Verizon lets me use a M-Card on my Tivo HD. They had to install it when they came to remove my cable set to box, and configure it themselves. Then they charge me $2 less for the card per month as compared to the STB.
Why can't I just buy the card? Why do they have to install it? (For now they are not charging for the truck rollout).
The Tivo HD also gives me access to internet content, like from Netflix. That's my video on demand. So my virtual STB is working fine. I don't miss any of Verizon's extra services.
Wow you are changing the subject. This change in the space program has nothing to do with lack of talent, but lack of money at the time there's the need to change the technology. Money is everything and is used elsewhere.
It will be pretty interesting if IBM gets this patent. That would be just another blow to the economics of offshoring. I find it hard to believe, however, how they could litigate this patent application successfully as prior art is quite evident. But, hey, let them have so the corporate lawyers of HP, IBM, etc., etc. fight it out.
I thought the real issue is not cutting the copper to the house (the drop) but dismantling the infrastructure in the outside plant or the central office to support the POTS line. Reinstalling the drop is not a big deal. I bet a complaint to the regulators can get that problem fixed in that 2nd unit.
Juniper is really going after the real identity of the posters, suspecting a disgruntled former official of the company. If that's the case, then that former official might be subject to further legal troubles. Otherwise Juniper should have ignored these posts. Why? Where there's smoke there's a fire, and probably Juniper execs got too thin skinned fearing their own asses are on the line.
Since cable companies are not to be considered common carriers for their internet access services, they could now proceed to block ports used for VOIP by other providers. That is, if you want VOIP, you can only get it from the cable company. The reason I say that is that in previous cases of port blocking the FCC have used the common carrier provisions to get some ISPs (that happen to be part of traditional common carriers like telcos) make them desist of their port blocking practices.
Just read this bit from a conversation with Glaser from RealNetworks, as reported by Eric Savitz (from Barron's):
Microsoft is making a mess of "Plays For Sure," its effort to provide an umbrella brand for non-Apple music players and download sites. "It makes the marketing for Microsoft Bob look masterful," he said. Which is not to say that he thinks marketing is the only issue. "They're taking a bunch of online sites that aren't that good, a bunch of products that aren't very good, and putting a logo on them. Every nickel they spend on this is a wasted nickel."
For a split second I thought about Baghdad Bob, but then, here's what his reference to Microsoft Bob means:
You may have heard jokes about some old failed Microsoft product called "Bob" or seen that big yellow smily face wearing nerdy glasses, and wondered "what the heck was that all about?".
Well, in early 1995 Microsoft released a software program called "Bob" designed to replace the desktop of Windows 3.1 and 95 with an interface designed mainly for novice users.
Microsoft held a big advertising campaign and loaded up stores with copies of Bob expecting huge sales. It totally flopped.
You pre-announce a product, or an idea, and when it makes sense and gets buzz, your stock goes up. But when you announce you need more time, nothing bad happens.
Well, it doesn't work that way in biotech and pharma products. Those stocks dive deep when an upcoming "miracle drug" hits a snag. Just ask Martha Stewart.
The thing is, I don't know how you cope with people who would want to poison the well, so to speak...
Actually those people are no different than the ones who couldn't care less about how your work is licensed. I maintain that it's easier for them to fully appropriate the work as if it were public domain and resell it for their own commercial interests. But a precise license like the Creative Commons would give the authors a much better standing in court, if it has to go there.
No, my point is that they are competing against themselves by making the content they sell freely available on their own website. I'm assuming it's freely available because Google can index it. That's not a wise way to spend resources.
Since they are claiming copyright infringement in this particular case, then I'm sure they would have a lot more claims to make out there in the wild to protect against other robots. Again, AFP's business model doesn't seem like a good one to me. But it's their business. Google is doing the right thing by cutting them out. Lets see if other news services follow suit.
The Baby Bells have been fighting the big battle since 1996 to make CLECs pay whatever the Baby Bell cares to charge them for access to their lines and or equipment. That is, the babies didn't want their wholesale prices to be regulated. Last year they won that battle with the FCC. This year, their 2 main rivals in their capacity as CLECs, AT&T and MCI, are getting acquired by 2 babies.
It's true that Covad, Northpoint, etc. pushed the CLECs to offer DSL, but also the cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner with their cable modem offer. Northpoint is gone, Covad could fold anytime, and there remains the cable companies as the only viable alternative to the Baby Bells.
That's not all. The babies want their DSL to be unregulated the same way as the cable companies broadband service is. That means that if you are lucky you would have just 2 suppliers of broadband access. You'd have a duopoly at best, or a monolopy. In either case there will be little consumer choice.
So for those dreaming of competition the dust is settling, and all you will have is fewer and bigger corporations controlling your access to the internet and other future services. Like it or not, this is the most likely scenario IMO.
It's important to foster innovation, but it's also important that the field is open for more competitors to innovate. In fact, without real competition, innovation will be scarce.
AFP doesn't want users directed to their website. Their business model is damaged by direct customer interaction: they want users directed to the websites of newspapers who reproduce their stories, and that won't happen if viewers can see the original source indexed alongside all the paying clones.
Then don't have a website where readers can get the stories directly. What were they thinking?
A revealing debate on the inerrancy of the Bible happened around the US Civil War. Pro-slavery faction used the Bible to justify slavery, or to classify it as moral. After all, biblical passages recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice. And not only in the Old Testament, but read this passage from St. Paul:
Ephesians 6:5-9:"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
Note that the term "servant" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid.
Yet, slavery was defeated in the USA, or that's what rational Americans think today.
Makes you wonder what's behind the apparent rise in America of fundamentalism and the belief that the Bible is inerrant. Some people (some, not most) are still trying to fight the civil war, it appears.
In the
future, the Nation may face even more challenging problems as
adversaries - both foreign and domestic - become increasingly
sophisticated in their ability to insert malicious code into critical
software.
I don't agree this is a future danger, it's a present danger. First, I don't think sophistication is needed as code is rarely inspected carefully in proprietary software. The theory behind open source is that everyone will be able to check the code and problems will be caught that way. But you have to admit that not everything can be open source.
Second, critical code is getting developed in all sorts of places, increasingly offshore. Companies make those offshoring decisions based on their own bottomline, not the national security interests and that is not going to change anytime soon.
First, during the recent case against a southern ISP brought by Vonage, the FCC decided to fine that company as part of a consent decree where the company stopped the practice of blocking VoIP traffic. It happens that this ISP was a telco and as such a common carrier and the FCC was about to charge with a violation of the law because as a common carrier it has certain obligations. It's quite possible that intentional degradation of a competitor's VoIP service could also be a violation of a common carrier's legal responsability to provide "fair access", but that hasn't been tested and indeed a new law may be required.
Second, for those ISPs that are not common carriers, they might be free to do whatever the market bears. This includes the cable companies who do have the edge on providing broadband access.
Third, there is a Supreme Court case that should be relevant to this issue. This case could be decided in June and until then the FCC has their hands tied (in a sense) regarding what to do about regulating "fair access" for most of the broadband providers.
Read what this important case is about at:
http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/001404.html
I was thinking subscribers, not revenue. Tivo likes to tout subscribers. DirecTV subscribers are near 70% of Tivo's base and that was roughly the same proportion for new adds. If DirecTV terminates the agreement, it would try to push their own DVR and that's a potential great loss of subscribers. The Comcast deal has to improve the chances of Tivo's survival, even though I haven't seen the details.
Odlyzko while still at AT&T Labs research in 1998 was debunking the myth of internet growth that was originated by the UUNET folks at Worldcom, of John Sidgmore and Bernie Ebbers fame. He is an outstanding mathematician.
Here's a sample of his 1998 memo with Coffman:
"For example, John Sidgmore, the chief operating officer for WorldCom, and the person in charge of all its Internet activities, gave an interview (apparently held in early 1998) that was published in [Sidgmore]. He stated that revenues from Internet operations at WorldCom were about doubling each year. Later in the interview, he said that the bandwidth of UUNet's Internet links was increasing 10-fold each year. Since the prices that UUNet charges have not decreased recently, certainly not by a factor of 5, both of these claims can be correct only if something unusual is happening to the WorldCom network."
Now we know that the point should have been:...something unusual is happening at WorldCom...
Sidgmore died in 2003, and Ebbers got convicted today.
Slashdot Mirror
Call centers suck anyway, no matter what.
Verizon lets me use a M-Card on my Tivo HD. They had to install it when they came to remove my cable set to box, and configure it themselves. Then they charge me $2 less for the card per month as compared to the STB. Why can't I just buy the card? Why do they have to install it? (For now they are not charging for the truck rollout). The Tivo HD also gives me access to internet content, like from Netflix. That's my video on demand. So my virtual STB is working fine. I don't miss any of Verizon's extra services.
How is Verizon getting treated on this issue?
Is this what slashdot has become?
Wow you are changing the subject. This change in the space program has nothing to do with lack of talent, but lack of money at the time there's the need to change the technology. Money is everything and is used elsewhere.
It will be pretty interesting if IBM gets this patent. That would be just another blow to the economics of offshoring. I find it hard to believe, however, how they could litigate this patent application successfully as prior art is quite evident. But, hey, let them have so the corporate lawyers of HP, IBM, etc., etc. fight it out.
I thought the real issue is not cutting the copper to the house (the drop) but dismantling the infrastructure in the outside plant or the central office to support the POTS line. Reinstalling the drop is not a big deal. I bet a complaint to the regulators can get that problem fixed in that 2nd unit.
Come on, if the criminal needs to be so opportunistic, then they use a radio scanner to monitor where the "action" is in real-time.
More about cyberslapping here.
Since cable companies are not to be considered common carriers for their internet access services, they could now proceed to block ports used for VOIP by other providers. That is, if you want VOIP, you can only get it from the cable company. The reason I say that is that in previous cases of port blocking the FCC have used the common carrier provisions to get some ISPs (that happen to be part of traditional common carriers like telcos) make them desist of their port blocking practices.
New laws are needed to bring some sanity to this.
He has to.
He married one, Melinda, her maiden name is French, of Microsoft Bob fame...
I just went to RTFA and the guy cancelled the contest.
Microsoft is making a mess of "Plays For Sure," its effort to provide an umbrella brand for non-Apple music players and download sites. "It makes the marketing for Microsoft Bob look masterful," he said. Which is not to say that he thinks marketing is the only issue. "They're taking a bunch of online sites that aren't that good, a bunch of products that aren't very good, and putting a logo on them. Every nickel they spend on this is a wasted nickel."
For a split second I thought about Baghdad Bob, but then, here's what his reference to Microsoft Bob means:
You may have heard jokes about some old failed Microsoft product called "Bob" or seen that big yellow smily face wearing nerdy glasses, and wondered "what the heck was that all about?".
Well, in early 1995 Microsoft released a software program called "Bob" designed to replace the desktop of Windows 3.1 and 95 with an interface designed mainly for novice users.
Microsoft held a big advertising campaign and loaded up stores with copies of Bob expecting huge sales. It totally flopped.
Found that at: Toastytech
Which makes me wonder, was Baghdad Bob named after Microsoft Bob after all?
Well, it doesn't work that way in biotech and pharma products. Those stocks dive deep when an upcoming "miracle drug" hits a snag. Just ask Martha Stewart.
Actually those people are no different than the ones who couldn't care less about how your work is licensed. I maintain that it's easier for them to fully appropriate the work as if it were public domain and resell it for their own commercial interests. But a precise license like the Creative Commons would give the authors a much better standing in court, if it has to go there.
Since they are claiming copyright infringement in this particular case, then I'm sure they would have a lot more claims to make out there in the wild to protect against other robots. Again, AFP's business model doesn't seem like a good one to me. But it's their business. Google is doing the right thing by cutting them out. Lets see if other news services follow suit.
It's true that Covad, Northpoint, etc. pushed the CLECs to offer DSL, but also the cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner with their cable modem offer. Northpoint is gone, Covad could fold anytime, and there remains the cable companies as the only viable alternative to the Baby Bells.
That's not all. The babies want their DSL to be unregulated the same way as the cable companies broadband service is. That means that if you are lucky you would have just 2 suppliers of broadband access. You'd have a duopoly at best, or a monolopy. In either case there will be little consumer choice.
So for those dreaming of competition the dust is settling, and all you will have is fewer and bigger corporations controlling your access to the internet and other future services. Like it or not, this is the most likely scenario IMO.
It's important to foster innovation, but it's also important that the field is open for more competitors to innovate. In fact, without real competition, innovation will be scarce.
Then don't have a website where readers can get the stories directly. What were they thinking?
This person means RG6 (coaxial)? In that case that's not POTS for his telephone landline.
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
Note that the term "servant" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid.
Yet, slavery was defeated in the USA, or that's what rational Americans think today.
A great reference about this is: What the Bible says about slavery
Makes you wonder what's behind the apparent rise in America of fundamentalism and the belief that the Bible is inerrant. Some people (some, not most) are still trying to fight the civil war, it appears.
None. Neither any other operating system. Microsoft had one representative in that committee.
In the future, the Nation may face even more challenging problems as adversaries - both foreign and domestic - become increasingly sophisticated in their ability to insert malicious code into critical software.
I don't agree this is a future danger, it's a present danger. First, I don't think sophistication is needed as code is rarely inspected carefully in proprietary software. The theory behind open source is that everyone will be able to check the code and problems will be caught that way. But you have to admit that not everything can be open source.
Second, critical code is getting developed in all sorts of places, increasingly offshore. Companies make those offshoring decisions based on their own bottomline, not the national security interests and that is not going to change anytime soon.
First, during the recent case against a southern ISP brought by Vonage, the FCC decided to fine that company as part of a consent decree where the company stopped the practice of blocking VoIP traffic. It happens that this ISP was a telco and as such a common carrier and the FCC was about to charge with a violation of the law because as a common carrier it has certain obligations. It's quite possible that intentional degradation of a competitor's VoIP service could also be a violation of a common carrier's legal responsability to provide "fair access", but that hasn't been tested and indeed a new law may be required. Second, for those ISPs that are not common carriers, they might be free to do whatever the market bears. This includes the cable companies who do have the edge on providing broadband access. Third, there is a Supreme Court case that should be relevant to this issue. This case could be decided in June and until then the FCC has their hands tied (in a sense) regarding what to do about regulating "fair access" for most of the broadband providers. Read what this important case is about at: http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/001404.html
I was thinking subscribers, not revenue. Tivo likes to tout subscribers. DirecTV subscribers are near 70% of Tivo's base and that was roughly the same proportion for new adds. If DirecTV terminates the agreement, it would try to push their own DVR and that's a potential great loss of subscribers. The Comcast deal has to improve the chances of Tivo's survival, even though I haven't seen the details.
Odlyzko while still at AT&T Labs research in 1998 was debunking the myth of internet growth that was originated by the UUNET folks at Worldcom, of John Sidgmore and Bernie Ebbers fame. He is an outstanding mathematician.
...something unusual is happening at WorldCom...
Here's a sample of his 1998 memo with Coffman:
"For example, John Sidgmore, the chief operating officer for WorldCom, and
the person in charge of all its Internet activities, gave an interview (apparently held in early 1998) that
was published in [Sidgmore]. He stated that revenues from Internet operations at WorldCom were about
doubling each year. Later in the interview, he said that the bandwidth of UUNet's Internet links was
increasing 10-fold each year. Since the prices that UUNet charges have not decreased recently, certainly
not by a factor of 5, both of these claims can be correct only if something unusual is happening to the
WorldCom network."
Now we know that the point should have been:
Sidgmore died in 2003, and Ebbers got convicted today.