
It's similar to spammers. If Ralsky is on a street corner someone identified him to the public as a spammer, I wonder how long until the police and/or ambulance arrive?
The cable company is granted a "franchise" in most cities. This is, in simple terms, a monopoly. They are protected from competition. Lately, they've had to compete with satellite, but cable companies do have advantages (apartment buildings, high-rise condos, etc don't allow dishes).
As a result of this competition, the individual consumer has very little "say". There's no opportunity for anyone else to improve on the product.
Opening up the "local loop" allows competition. It doesn't necessarily promote the original owner to upgrade or enhance the system. They can drag their heels, saying, "If we upgrade, we don't see all of the possible revenue."
So, there are 2 evils: Government regulation, or de-regulation and living in a free market. Both have their downfalls. Everyone wants something in between.
If the anyone says that the new building will make all the difference in the world, then we need to re-examine all patents awarded during their stay in the old building.
Moving into a new "campus" will improve the USPTO? I doubt it. Moving the employees into new digs makes them more comfortable, it doesn't improve the process.
If we moved the Senate into a brand new building, would the Senate do a better job? Doubt it. If anything, the new building would probably distract them and slow the system down.
The problem here is that the USPTO is probably dealing with a boatload of attorneys, camped out at their front door for years at a time. These lawyers nit-pick and research. They argue w/ the USPTO for years. Eventually, the USPTO just awards the patent and lets the court systems try to sort it out.
Moral of the story? He who has the biggest and baddest attorney wins.
You don't see how this is a problem?
The problem is this: The government won't quit there. Soon, they'll tax everything. They'll tax your computer as a receiver and a transmitter, access charges to the "network", they'll have "per call charges", and mileage or time charges.
The next group of legislators will want to "improve" on something in the past. It always happens. Shortly, we'll be paying "email" tax.
This is just a first attempt at a small segment of the market. No one will complain because no one really likes the phone companies, and no matter what, most people will always see these companies as just another phone company.
There are legislators out there that actually think they are "smart" over this one. They really, truly believe that they're doing "us" a favor on this one. I don't see it that way. They are limiting who can offer service, and ultimately, they're limiting the price too.
Did something happen that required California legislators to step in and create this legislation? Did I miss something? What prompted this?
It's clear that we'll hear "great things about this much-needed legislation" over the coming days.
I suspect that California legislators simply want to restrict freedom. They don't want free choice (without paying.) It gives legislators a feeling of power. "Look what we did! We did this for Californians! You should be grateful!" They'll claim, "We gave the people of California great things with this valuable legislation." These same legislators will stand and say, "We saved the poor and homeless from thieving, scandalous VoIP companies!"
Usually, there's also a tax revenue component. Legislators gather around in groups, thinking of ways to gather more tax money to spend. How else do you get a $40 billion deficit? It doesn't take a brain child to figure out that CA has a spending problem. Nope... they need more money. "Raise taxes. Think, people... think! There are people without jobs out there. We need to raise taxes. Quick!"
They spent money for years, and now they don't have enough to cover the bills... taxes for VoIP is someone's idea of a solution.
Wait until some legislators write a bill to tax email. It'll happen. I guarantee it.
It's no surprise that so many (legal) citizens are moving out of California. Soon, CA will be just a collection of illegal aliens, and the government.
Frankly, I think VoIP companies should just cease to operate in California. Stay out. Teach the government a lesson. Instead, they'll just pass this on to the consumers, and everyone ELSE will pick up the bill. Then, legislators will complain about the high price of VoIP, and they'll create add price-controls to control VoIP prices. More government!
How many of our legislators answer their own email? Almost zero. How many politicians listen to the staffers after they read email? Almost zero. How many of these politicians listen to lobbyists when they start spreading campaign contributions? Quite a few.
At least Red Herring is not selling 40 lb bags of dogfood with free shipping. Then, we'd know for sure they weren't in this for the long haul.
No bylines? Isn't that just a license to spew? Who is their audience, and who do they think will pay for advertising? How do they plan on gaining credibility? For that matter, who would want to write for them? They mentioned a selection of freelance authors. Are they writing nothing but editorials? I hope it's not another Salon.com. Advertisers don't like liberal mags. I certainly wouldn't pay to read "news" with a liberal slant. I think that's why Salon struggles... there's not enough revenue to be successful.
Access to Court Records (online) costs $.07 per page. Are they kidding? What kind of scam is this? How much tax dollars are wasted on the court system elsewhere and they need a revenue stream to support an online system? I think it's just to restrict the court rulings from the average citizen.
Ultimately, the consumer decides. Windows might just be a passing fad as Linux (or open-source) is on the upswing. Does that reflect a change in consumer values? Other products in the past were similar to this. People didn't understand the technology. So they based their decision on ease of use and service. Eventually, the consumer became educated, and they chose the best product.
So far, the market has seen Windows for what it is... the first commercially successful, easy-to-use OS that has great office applications. Therefore, "everyone" uses it. Windows has evolved to fit, at least on the surface, consumer demands. Until someone comes up with a great alternative that beats MS on price, convenience, and acceptability, MS is still going to be king of the hill. MS isn't stupid either. They've seen the writing on the wall. Software development is easier. More people can write software. The consumer is wiser. The competition is tougher. It was not hard to come up with an Office knock-off that reasonably interoperated with the rest of the world.
Microsoft uses guerilla-warfare tactics to defend their revenue stream:
Lawyers defending copyrights more briskly than before. MS has a much bigger budget for lawyers.
Developing new "standards" that aren't really standard... MS owns them. (.NET)
Disinformation. Paying Gartner group to "study" windows vs. Linux.
Coercion, by way of hardware partnerships w/ Intel, Dell, and others... and urging foreign countries not to go their own way with software and hardware.
Subsidy. Giving large donations to schools and foreign countries to keep them hooked on windows.
Windows is not a tough sell. It's like crack cocaine. People look at the up-front cost... and it seems so inexpensive. Then, the time-consuming part comes in. The viruses, the attacks, the spyware, crashes, hardware and software conflicts, script kiddies.
MS's marketing is superb. It's not hard to sell crack cocaine. Everyone wants it. Software companies, Value-Added-Resellers don't want the system to change. They want to keep reaping profits.
Outside of MS, there is plenty of incentive, but fractured organization prevents a concerted effort to drive MS out of homes and businesses.
Sadly, there might always be a market for Microsoft. From a business-owner perspective, at this point in time, it's easy for me to choose a MS product. If something goes wrong, I get to scream bloody murder until they fix the problem. I can even get a lawyer and sue. If I was using free software, I probably won't get to scream. I would have to buckle down and deal with it, or find someone to fix it for me.
As a consumer, it's easier to put Linux on a desktop and be productive in several hours. It's a matter of convincing the general public, which means a media war. We'll have to fight the Gartner group's messages of doom and gloom.
It's easy for MS to point at Linux and say, "Look at all of the bickering. Imagine supporting that!" In reality, it's diverse and specialized for a reason. Compare it to the automobile, or the bicycle. There's not ONE design that will make everyone happy. It's clear Windows will not make everyone happy, or we'd not make so much fun of Bill Gates. There are dozens of needs. Thankfully, open source software is increasingly user-friendly. There are many more options in Linux, too. Ultimately, it comes down to a war of words. Fighting disinformation will go a long way to allow the consumer to make their choice.
I'm going to patent a version of this couch for people with bilemia. When they bing and purge, this couch could be programmed to remind the person not to behave that way, or to call a doctor, etc.
The other day, I wanted to run PIP, so I dug out another piece of coax and hooked the TV up to cableTV, and found they put up a video filter on my line.
If I made one phone call, they'd have to send a truck out to remove the filter out in the alley. My bill wouldn't change, but they'd have to roll a truck.
Comcast is trying to save money. They say that the internet use is increasing every day... new applications, etc, but they don't want the heaviest users to be able to take advantage of it? Comcast should bite the bullet. If the phone company called up and said you've been using your phone too much, we're cancelling your service, the news media would FREAK! People would call their politicians, this would be a big deal.
Comcast doesn't send letters telling cableTV subscribers to watch less TV. Policing user habits shouldn't be their responsibility.
Comcast is just trying to pinch pennies. Frankly, I'm tired of the cableTV monopoly. I wish cableTV was regulated exactly like the Phone companies. I wish, as a resident, I had the ability to tell them to get out, and choose someone else. I could with DSL, but it won't reach to where I live. CableTV picture sucks. Digital cable sucks too. They simply carve up the bandwidth. Some channels have color that has to be less than 16 bit! I switched to DirecTV, the picture is fantastic.
Sadly, I had to keep my cable modem. No other solution in my neighborhood. Comcast really went overboard when they raised my rates $15/month after cancelling cableTV. Isn't that extortion? $60.00 per month for cable modem?
I read the article, and read up on some of the complaints and the stories. It appears that they could have solved this problem by offering tax credits/rebates for philanthropic "projects".
The next complaint by the user community will be based on what is considered philanthropic and what is not. Judgement will come into play. People will be angry for different reasons.
I can almost guarantee that if someone built a monument, got their tax break, someone else will scream bloody murder because they didn't get their tax credit for building blankety-blank.
Face it, some people are unhappy in their own skin. There are people who object to everything. These are people who will never be happy. They might best be served by creating their own game and playing it the way they want to play instead of forcing change on 98% of the rest of the world.
Lastly, it's a game. Get a life! Read a book. People who spend that much time "escaping" from reality need help.
Billy Tauzin continues to promote Opt-out... which means anyone can spam you as much as possible until you complain. Then, they have someone else spam you, and then you complain, and then someone else spams you, and this continues until someone gets killed.
Opt-out. What a terrible idea!
But, no one in politics knows anything about technology. Most politicians are puppets. Democrats and Republicans both.
Re:Are you thinking what I'm thinking....?
on
New Treo Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
Are you silly? Bill Gates would never let that happen. He'd want to "interoperate". Ultimately, Bill would give out software for free. Months later, the world would discover that Bill's software had some errors, like the RPC ports left wide open, and the world would suffer. Complete chaos.
Slashdot Mirror
Plagiarism.
I pay $60/ month for Comcast cable modem. I have no rights. If I don't like it, I can yell at Comcast, I can complain to the FCC, or I can leave.
If I'm unhappy with the phone company, I can complain to the public utility commission. The phone company is still regulated. They have a lot more rules. They have to compete, and allow competition.
The cableTV company signs a charter with the city, but they don't really have to compete. They're granted a local monopoly. If you think someone will listen to your gripes about the cable company monopoly and actually do something about it, you've got another thing coming.
I'd LOVE to see the cableTV companies compete like the phone companies. I guarantee that prices would come down, services would increase, and the cableTV companies would actually do something to retain you as a customer.
It'll never happen. Comcast/TimeWarner have too many lobbyists. They'll say that this will hurt jobs, etc. No politician wants to hear that they were responsible for jobs lost. CableTV also claims that satellite is competition.
Frankly, I think satellite has twice the picture quality as Comcast digital cable. It's amazingly better. Cable sucks. Cable modem is nice, but I don't get a choice for my ISP.
DSL, I can choose from more than 20 ISPs. I can choose several companies to provide my DSL line, even though the copper is still owned (for the most part) by the local incumbent phone company.
My $.02
Corporate politics? Corporate politics are a symptom, not the cause.
The real reason is the way our politicians are rewarded for what they do and don't do. We gave them this power. They are allowed to do everything they do. As a result of this, politicians want to stay in power as long as possible.
They'll do anything they can to stay in power. Lie, cheat, and steal. Tax everyone to death, then blame the other political party.
Meanwhile, lobbyists throw polling data and dangle carrots in front of them all day long. Agendas (and speeches) are continuously updated based on polling. (Will this ruin my political career?)
Lobbyists should have some restrictions.
Lobbyists have to register. Groups can't have more than X number of lobbyists (less than 10).
Lobbyists have to deposit money used with the IRS. They have to file a form everytime they spend money on anything. All meetings between lobbyists and public officials are a matter of public record. Meetings will be recorded and all meetings need to be open to the public.
Anyone or any group caught violating the rules gets suspended. Phone calls, emails, letters, packages are recorded.
I'm tired of 1/2 of the legislation coming from bedroom dealings in the DC suburbs.
You want to be a politician, you give up your privacy. You want to be a lobbyist? You give up your privacy. Completely. For as long as you "choose" to serve.
My $.02
Dear Stratton Scalvos,
Pull out your checkbook, build it the way you want it, and see what happens.
Verisign, the company that just tried to pull some chicanery on people who can't type, and wreaked havoc on a lot of spam filters?
Verisign, the same company that repeatedly transfers domain name control to anyone who can use a fax machine?
Hey everyone, Stratton Scalvos says that we need to commercialize DNS servers. What do you think?
Who would run these servers? Microsoft? How about the government?
How about the oil companies?
Better yet, let's have an auction, like wireless bandwidth. Soon, we'd have foreign companies owning everything.
Hmmm. Doesn't that sound attractive.
Are these people hypocrites?
I'll bet these people drive cars. In fact, I'll wager that they don't always obey the speed limit, or they don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign. Driving a car is one of the riskiest things you can do.
To me, it seems that people are selective about what they worry about. They want the freedom to go out and risk their lives (and others) on the highways, yet they want to complain about the possible risk of wi-fi to their kids.
I wonder if any of these parents smoke? Do they eat fast food? Drink alcohol? Do they work out? What kind of fertilizer and/or pesticides do they use around the house?
Shine a light on a cockroach, the cockroach goes the other way. Surround a cockroach with light, and there's no place to hide.
Put virus-writers on milk cartons, my bet is that they won't do it again. They don't want to get stoned by an impassioned mob.
It's similar to spammers. If Ralsky is on a street corner someone identified him to the public as a spammer, I wonder how long until the police and/or ambulance arrive?
The cable company is granted a "franchise" in most cities. This is, in simple terms, a monopoly. They are protected from competition. Lately, they've had to compete with satellite, but cable companies do have advantages (apartment buildings, high-rise condos, etc don't allow dishes).
As a result of this competition, the individual consumer has very little "say". There's no opportunity for anyone else to improve on the product.
Opening up the "local loop" allows competition. It doesn't necessarily promote the original owner to upgrade or enhance the system. They can drag their heels, saying, "If we upgrade, we don't see all of the possible revenue."
So, there are 2 evils: Government regulation, or de-regulation and living in a free market. Both have their downfalls. Everyone wants something in between.
If the anyone says that the new building will make all the difference in the world, then we need to re-examine all patents awarded during their stay in the old building.
Moving into a new "campus" will improve the USPTO? I doubt it. Moving the employees into new digs makes them more comfortable, it doesn't improve the process.
If we moved the Senate into a brand new building, would the Senate do a better job? Doubt it. If anything, the new building would probably distract them and slow the system down.
The problem here is that the USPTO is probably dealing with a boatload of attorneys, camped out at their front door for years at a time. These lawyers nit-pick and research. They argue w/ the USPTO for years. Eventually, the USPTO just awards the patent and lets the court systems try to sort it out.
Moral of the story? He who has the biggest and baddest attorney wins.
You don't see how this is a problem?
The problem is this: The government won't quit there. Soon, they'll tax everything. They'll tax your computer as a receiver and a transmitter, access charges to the "network", they'll have "per call charges", and mileage or time charges.
The next group of legislators will want to "improve" on something in the past. It always happens. Shortly, we'll be paying "email" tax.
This is just a first attempt at a small segment of the market. No one will complain because no one really likes the phone companies, and no matter what, most people will always see these companies as just another phone company.
There are legislators out there that actually think they are "smart" over this one. They really, truly believe that they're doing "us" a favor on this one. I don't see it that way. They are limiting who can offer service, and ultimately, they're limiting the price too.
Did something happen that required California legislators to step in and create this legislation?
Did I miss something? What prompted this?
It's clear that we'll hear "great things about this much-needed legislation" over the coming days.
I suspect that California legislators simply want to restrict freedom. They don't want free choice (without paying.) It gives legislators a feeling of power. "Look what we did! We did this for Californians! You should be grateful!" They'll claim, "We gave the people of California great things with this valuable legislation." These same legislators will stand and say, "We saved the poor and homeless from thieving, scandalous VoIP companies!"
Usually, there's also a tax revenue component. Legislators gather around in groups, thinking of ways to gather more tax money to spend. How else do you get a $40 billion deficit? It doesn't take a brain child to figure out that CA has a spending problem. Nope... they need more money. "Raise taxes. Think, people... think! There are people without jobs out there. We need to raise taxes. Quick!"
They spent money for years, and now they don't have enough to cover the bills... taxes for VoIP is someone's idea of a solution.
Wait until some legislators write a bill to tax email. It'll happen. I guarantee it.
It's no surprise that so many (legal) citizens are moving out of California. Soon, CA will be just a collection of illegal aliens, and the government.
Frankly, I think VoIP companies should just cease to operate in California. Stay out. Teach the government a lesson. Instead, they'll just pass this on to the consumers, and everyone ELSE will pick up the bill. Then, legislators will complain about the high price of VoIP, and they'll create add price-controls to control VoIP prices. More government!
How many of our legislators answer their own email? Almost zero. How many politicians listen to the staffers after they read email? Almost zero. How many of these politicians listen to lobbyists when they start spreading campaign contributions? Quite a few.
At least Red Herring is not selling 40 lb bags of dogfood with free shipping. Then, we'd know for sure they weren't in this for the long haul.
No bylines? Isn't that just a license to spew? Who is their audience, and who do they think will pay for advertising? How do they plan on gaining credibility? For that matter, who would want to write for them? They mentioned a selection of freelance authors. Are they writing nothing but editorials? I hope it's not another Salon.com. Advertisers don't like liberal mags. I certainly wouldn't pay to read "news" with a liberal slant. I think that's why Salon struggles... there's not enough revenue to be successful.
Access to Court Records (online) costs $.07 per page. Are they kidding? What kind of scam is this? How much tax dollars are wasted on the court system elsewhere and they need a revenue stream to support an online system? I think it's just to restrict the court rulings from the average citizen.
Ultimately, the consumer decides. Windows might just be a passing fad as Linux (or open-source) is on the upswing. Does that reflect a change in consumer values? Other products in the past were similar to this. People didn't understand the technology. So they based their decision on ease of use and service. Eventually, the consumer became educated, and they chose the best product.
So far, the market has seen Windows for what it is... the first commercially successful, easy-to-use OS that has great office applications. Therefore, "everyone" uses it.
Windows has evolved to fit, at least on the surface, consumer demands. Until someone comes up with a great alternative that beats MS on price, convenience, and acceptability, MS is still going to be king of the hill. MS isn't stupid either. They've seen the writing on the wall. Software development is easier. More people can write software. The consumer is wiser. The competition is tougher. It was not hard to come up with an Office knock-off that reasonably interoperated with the rest of the world.
Microsoft uses guerilla-warfare tactics to defend their revenue stream:
Lawyers defending copyrights more briskly than before. MS has a much bigger budget for lawyers.
Developing new "standards" that aren't really standard... MS owns them. (.NET)
Disinformation. Paying Gartner group to "study" windows vs. Linux.
Coercion, by way of hardware partnerships w/ Intel, Dell, and others... and urging foreign countries not to go their own way with software and hardware.
Subsidy. Giving large donations to schools and foreign countries to keep them hooked on windows.
Windows is not a tough sell. It's like crack cocaine. People look at the up-front cost... and it seems so inexpensive. Then, the time-consuming part comes in. The viruses, the attacks, the spyware, crashes, hardware and software conflicts, script kiddies.
MS's marketing is superb. It's not hard to sell crack cocaine. Everyone wants it. Software companies, Value-Added-Resellers don't want the system to change. They want to keep reaping profits.
Outside of MS, there is plenty of incentive, but fractured organization prevents a concerted effort to drive MS out of homes and businesses.
Sadly, there might always be a market for Microsoft. From a business-owner perspective, at this point in time, it's easy for me to choose a MS product. If something goes wrong, I get to scream bloody murder until they fix the problem. I can even get a lawyer and sue. If I was using free software, I probably won't get to scream. I would have to buckle down and deal with it, or find someone to fix it for me.
As a consumer, it's easier to put Linux on a desktop and be productive in several hours. It's a matter of convincing the general public, which means a media war. We'll have to fight the Gartner group's messages of doom and gloom.
It's easy for MS to point at Linux and say, "Look at all of the bickering. Imagine supporting that!" In reality, it's diverse and specialized for a reason. Compare it to the automobile, or the bicycle. There's not ONE design that will make everyone happy. It's clear Windows will not make everyone happy, or we'd not make so much fun of Bill Gates. There are dozens of needs. Thankfully, open source software is increasingly user-friendly. There are many more options in Linux, too.
Ultimately, it comes down to a war of words. Fighting disinformation will go a long way to allow the consumer to make their choice.
I'm going to patent a version of this couch for people with bilemia. When they bing and purge, this couch could be programmed to remind the person not to behave that way, or to call a doctor, etc.
The other day, I wanted to run PIP, so I dug out another piece of coax and hooked the TV up to cableTV, and found they put up a video filter on my line. If I made one phone call, they'd have to send a truck out to remove the filter out in the alley. My bill wouldn't change, but they'd have to roll a truck.
Hey Intel: Like English vs. the metric system?
Comcast is trying to save money. They say that the internet use is increasing every day... new applications, etc, but they don't want the heaviest users to be able to take advantage of it? Comcast should bite the bullet. If the phone company called up and said you've been using your phone too much, we're cancelling your service, the news media would FREAK! People would call their politicians, this would be a big deal.
Comcast doesn't send letters telling cableTV subscribers to watch less TV. Policing user habits shouldn't be their responsibility.
Comcast is just trying to pinch pennies. Frankly, I'm tired of the cableTV monopoly. I wish cableTV was regulated exactly like the Phone companies. I wish, as a resident, I had the ability to tell them to get out, and choose someone else. I could with DSL, but it won't reach to where I live. CableTV picture sucks. Digital cable sucks too. They simply carve up the bandwidth. Some channels have color that has to be less than 16 bit! I switched to DirecTV, the picture is fantastic.
Sadly, I had to keep my cable modem. No other solution in my neighborhood. Comcast really went overboard when they raised my rates $15/month after cancelling cableTV. Isn't that extortion? $60.00 per month for cable modem?
Nothing else going on in the world?
Time to create a new poll?
I read the article, and read up on some of the complaints and the stories. It appears that they could have solved this problem by offering tax credits/rebates for philanthropic "projects".
The next complaint by the user community will be based on what is considered philanthropic and what is not. Judgement will come into play. People will be angry for different reasons.
I can almost guarantee that if someone built a monument, got their tax break, someone else will scream bloody murder because they didn't get their tax credit for building blankety-blank.
Face it, some people are unhappy in their own skin. There are people who object to everything. These are people who will never be happy. They might best be served by creating their own game and playing it the way they want to play instead of forcing change on 98% of the rest of the world.
Lastly, it's a game. Get a life! Read a book. People who spend that much time "escaping" from reality need help.
All it would take would be a night in a holding cell... just a short stint with a 300 lb criminal. Then, a few of the stories would get out.
Yep. I can picture it... Sounds perfect. In fact, it makes me smile.
I wonder if the spammer would be interested in selling penis enlargements to his cellmates?
Billy Tauzin continues to promote Opt-out... which means anyone can spam you as much as possible until you complain. Then, they have someone else spam you, and then you complain, and then someone else spams you, and this continues until someone gets killed. Opt-out. What a terrible idea! But, no one in politics knows anything about technology. Most politicians are puppets. Democrats and Republicans both.
Are you silly? Bill Gates would never let that happen. He'd want to "interoperate". Ultimately, Bill would give out software for free. Months later, the world would discover that Bill's software had some errors, like the RPC ports left wide open, and the world would suffer. Complete chaos.
Probably lithium polymer.