I would endorse your proposition, though I still believe that, as long as Comcast isn't violating it's agreement with the end-user (I'd have to read the contract), then it has every right to manage it the way it wishes.
However -
That's not saying they are being smart about it - P2P is big in academic research - even if it is publicly used in practice in an illegitimate way, so Comcast risks the negative publicity of many intellectuals.
Unfortunately, nowadays, that is not particularly frightening.
p2p, like Bittorrent are frequently used to transfer large files legally.
Your language is dodgy here - like you don't want to get pinned down on the actual usage statistics (Which I would guess are very largely weighted in favor of porn and copyrighted materials).
However, the actual numbers are irrelevant.
Any time two parties deal with each other contractually (e.g. You and the cable company), the terms of the agreement can be spelled out in any fashion, whatsoever. So - if the contract specifies it may interfere with your traffic, then they are exercising their power expressed within the contract.
The abrogation of contracts(mutually agreed-upon arrangements) is one way the government slides toward totalitarianism.
but actively forging packets [eff.org], for any reason, should be punished severely.
I, for one, would prefer that my ISP quash P2P traffic, so that I don't have to share bandwidth with a community largely comprised of copyrighted-media thieves.
And I am not aware of a legal precedent for this "severe punishment" you refer to. The ISP owns the network and should be able to control what happens on it. Terms-of-use should be set forth in a contract between the owner and the end-user. If you don't like the terms - don't use the service.
If you don't have an alternative service, pony up the dough and create your own alternative.
If the government won't allow you to create an alternative - then who are you going to blame? (HINT: The government).
...they could have regulated the sub-prime mortgage industry
You don't call government backed purchase of sub-prime debt "regulation"? What about the Community Reinvestment Act which forces banks to make loans in poor communities? When the government makes it financially attractive to do it, and punishes you for not doing it, that seems pretty clearly "regulated" to me.
If you think that if the economy taking a slight hit is just so unbearably bad that it's worth any risk to avoid it, then you are a miserable human being.
If you think that the environment taking a slight hit is just so unbearably bad that it requires human (economic) suffering to avoid it, then you are a miserable human being.
AT&T has had these kind of problems for years with their 3G service, it only took a successful platform to bring their shortcomings into the public light.
I guess most of the countries' representatives ond't effectively govern as well as you could. Too bad you can't rule the world and bring us the Utopia in your head:)
The irresponsible lending you refer to was a direct result of government intervention.
The government offered carrots and sticks: carrots - government-backed institutions buying the junk debt, sticks - the Community Reinvestment Act, punishing institutions that "discriminate" against people with bad credit.
The reason these companies throttle traffic at all is to provide a better quality of service to the vast majority of users at the expense of what they consider to be "abusers". It is the companies right to set the terms of use of its systems, and it is the goal of the company to make money by satisfying as many customers as possible.
I personally would rather use a cable company that throttles abusers, so I can have a better QoS - and it frustrates me that our government masters are making this the issue to assert their power over business.
If you are not smart enough to understand what might constitute "cheating" in Blizzard's eyes, then you are probably not smart enough to get/use the cheats in the first place.
If, for example, there is a cheat to get free gold while you are not logged on - that is obviously a cheat, and you don't really have a leg to stand on.
I agree with the first part of your post but I disagree about the restoration of Venice. It is historically interesting, but the architecture is a reflection of that time - and not reflective of the methods and applications of modern architecture.
...
I suppose if somebody wants to spend boatloads of money to restore something to a less-than-modern functional state, so tourists can cycle through and buy snacks and souvenirs - then happy investing.
But I think it makes more sense to just recreate some of the architecture in a museum somewhere.
You know - those crumbling structures actually replaced older, even less functional buildings. Why not recreate thatched huts and barren, open countryside?
probably because wasting "energy" is not as important as wasting money. If it is more expensive (personnel time, etc.) to bring it up and down as needed, then it makes sense to leave it running.
Just because something is "illegal" doesn't mean it is wrong. Surely there are laws that you disagree with.
And there is nothing wrong with "stifling" competition, as you put it. As long as there is no actual or implied threat of physical force, there is no problem.
Microsoft is only successful because many business are making billions of dollars in wealth by using their software. They are not going to switch just because *you* don't like them.
If Apple, IBM, Sun, HP, or any of the other OS vendors have a value proposition that makes a company more competitive, more wealthy, or some other kind of advantage, then businesses would recognize that and go for it. In fact, if *you* could 'build a better mousetrap', you could be rich by replacing Microsoft. But - you can't.
But you can vote with your dollar, just like every other person who does so.
They didn't kill anything. Lot's of people gave them their money, and the competition eventually lost. Microsoft software supports businesses who are making billions of revenue through its use. As long as people can create great wealth while using Microsoft software, why should they change? Because you said to?
Microsoft came to dominance by sabotaging the API It doesn't really matter what APIs exist or don't exist - so long as a business can achieve a better bottom line by using Microsoft software (which people can and do debate), then Microsoft will continue to be successful.
A business does not have an obligation to support competitors. In fact, you want to beat your competitors and win in the marketplace.
Slashdot Mirror
However -
That's not saying they are being smart about it - P2P is big in academic research - even if it is publicly used in practice in an illegitimate way, so Comcast risks the negative publicity of many intellectuals.
Unfortunately, nowadays, that is not particularly frightening.
p2p, like Bittorrent are frequently used to transfer large files legally.
Your language is dodgy here - like you don't want to get pinned down on the actual usage statistics (Which I would guess are very largely weighted in favor of porn and copyrighted materials).
However, the actual numbers are irrelevant.
Any time two parties deal with each other contractually (e.g. You and the cable company), the terms of the agreement can be spelled out in any fashion, whatsoever. So - if the contract specifies it may interfere with your traffic, then they are exercising their power expressed within the contract.
The abrogation of contracts(mutually agreed-upon arrangements) is one way the government slides toward totalitarianism.
but actively forging packets [eff.org], for any reason, should be punished severely.
I, for one, would prefer that my ISP quash P2P traffic, so that I don't have to share bandwidth with a community largely comprised of copyrighted-media thieves.
And I am not aware of a legal precedent for this "severe punishment" you refer to. The ISP owns the network and should be able to control what happens on it. Terms-of-use should be set forth in a contract between the owner and the end-user. If you don't like the terms - don't use the service.
If you don't have an alternative service, pony up the dough and create your own alternative.
If the government won't allow you to create an alternative - then who are you going to blame? (HINT: The government).
Government control (local/municiplaties) are what prevent competition to local incumbent carriers.
If you want to allow competition and choice - you need to get the government out of the way, not allow the government to control everything.
if you only consider taxes a negative and do not weigh the value of what is received in return
You sound like the British government during the Boston Tea Party.
...they could have regulated the sub-prime mortgage industry
You don't call government backed purchase of sub-prime debt "regulation"? What about the Community Reinvestment Act which forces banks to make loans in poor communities? When the government makes it financially attractive to do it, and punishes you for not doing it, that seems pretty clearly "regulated" to me.
That is exactly how environmentalism is like religion.
If you think that if the economy taking a slight hit is just so unbearably bad that it's worth any risk to avoid it, then you are a miserable human being.
If you think that the environment taking a slight hit is just so unbearably bad that it requires human (economic) suffering to avoid it, then you are a miserable human being.
Just because the public relies on something does not mean government should manage that thing.
AT&T has had these kind of problems for years with their 3G service, it only took a successful platform to bring their shortcomings into the public light.
I guess most of the countries' representatives ond't effectively govern as well as you could. Too bad you can't rule the world and bring us the Utopia in your head :)
The government offered carrots and sticks: carrots - government-backed institutions buying the junk debt, sticks - the Community Reinvestment Act, punishing institutions that "discriminate" against people with bad credit.
The reason these companies throttle traffic at all is to provide a better quality of service to the vast majority of users at the expense of what they consider to be "abusers". It is the companies right to set the terms of use of its systems, and it is the goal of the company to make money by satisfying as many customers as possible.
I personally would rather use a cable company that throttles abusers, so I can have a better QoS - and it frustrates me that our government masters are making this the issue to assert their power over business.
It is not _required_ to cheat in order to play the game.
If, for example, there is a cheat to get free gold while you are not logged on - that is obviously a cheat, and you don't really have a leg to stand on.
I also love Blizzard games, but I don't try and use 3rd party software during the game - so I fall squarely into compliance with their EULA.
I would still be willing to BUY games if they would stop rehashing half witted half finished games
If the games suck so bad - why are you stealing them?
...
I suppose if somebody wants to spend boatloads of money to restore something to a less-than-modern functional state, so tourists can cycle through and buy snacks and souvenirs - then happy investing.
But I think it makes more sense to just recreate some of the architecture in a museum somewhere.
You know - those crumbling structures actually replaced older, even less functional buildings. Why not recreate thatched huts and barren, open countryside?
And there is nothing wrong with "stifling" competition, as you put it. As long as there is no actual or implied threat of physical force, there is no problem.
If Apple, IBM, Sun, HP, or any of the other OS vendors have a value proposition that makes a company more competitive, more wealthy, or some other kind of advantage, then businesses would recognize that and go for it. In fact, if *you* could 'build a better mousetrap', you could be rich by replacing Microsoft. But - you can't.
But you can vote with your dollar, just like every other person who does so.
They didn't kill anything. Lot's of people gave them their money, and the competition eventually lost. Microsoft software supports businesses who are making billions of revenue through its use. As long as people can create great wealth while using Microsoft software, why should they change? Because you said to?
How about: "if you don't like Microsoft products, don't buy it"? Wouldn't that be a better alternative?
In other words: "Resistance is futile."
A business does not have an obligation to support competitors. In fact, you want to beat your competitors and win in the marketplace.