That the warranty wasn't advertised and sold as covering accidental damage? Many of the overpriced "protection plans" do cover accidental damage. And I see what they did, very sneaky, but I really wouldn't consider one cushion of a couch to fulfill a protection plan agreement, unless that agreement specifically said only one use.
I think you missed my point. Right to Work laws often get confused with other related "pro-corporation anti-union" employment laws. A Right to Work law says most basically - you can't refuse to hire, or fire, someone because they aren't in, or won't join your union. So if you live in the USA, it sounds like your state has a "Right to Work" law.
By the same token, if you are in the USA, and your position is covered under the Railway Labor Law Act, you don't have a choice no matter what your state says. You are required to join the union, or at least pay the union dues, even if you protest by requesting your name be withheld from the union rolls. Federal law almost always trumps state law, especially in "interstate commerce".
As a person who works for a company where some workgroups are covered under the Railway Labor Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act (requiring union membership), operating out of a Right To Work state, and having both been a covered person, and now a non-covered person, I can tell you that I appreciate Right to Work laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law.
I think you misunderstand what they are. The simplest implementation says only that a trade union and an employer can not form an agreement that requires membership in that union as a conditional to employment. The issue of whether the state provides protection for non-contract employees to be fired only for cause, or entirely at management discretion (so long as that reason is not a protected status), is a separate subject.
I do think that unions can have value, when both they, and management don't devolve into the all to frequent "wringing the sponge till it tears" negotiating mentality. Unions greatly simplify employment negotiations in work groups where all individuals perform largely the same task. They also provide those groups of workers more negotiating leverage than they'd otherwise have where their skills are so easily replaceable.
But I work for a company that generally does the right thing for its employees. There were times when supervisors told me they'd like to recognize my work ethic (which was better than 90% of the people there), but they weren't able to give me an extra day off at short notice, or not record the fact I was 2 minutes late to work, or make me a temporary Supervisor, or whatever, because it was not congruent with the procedures negotiated with the union, and therefore would open management up to union grievances if they made an exception for me, but not for a bottom 10% performer.
Basically unions can end up protecting the worst workers, while putting artificial pay/time off/workrule restrictions on the best performers. How long do you think those best performers hang around in your average union job. If I am any indication, it is less than 1 year.
I just got a Bayweb internet enabled programmable thermostat and self monitored "security system". For $230 on Amazon I got it with a X10 motion detector. It uses this to determine if the home is vacant or occupied to set the temperature and notify you by SMS or email of intruders at specific times you set. It can also interface with other normally open or closed sensors like door and window sensors, either 1 or 3 wired sensors (depending on the model), and an unlimited number by X10.
I'm going to set up my home server so both I and it will receive the notification emails, and it will then play my voice saying "Hey, get the F out of my house. The police have been called and are on their way," and it will also record for a while from a USB webcam, when intruders are detected.
And where were you looking at houses? The number of homeowners who actually do moderate to major remodeling where they could cause significant problems without it being done correctly is pretty low in my experience. Most of it is just paint and swapping faucets.
I'm not so sure HGTV is mostly responsible for what you've seen. I bought a formerly section 8 house that most of the "remodeling" before I purchased it was done by a crack addict paid food and $10/day by the slumlord. It was the second "nicest" house I looked at. But I believe almost none of the other poor remodeling and repair jobs I saw looking at other houses were done by owners or renters.
On the other side, my parents bought a brand new house from a major homebuilder. Even though these were supervised contractors who had their work reviewed by the county building inspector, they still managed to not put rafters or purlins at the correct interval, installed the shower drain and dryer vent incorrectly, and miswired the house in several areas.
I am not an experienced tradesperson. But I am a frequent home handyman to the extent I have ripped out my bathroom including the subfloor, and rebuilt it. I feel comfortable that the job I have done is better than more than half the contractors I could have hired. Only an expensive luxury remodeling company could have done better. Though I didn't just watch some HGTV, I did extensive research online and in books to feel comfortable about what I was doing.
Fair enough critique. And I think it is dereliction of duty if the government officials that negotiated the contracts allowed for unlimited private ownership.
But I imagine most contracts are something like - the city/county/state allows access to public right of way and x year monopoly franchise agreement for providing y service to the community in exchange for the company building out and maintaining y service.
In such a case the ownership of the actual "pipe" might be private (at least for y years), but that does not negate the fact that the contract is for a service that likely doesn't specifically allow for selective degradation, that was built with a public subsidy. It isn't unreasonable the public demands performance.
If these telcos don't want to provide the undegraded service, the community should insist they are requesting a contract renegotiation. A new RFS should be performed with specific net neutrality language, and if another company wins, that new company should be allowed to hang competing infrastructure in the public right of way also. The original company can continue to sell their service, but they should not be allowed to materially reduce the cost of their service as to inhibit competition by lowering the expected revenue and bankrupting the incoming company.
Wires are public property when public funds subsidize them, or legislatively mandated customer fees provide reimbursement to the telecom companies for building FTTH.
I'd say yes, because he could chose to keep his organs until death so he gets to live every last minute, at which point the organs wouldn't be viable for transplant. In your other example, I'd say yes. If the millionaire had family he could will it to them to "carry his legacy" or if he didn't have family, he is preventing the state government from being his beneficiary and doing a fat goose-egg with the money.
Forgot to address that in your initial post you said -
"especially since no provider gives any significant plan discounts to those who "bring their own device" in the USA."
If you had said "no provider except Tmobile (which isn't acceptable in my area)..." then I would have read on without commenting. But saying no provider does this is patently inaccurate.
People say this about T-Mobile. Then again people complain about dropped calls on AT&T in large areas like SFO, NYC, and LAX.
If you have T-Mo reception issues in your area, you shouldn't use them. But for many people, we get fine reception, better pricing, and excellent customer service from T-Mo. After my last fiasco with Houston Cellular AKA Cingular AKA AT&T, I'd never go back.
I can't remember the last time I had reception issues in a large city with T-Mo. I've traveled all over Texas, and even in rural areas reception is usually reasonable. The only 2 times T-Mo hasn't had reception was in rural Illinois and rural New Mexico.
If your IMEI is being blocked by towers just for having a T-Mo SIM in it, even after it is removed, then it isn't T-Mo's fault. Take it up with that tower's owner. I'm not suggesting you test this, but if this block also blocks access to 911 emergency calls, then perhaps you could get their attention very quickly by notifying the FCC.
You asked about price the parent was paying. It is more relevant what is currently available from T-Mobile and other companies. If you were asking about service, anecdotes are more relevant. I love T-Mobile. But if I was starting from scratch and not wanting a family plan right now, I'd go with Credo Mobile.
I've got a 4 line family plan (Even More Plus 750 min/mo unlimited nights/weekends/tmobile subscribers), and a home phone on T-Mobile. Even More Plus are all non-contract plans. You pay full price for your phone or bring a phone with you. If you buy from T-Mobile, you can spread the payments interest free over 20 months. I'm saving at least $40/mo on the cell portion compared to AT&T, and saving $15/mo on the landline compared to other big VOIP providers.
If you ask me, the slum is AT&T. It is kinda like Wal-Mart, crappy service, most products are the same cost as any other retailer in their segment. T-Mobile is Costco. Great service, not found in as many places, but in all the major metro areas, and a lot of midsize ones too.
Since almost all ATM cards, in the US at least, now carry a Visa/MC logo that can be used as either debit with pin or credit, does it even matter whether they are capturing the pin number? You could use your debit card on a pin transaction at the pump, and the skimmer could capture the mag swipe, then use that card data on the credit card network without the pin, right?
It annoys me that banks send debit cards by default, and will almost never honor your previous choice. So on every regular card replacement you have to cut it up and call and request an ATM only card. I did this for a while, but finally gave up. Now I never put my debit card in anything but an ATM machine, and in the signature panel I write "DO NOT ACCEPT AS VISA". Not perfect security, but better than nothing. I wish banks were required to maintain your preference with ATM vs. debit card.
Not all Amex cards have annual fees anymore, and some allow revolving balances now.
Profit also comes from the merchant fee % of each purchase. And you have to take into account that some % default on balances, which wipes out some of the profit from the interest others are paying on their balances. But definitely if you have plenty of people carrying nice balances, that always pay on time and rarely default, those are your high profit margin customers as a card issuer.
some small banks that don't have access to the Fed discount window (free money).
Umm... no. http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed18.html
"All depository institutions that maintain transaction accounts or nonpersonal time deposits subject to reserve requirements are entitled to borrow at the discount window. These include commercial banks, thrift institutions, and United States branches and agencies of foreign banks."
I don't argue that financial regulation preferences larger banks. But fortunately it isn't so bad that the smaller banks are priced out of offering attractive consumer products. In fact, smaller banks somehow frequently offer more customer friendly services. The only place I see a real disadvantage in practice is their technology offerings to customers, like immediate check deposit at the ATM, and slick Web features.
Chris Dodd's new proposal (backed by Geithner and the rest of the White House) is that in order for a shareholder to be able to do so, this shareholder must own 5% of the stock of the company at minimum.
Care to provide a citation of this proposal and that it is supported by the White House? There might be some odd claimed justification for it if you are correct. I won't dismiss it out of hand without hearing the sponsor out. It does sound bad. But a quick Google search didn't come up with anything about your alleged proposal.
If you are talking about the USA, we have lots of competition. People are just lazy or want convenience of retail locations, and the government has supported reckless consolidation (way too big to fail), but there is still competition.
I bank with Etrade and a small credit union tied to my employer. Etrade has the cool techy/webby features, and the credit union provides convenience and customer service. My mortgage is from a medium sized regional loan underwriter that keeps over 90% of its mortgages until they are paid back. There are good alternatives to megabanks.
Not any more in the US. They took away the $10/mo unlimited UMA addon when they changed to Even More and EM/Plus plans. Old plans are grandfathered. Now for new subscribers all UMA minutes come out of the regular minute buckets.
I'm not familiar with the world, but I know most US carriers disable tethering and upcharge for it at a rate that is much higher than voice. Data in general is expensive, especially when not paired with voice service. Of course SMS is most expensive of all, unless you buy an unlimited plan.
I don't think his plan is "IP via SMS" either. It is more like delivering small bits of data over SMS that would be valuable to a rural community. Based on quotes from the article below, either the researcher is mistaken, or he is under the same impression I am about data services in these developing countries, which would run contrary to your understanding.
"In rural areas of India, Africa and China, use of SMS has skyrocketed in recent years" and "SMS is ubiquitous, reliable and mostly low cost,... while data services are expensive and patchy." and "isn't intending this to be used to bring youtube videos to rural areas, though. Instead it provides a way to bring connectivity to community kiosk computers designed to give a whole village to access information like crop prices."
And how many carriers provide unlimited internet access via WAP tethering for $10/mo or less? I bet in many third world countries with high cellphone penetration, the cost of tethered internet access on your phone is considerable.
It's sub-optimal, but not necessarily the "wrong solution". Rather than setting up your own packet radio network, this allows you to piggyback on existing infrastructure for the cost of a mini-USB cable and unlimited txt plan. There may be some valid uses.
And how did they broadcast your information worldwide? Hummm...
They've already said they have not used any of the inadvertently captured information in any product, nor did they realize they had it sitting on their development hard drives, until the dustup and review.
Presumably all they wanted was open WiFi's MAC and SSIDs so they could do basic geolocation on products that only have WiFi and not GPS. But even then, it sounds like they haven't released a product based on their collected data.
You have NO GUARANTEE that your SSID won't be available beyond your FCC mandated transmitting range, encrypted or not. Though truthfully any data you send over open WiFi you place out there at your own risk.
"pinpoint where/when/who purchased that router."
No they can't. MAC addresses are not registered like that, and SSIDs can be created and changed at your leisure. The only thing a MAC address tells you is who built the router, assuming it isn't being spoofed.
Slashdot Mirror
That the warranty wasn't advertised and sold as covering accidental damage? Many of the overpriced "protection plans" do cover accidental damage. And I see what they did, very sneaky, but I really wouldn't consider one cushion of a couch to fulfill a protection plan agreement, unless that agreement specifically said only one use.
I think you missed my point. Right to Work laws often get confused with other related "pro-corporation anti-union" employment laws. A Right to Work law says most basically - you can't refuse to hire, or fire, someone because they aren't in, or won't join your union. So if you live in the USA, it sounds like your state has a "Right to Work" law.
By the same token, if you are in the USA, and your position is covered under the Railway Labor Law Act, you don't have a choice no matter what your state says. You are required to join the union, or at least pay the union dues, even if you protest by requesting your name be withheld from the union rolls. Federal law almost always trumps state law, especially in "interstate commerce".
As a person who works for a company where some workgroups are covered under the Railway Labor Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act (requiring union membership), operating out of a Right To Work state, and having both been a covered person, and now a non-covered person, I can tell you that I appreciate Right to Work laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law.
I think you misunderstand what they are. The simplest implementation says only that a trade union and an employer can not form an agreement that requires membership in that union as a conditional to employment. The issue of whether the state provides protection for non-contract employees to be fired only for cause, or entirely at management discretion (so long as that reason is not a protected status), is a separate subject.
I do think that unions can have value, when both they, and management don't devolve into the all to frequent "wringing the sponge till it tears" negotiating mentality. Unions greatly simplify employment negotiations in work groups where all individuals perform largely the same task. They also provide those groups of workers more negotiating leverage than they'd otherwise have where their skills are so easily replaceable.
But I work for a company that generally does the right thing for its employees. There were times when supervisors told me they'd like to recognize my work ethic (which was better than 90% of the people there), but they weren't able to give me an extra day off at short notice, or not record the fact I was 2 minutes late to work, or make me a temporary Supervisor, or whatever, because it was not congruent with the procedures negotiated with the union, and therefore would open management up to union grievances if they made an exception for me, but not for a bottom 10% performer.
Basically unions can end up protecting the worst workers, while putting artificial pay/time off/workrule restrictions on the best performers. How long do you think those best performers hang around in your average union job. If I am any indication, it is less than 1 year.
I just got a Bayweb internet enabled programmable thermostat and self monitored "security system". For $230 on Amazon I got it with a X10 motion detector. It uses this to determine if the home is vacant or occupied to set the temperature and notify you by SMS or email of intruders at specific times you set. It can also interface with other normally open or closed sensors like door and window sensors, either 1 or 3 wired sensors (depending on the model), and an unlimited number by X10.
I'm going to set up my home server so both I and it will receive the notification emails, and it will then play my voice saying "Hey, get the F out of my house. The police have been called and are on their way," and it will also record for a while from a USB webcam, when intruders are detected.
http://bayweb.com/mktg/webthermostat.php
And where were you looking at houses? The number of homeowners who actually do moderate to major remodeling where they could cause significant problems without it being done correctly is pretty low in my experience. Most of it is just paint and swapping faucets.
I'm not so sure HGTV is mostly responsible for what you've seen. I bought a formerly section 8 house that most of the "remodeling" before I purchased it was done by a crack addict paid food and $10/day by the slumlord. It was the second "nicest" house I looked at. But I believe almost none of the other poor remodeling and repair jobs I saw looking at other houses were done by owners or renters.
On the other side, my parents bought a brand new house from a major homebuilder. Even though these were supervised contractors who had their work reviewed by the county building inspector, they still managed to not put rafters or purlins at the correct interval, installed the shower drain and dryer vent incorrectly, and miswired the house in several areas.
I am not an experienced tradesperson. But I am a frequent home handyman to the extent I have ripped out my bathroom including the subfloor, and rebuilt it. I feel comfortable that the job I have done is better than more than half the contractors I could have hired. Only an expensive luxury remodeling company could have done better. Though I didn't just watch some HGTV, I did extensive research online and in books to feel comfortable about what I was doing.
SELECT TOP 100 [Company_Name] FROM [Fortune_500] ORDER BY [Annual_Revenues] ASC;
Fair enough critique. And I think it is dereliction of duty if the government officials that negotiated the contracts allowed for unlimited private ownership.
But I imagine most contracts are something like - the city/county/state allows access to public right of way and x year monopoly franchise agreement for providing y service to the community in exchange for the company building out and maintaining y service.
In such a case the ownership of the actual "pipe" might be private (at least for y years), but that does not negate the fact that the contract is for a service that likely doesn't specifically allow for selective degradation, that was built with a public subsidy. It isn't unreasonable the public demands performance.
If these telcos don't want to provide the undegraded service, the community should insist they are requesting a contract renegotiation. A new RFS should be performed with specific net neutrality language, and if another company wins, that new company should be allowed to hang competing infrastructure in the public right of way also. The original company can continue to sell their service, but they should not be allowed to materially reduce the cost of their service as to inhibit competition by lowering the expected revenue and bankrupting the incoming company.
Wires are public property when public funds subsidize them, or legislatively mandated customer fees provide reimbursement to the telecom companies for building FTTH.
I'd say yes, because he could chose to keep his organs until death so he gets to live every last minute, at which point the organs wouldn't be viable for transplant. In your other example, I'd say yes. If the millionaire had family he could will it to them to "carry his legacy" or if he didn't have family, he is preventing the state government from being his beneficiary and doing a fat goose-egg with the money.
If you had said "no provider except Tmobile (which isn't acceptable in my area) ..." then I would have read on without commenting. But saying no provider does this is patently inaccurate.
People say this about T-Mobile. Then again people complain about dropped calls on AT&T in large areas like SFO, NYC, and LAX.
If you have T-Mo reception issues in your area, you shouldn't use them. But for many people, we get fine reception, better pricing, and excellent customer service from T-Mo. After my last fiasco with Houston Cellular AKA Cingular AKA AT&T, I'd never go back.
I can't remember the last time I had reception issues in a large city with T-Mo. I've traveled all over Texas, and even in rural areas reception is usually reasonable. The only 2 times T-Mo hasn't had reception was in rural Illinois and rural New Mexico.
If your IMEI is being blocked by towers just for having a T-Mo SIM in it, even after it is removed, then it isn't T-Mo's fault. Take it up with that tower's owner. I'm not suggesting you test this, but if this block also blocks access to 911 emergency calls, then perhaps you could get their attention very quickly by notifying the FCC.
t-m-o-b-i-l-e.c-o-m
Even More Plus...
You asked about price the parent was paying. It is more relevant what is currently available from T-Mobile and other companies. If you were asking about service, anecdotes are more relevant. I love T-Mobile. But if I was starting from scratch and not wanting a family plan right now, I'd go with Credo Mobile.
I've got a 4 line family plan (Even More Plus 750 min/mo unlimited nights/weekends/tmobile subscribers), and a home phone on T-Mobile. Even More Plus are all non-contract plans. You pay full price for your phone or bring a phone with you. If you buy from T-Mobile, you can spread the payments interest free over 20 months. I'm saving at least $40/mo on the cell portion compared to AT&T, and saving $15/mo on the landline compared to other big VOIP providers.
If you ask me, the slum is AT&T. It is kinda like Wal-Mart, crappy service, most products are the same cost as any other retailer in their segment. T-Mobile is Costco. Great service, not found in as many places, but in all the major metro areas, and a lot of midsize ones too.
Since almost all ATM cards, in the US at least, now carry a Visa/MC logo that can be used as either debit with pin or credit, does it even matter whether they are capturing the pin number? You could use your debit card on a pin transaction at the pump, and the skimmer could capture the mag swipe, then use that card data on the credit card network without the pin, right?
It annoys me that banks send debit cards by default, and will almost never honor your previous choice. So on every regular card replacement you have to cut it up and call and request an ATM only card. I did this for a while, but finally gave up. Now I never put my debit card in anything but an ATM machine, and in the signature panel I write "DO NOT ACCEPT AS VISA". Not perfect security, but better than nothing. I wish banks were required to maintain your preference with ATM vs. debit card.
Not all Amex cards have annual fees anymore, and some allow revolving balances now.
Profit also comes from the merchant fee % of each purchase. And you have to take into account that some % default on balances, which wipes out some of the profit from the interest others are paying on their balances. But definitely if you have plenty of people carrying nice balances, that always pay on time and rarely default, those are your high profit margin customers as a card issuer.
Umm... no.
http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed18.html
"All depository institutions that maintain transaction accounts or nonpersonal time deposits subject to reserve requirements are entitled to borrow at the discount window. These include commercial banks, thrift institutions, and United States branches and agencies of foreign banks."
I don't argue that financial regulation preferences larger banks. But fortunately it isn't so bad that the smaller banks are priced out of offering attractive consumer products. In fact, smaller banks somehow frequently offer more customer friendly services. The only place I see a real disadvantage in practice is their technology offerings to customers, like immediate check deposit at the ATM, and slick Web features.
Care to provide a citation of this proposal and that it is supported by the White House? There might be some odd claimed justification for it if you are correct. I won't dismiss it out of hand without hearing the sponsor out. It does sound bad. But a quick Google search didn't come up with anything about your alleged proposal.
If you are talking about the USA, we have lots of competition. People are just lazy or want convenience of retail locations, and the government has supported reckless consolidation (way too big to fail), but there is still competition.
I bank with Etrade and a small credit union tied to my employer. Etrade has the cool techy/webby features, and the credit union provides convenience and customer service. My mortgage is from a medium sized regional loan underwriter that keeps over 90% of its mortgages until they are paid back. There are good alternatives to megabanks.
Not any more in the US. They took away the $10/mo unlimited UMA addon when they changed to Even More and EM/Plus plans. Old plans are grandfathered. Now for new subscribers all UMA minutes come out of the regular minute buckets.
I'm not familiar with the world, but I know most US carriers disable tethering and upcharge for it at a rate that is much higher than voice. Data in general is expensive, especially when not paired with voice service. Of course SMS is most expensive of all, unless you buy an unlimited plan.
I don't think his plan is "IP via SMS" either. It is more like delivering small bits of data over SMS that would be valuable to a rural community. Based on quotes from the article below, either the researcher is mistaken, or he is under the same impression I am about data services in these developing countries, which would run contrary to your understanding.
"In rural areas of India, Africa and China, use of SMS has skyrocketed in recent years" and "SMS is ubiquitous, reliable and mostly low cost,... while data services are expensive and patchy." and "isn't intending this to be used to bring youtube videos to rural areas, though. Instead it provides a way to bring connectivity to community kiosk computers designed to give a whole village to access information like crop prices."
And how many carriers provide unlimited internet access via WAP tethering for $10/mo or less? I bet in many third world countries with high cellphone penetration, the cost of tethered internet access on your phone is considerable.
It's sub-optimal, but not necessarily the "wrong solution". Rather than setting up your own packet radio network, this allows you to piggyback on existing infrastructure for the cost of a mini-USB cable and unlimited txt plan. There may be some valid uses.
I have to pay $10 when I text "HAITI" to 90999! I thought Microsoft was paying.
And how did they broadcast your information worldwide? Hummm...
They've already said they have not used any of the inadvertently captured information in any product, nor did they realize they had it sitting on their development hard drives, until the dustup and review.
Presumably all they wanted was open WiFi's MAC and SSIDs so they could do basic geolocation on products that only have WiFi and not GPS. But even then, it sounds like they haven't released a product based on their collected data.
You have NO GUARANTEE that your SSID won't be available beyond your FCC mandated transmitting range, encrypted or not. Though truthfully any data you send over open WiFi you place out there at your own risk.
"pinpoint where/when/who purchased that router."
No they can't. MAC addresses are not registered like that, and SSIDs can be created and changed at your leisure. The only thing a MAC address tells you is who built the router, assuming it isn't being spoofed.