True but the bulk of the expense is use of the towers themselves. As for network access it also works both ways, a call originating from AT&T will not cost T-Mobile anything yet still show up as minutes being used on my account.
Anyway, I didn't say it was necessarily bad just that the caller needs to be aware of the minutes being accrued.
Because the Universal Connect Fee is only levied on telephone access lines, and generally only "conventional" lines at that.
Actually it's now labeled "Universal Service Fee" and the FCC collects it on wireless phone service too. In fact congress mandates all companies that provide interstate calling services to contribute to this fund.
Because I'm using the broadband connection that I pay for to send the GSM packets directly to their network, thus preventing them from having to put up another wireless tower to make room for more subscribers or to increase signal coverage. Why do you think we have unlimited t-mobile to t-mobile minutes? Because once the data reaches their packet switch network, it doesn't cost them much to move the packets across their calling areas.
I already pay a Universal Connect Fee on my phone bill which subsidize the phone company to go into rural areas. Never mind the fact that the AT&T was subsidized to put lines out there in the first place. When they came up with the Universal Connect Fee in 1997 ( 15 years ago ) they promised better communication access to rural customers. Not to mention, in October 2011 congress justified this UCF to stay on all of our phone bills by having the funds transition over to the "Connect America Fund" to subsidize broadband access in these same rural areas.
Why the hell would I want to pay that same fee on my broadband bill? Especially since the Fee has been collected for over a decade and I see no real competition or expansion in rural connectivity since its inception.
Sure Google, AT&T, and Sprint are for it. After all its more corporate welfare earmarked for their use. They act like they won't charge the rural customers for this access, and believe me they will.
I did not mean a condescending tone towards you. By "obvious you like Gozmodo", I meant that you are defending them pretty hard and I think we would be wasting our time trying to convince each other that the other side is somehow incorrect. I did not intend it to mean that you were a Gizmodo fanboi.
For the record, I meant coercion in the literal sense (as in by definition) and not necessarily the kind that warrants prosecution. While you try to portray a rational conversation between Apple and Gizmodo, the articles printed at the time of the incident and the comments of the prosecutor who decided not to pursue the matter indicate otherwise.
One caveat of WiFi calling being that T-Mobile still counts the minutes towards your allotted monthly calling plan and will bill you for any minutes over the allotment. I never gone over the allotment, but the possibility it still there.
I never had any problems tethering with my T-Mobile phone, but my daughter got that website when she tried to use her phone to watch netflix (we have a family plan). It was a one-time occurrence since I haven't seen it appear again while tethering with my Mac.
The thing that irritates me is that my "grandfathered" unlimited plan of many years had an unadvertised limit of 5GB added to it when they did their "unlimited w/ throttling plan 2GB" promotion. I'm waiting to see what happens but all indications are that T-Mobile will not quietly remove my limit. Of course, I never get near the 5GB total (due to crappy reception anyway) but it's the principle of it that gets my goat.
That's still not coercion. Coercion generally requires threats of violence or threats to reputation so damaging that they would be life destroying (i.e. blackmail). Had Gizmodo credibly threatened to murder Steve Job's children unless he wrote the letter that's coercion. Had they had a gun at his at the time, that's coercion. In NY State to qualify as obtaining property through extortion you can't already in possession of it because then the coercion didn't rise to a high enough level.
So now we are moving the goal posts for coercion to the level that is prosecutable? That's cheating:P
Physical coercion is only one type of coercion with Psychological, Legal, and Social being the other types.
Despite their intentions, Gizmodo tried to coerce Apple enter into negotiation for return of the prototype by using their possession of said prototype as leverage. Apple had a legitimate fear that Gizmodo would do financial harm by publishing more details about their prototype or worse sell it to one of Apple's competitor.
In particular Gizmodo asked for an on the record official request. That's all they asked for. Many things in life, require you fill out documentation and do things "on the record". No court would ever consider a request to go on the record to even be a tort, much less a felony.
Except for the fact, that is wasn't a simple request for something in writing. When asked about the emails taken from Chen's computer, the prosecutor said:
"this is like 15-year-old children talking," Wagstaffe said. "There was so much animosity, and they were very critical of Apple. They talked about having Apple right where they wanted them and they were really going to show them."
They were in possession of stolen property. The thing that saved Gizmodo's bacon (so to speak), was that the prosecutor didn't think he had any evidence that Chen directly participated in the theft of the phone, and he had no real interest in building a case for acting like a "15-year-old" since I'm sure he had more pressing matters to attend to.
The main problem with your analogy is... the Big Mac combo wasn't already owned by 'Me' prior to arriving at the restaurant, and the requirement to go to the next window to pick up your meal is part of the purchase arrangement.
Now if you purchased it, took possession of said Big Mac, sat down to begin eating it, and out of the blue a McD employee snatched it from your hands and demanded you pay another $4.49 before he'll give it back, then your analogy would become relevant.
Context. I know it's confusing sometimes. One day you'll get the hang of it.
The way you describe it. Gizmodo was trying to sell an item, that they knew was stolen, back to its rightful owner with conditions designed to generate additional financial gain by generating their own "news" story at the expense of the owner. Sounds like extortion to me.
The problem is the term "legitimate rape." The senator's statements (if taken with any bit of truth) imply that if a women were to get pregnant in the case of rape it was not a "legitimate" or "real" rape.
I was listening to an interview on the way home from work yesterday, and the interviewee did a pretty good job explaining why the term "forcibly raped" was used in the wording of a bill (BTW I never heard the term "legitimate rape" but I'm sure the logic still applies). Basically it was to make a legal distinction between a woman becoming pregnant from being forced against her will to engage in sexual acts and an underage teenage having consensual sex and can still claim statutory rape.
The fear was that a minor could claim statutory rape and become legally eligible for an abortion that would otherwise be banned.
Before you get too riled up... I am only reporting what I heard on the radio, and it does makes some sense. Of course both sides of the political spectrum loves to take sound bites out of context and use as a basis for political misinformation.
The only serious way out involves LOTS of cuts, everywhere.
When the republicans say LOTS of cuts, they really mean starve programs that aren't directly beneficial to them or their contributors. This is what has most people including me upset. We all agree cuts have to be made, and most of us agree that every facet of government spending must have a cut. Yet the republicans are not willing to compromise and make social spending out to be the deficit boogeyman as if tax incentives, government subsidies, wasteful military spending, and unbalanced tax breaks aren't contributing to our debt.
Too bad most of our money went to the war effort in Iraq, which I don't remember many Americans thinking that was really important. Kudos to the political party who keeps telling us that they're the fiscally responsible one, yet used executive power to start the Iraq conflict that ramped up governmental expenditures exponentially while simultaneously and irresponsibly lowering governmental revenue by giving tax breaks. I'm all for lowering taxes, but not when we are ramping up spending for a war. I do love how the war expenditures and lack of fiscal responsibility of the previous administration is being glossed over and all of a sudden all our debt problems come from social spending.
I'm glad Ryan has the guts to make the hard decisions that need to be made and deal with the political fallout.
BTW Paul Ryan voted YES to declaring war in Iraq and voted YES to making the Bush tax count permanent. He also voted yes for an emergency $78 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact his entire voting record has been to increase defense spending which benefits his campaign contributors, while cutting taxes at the worst time possible. So how exactly is Ryan a fiscal conservative? Why do we have the urgent need to end or severely cut social programs (in his words "end Medicare are we know it") yet is constantly pushing more money to be sent to the military industrial complex?
Two fronts? You realize the US military left Iraq in December of last year. So we have A-stand and... where?
You do realize that our military were in Iraq from March 2003 to December 2011, and cost the US $845 billion. This is not including what Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimates is $3 trillion for the true cost of the war which takes into account the interest paid on the debt to finance the Iraq war, health care costs for returning war veterans, and replacing/repairing the munitions used during the war.
What you thought the expense magically disappeared after the troops left Iraq? You believe we aren't still funding "nation building" in Iraq? Even if you actually believe those two things, the fact still remains the the Bush administration didn't adequately fund the war effort while simultaneously handing out tax breaks to the wealthy and yes we were fighting two fronts during his administration.
You are correct the Mercury missions used the Atlas LV-3B rockets. The LV-3B were derived from the Atlas SM-65D design (as noted in your wikipedia link). The mercury missions were orbital missions. The grand parent posts referred to Lunar mission which was the Apollo missions done on Saturn rockets. Both Mercury and Apollo missions were done prior to the Salt I treaty agreement.
Also I forgot to mention that the rockets used in our nuclear defense program are still being repurposed for non-manned science missions.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't usually cut social spending during a recession either.
True but the bulk of the expense is use of the towers themselves. As for network access it also works both ways, a call originating from AT&T will not cost T-Mobile anything yet still show up as minutes being used on my account.
Anyway, I didn't say it was necessarily bad just that the caller needs to be aware of the minutes being accrued.
Actually it's now labeled "Universal Service Fee" and the FCC collects it on wireless phone service too. In fact congress mandates all companies that provide interstate calling services to contribute to this fund.
Because I'm using the broadband connection that I pay for to send the GSM packets directly to their network, thus preventing them from having to put up another wireless tower to make room for more subscribers or to increase signal coverage. Why do you think we have unlimited t-mobile to t-mobile minutes? Because once the data reaches their packet switch network, it doesn't cost them much to move the packets across their calling areas.
I already pay a Universal Connect Fee on my phone bill which subsidize the phone company to go into rural areas. Never mind the fact that the AT&T was subsidized to put lines out there in the first place. When they came up with the Universal Connect Fee in 1997 ( 15 years ago ) they promised better communication access to rural customers. Not to mention, in October 2011 congress justified this UCF to stay on all of our phone bills by having the funds transition over to the "Connect America Fund" to subsidize broadband access in these same rural areas.
Why the hell would I want to pay that same fee on my broadband bill? Especially since the Fee has been collected for over a decade and I see no real competition or expansion in rural connectivity since its inception.
Sure Google, AT&T, and Sprint are for it. After all its more corporate welfare earmarked for their use. They act like they won't charge the rural customers for this access, and believe me they will.
People who say yes to this are naive.
I consider it criminal activity with a really flimsy cover story.
I did not mean a condescending tone towards you. By "obvious you like Gozmodo", I meant that you are defending them pretty hard and I think we would be wasting our time trying to convince each other that the other side is somehow incorrect. I did not intend it to mean that you were a Gizmodo fanboi.
For the record, I meant coercion in the literal sense (as in by definition) and not necessarily the kind that warrants prosecution. While you try to portray a rational conversation between Apple and Gizmodo, the articles printed at the time of the incident and the comments of the prosecutor who decided not to pursue the matter indicate otherwise.
One caveat of WiFi calling being that T-Mobile still counts the minutes towards your allotted monthly calling plan and will bill you for any minutes over the allotment. I never gone over the allotment, but the possibility it still there.
Actually no. In fact it wasn't meant to be a better analogy, it was meant to show how bad yours was.
As far as the rest of the comment, it's obvious you like Gizmodo. Go enjoy their website in good health.
Whatever. It's still extortion in my book.
It's certainly not behavior that would lead me to conclude that Gizmodo is a credible source for news or rumors.
But don't let my opinion keep you from visiting their site.
Good "talk". We beat this thread to death. Take care and best regards.
WiFi calling is my favorite feature of T-Mobile. Be careful, there are reports that the new Samsung G3 has issues with WiFi reception.
I never had any problems tethering with my T-Mobile phone, but my daughter got that website when she tried to use her phone to watch netflix (we have a family plan). It was a one-time occurrence since I haven't seen it appear again while tethering with my Mac.
The thing that irritates me is that my "grandfathered" unlimited plan of many years had an unadvertised limit of 5GB added to it when they did their "unlimited w/ throttling plan 2GB" promotion. I'm waiting to see what happens but all indications are that T-Mobile will not quietly remove my limit. Of course, I never get near the 5GB total (due to crappy reception anyway) but it's the principle of it that gets my goat.
CNET Reviews CTIA 2012 T-Mobile: iPhone network compatibility coming this year
So now we are moving the goal posts for coercion to the level that is prosecutable? That's cheating :P
Physical coercion is only one type of coercion with Psychological, Legal, and Social being the other types.
Despite their intentions, Gizmodo tried to coerce Apple enter into negotiation for return of the prototype by using their possession of said prototype as leverage. Apple had a legitimate fear that Gizmodo would do financial harm by publishing more details about their prototype or worse sell it to one of Apple's competitor.
Except for the fact, that is wasn't a simple request for something in writing. When asked about the emails taken from Chen's computer, the prosecutor said:
"this is like 15-year-old children talking," Wagstaffe said. "There was so much animosity, and they were very critical of Apple. They talked about having Apple right where they wanted them and they were really going to show them."
They were in possession of stolen property. The thing that saved Gizmodo's bacon (so to speak), was that the prosecutor didn't think he had any evidence that Chen directly participated in the theft of the phone, and he had no real interest in building a case for acting like a "15-year-old" since I'm sure he had more pressing matters to attend to.
The main problem with your analogy is... the Big Mac combo wasn't already owned by 'Me' prior to arriving at the restaurant, and the requirement to go to the next window to pick up your meal is part of the purchase arrangement.
Now if you purchased it, took possession of said Big Mac, sat down to begin eating it, and out of the blue a McD employee snatched it from your hands and demanded you pay another $4.49 before he'll give it back, then your analogy would become relevant.
Context. I know it's confusing sometimes. One day you'll get the hang of it.
I have something that belongs to you, but I won't give it back unless you do what I say. How is that not coercion?
The way you describe it. Gizmodo was trying to sell an item, that they knew was stolen, back to its rightful owner with conditions designed to generate additional financial gain by generating their own "news" story at the expense of the owner. Sounds like extortion to me.
I was listening to an interview on the way home from work yesterday, and the interviewee did a pretty good job explaining why the term "forcibly raped" was used in the wording of a bill (BTW I never heard the term "legitimate rape" but I'm sure the logic still applies). Basically it was to make a legal distinction between a woman becoming pregnant from being forced against her will to engage in sexual acts and an underage teenage having consensual sex and can still claim statutory rape.
The fear was that a minor could claim statutory rape and become legally eligible for an abortion that would otherwise be banned.
Before you get too riled up... I am only reporting what I heard on the radio, and it does makes some sense. Of course both sides of the political spectrum loves to take sound bites out of context and use as a basis for political misinformation.
And how does this pedantry affect the argument?
In other words: Facts be damned, I reject reality and replace it with my own!
When the republicans say LOTS of cuts, they really mean starve programs that aren't directly beneficial to them or their contributors. This is what has most people including me upset. We all agree cuts have to be made, and most of us agree that every facet of government spending must have a cut. Yet the republicans are not willing to compromise and make social spending out to be the deficit boogeyman as if tax incentives, government subsidies, wasteful military spending, and unbalanced tax breaks aren't contributing to our debt.
Too bad most of our money went to the war effort in Iraq, which I don't remember many Americans thinking that was really important. Kudos to the political party who keeps telling us that they're the fiscally responsible one, yet used executive power to start the Iraq conflict that ramped up governmental expenditures exponentially while simultaneously and irresponsibly lowering governmental revenue by giving tax breaks. I'm all for lowering taxes, but not when we are ramping up spending for a war. I do love how the war expenditures and lack of fiscal responsibility of the previous administration is being glossed over and all of a sudden all our debt problems come from social spending.
BTW Paul Ryan voted YES to declaring war in Iraq and voted YES to making the Bush tax count permanent. He also voted yes for an emergency $78 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact his entire voting record has been to increase defense spending which benefits his campaign contributors, while cutting taxes at the worst time possible. So how exactly is Ryan a fiscal conservative? Why do we have the urgent need to end or severely cut social programs (in his words "end Medicare are we know it") yet is constantly pushing more money to be sent to the military industrial complex?
Sure we'll do C.L.A.S.S. (Consuming Lunch and Simple Socializing) after we do L.U.N.C.H. (Lego Utilization for Negating Crisis Hierarchies).
You do realize that our military were in Iraq from March 2003 to December 2011, and cost the US $845 billion. This is not including what Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimates is $3 trillion for the true cost of the war which takes into account the interest paid on the debt to finance the Iraq war, health care costs for returning war veterans, and replacing/repairing the munitions used during the war.
What you thought the expense magically disappeared after the troops left Iraq? You believe we aren't still funding "nation building" in Iraq? Even if you actually believe those two things, the fact still remains the the Bush administration didn't adequately fund the war effort while simultaneously handing out tax breaks to the wealthy and yes we were fighting two fronts during his administration.
Now what was your point?
You are correct the Mercury missions used the Atlas LV-3B rockets. The LV-3B were derived from the Atlas SM-65D design (as noted in your wikipedia link). The mercury missions were orbital missions. The grand parent posts referred to Lunar mission which was the Apollo missions done on Saturn rockets. Both Mercury and Apollo missions were done prior to the Salt I treaty agreement.
Also I forgot to mention that the rockets used in our nuclear defense program are still being repurposed for non-manned science missions.