This is exactly right. He's not being charged with teaching people how to beat a polygraph. He's facing two counts of mail fraud (he conducted his business via the USPS) and three counts of witness tampering (advising people to lie to Federal investigators)
One can discuss the theory of how the polygraph works. A simple Google search will reveal dozens of papers on the subject. What one can not do is advise people to lie to a sworn Federal law enforcement officer while charging money for said "advice" that is delivered via the USPS. I read through the whole indictment and I have zero sympathy for him. This gem stands out: WILLIAMS told Undercover A, "I haven't lived this long and fucked the government this long, and done such a controversial thing that I do for this long, and got away with it without any trouble whatsoever, by being a dumbass."
Lesson Number One: Never say anything that would look damning if read back to you in a court of law, particularly to a total stranger that you're involved in a criminal conspiracy with.
Lesson Number Two: You can't fuck Uncle Sam. It doesn't matter how clever you are. Uncle Sam gets to make an infinite number of mistakes. If you make a single one you go to jail. The only winning move is not to play.
Lesson Number Three: Don't be a greedy dumbass. It's too much to cut and paste but if you read the indictment you'll see that he initially refused to help Undercover A, because Undercover A admitted to lying on his employment application. Williams said that he could only help those he assumed were being truthful but whom are nervous about the polygraph. This would have been a good place to stop. Of course, Williams decided to "sleep on it", then called Undercover A back and cooked up a scheme to transfer funds in a manner that couldn't be traced. The total amount of these funds? $5,000 plus travel expenses.
That's right, he rolled the dice on rolling his freedom for a lousy $5,000. This brings to mind something a law enforcement friend told me once upon a time: "It's not that we're so smart, it's that the criminals are mind numbingly stupid."
Actually, often to get away your only choice is to lie to the cops.
Big mistake. That will net you an obstruction charge. The only safe course of action is to refuse to speak to them at all. Give them your name, address, and the following statement: "I do not wish to make any statement without the benefit of counsel." If you have information that they want badly enough they'll give you immunity. Otherwise keep your fucking mouth shut.
And if they do use one, wouldn't it be a throwaway they would get rid of after a short period?
That doesn't provide as much protection as you'd think it would. Criminals generally operate in a defined geographical area and it's rather trivial to look at the base stations serving that area to look for new devices popping onto the network. You then examine the numbers that those devices are calling; the game is over as soon as one of them places a call to a number that's already on your watch list. The Times Square would be bomber was caught this way; he used a burner phone that should have been untraceable but made the mistake of calling a number that he had previously contacted from a phone that was known to the authorities.
When I go hiking, I bring a cell phone without a SIM card, expecting it to work for 911 calls, without anyone being able to contact me.
That's a dangerous assumption; it may work to call 911, but even if you're able to call 911 they won't be able to call you back if the call should get dropped. You can call back of course, but you have no guarantee that you'll end up talking to the same PSAP, never mind the same 911 dispatcher. Additionally, without a SIM card the phone won't even try to connect to a network until you attempt to place the 911 call, which will delay your 911 call for seconds or even minutes. CDMA phones work a little differently, they'll connect to networks on the preferred roaming list even if service has been deactivated, so they may be a better bet for a 911-only phone, though I'd still be loathe to rely on a deactivated phone.
If you're going hiking you really should carry a working cell phone. You might even consider investing in a personal locator beacon, because real hiking is going to take you miles away from cell reception. Of course, neither a cell phone nor a PLB is a substitute for having the equipment and skills to save yourself, or at least to survive for the hours or days it will take help to arrive.
Give me a single solid example - voter validation leaves a paper trail
I worked elections for eight years in the State of New York. All we had to go on was your signature and address. The process in NYS goes like this:
Me: What's your name?
You: I'm Mr. Immerman.
Me: *Flipping through poll book, finds you* What's your address Mr. Immerman? (many poll workers omit the address verification, but we are supposed to ask, and I always followed procedure)
You: 123 Main St.
Me: Sounds good, sign here please.
In theory I can challenge you if the signature doesn't match what I have in the book but in reality we're not handwriting experts and such challenges were never made. Heck, even if I was a handwriting expert I wouldn't issue such a challenge; signatures change over time and the one in the poll book is from your original registration card and may be decades old. The only way I would catch you trying to cast a ballot under another name would if the voter you were trying to impersonate was personally known to me.
Why is an ID requirement regarded as so burdensome by Democrats? Most European countries have two factor authentication; they mail a registration card to your address, which you're required to bring, along with your photo ID. In this manner they verify both your address and your identity. Nobody is accusing the EU of being racist with such requirements. What's the problem with having something similar in the States?
I was under impression we are talking about a technical problem here
You can't solve the problem of voter intimidation under any system that allows for off-site voting. It doesn't matter if the vote is conducted via paper or electronic means. I can shoulder surf while holding the proverbial gun to your head in order to ensure that you vote as I wish. The only way to preclude intimidation is to require an in-person secret ballot with rules that preclude others from going into the voting booth with you.
I can accept the need for absentee ballots for those people who are physically disabled or whom can document that they will be out of town on election day but that's as far as I'm willing to go. Everybody else should get down to the polls and vote in person. People died to secure that right for us but we're going to complain that it's burdensome to make an annual the trip to the polls? Seriously?
And with regard to out of state voting, it's entirely possible to be registered to vote in one state, and then spend the rest of one's life in another state.
Possible but not legal; one is required to vote in the state they're resident in. Residency is defined differently in each of the 50 States you're generally required to actually maintain a residence there (i.e., own or rent some piece of property) and may further be required to spend a plurality or even a majority of your time at that residence.
Snide answer: How about getting off your ass and actually going to the polling place to vote?
More contemplative answer: How do you actually prove the person behind the keyboard is the registered voter in question, even if your system is totally secure from threats in transit? How do you prove they're not being unduly influenced, perhaps by an employer or other person with a financial sword to hold over their head? This can be precluded in the polling place with a secret ballot; it can not be prevented if people are voting via computer or absentee. (*)
(*) Obviously allowances need to be made for people who are disabled or otherwise unable to make it to the polls, but I fail to see why an otherwise able bodied adult should regard a trip to the polling place as onerous.
And you miss the point. I worship anything. I'm simply rolling my eyes at how badly informed you are regarding our judicial-political system. In order to change something one must first understand how it works.
We're done here. Feel free to have the last word, I know you won't be able to resist one more reply.
Why did we get away from that technology for space exploration? If you're going to spend the money to conduct a mission of this sort why limit yourself to the power provided by solar panels? It would be a pisser to have come this far only to have the mission fail because the probe can't get enough power to carry on operations.
I'm not appealing to authority; I'm attempting to explain to you how it actually works in the real world. My personal opinions on these issues are irrelevant. What matters is how the case law has evolved. I'm sorry you can't be bothered to learn about that. If you took the time it would enable you to make a better argument against those things that you disagree with. As it stands you know enough to be dangerous and you're just another random person rambling on the internet. I'm not taking you seriously, never mind the people who are in a position to steer the ship of state in the direction that you think it should go.
For starters he filled his complaint with a bunch of throwaway lines that seem aimed at impressing the/. crowd but which are not relevant to his case and run the risk of annoying the Judge:
"Browsing through the TWC website, Plaintiff encountered an advertisement for a "Standard" Internet access line. While the rest of the modern world, and even otherwise-third world countries, enjoy substantially faster and better-value Internet access lines" <--- Not relevant and inflammatory
"After logging in, Plaintiff was able to view an online statement for his account. Plaintiff expected as a result of the advertising that his bill would be $34.99, plus perhaps some small amount in taxes. To his shock, however, the bill was nearly three times that amount – it was $94.45. Although the Internet service was advertised at $34.99 per month, Plaintiff was billed $39.99 for it. There was an unexplained "Internet modem lease" fee of $5.99 added to the bill, and an "Internet, Install service" fee of $47.99 added as well. The bill also included charges for services not yet rendered." <--- Month ahead billing is a standard practice in many industries, ranging from real estate (rent is due on the 1st, not the 31st) to telecommunications. This claim will fail.
He did have valid claims about the unadvertised install fee and price difference of $5/mo but by his own admission TWC waived the former fee while putting him on a $20/mo plan. He therefore he has no cause of action on either of these complaints. They will be disposed of with a simple motion to dismiss by the defendant, without ever being litigated. His complaint about not receiving promised speeds will fail, since the DOCSIS 2 modem they provided him with is theoretically capable of delivering the 20/2 speed he subscribed to; also, by his own admission he signed up for an "up to" service. The only complaint that may succeed is related to TWC's advertised list of "approved" modems, though I doubt very much a State Court is going to wade into such technical matters.
Disclaimer: I have no lost love for TWC and certainly have shared his aggravation when I've had the misfortune of dealing with them. In this case though? His own complaint tells me they made a good faith effort to resolve these issues. It was certainly aggravating for him but aggravation is not a cause of action in our legal system. TWC could win the majority of these points without even filing a response, based solely off what the plaintiff writes in his complaint.
His case is so thin that TWC could probably win a motion for court costs; I highly doubt they'll do that, the negative press would outweigh anything they'd gain, but they could if they were so inclined. This will end with TWC offering a settlement and writing it off as a public relations expense. If he refuses the settlement he'll look that much worse in the eyes of the Judge; Judges hate litigants who reject reasonable settlements.
The last one is pointless, since without enough support, you're screwed anyway.
And you'll never garner enough support so long as you remain woefully ignorant of how our system works. You rant and rave about "fundamental liberties" and the manner in which the Government supposedly has trodden upon them but your examples are laughable. DWI checkpoints? TSA? Seriously? Do yourself a favor and Google 'compelling state interest' and 'strict scrutiny.' We have more than 200 years of case law that determines the manner in which the Constitution is interpreted; you may disagree with the manner in which that case law has evolved but your opinion there is no more valid than mine, or any other American citizen for that matter.
Maybe. But my point was that people see the economy as more important than liberty, and that's the problem. All these politicians mainly talk about is the economy
The economy wins elections. That's a simple fact. People vote their pocketbook. You may find that regrettable but it's a fundamental fact and no amount of ranting about "The One Party" is going to change it.
I really don't see the point in discussing political science with someone that dismisses the economy as a "truly minuscule issue." All I'll say on the subject is that the United States Constitution is is interpreted by human beings, like any other document. In the case of our political system there are nine authoritative voices on the subject and to the best of my knowledge none of them are commenters on Slashdot. If you dispute the current interpretation you're welcome to crack open one of the boxes to be used in the defense of liberty. They go in this order: soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box.
For the record, I don't regard my liberties as less important than money; I was simply stating the fact that it's hard to care about liberty if one is starving to death. The economy matters even in non-democratic societies, have you ever heard the expression "bread and circuses?"
Because I have a background in both history and nutrition; there is no mainstream opinion in the latter field that says it's healthy to live off 1,500 calories a day. My background in the former tells me that people face starvation when they're forced to eat at those levels for extended periods. Research the food situation in Germany and Japan immediately after WW2; people were starving to death while eating the number of calories that you claim is normal.
You might also wish to educate yourself as to what BMR actually means. Hint: It's the number of calories required to sustain life in the absence of any other activity. Completely sedentary coach potatoes require more calories than their BMR if they're to survive in the long term. There's a reason why I used the sentence, "That's my caloric requirement just to stay in bed all day and do nothing." I even placed emphasis on the most important part of the sentence yet you still missed the point.
You're welcome to find a reputable source that says people in the mainstream of height/age/weight can survive on 1,500 (or even 1,700) calories a day indefinitely. The Mayo Clinic has an interesting nutrition calculator, perhaps you can start there? I input numbers for my height that are at the extreme low end of acceptable weight (130#) and still can't survive on 1,700 calories a day. That's with 'inactive' selected for activity level, in reality I'm anything but. I actually have to consume ~3500 calories a day to maintain my weight with my metabolism and activity level. That's a real number, FYI, from a fairly religiously kept food diary; not your nonsense "I had five beers and a pizza" calculation. Incidentally, I hate to break it to you, but five beers and a pizza almost certainly totals up to more than 2,000 calories. It may even be over 3,000 depending on the type of pizza in question.
Says someone who has probably never been unemployed for any significant amount of time in his life. Do you really think any of the issues you're ranting about mean jack diddly squat to someone who is worried about making the next mortgage payment or putting food on the table? In the words of a former United States President, "It's the economy stupid."
1500 - 1700 is the lower edge for nutrition for females/males
My BMR is 1820. That's my caloric requirement just to stay in bed all day and do nothing. I am an otherwise average 33 year old male, 5'10", 175 lbs. Throw the modifier in for my activity level (moderate) and my need is increased to 2,821 kcals/day.
In other words your claims are total bullshit and you're talking out of your ass. I would slowly starve to death while doing nothing at 1,500 kcal/day. Toss even light activity into the equation and the starvation process happens that much faster....
I bet co-locating the Netflix servers for free would still cost ISPs less.
That depends on a lot of factors that would be unique to each particular ISP: energy costs, the percentage of Netflix customers in the ISP's subscriber base, heck, even the local climate would come into play with HVAC expenses. I think we can safely agree that such items are beyond the scope of this discussion. Either way, I think it takes an awful lot of chutzpah for Netflix to not even consider paying a modest co-location fee for their boxes. The boxes arguably benefit Netflix more than they benefit the ISP but Netflix won't pay for the energy they consume? How do you justify that?
In the case of this locally owned ISP they felt as though they were being bullied by an 800 pound gorilla. They crunched the numbers and concluded it didn't make sense for them; to the best of my knowledge they haven't lost any customers as a consequence of this decision. It does put the behaviors of the big ISPs into a different light for me though; we'll never know the nitty gritty of the deals they've hashed out with Netflix (*) but I don't blame them one bit for demanding some manner of compensation. There's a non-zero cost associated with hosting Netflix's equipment; should that money come directly from Netflix or from the ISPs customers? Keep in mind that not all of those customers are Netflix subscribers. The fact that Hastings agreed to the deals suggests he got something out of the bargain.
(*) I think is is why Netflix folded like a cheap suit after Verizon threatened to sue them over the "Verizon's network is slow...." messages. If Hastings actually believed all of the nonsense he spouts why wouldn't he welcome legal discovery and the admittance of these business deals into the public record? It's all public relations on his part; the sad thing is that sites like/. eat it up hook, line, and sinker.
It hardly seems like it should come from Netflix. If your usage rarely exceeds 1 Mbps, you should consider not paying for 50 Mbps service.
Umm, no, that's not how it works. I can benefit from the 50mbit/s (actually 30 in my case) connection; occasionally I need to download a largish file and it's nice to have it happen in two minutes as opposed to twenty. That doesn't mean I'm burdening the network as heavily as someone that's running simultaneous peak hour HD video streams five or six nights a week.
Want an analogy? My average monthly electrical consumption is in the 600kWh range. That's an average of 833 watts; using your logic my utility need only provide me with a 3.5 ampere service rather than the 200 ampere service that I actually have.
When they double them without offering any additional value, yes, it's a slap in the face.
The article here is about the ISP industry; I wonder how people would feel if Comcast doubled their broadband tariff without even offering the usual meaningless (for most people) increase in speed?
Nobody wants to live on 1000-1500 calories a day because you will feel exhausted and will probably have trouble getting all the needed nutrients while eating so little food
Why would anyone try to live on 1000-1500 calories? Even if you need to lose a massive amount of weight that's not sustainable. Weight loss is all about long term lifestyle adjustments not short term extremes. I've tried in vein to explain this to my fat friends who engage in yo-yo dieting; at one point I did some digging and discovered that the average ration at Alschwitz was in the 1,300 to 1,700 calorie range. Guess what? Most of those people were near death after three months. Even that analogy isn't enough to dissuade the idiots that think it's healthy to engage in starvation diets.
I limited my caloric deficit to a 250-300 calories a day when I needed to lose weight. Guess what? I kept my weight off, without too many yo-yos (the biggest yo-yo for me is winter, living in the Northeast and all....), and I was never so hungry that I hated life or thought about quitting.
I'm glad you still find value in their offering. Personally I did not; streaming was always the add-on for me, not the primary attraction (how can it be the primary when the catalog sucks so badly?) and I regarded it as a slap in the face that they wanted to double dip without offering any incentive whatsoever to customers that had been with them since the very beginning.
Of course, video as a whole doesn't have much attraction to me. I've been without cable TV since 2005; the little bit of TV that I do watch comes off one of these and has no recurring costs. Netflix was a nice way to supplement that but was by no means required; the $8/mo (or is it $9 now?) buys me a nice lunch out somewhere, which is worth far more to me than their crappy streaming catalog.
1) There's a higher ROI in wireless so it makes more sense to allocate their finite resources there. It's still a growth market and a largely unregulated, vis-a-vis wireline, which is has the burden of last century regulation and entrenched competitors (cable) that aren't similarly burdened.
2) Uncle Sam started making rumblings about investing in broadband. Verizon would be stupid to keep investing in wireline; if the past is any guide Government will pour billions of dollars into wireline networks, then sell it for pennies on the dollar.
I would expect Verizon to start investing in FIOS again once the wireless market matures. They won't invest as aggressively, it's hard to compete in an established non-growth market, but they will invest more than they are doing today.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly right. He's not being charged with teaching people how to beat a polygraph. He's facing two counts of mail fraud (he conducted his business via the USPS) and three counts of witness tampering (advising people to lie to Federal investigators)
One can discuss the theory of how the polygraph works. A simple Google search will reveal dozens of papers on the subject. What one can not do is advise people to lie to a sworn Federal law enforcement officer while charging money for said "advice" that is delivered via the USPS. I read through the whole indictment and I have zero sympathy for him. This gem stands out: WILLIAMS told Undercover A, "I haven't lived this long and fucked the government this long, and done such a controversial thing that I do for this long, and got away with it without any trouble whatsoever, by being a dumbass."
Lesson Number One: Never say anything that would look damning if read back to you in a court of law, particularly to a total stranger that you're involved in a criminal conspiracy with.
Lesson Number Two: You can't fuck Uncle Sam. It doesn't matter how clever you are. Uncle Sam gets to make an infinite number of mistakes. If you make a single one you go to jail. The only winning move is not to play.
Lesson Number Three: Don't be a greedy dumbass. It's too much to cut and paste but if you read the indictment you'll see that he initially refused to help Undercover A, because Undercover A admitted to lying on his employment application. Williams said that he could only help those he assumed were being truthful but whom are nervous about the polygraph. This would have been a good place to stop. Of course, Williams decided to "sleep on it", then called Undercover A back and cooked up a scheme to transfer funds in a manner that couldn't be traced. The total amount of these funds? $5,000 plus travel expenses.
That's right, he rolled the dice on rolling his freedom for a lousy $5,000. This brings to mind something a law enforcement friend told me once upon a time: "It's not that we're so smart, it's that the criminals are mind numbingly stupid."
Actually, often to get away your only choice is to lie to the cops.
Big mistake. That will net you an obstruction charge. The only safe course of action is to refuse to speak to them at all. Give them your name, address, and the following statement: "I do not wish to make any statement without the benefit of counsel." If you have information that they want badly enough they'll give you immunity. Otherwise keep your fucking mouth shut.
And if they do use one, wouldn't it be a throwaway they would get rid of after a short period?
That doesn't provide as much protection as you'd think it would. Criminals generally operate in a defined geographical area and it's rather trivial to look at the base stations serving that area to look for new devices popping onto the network. You then examine the numbers that those devices are calling; the game is over as soon as one of them places a call to a number that's already on your watch list. The Times Square would be bomber was caught this way; he used a burner phone that should have been untraceable but made the mistake of calling a number that he had previously contacted from a phone that was known to the authorities.
When I go hiking, I bring a cell phone without a SIM card, expecting it to work for 911 calls, without anyone being able to contact me.
That's a dangerous assumption; it may work to call 911, but even if you're able to call 911 they won't be able to call you back if the call should get dropped. You can call back of course, but you have no guarantee that you'll end up talking to the same PSAP, never mind the same 911 dispatcher. Additionally, without a SIM card the phone won't even try to connect to a network until you attempt to place the 911 call, which will delay your 911 call for seconds or even minutes. CDMA phones work a little differently, they'll connect to networks on the preferred roaming list even if service has been deactivated, so they may be a better bet for a 911-only phone, though I'd still be loathe to rely on a deactivated phone.
If you're going hiking you really should carry a working cell phone. You might even consider investing in a personal locator beacon, because real hiking is going to take you miles away from cell reception. Of course, neither a cell phone nor a PLB is a substitute for having the equipment and skills to save yourself, or at least to survive for the hours or days it will take help to arrive.
Give me a single solid example - voter validation leaves a paper trail
I worked elections for eight years in the State of New York. All we had to go on was your signature and address. The process in NYS goes like this:
Me: What's your name?
You: I'm Mr. Immerman.
Me: *Flipping through poll book, finds you* What's your address Mr. Immerman? (many poll workers omit the address verification, but we are supposed to ask, and I always followed procedure)
You: 123 Main St.
Me: Sounds good, sign here please.
In theory I can challenge you if the signature doesn't match what I have in the book but in reality we're not handwriting experts and such challenges were never made. Heck, even if I was a handwriting expert I wouldn't issue such a challenge; signatures change over time and the one in the poll book is from your original registration card and may be decades old. The only way I would catch you trying to cast a ballot under another name would if the voter you were trying to impersonate was personally known to me.
Why is an ID requirement regarded as so burdensome by Democrats? Most European countries have two factor authentication; they mail a registration card to your address, which you're required to bring, along with your photo ID. In this manner they verify both your address and your identity. Nobody is accusing the EU of being racist with such requirements. What's the problem with having something similar in the States?
I was under impression we are talking about a technical problem here
You can't solve the problem of voter intimidation under any system that allows for off-site voting. It doesn't matter if the vote is conducted via paper or electronic means. I can shoulder surf while holding the proverbial gun to your head in order to ensure that you vote as I wish. The only way to preclude intimidation is to require an in-person secret ballot with rules that preclude others from going into the voting booth with you.
I can accept the need for absentee ballots for those people who are physically disabled or whom can document that they will be out of town on election day but that's as far as I'm willing to go. Everybody else should get down to the polls and vote in person. People died to secure that right for us but we're going to complain that it's burdensome to make an annual the trip to the polls? Seriously?
You think that having US citizenship makes one somehow bound to the US?
Yes, it does.
And with regard to out of state voting, it's entirely possible to be registered to vote in one state, and then spend the rest of one's life in another state.
Possible but not legal; one is required to vote in the state they're resident in. Residency is defined differently in each of the 50 States you're generally required to actually maintain a residence there (i.e., own or rent some piece of property) and may further be required to spend a plurality or even a majority of your time at that residence.
Snide answer: How about getting off your ass and actually going to the polling place to vote?
More contemplative answer: How do you actually prove the person behind the keyboard is the registered voter in question, even if your system is totally secure from threats in transit? How do you prove they're not being unduly influenced, perhaps by an employer or other person with a financial sword to hold over their head? This can be precluded in the polling place with a secret ballot; it can not be prevented if people are voting via computer or absentee. (*)
(*) Obviously allowances need to be made for people who are disabled or otherwise unable to make it to the polls, but I fail to see why an otherwise able bodied adult should regard a trip to the polling place as onerous.
And you miss the point. I worship anything. I'm simply rolling my eyes at how badly informed you are regarding our judicial-political system. In order to change something one must first understand how it works.
We're done here. Feel free to have the last word, I know you won't be able to resist one more reply.
If case law says that the first amendment means that the government can assassinate citizens for any reason
Good thing the case law doesn't say that then. *eye roll*
Why did we get away from that technology for space exploration? If you're going to spend the money to conduct a mission of this sort why limit yourself to the power provided by solar panels? It would be a pisser to have come this far only to have the mission fail because the probe can't get enough power to carry on operations.
I'm not appealing to authority; I'm attempting to explain to you how it actually works in the real world. My personal opinions on these issues are irrelevant. What matters is how the case law has evolved. I'm sorry you can't be bothered to learn about that. If you took the time it would enable you to make a better argument against those things that you disagree with. As it stands you know enough to be dangerous and you're just another random person rambling on the internet. I'm not taking you seriously, never mind the people who are in a position to steer the ship of state in the direction that you think it should go.
For starters he filled his complaint with a bunch of throwaway lines that seem aimed at impressing the /. crowd but which are not relevant to his case and run the risk of annoying the Judge:
"Browsing through the TWC website, Plaintiff encountered an advertisement for a "Standard" Internet access line. While the rest of the modern world, and even otherwise-third world countries, enjoy substantially faster and better-value Internet access lines" <--- Not relevant and inflammatory
"After logging in, Plaintiff was able to view an online statement for his account. Plaintiff expected as a result of the advertising that his bill would be $34.99, plus perhaps some small amount in taxes. To his shock, however, the bill was nearly three times that amount – it was $94.45. Although the Internet service was advertised at $34.99 per month, Plaintiff was billed $39.99 for it. There was an unexplained "Internet modem lease" fee of $5.99 added to the bill, and an "Internet, Install service" fee of $47.99 added as well. The bill also included charges for services not yet rendered." <--- Month ahead billing is a standard practice in many industries, ranging from real estate (rent is due on the 1st, not the 31st) to telecommunications. This claim will fail.
He did have valid claims about the unadvertised install fee and price difference of $5/mo but by his own admission TWC waived the former fee while putting him on a $20/mo plan. He therefore he has no cause of action on either of these complaints. They will be disposed of with a simple motion to dismiss by the defendant, without ever being litigated. His complaint about not receiving promised speeds will fail, since the DOCSIS 2 modem they provided him with is theoretically capable of delivering the 20/2 speed he subscribed to; also, by his own admission he signed up for an "up to" service. The only complaint that may succeed is related to TWC's advertised list of "approved" modems, though I doubt very much a State Court is going to wade into such technical matters.
Disclaimer: I have no lost love for TWC and certainly have shared his aggravation when I've had the misfortune of dealing with them. In this case though? His own complaint tells me they made a good faith effort to resolve these issues. It was certainly aggravating for him but aggravation is not a cause of action in our legal system. TWC could win the majority of these points without even filing a response, based solely off what the plaintiff writes in his complaint.
His case is so thin that TWC could probably win a motion for court costs; I highly doubt they'll do that, the negative press would outweigh anything they'd gain, but they could if they were so inclined. This will end with TWC offering a settlement and writing it off as a public relations expense. If he refuses the settlement he'll look that much worse in the eyes of the Judge; Judges hate litigants who reject reasonable settlements.
The last one is pointless, since without enough support, you're screwed anyway.
And you'll never garner enough support so long as you remain woefully ignorant of how our system works. You rant and rave about "fundamental liberties" and the manner in which the Government supposedly has trodden upon them but your examples are laughable. DWI checkpoints? TSA? Seriously? Do yourself a favor and Google 'compelling state interest' and 'strict scrutiny.' We have more than 200 years of case law that determines the manner in which the Constitution is interpreted; you may disagree with the manner in which that case law has evolved but your opinion there is no more valid than mine, or any other American citizen for that matter.
Maybe. But my point was that people see the economy as more important than liberty, and that's the problem. All these politicians mainly talk about is the economy
The economy wins elections. That's a simple fact. People vote their pocketbook. You may find that regrettable but it's a fundamental fact and no amount of ranting about "The One Party" is going to change it.
I really don't see the point in discussing political science with someone that dismisses the economy as a "truly minuscule issue." All I'll say on the subject is that the United States Constitution is is interpreted by human beings, like any other document. In the case of our political system there are nine authoritative voices on the subject and to the best of my knowledge none of them are commenters on Slashdot. If you dispute the current interpretation you're welcome to crack open one of the boxes to be used in the defense of liberty. They go in this order: soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box.
For the record, I don't regard my liberties as less important than money; I was simply stating the fact that it's hard to care about liberty if one is starving to death. The economy matters even in non-democratic societies, have you ever heard the expression "bread and circuses?"
I can not see how you can claim I wrote bullshit.
Because I have a background in both history and nutrition; there is no mainstream opinion in the latter field that says it's healthy to live off 1,500 calories a day. My background in the former tells me that people face starvation when they're forced to eat at those levels for extended periods. Research the food situation in Germany and Japan immediately after WW2; people were starving to death while eating the number of calories that you claim is normal.
You might also wish to educate yourself as to what BMR actually means. Hint: It's the number of calories required to sustain life in the absence of any other activity. Completely sedentary coach potatoes require more calories than their BMR if they're to survive in the long term. There's a reason why I used the sentence, "That's my caloric requirement just to stay in bed all day and do nothing." I even placed emphasis on the most important part of the sentence yet you still missed the point.
You're welcome to find a reputable source that says people in the mainstream of height/age/weight can survive on 1,500 (or even 1,700) calories a day indefinitely. The Mayo Clinic has an interesting nutrition calculator, perhaps you can start there? I input numbers for my height that are at the extreme low end of acceptable weight (130#) and still can't survive on 1,700 calories a day. That's with 'inactive' selected for activity level, in reality I'm anything but. I actually have to consume ~3500 calories a day to maintain my weight with my metabolism and activity level. That's a real number, FYI, from a fairly religiously kept food diary; not your nonsense "I had five beers and a pizza" calculation. Incidentally, I hate to break it to you, but five beers and a pizza almost certainly totals up to more than 2,000 calories. It may even be over 3,000 depending on the type of pizza in question.
The economy is a truly minuscule issue
Says someone who has probably never been unemployed for any significant amount of time in his life. Do you really think any of the issues you're ranting about mean jack diddly squat to someone who is worried about making the next mortgage payment or putting food on the table? In the words of a former United States President, "It's the economy stupid."
1500 - 1700 is the lower edge for nutrition for females/males
My BMR is 1820. That's my caloric requirement just to stay in bed all day and do nothing. I am an otherwise average 33 year old male, 5'10", 175 lbs. Throw the modifier in for my activity level (moderate) and my need is increased to 2,821 kcals/day.
In other words your claims are total bullshit and you're talking out of your ass. I would slowly starve to death while doing nothing at 1,500 kcal/day. Toss even light activity into the equation and the starvation process happens that much faster....
Name one.
Servers at Hooters. Seriously, there have been lawsuits over it.
I bet co-locating the Netflix servers for free would still cost ISPs less.
That depends on a lot of factors that would be unique to each particular ISP: energy costs, the percentage of Netflix customers in the ISP's subscriber base, heck, even the local climate would come into play with HVAC expenses. I think we can safely agree that such items are beyond the scope of this discussion. Either way, I think it takes an awful lot of chutzpah for Netflix to not even consider paying a modest co-location fee for their boxes. The boxes arguably benefit Netflix more than they benefit the ISP but Netflix won't pay for the energy they consume? How do you justify that?
In the case of this locally owned ISP they felt as though they were being bullied by an 800 pound gorilla. They crunched the numbers and concluded it didn't make sense for them; to the best of my knowledge they haven't lost any customers as a consequence of this decision. It does put the behaviors of the big ISPs into a different light for me though; we'll never know the nitty gritty of the deals they've hashed out with Netflix (*) but I don't blame them one bit for demanding some manner of compensation. There's a non-zero cost associated with hosting Netflix's equipment; should that money come directly from Netflix or from the ISPs customers? Keep in mind that not all of those customers are Netflix subscribers. The fact that Hastings agreed to the deals suggests he got something out of the bargain.
(*) I think is is why Netflix folded like a cheap suit after Verizon threatened to sue them over the "Verizon's network is slow...." messages. If Hastings actually believed all of the nonsense he spouts why wouldn't he welcome legal discovery and the admittance of these business deals into the public record? It's all public relations on his part; the sad thing is that sites like /. eat it up hook, line, and sinker.
It hardly seems like it should come from Netflix. If your usage rarely exceeds 1 Mbps, you should consider not paying for 50 Mbps service.
Umm, no, that's not how it works. I can benefit from the 50mbit/s (actually 30 in my case) connection; occasionally I need to download a largish file and it's nice to have it happen in two minutes as opposed to twenty. That doesn't mean I'm burdening the network as heavily as someone that's running simultaneous peak hour HD video streams five or six nights a week.
Want an analogy? My average monthly electrical consumption is in the 600kWh range. That's an average of 833 watts; using your logic my utility need only provide me with a 3.5 ampere service rather than the 200 ampere service that I actually have.
When they double them without offering any additional value, yes, it's a slap in the face.
The article here is about the ISP industry; I wonder how people would feel if Comcast doubled their broadband tariff without even offering the usual meaningless (for most people) increase in speed?
Nobody wants to live on 1000-1500 calories a day because you will feel exhausted and will probably have trouble getting all the needed nutrients while eating so little food
Why would anyone try to live on 1000-1500 calories? Even if you need to lose a massive amount of weight that's not sustainable. Weight loss is all about long term lifestyle adjustments not short term extremes. I've tried in vein to explain this to my fat friends who engage in yo-yo dieting; at one point I did some digging and discovered that the average ration at Alschwitz was in the 1,300 to 1,700 calorie range. Guess what? Most of those people were near death after three months. Even that analogy isn't enough to dissuade the idiots that think it's healthy to engage in starvation diets.
I limited my caloric deficit to a 250-300 calories a day when I needed to lose weight. Guess what? I kept my weight off, without too many yo-yos (the biggest yo-yo for me is winter, living in the Northeast and all....), and I was never so hungry that I hated life or thought about quitting.
I'm glad you still find value in their offering. Personally I did not; streaming was always the add-on for me, not the primary attraction (how can it be the primary when the catalog sucks so badly?) and I regarded it as a slap in the face that they wanted to double dip without offering any incentive whatsoever to customers that had been with them since the very beginning.
Of course, video as a whole doesn't have much attraction to me. I've been without cable TV since 2005; the little bit of TV that I do watch comes off one of these and has no recurring costs. Netflix was a nice way to supplement that but was by no means required; the $8/mo (or is it $9 now?) buys me a nice lunch out somewhere, which is worth far more to me than their crappy streaming catalog.
Verizon stopped expanding FIOS for two reasons:
1) There's a higher ROI in wireless so it makes more sense to allocate their finite resources there. It's still a growth market and a largely unregulated, vis-a-vis wireline, which is has the burden of last century regulation and entrenched competitors (cable) that aren't similarly burdened.
2) Uncle Sam started making rumblings about investing in broadband. Verizon would be stupid to keep investing in wireline; if the past is any guide Government will pour billions of dollars into wireline networks, then sell it for pennies on the dollar.
I would expect Verizon to start investing in FIOS again once the wireless market matures. They won't invest as aggressively, it's hard to compete in an established non-growth market, but they will invest more than they are doing today.