Thank you, this has been some rather interesting information. Especially the part about the soy-based cable jackets, it explains a few outages really were about critters chewing through wires.
You say that you are the one person we hear from once a year -- that may be true, but note that you are the exception and not the rule. The vast majority of callers that call into the call centers are repeat callers calling for the exact same issues, issues that could be prevented if the caller would take the customer education to heart that is provided.
Think how many fewer calls we'd have if instructions on properly powercycling a modem/router/PC setup were given instead of muzak. I worked for one company that let customers send basic refresh hits to their boxes through the IVR instead of having to talk to someone.
Those standards exist in EVERY franchised market in the country. You are speaking of a common occurrence that amounts to telephony "rush hour" -- everyone gets home at the same time, and either has an issue with their bill, has an issue with their service, wants to set up new service, or cancel/transfer existing service.
Not for me. The morning gets more call volume judging my the logs. If there's a shortage of reps on the phones in the evening, it might be due to difficulties staffing the night shift properly (everyone wants to be a M-F,9-5'er). Also, I don't see how this is a "correction" to my earlier statement. Whether the calls happen due to some tremendous "rush hour" or not, the queues really do go that high and people really do wait that long. The experience is the same for the end user. They still had to wait through 20 renditions of easy-listening piano favorites to get their billing issue addressed. This is where strategic staffing should be taking place.
P.S. Get ready to go digital -- the FCC-mandated change is scheduled to take place in January 2009.
Correct yourself. It's 2012. And I don't have an issue with digital service itself, it's only the blasted external tuners and DRM crap I wish to avoid.
And if you are using a TV tuner card, you do realize that the coax you are using to connect that card comes from -- gasp! -- the CABLE company?? Signal issues at that level are 99% of the time due to USER ERROR....
Jumping to user-error conclusions already?
Let's begin at the start. I initially disconnected the cable line from the VCR and hooked it to the tuner card. On the analog cable tuner, I saw poorer reception than I experienced through my analog TV when it was going through the VCR. I then tried the QAM tuner and had audio dropouts and jittery playpack on the stations I could pick up. The cable I'm using is about 35 ft of plain coax in total length and is made up of two smaller cables connected with an adapter. I then tried a 20 ft quad-shielded cable supplied to me by my cableco I had lying around (this time it runs across the floor instead of around the walls). A little better (there's now no longer ghosting on some analog channels, ghosting my analog TV wasn't experiencing I might add). But digital hadn't improved much.
Now I'm talking to my roommate, as I'm aware he runs an amp in the living room for the three devices he has out there on one outlet. Part of the reason he got it was due to the digital reception on his Myth box he says. He loans me a second smaller amp that apparently has been on our cable modem the whole time. I hook up the amp and am now getting smoother playback on clear QAM channels than I was before.
User error. Must be the user error of not calling our provider and bitching about the signal levels that are necessitating an amp on every outlet in our apartment.
I feel that you are one of my consumer nightmares,
Actually, this is where it becomes truly horrific: you're looking in a mirror. See my other reply to you, especially the last link.
a customer that can never be satisfied with what is being offered; a consumer with unrealistic expectations and just enough industry know-how to be dangerous.
Nope, really wrong this time. Once again, see other reply. I'm the customer your bosses hate because because I want too little.
If you don't believe any of what you read here, the next time you have a cable service call, ask the technician that comes to your house to back up what I said -- I guarantee you that not only will he back it up, but he'll even show you how the network works at your own house.
Hmm, don't know if I'll remember that one. I usually call my cable company once a year at most. I'm actually the customer you don't hear from. When a station goes out, I'm not on the phone ten seconds later complaining. Many times I'll go, "aw, dammit!" and check back a few hours later. I had an issue with reception on my lower channels late last year, and I let it go on for a couple weeks before I thought about calling (just being lazy then) but before I did call I crawled back and bypassed the splitter for the modem and the VCR and while I was checking things, I found that... yup.... there was loose connection. Which would cause poor reception on lower frequencies. You didn't hear me asking for a tech to come out right off the bat.
As far as the never-ending paragraph is concerned, I do apologize for that; it seems that/. doesn't allow for natural spacing; you have to use HTML to make it look pretty in your browser.
That's what the "Plain Old Text" setting is for on the reply form. I use it for all my replies. You can change it in the preferences so it defaults to it.
There are strict guidelines in place from municipality to municipality about everything from how fast employees answer the phone to how well the service is actually working. It's a little thing called service level, and most service levels are set at 80% or higher and MUST be met in order to maintain the franchise agreement.
Maybe in some of the markets you deal with, but those types of standards don't exist in many places. I know of providers that run 80-100 callers in queue in the evenings, over an hour of hold time for some people. If there are service level standards, they would be averages over the day/month anyway. So they could make it up in the overnight hours.
If you are so fed up with cable, why haven't you switched to satellite yet or given TV up altogether??
I generally have actually. I recently bought a TV tuner card for my PC, the idea being I could then get rid of the set itself. Still working on some signal issues though. I enjoy having access to the TV news and some programming, but I really don't watch TV anymore. I refuse to play into the whole digital trap. It's more a gateway to raising your bill astronomically than anything else. I have analog and I'll happily keep it till I'm forced to go to digital. I didn't even have cable till several years ago when I moved to a new house and found I didn't get any reception over the air. I'm not interested in leasing any equipment out for a monthly fee, nor the problems that come with said equipment.
Sorry to correct you on this obviously erroneous piece of information, but AT&T IS a cable company.
I'm sorry, AT&T is not a cable company. It is actually you who is incorrect, as I will show in a bit.
In many markets, before they were acquired by either Comcast, CableVision, or Time Warner, AT&T's cable division (which by the way is called AT&T Broadband) acquired markets that were controlled by financially struggling companies like Intermedia, MediaOne, etc. and fixed what was wrong financially and then sold them off to larger companies at a profit.
And after they sold off these markets, they ceased to be a part of AT&T Broadband, no? Also, you keep talking about AT&T Broadband in present tense. In case you missed the "industry journal" that reported it. AT&T as a cable company ceased to exist about 5 years ago.
Speaking as a cable employee (I work for Comcast)...
You work for Comcast but had to be told your company is responsible for AT&T exiting the cable market. Do you hear the Bells of Irony?
First, the large companies, like Comcast and Time Warner, expand through acquisition -- in other words, they buy the franchise agreements from smaller companies that either can't or won't fix the areas that they are in.
Some of these companies do leave markets due to other reasons. I know of one area that was recently sold to Comcast due to lack of profit. So lets keep things in perspective, rather than pushing this idea T-W's only buying out markets to relieve the poor consumers of their outdated infrastructure, and current provider failing to fix it. e_e They're no saints.
It never ceases to amaze me to get calls in my line of work from customers who complain constantly about the poor quality of their services, yet they continue to pay their bills faithfully every month, year in and year out, and never call in to report that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, and uses forums like this to vent. My answer to this has two parts: One, if you have a problem, I'm not a mind reader, and neither are the techs in the field who work hard every day to make sure your cable service works. If it doesn't work, call us. If the tech tries to leave and the repair or installation job is not done to your satisfaction, don't let the tech leave -- at some point you as a consumer should take SOME responsibility for what goes on in your house!!! Two, if the service really is that bad, why are you still paying the bill? If you have a year's worth of bad tv, internet, or phone service, why would you pay the bill month after month? Why wouldn't you find some other provider?
I'd like to say AMEN to this entire paragraph, except the part about finding another provider, as many areas don't have another cable company due in large part to companies like T-W and Comcast buying and muscleing out competition.
I personally would rather have the state tell the Bells and the phone companies that we will not allow FIOS tv service to be installed and keep cable in because quite frankly, the Bells are back in the monopoly business, and they are back stronger than ever thanks to deregulation.
Said the kettle to the pot.
Infrastructure is so bad in some areas the only way to fix it is to do it all over again from scratch. Time-Warner and Comcast buy markets because their infrastructure is failing and the current cable company can not/will not repair it. The large conglomerates say they plan to upgrade the infrastructure when they're trying to win approval of the buyout. But then, the upgrades are not done or take too long to be of much use to the residents living there (many will have moved before the work is done) due to the massive interruptions in service this work will cause. All I see from connecting
OMG, you really don't read industry papers and the fine print of bills that are passed, do you? The general language of statewide franchise agreements is worded so that local franchise agreements are not affected by the new law UNTIL their franchise agreements expire;
Well, since you have all the answers, why don't you tell us how long the current franchise agreements in Ohio are good for then, because my guess is not long. Certainly not longer than 10 years, which means sooner or later everyone who doesn't have a statewide agreement (since there are several other companies seeking them as well it appears) will be out in the cold and leaving the Buckeye state. My original point still stands.
Before continuing this discussion, would you please read the bill itself so that others don't have to break it down into kindergarten-level English for you and point out the common sense elements???
Speaking of kindergarten-level English, after reading your other reply to me I'd like to introduce you to this fabulous device of the English language -- it's called the paragraph. It's generally used to break up thoughts into sections as a reading aid and generally makes large amounts of text more enjoyable to digest for the reader.
Paragraphs also have this pleasant effect of not making you appear to be a raving lunatic, the way a neverending string of sentences does. Then more people will read you reply, and even mod it up if the content merits it.
You'll probably point out that most of the companies seeking approval are not cable companies. Who cares what sort of cable they run to your house as long as you get video service?
Because the type of technology used to deliver service does matter to many consumers. There are people who want high-speed internet but have their issues with DSL or Cable Modem service. Same with preferences of satellite verses cable for video. If the results of this agreement lower the number of cablecos in a areas where there actually was competition, you'll have people who are now "stuck" with one provider because the other is Dish, ect.
I don't understand it either in many cases. But I do know I'd personally rather avoid DSL since that would mean dealing with AT&T in my area, so cable internet it is.
And don't forget that it will allow TW cable to go into markets that they currently are not in, overbuild and squeeze the current provider out of business.
Time-Warner wont overbuild. Today its cheaper to buy an existing cable company out instead of build one from scratch. Plus, I don't know how this effects the current providers already in the market. It may nullify their existing agreements, requiring them to leave. If not Time-Warner can purchase them now without worrying if the local franchising authority likes them or not.
Removing local control eliminates the possibility of this monopoly -- according to TFA both Time Warner and AT&T are now allowed to do business in all areas of the state.
AT&T is not a cable company last time I checked. U-Verse is only available in limited areas, in other parts AT&T has agreements with satellite providers to provide the "video" portion of the coveted "triple play". Will any other cable companies be allowed in Ohio under this agreement? Are there any other cable companies right now? With this state franchise in place, it would be impossible for a startup or coop of any sort to form in the backwoods.
Can someone please explain in English what this means or provide a link to something more substantial? I RTFA (which is just a press release from the mouth pieces downtown) but don't understand what this is?
It's called "removing control at the local level, and moving it to people easier to reach to bribe". Traditionally, cable franchises (the right to do business in a market) are granted at a local municipality level. Cable operators are required to list on their bills the contact information for the market's franchising authority. This is so consumers can complain to them about service from the provider.
Because this office (which is usually connected to the local government) is the one who decides whether a cable company gets to stay in business in an area, as well as grant additional licenses to new providers, they are an important enemy to cable companies in individual areas. If a cableco was providing very poor services, the franchising office could grant a second company to provide services on their own overbuilt cable network to provide competition, or could simply pull/not renew the license of the original operator, forcing them to sell the market to another provider (this is more likely in small towns were more people may be on satellite or there are multiple cablecos located nearby).
With a statewide license, this sort of stuff isn't going to happen. Because obviously the state government is not going to kick a cableco out of all Ohio over problems in Tinytown, OH. Whereas before, the licensing board for Tinytown (the mayor, treasurer, and postmaster) might have done something about it.
The TFA (which is really just a state press release) says this is being done to promote penetration of broadband service in the state. Unless there are actual terms in the agreement that Time-Warner will service areas of __ population density or greater that's not going to happen. Time Warner will continue to push access in large cities, and let older rural cable networks degrade, confident they can still hold the market for 10 years at least.
But the politicians are those who enact laws, and although they are in theory elected by the people, such elections are only possible thanks to the big money corporations give them.
That's only because the other candidates have big money backing them up. It's an arms race in some ways. When the country was going through it first few elections there wasn't as much money being thrown around and we still managed to hold campaigns.
With enough changes to campaign finance laws, we could probably go back to that.
The ability of the V2G car's battery to act like a sponge provides a solution for utilities, which pay millions to generating stations that help balance the grid.
So since I'm now taking over that job, how much will my cut be?
I thought so.
And this wont have any impact on the life span of my car's expensive battery will it?
Oh, it will.
Well since they're now saving so much money, they'll be able to lower utility ra--- What's so funny?
I imagine these things being DIRT CHEAP in less than a year, because nobody in their right mind would buy them as is.
Nah, that assumes that people will actually learn about the DRM before they buy it. I somehow doubt Western Digital will be writing prominently on the packaging "You cannot share files that warrant the purchase of a drive this large to start with".
It might turn into a nice class-action lawsuit later on, though.
Yes, customers have rights. Exercising them is up to the customer. I don't have to help them/you. If my help is desired, ask nicely. Payment would help.
But we're talking about place-shifting DVDs, which requires removing encryption, which it is currently illegal to distribute tools for. It's funny people keep saying that place-shifting and making personal copies is legal when it practice it appears to be anything but. IMHO until it can be done easily by consumers like copying a CD it might was well be against the law.
It's like having a piece of land that belongs to you but is enclosed in a locked fence. You have to figure out how to cut through the fence yourself if you want to use it and the hardware store can't legally sell you bolt cutters or snips either. Now someone comes along who wants to sell you a key for the lock...
Oh, that's comforting to know: AAC isn't Apple's proprietary format, it's Dolby's. Same shit, different day.
The difference is Dolby will gladly license their codec out to anyone who will pay their fee. This isn't some anti-Apple conspiracy where Apple makes iTunes rip your own CDs to AAC since it's "Apple's special proprietary format", therefore locking your music collection to iPods, unless you want to rerip all your CDs. Also, Dolby isn't in the music player business, so they don't have any reason to change the format or deny a company a license to use a format for their own competitive reasons *cough*Zune*cough*.
I don't think anyone really cared that much that it (supposedly) was Apple's format as much as it's a proprietary format with no legal means of implementing an open source encoder and decoder.
Poor Dolby. A for-profit company wants to receive compensation for an audio format they poured R&D into, and a bunch of Stallman Jr's want free software.
No, I'm sorry. From what I saw watching of the iPod launch, people were more concerned about whether they could play AAC files on devices other than iPods or in iTunes than if they could implement it themselves legally in OSS. Maybe we just hang out in different crowds. Kinda like from my point of view, people use Firefox because its a faster, more secure browser. Not because Firefox is Open Source and IE isn't. Only OSS people and tin-foil hats really care that much about whether a source is open or not if the price is the same.
These resolutions are not, but the blog page about them is.
Yes, and I wasn't talking about the blog. I was talking about the avalanche of PDFs online, Requiring a password few people can obtain and hosted on a server that cannot handle the traffic load it's contents would attract. A single archive of them could have been much more available if distributed as a torrent.
BitTorrent is designed for unchanging large files (>10 MB) or unchanging large folders. How, may I ask, would BitTorrent help with much smaller files such as HTML files, image files up to 0.1 Mpx used in most web pages, and PDFs containing text (not scans of printed material)?
Even PDFs of printed text are not always tiny files due to all the formatting. Now take this size and multiply it by 662, and you'll see an archive that easily justifies torrent distribution.
How would BitTorrent help distribute pages that are updated with news weekly or more often?
Are these resolutions going to be updated that often? Let's make sure we're using arguements that actually apply to a situation, okay?
Are we talking about the file format itself, or just whether anyone has instituted DRM on it? Apple's Fairplay is a wrapper around an AAC file, not inherent in the file itself. Couldn't they have just as easily wrapped an MP3 file?
Slashdot Mirror
Think how many fewer calls we'd have if instructions on properly powercycling a modem/router/PC setup were given instead of muzak. I worked for one company that let customers send basic refresh hits to their boxes through the IVR instead of having to talk to someone.
Not for me. The morning gets more call volume judging my the logs. If there's a shortage of reps on the phones in the evening, it might be due to difficulties staffing the night shift properly (everyone wants to be a M-F,9-5'er). Also, I don't see how this is a "correction" to my earlier statement. Whether the calls happen due to some tremendous "rush hour" or not, the queues really do go that high and people really do wait that long. The experience is the same for the end user. They still had to wait through 20 renditions of easy-listening piano favorites to get their billing issue addressed. This is where strategic staffing should be taking place.
Correct yourself. It's 2012.
And I don't have an issue with digital service itself, it's only the blasted external tuners and DRM crap I wish to avoid.
Jumping to user-error conclusions already?
Let's begin at the start. I initially disconnected the cable line from the VCR and hooked it to the tuner card. On the analog cable tuner, I saw poorer reception than I experienced through my analog TV when it was going through the VCR. I then tried the QAM tuner and had audio dropouts and jittery playpack on the stations I could pick up. The cable I'm using is about 35 ft of plain coax in total length and is made up of two smaller cables connected with an adapter. I then tried a 20 ft quad-shielded cable supplied to me by my cableco I had lying around (this time it runs across the floor instead of around the walls). A little better (there's now no longer ghosting on some analog channels, ghosting my analog TV wasn't experiencing I might add). But digital hadn't improved much.
Now I'm talking to my roommate, as I'm aware he runs an amp in the living room for the three devices he has out there on one outlet. Part of the reason he got it was due to the digital reception on his Myth box he says. He loans me a second smaller amp that apparently has been on our cable modem the whole time. I hook up the amp and am now getting smoother playback on clear QAM channels than I was before.
User error. Must be the user error of not calling our provider and bitching about the signal levels that are necessitating an amp on every outlet in our apartment.
Actually, this is where it becomes truly horrific: you're looking in a mirror. See my other reply to you, especially the last link.
Nope, really wrong this time. Once again, see other reply. I'm the customer your bosses hate because because I want too little.
Hmm, don't know if I'll remember that one. I usually call my cable company once a year at most. I'm actually the customer you don't hear from. When a station goes out, I'm not on the phone ten seconds later complaining. Many times I'll go, "aw, dammit!" and check back a few hours later. I had an issue with reception on my lower channels late last year, and I let it go on for a couple weeks before I thought about calling (just being lazy then) but before I did call I crawled back and bypassed the splitter for the modem and the VCR and while I was checking things, I found that... yup.... there was loose connection. Which would cause poor reception on lower frequencies. You didn't hear me asking for a tech to come out right off the bat.
That's what the "Plain Old Text" setting is for on the reply form. I use it for all my replies. You can change it in the preferences so it defaults to it.
Maybe in some of the markets you deal with, but those types of standards don't exist in many places. I know of providers that run 80-100 callers in queue in the evenings, over an hour of hold time for some people. If there are service level standards, they would be averages over the day/month anyway. So they could make it up in the overnight hours.
I generally have actually. I recently bought a TV tuner card for my PC, the idea being I could then get rid of the set itself. Still working on some signal issues though. I enjoy having access to the TV news and some programming, but I really don't watch TV anymore. I refuse to play into the whole digital trap. It's more a gateway to raising your bill astronomically than anything else. I have analog and I'll happily keep it till I'm forced to go to digital. I didn't even have cable till several years ago when I moved to a new house and found I didn't get any reception over the air. I'm not interested in leasing any equipment out for a monthly fee, nor the problems that come with said equipment.
I'm sorry, AT&T is not a cable company. It is actually you who is incorrect, as I will show in a bit.
And after they sold off these markets, they ceased to be a part of AT&T Broadband, no? Also, you keep talking about AT&T Broadband in present tense. In case you missed the "industry journal" that reported it. AT&T as a cable company ceased to exist about 5 years ago.
You work for Comcast but had to be told your company is responsible for AT&T exiting the cable market. Do you hear the Bells of Irony?
Some of these companies do leave markets due to other reasons. I know of one area that was recently sold to Comcast due to lack of profit. So lets keep things in perspective, rather than pushing this idea T-W's only buying out markets to relieve the poor consumers of their outdated infrastructure, and current provider failing to fix it. e_e They're no saints.
I'd like to say AMEN to this entire paragraph, except the part about finding another provider, as many areas don't have another cable company due in large part to companies like T-W and Comcast buying and muscleing out competition.
Said the kettle to the pot.
Infrastructure is so bad in some areas the only way to fix it is to do it all over again from scratch. Time-Warner and Comcast buy markets because their infrastructure is failing and the current cable company can not/will not repair it. The large conglomerates say they plan to upgrade the infrastructure when they're trying to win approval of the buyout. But then, the upgrades are not done or take too long to be of much use to the residents living there (many will have moved before the work is done) due to the massive interruptions in service this work will cause. All I see from connecting
Well, since you have all the answers, why don't you tell us how long the current franchise agreements in Ohio are good for then, because my guess is not long. Certainly not longer than 10 years, which means sooner or later everyone who doesn't have a statewide agreement (since there are several other companies seeking them as well it appears) will be out in the cold and leaving the Buckeye state. My original point still stands.
Speaking of kindergarten-level English, after reading your other reply to me I'd like to introduce you to this fabulous device of the English language -- it's called the paragraph. It's generally used to break up thoughts into sections as a reading aid and generally makes large amounts of text more enjoyable to digest for the reader.
Paragraphs also have this pleasant effect of not making you appear to be a raving lunatic, the way a neverending string of sentences does. Then more people will read you reply, and even mod it up if the content merits it.
Because the type of technology used to deliver service does matter to many consumers. There are people who want high-speed internet but have their issues with DSL or Cable Modem service. Same with preferences of satellite verses cable for video. If the results of this agreement lower the number of cablecos in a areas where there actually was competition, you'll have people who are now "stuck" with one provider because the other is Dish, ect.
I don't understand it either in many cases. But I do know I'd personally rather avoid DSL since that would mean dealing with AT&T in my area, so cable internet it is.
Time-Warner wont overbuild. Today its cheaper to buy an existing cable company out instead of build one from scratch. Plus, I don't know how this effects the current providers already in the market. It may nullify their existing agreements, requiring them to leave. If not Time-Warner can purchase them now without worrying if the local franchising authority likes them or not.
AT&T is not a cable company last time I checked. U-Verse is only available in limited areas, in other parts AT&T has agreements with satellite providers to provide the "video" portion of the coveted "triple play". Will any other cable companies be allowed in Ohio under this agreement? Are there any other cable companies right now? With this state franchise in place, it would be impossible for a startup or coop of any sort to form in the backwoods.
It's called "removing control at the local level, and moving it to people easier to reach to bribe". Traditionally, cable franchises (the right to do business in a market) are granted at a local municipality level. Cable operators are required to list on their bills the contact information for the market's franchising authority. This is so consumers can complain to them about service from the provider.
Because this office (which is usually connected to the local government) is the one who decides whether a cable company gets to stay in business in an area, as well as grant additional licenses to new providers, they are an important enemy to cable companies in individual areas. If a cableco was providing very poor services, the franchising office could grant a second company to provide services on their own overbuilt cable network to provide competition, or could simply pull/not renew the license of the original operator, forcing them to sell the market to another provider (this is more likely in small towns were more people may be on satellite or there are multiple cablecos located nearby).
With a statewide license, this sort of stuff isn't going to happen. Because obviously the state government is not going to kick a cableco out of all Ohio over problems in Tinytown, OH. Whereas before, the licensing board for Tinytown (the mayor, treasurer, and postmaster) might have done something about it.
The TFA (which is really just a state press release) says this is being done to promote penetration of broadband service in the state. Unless there are actual terms in the agreement that Time-Warner will service areas of __ population density or greater that's not going to happen. Time Warner will continue to push access in large cities, and let older rural cable networks degrade, confident they can still hold the market for 10 years at least.
...that Vista is so bad Microsoft had to give it away to get people to use it.
That's only because the other candidates have big money backing them up. It's an arms race in some ways. When the country was going through it first few elections there wasn't as much money being thrown around and we still managed to hold campaigns.
With enough changes to campaign finance laws, we could probably go back to that.
The King is dead! Long live the King!
So since I'm now taking over that job, how much will my cut be?
I thought so.
And this wont have any impact on the life span of my car's expensive battery will it?
Oh, it will.
Well since they're now saving so much money, they'll be able to lower utility ra---
What's so funny?
You're in luck. According to TFA, that's pretty much exactly what they did.
I'm not so sure about changing "I want more life, fucker!" to "I want more life, father." through.
Like government officials?
Nah, that assumes that people will actually learn about the DRM before they buy it. I somehow doubt Western Digital will be writing prominently on the packaging "You cannot share files that warrant the purchase of a drive this large to start with".
It might turn into a nice class-action lawsuit later on, though.
General Mills wants the every major sports figure to start eating Wheaties for breakfast,
But we're talking about place-shifting DVDs, which requires removing encryption, which it is currently illegal to distribute tools for. It's funny people keep saying that place-shifting and making personal copies is legal when it practice it appears to be anything but. IMHO until it can be done easily by consumers like copying a CD it might was well be against the law.
It's like having a piece of land that belongs to you but is enclosed in a locked fence. You have to figure out how to cut through the fence yourself if you want to use it and the hardware store can't legally sell you bolt cutters or snips either. Now someone comes along who wants to sell you a key for the lock...
The difference is Dolby will gladly license their codec out to anyone who will pay their fee. This isn't some anti-Apple conspiracy where Apple makes iTunes rip your own CDs to AAC since it's "Apple's special proprietary format", therefore locking your music collection to iPods, unless you want to rerip all your CDs. Also, Dolby isn't in the music player business, so they don't have any reason to change the format or deny a company a license to use a format for their own competitive reasons *cough*Zune*cough*.
Poor Dolby. A for-profit company wants to receive compensation for an audio format they poured R&D into, and a bunch of Stallman Jr's want free software.
No, I'm sorry. From what I saw watching of the iPod launch, people were more concerned about whether they could play AAC files on devices other than iPods or in iTunes than if they could implement it themselves legally in OSS. Maybe we just hang out in different crowds. Kinda like from my point of view, people use Firefox because its a faster, more secure browser. Not because Firefox is Open Source and IE isn't. Only OSS people and tin-foil hats really care that much about whether a source is open or not if the price is the same.
Yes, and I wasn't talking about the blog. I was talking about the avalanche of PDFs online, Requiring a password few people can obtain and hosted on a server that cannot handle the traffic load it's contents would attract. A single archive of them could have been much more available if distributed as a torrent.
he'd have posted it to Wikileaks.
Yet another server casualty that could have been prevented with BitTorrent.
Are we talking about the file format itself, or just whether anyone has instituted DRM on it? Apple's Fairplay is a wrapper around an AAC file, not inherent in the file itself. Couldn't they have just as easily wrapped an MP3 file?